不好意思 不小心删太多 删到原本这篇的文

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 124.9.165.33 连基本工资都没有 "劳动雇用管制上"当然是不严的 其他的劳工法规 也大概多和劳动雇用管制无关 或不具劳动雇用管制意义 而是和其他法规结合的 这一句对前文一些贴出来的资料 毫无反驳的效果 前文不是谈到了 有关德国出现许多的工资极低的工作与工人们吗 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-germany-jobs-idUSTRE8170P120120208 Pay in Germany, which has no nationwide minimum wage, can go well below one euro an hour, especially in the former communist east German states. "I've had some people earning as little as 55 cents per hour," said Peter Huefken, the head of Stralsund's job agency, the first of its kind to sue employers for paying too little. He is encouraging other agencies to follow suit. Data from the European Statistics Office suggests people in work in Germany are slightly less prone to poverty than their peers in the euro zone, but the risk has risen: 7.2 percent of workers were earning so little they were likely to experience poverty in 2010, versus 4.8 percent in 2005. 另外看一下德国 http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=UN_DEN 那trade union density 已经降到18.5％了，2010 这数字不高吧 简单地比较好了 A国无最低公司，B国有较高的最低工资 两国内都各有一间的甲产业的大型公司，分别为a和b 这两间公司都需聘雇不少较低阶的技术员、清洁人员或行政客服人员等 a公司在A国内 成功的聘请到这些人力，且求职者皆很乐意他们的工作 而对b公司而言，由於B国有较高的最低工资 所以也成功地聘雇了和a公司人数与生产成果相同的非高阶人力 但是成本则是a公司的2倍。再加上其他非高阶人力的固定成本0.5亿元後 假设这些成本分别是1.5亿元与2.5亿元 并假设皆处於此条件时的a和b公司 在聘雇人数相同与职缺分布相近的高阶人力时， 两间公司会完成品质与额度几乎相同的产品，并得到几乎相同的利润 那麽各国的股东们 会很快地估算并决定 他们愿意为a公司投入更多的资本在高阶人力上 举例而言 当a、b两间公司各再多投入2亿於高阶人力时， 投入在a公司的2亿 所得的报酬率比b公司多整整28.6% ( (1/3.5)/(1/4.5) = 1.286 ) 也可推算出， 假设全球投资者们在观察市场与两间公司的获利、利润..等後 共愿意投入共8亿元在这两家公司，并假设在高阶人力、 低阶人力与其他支出而达成的生产力 都同为4:2:1时效率最高 以及他们的投资以达到最大化利润为目标 则依上面所列条件作计算，他们愿意投资在a公司4.5亿元，b公司3.5亿元， 此时也即可算出 a公司投注在高阶人力的成本为4.5*4/(4+2+1)=2.57亿元 b公司则投注3.5*4/(4+4+1)=1.56亿元 所以很明显 各国资金投注在A国的甲产业 所创造的甲产业的高阶职缺 将远远高於B国的 另外 其实当b国公司处於这状况时 以现在的各产业作对照 常常不会像上面这麽均衡 而是b会被a公司打趴的机会比较大 举例而言 一间公司生产的手机的CP值 可能只小输另一间十几二十趴 不会太巨大 但市占率与营收、利润的差距 则可能非常巨大 则此时AB国在甲产业中创出的高阶工作职缺数 差距就更巨大了 没最低工资 高薪、高技术的工人职缺出现的比例就会显着变高 机会显着增加 这就是字面的意思 上面的计算中也能清清楚楚呈现 「因为没最低工资，这些高薪、高技术的工人职缺才会出现」 中间补几个字 「因为没最低工资，这些高薪、高技术的工人职缺才会有较高机会出现」 (指某个高薪、高技术的工人职缺机会很多的没最低薪资的国家) 吹毛求疵攻击一句语句稍有瑕疵 但主旨清楚且不受影响的话 就没什麽意义了 举例而言，一般口语中的中文，例如 「因为晚上每天温习功课，他们才会考上医科」和 「因为晚上每天温习功课，他们才会有较高的机率考上医科」 (指某个考上医科比率很高的高中) 意义是几乎相同的 另外稍微比较 美国和欧洲大陆 就是典型的例子了 http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/apr/16/today-e25.htm 欧洲新创公司纷前进纽约挂牌 编译卢永山／特译 社群网站脸书5月将在那斯达克市场公开上市，引发投资人热烈回响，很多欧洲科技新创 公司和创投业者也跃跃欲试，准备前进纽约吸金。分析师表示，若这股趋势持续下去，对 欧洲经济将是一大损失。 脸书5月上市将筹资50亿美元，目前已有不少投资人备妥钞票，抢购这家潜力无穷的公司 。脸书上市受到热烈回响，也刺激爱尔兰通讯软体开发商Openet、捷克防毒软体业者 Avast Software等前往纽约上市。 欧洲创新果实落在美国 彭博指出，伦敦、都柏林和斯德哥尔摩等欧洲城市无法成为培育新创企业的沃土，前往美 国上市後，欧洲企业可能逐步把营运迁往美国，最後使得欧洲科技创新的果实落入美国之 手。 伦敦创投公司Balderton Capital创业合夥人马龙尼（Barry Maloney）表示：「若在十年 前，我们会预期多数企业会选在欧洲上市，只有少部分会选在美国上市，如今情况完全相 反，欧洲经济将错失巨大的机会，因为很多企业的价值是在上市後创造出来的。」 去年，包括俄罗斯搜寻引擎Yandex在内的欧洲4家企业赴纽约上市，筹募了18亿美元资金 ，这些企业不在本国交易所上市，而前往美国开疆辟地，主要因为美国较少受到欧债危机 影响，且能提供较高的估值和流动性。 截至4月4日，MSCI美国资讯科技指数成分股的平均股价净值比为3.7倍，Stoxx Europe 600指数的科技股则为2.3倍。 美国银行欧非中东股票资本市场部门主管柯本（Craig Coben）表示，美国的投资大众更 了解资讯科技部门，愿意花钱投资，以追求未来的成长。 在美挂牌募资金额高於欧洲 根据彭博整理的数据，去年科技公司在美国首次公开上市（IPO）筹募的金额达45亿美元 ，欧洲仅3.89亿美元。总部位於旧金山，为脸书设计游戏软体的Zynga，去年12月上市时 筹募了10亿美元，截至四月五日，股价上涨19%。LinkedIn去年5月上市，筹募了3.89亿美 元。 欧洲先前金额最大的网路公司IPO案是在2010年，当时俄罗斯的Mail.ru集团在伦敦上市， 筹措了9.12亿美元。 尽管欧洲市场今年出现若干复苏迹象，荷兰有线电视营运商Ziggo和瑞士行销集团DKSH Holdings上市时，共筹措了20亿美元，但欧洲今年IPO的总金额仍低於美国3分之1。 即使欧洲创投公司有成功的投资经验，如欧洲线上音乐巨擘Spotify，创投公司对欧洲科 技业的投资脚步仍落後美国。根据欧洲私募基金和创投协会的资料，去年第三季创投公司 在美国的投资金额为欧洲的近七倍。全球市值前十大科技公司中，只有德国软体巨擘SAP 挤进榜单，美国科技业的市值达三兆美元，西欧科技业仅3,510亿美元。 美国的最低工资 远低於欧洲非德非瑞士非北欧的多数国家 结果长年来的科技创新的果实 与高阶科技职缺的数目、占人口比率等 也正好打趴欧洲无最低工资的非德非瑞士非北欧外的其他欧洲国家 而欧洲相对於美国 近二十年来也明显相对缺席於世界科技创新的舞台 在全球的份量显着下降 http://www.nownews.com/2012/06/29/11800-2829364.htm 调查显示：大陆有望取代矽谷　成为全球创新中心 6月28日消息，毕马威(KPMG)周三发布的2012年全球科技创新调查显示，43%的受访者说 到2016年硅谷(矽谷)将把全球技术创新中心的桂冠拱手让给别国。中国成为下一个技术创 新中心的可能性最大(45%)，其次分别为印度(21%)、日本(9%)和韩国(9%)，以色列排名第 五，而欧洲国家则鲜有人提及。 根据腾讯科技报导，毕马威欧洲(KPMG Europe)技术主管奥务(Tudor Aw)对於中国可能发 展为颠覆性技术的『制造中心』并不感到意外。他说，只要看看日本的汽车业便知，它先 是打破了原有的成本模式，并且也正因如此才得以逐渐向价值链高端移动。 调查还发现，中国和美国是未来两到四年里最有可能实现影响全球的『颠覆性技术突破』 的两个国家。 被问到四年後将改变商业格局的下一个技术突破是什麽时，28%的受访者说是移动技术、 智慧手机和平板电脑，17%的人说是云计算和云存储，13%的人说是先进的IT和3D技术。 奥务在承认欧洲不足的同时，也并不过分悲观。他说，英国一直是领导创新的国家之一， 但该国在把创造力商业化方面表现不力。 奥务承认，缺乏技能以及工程技术人员数量偏少可能是欧洲的一个问题，但那种发明颠覆 性技术的公司很快就能建立起来，而且对重型工程技术的依赖相对较小。 奥务说，如果我们试图再建一个罗尔斯‧罗伊斯公司(Rolls Royce)，硬体和软件工程技 术人员数量偏少不会像以前那样是个重大障碍。他说，但如果是像Facebook这样的公司， 两三年就能建起来。 全球共有668名科技业高管接受了这次调查，其中三分之一的高管来自美国和加拿大，14% 来自中国，9%来自以色列，其余高管分别来自亚洲、欧洲、中东和非洲。他们的雇主包括 科技初创企业(32%)、中等规模企业(37%)、大型科技公司(23%)、风投机构及天使投资人 等。 这次调查以全球科技业高管作为采访物件，挂『首席』头衔的管理者在受访人群中占了很 大比例，其中仅担任首席执行长一职的人就占受访者的20%。创业者、并购主管、公司发 展和战略主管也都占有一定比例。 上文是个调查。这篇则谈到"evidence on the effect of minimun wages" http://econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html Minimum Wages by Linda Gorman Minimum wage laws set legal minimums for the hourly wages paid to certain groups of workers. In the United States, amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act have increased the federal minimum wage from $.25 per hour in 1938 to $5.15 in 1997.1 Minimum wage laws were invented in Australia and New Zealand with the purpose of guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for unskilled workers. Most noneconomists believe that minimum wage laws protect workers from exploitation by employers and reduce poverty. Most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. The reason is simple: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs. In practice they often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market. Employers typically are not willing to pay a worker more than the value of the additional product that he produces. This means that an unskilled youth who produces $4.00 worth of goods in an hour will have a very difficult time finding a job if he must, by law, be paid $5.15 an hour. As Princeton economist David F. Bradford wrote, “The minimum wage law can be described as saying to the potential worker: ‘Unless you can find a job paying at least the minimum wage, you may not accept employment.’”2 Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment. At current U.S. wage levels, estimates of job losses suggest that a 10 percent in crease in the minimum wage would decrease employment of low-skilled workers by 1 or 2 percent. The job losses for black U.S. teenagers have been found to be even greater, presumably because, on average, they have fewer skills. As liberal economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”3 In a 1997 response to a request from the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission, economists for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) summarized economic research results on the minimum wage: “If the wage floor set by statutory minimum wages is too high, this may have detrimental effects on employment, especially among young people.”4 This agreement over the general effect of minimum wages is long-standing. According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.5 Australia provided one of the earliest practical demonstrations of the harmful effects of minimum wage laws when the federal court created a minimum wage for unskilled men in 1921. The court set the wage at what it thought employees needed for a decent living, independent of what employers would willingly pay. Laborers whose productivity was worth less than the mandated wage could find work only in occupations not covered by the law or with employers willing to break it. Aggressive reporting of violations by vigilant unions made evasion difficult. The historical record shows that unemployment remained a particular problem for unskilled laborers for the rest of the decade. At about the same time, a hospital in the United States fired a group of women after the Minimum Wage Board in the District of Columbia ordered that their wages be raised to the legal minimum. The women sued to halt enforcement of the minimum wage law. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, ruled that the minimum wage law was price fixing and that it represented an unreasonable infringement on individuals’ freedom to determine the price at which they would sell their services. In addition to making jobs hard to find, minimum wage laws may also harm workers by changing how they are compensated. Fringe benefits—such as paid vacation, free room and board, inexpensive insurance, subsidized child care, and on-the-job training—are an important part of the total compensation package for many low-wage workers. When minimum wages rise, employers can control total compensation costs by cutting benefits. In extreme cases, employers convert low-wage full-time jobs with benefits to high-wage part-time jobs with no benefits and fewer hours. David Neumark and William Wascher found that a 10 percent increase in minimum wages decreased on-the-job training for young people by 1.5–1.8 percent.6 Since on-the-job training is the way most people build their salable skills, these findings suggest that minimum wage laws also reduce future opportunities for the unskilled. A particularly graphic example of benefits reduction occurred in 1990, when the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the Salvation Army to pay the minimum wage to voluntary participants in its work therapy programs. In exchange for processing donated goods, the programs provided participants, many of whom were homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, with a small weekly stipend and up to ninety days of food, shelter, and counseling. The Salvation Army said that the expense of complying with the minimum wage order would force it to close the programs. Ignoring both the fact that the beneficiaries of the program could leave to take higher-paying jobs at any time and the cash value of the food, shelter, and supervision, the Labor Department insisted that it was protecting workers’ rights by enforcing the minimum wage. After a public outcry, the Labor Department backed down.7 Its Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook now contains a special section on minimum wage enforcement and the Salvation Army.8 Minimum wage increases make unskilled workers more expensive relative to all other factors of production. If skilled workers make fifteen dollars an hour and unskilled workers make three dollars an hour, skilled workers are five times as expensive as the unskilled. Imposing a minimum wage of five dollars an hour makes skilled workers relatively more attractive by making them only three times as expensive as unskilled workers. This explains why unions, whose members have historically been highly skilled and seldom hold minimum wage jobs, invariably support legislation increasing minimum wages.As in the Australian case, unions also protect themselves against competitive threats by assiduously helping labor authorities find and prosecute suspected violators. Many employers in the U.S. construction industry have found it less expensive to hire unskilled workers at low wages and train them on the job. By accepting lower wages in return for training, unskilled workers increase their expected future income. With high minimum wages like those specified for government construction by the Davis-Bacon Act, the cost of wages and training for the unskilled may rise enough to make employers prefer more productive union members. In effect, higher minimum wages reduce the competition faced by union members while leaving the unskilled unemployed. Of course, employers may also respond to minimum wage laws by decreasing overall employment, substituting machines for people, moving production abroad, or shutting down labor-intensive businesses. While those rendered unemployed by a minimum wage increase are largely invisible, it is easy to calculate the increased income enjoyed by those who keep their jobs after an increase. This asymmetry has led many advocates to mistakenly assume that increasing the minimum wage is an effective way to fight poverty. Using 1997 Census data, D. Mark Wilson found that only 11.7 percent of minimum-wage workers were the sole breadwinners in their families, and that more than 40 percent of the sole breadwinners earning the minimum wage were voluntary part-time workers.9 Richard Burkhauser used 1996 U.S. Census data to identify the likely beneficiaries from the 1996 increase in the federal minimum wage. He concluded that the “20.9 percent of minimum wage workers who lived in poor families only received 16.8 percent of the benefits.”10 Additional evidence on the distributional effect of minimum wages comes from David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer, and William Wascher. Raising the minimum wage increases both the probability that a poor family will escape poverty through higher wages and the probability that another nonpoor family will become poor as minimum wage increases price it out of the labor market. They found that the unemployment caused by minimum wage increases is concentrated among low-income families. This suggests that minimum wage increases generally redistribute income among low-income families rather than moving it from those with high incomes to those with low incomes. The authors found that although some families do benefit, minimum wage increases generally increase the proportion of families that are poor and near-poor. Minimum wage increases also decrease the proportion of families with incomes between one and a half and three times the poverty level, suggesting that they make it more difficult to escape poverty.11 In the early 1990s, after a telephone survey of 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger challenged the consensus view that higher minimum wages shrink employment opportunities. Their results appeared to demonstrate that a minimum wage increase resulted in increased employment.12 Because telephone survey data are notoriously prone to measurement error, Neumark and Wascher repeated Card and Krueger’s analysis using payroll records from a similar sample of restaurants over the same time period. The results from the payroll data showed that “the minimum-wage increase led to a decline in employment in New Jersey fast food restaurants relative to the Pennsylvania control group.”13 After an extended academic debate, Card and Krueger retreated from their earlier position, writing that “the increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey’s fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect.”14 Even without the results from the payroll data, the contrary results from the Card and Krueger study would have had a limited impact on economists’ belief that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. As labor economist Finis Welch pointed out, the consensus theory does not predict how any one firm or industry is affected by minimum wage increases.15 Even if nationally recognized fast-food restaurants did not reduce hiring in response to higher minimum wages, Card and Krueger were silent about what happened at less-visible businesses, such as small retailers and local pizza and sandwich shops. Furthermore, estimates of the overall effect of minimum wage increases often lead people to overlook the fact that regional and sectoral wage differentials average together to produce the national result. A federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour may substantially reduce employment in rural areas, where it exceeds the prevailing wage, but have little effect on employment in large cities, where almost everyone earns more. Regional studies leave little doubt that substantial increases in the minimum wage can shrink local industries and inhibit job creation in areas with market wages below the new minimum. The growth of the textile industry in the southern United States, for example, was propelled by low wages. Had the federal minimum wage been set at the wage earned by northern workers, the migration of textile workers to the South might never have occurred. It is also easy to overlook the fact that raising the minimum wage applicable to a relatively small proportion of occupations will not necessarily increase measured unemployment. Some people will lose their jobs in covered occupations and withdraw from the labor market entirely. They will not be included in the unemployment statistics. Others will seek jobs at lower pay in uncovered occupations. Though the labor influx reduces wages in the uncovered sector, people do have jobs, and unemployment may not change. As minimum wage laws cover more occupations, however, the shrinking uncovered sector may not be able to absorb all of the people thrown out of work. The 1989 U.S. minimum wage legislation brought us one step closer to this possibility by extending coverage to all workers engaged in interstate commerce, regardless of employer size. The fact that gross unemployment statistics do not necessarily reflect the harm done by minimum wage laws with limited coverage probably explains the popularity of the living-wage ordinances now in vogue in American cities with strong union ties. Living-wage ordinances set minimum wages for businesses and nonprofits that receive contracts or subsidies from local government. To arrive at the appropriate minimum living wage, advocates calculate the amount required to pay for a basket of goods containing “decent” housing, child care, food, transportation, health insurance, clothing, and taxes for various family sizes. The minimum is then set at the rate that produces enough money to buy the basket when someone works forty hours a week for a year. Initial empirical studies by Neumark suggest that the trade-off between wages and employment is the same for living wages as for minimum wages.16 In San Francisco in 2001, passage of a living-wage law raised the compensation of airport skycaps from $4.75 an hour to $10.00 an hour plus health insurance.17 By the end of 2002, the Economic Policy Institute, an advocacy group supported by labor unions and liberal foundations, reported that living-wage ordinances had set minimum wages ranging from $6.25 an hour in Milwaukee to $12.00 an hour in Santa Cruz, California.18 In September 2003, the California Assembly passed a $10 minimum-wage requirement for contractors doing business with the state. By one reckoning, the total cost of the typical basket of worker necessities used to arrive at living-wage minimums exceeds the incomes of almost a third of all families in the United States.19 It will not be surprising, therefore, as the number of cities with “living-wage” laws expands, to see unskilled workers harmed by falling employment, fewer entry-level jobs, and a reduction in job-related training and educational opportunities. --- "higher minimum wages reduce the competition faced by union members" 最低薪资降低工会成员面对的竞争， 而"unions, whose members have historically been highly skilled and seldom hold minimum wage jobs"；工会有显着较高比例为高技术、高阶人员参加 於是时日一久，这个有最低薪资的国家 许多较被保障的高阶人员面对的竞争下降, 竞争力也走下坡 相对於较低或无最低薪资的国家而言，高阶职缺也将越来越少 因为投资者将外移到更具竞争力的国家 举例而言 上面都谈到 「创投在美国投资的金额压倒性高於欧洲」 以及「欧洲在全球科技创新中心的调查中鲜少被提及」 这就是个活生生的例子 不仅如此，还更造成"while leaving the unskilled unemployed"而已 http://cli2010.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=3014975 这篇则是参考 介绍欧洲干预劳动市场 与工时急跌 经济走向衰退的关系 ※ 编辑: author 来自: 124.9.160.136 (08/16 01:48) 刚又搜寻到一篇 http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/Bozkaya_Kerr_LaborRegEurVC_May11_Full.pdf Second, recent theoretical models predict that countries with stricter labor policies will specialize in less-innovative activities due to the higher worker turnover frequently associated with rapidly changing sectors. 即较需技术创新的产业的发展快,变化大，投资者就会特别不想在 劳动管制严格的地方投资 然後产业创新程度+未来竞争力也自然走下坡 最低工资是劳动管制的一部分 若其他方面劳动管制都不严 而最低工资没特别高 那大概高阶就业机会就没什麽差 和没最低工资国比 或许就只差初阶与青年员工失业率比较高 http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=32894 天下杂志这小段也补充说明 欧盟中央银行总裁特里谢：欧洲经济需要「体制变革」大手术 欧盟会员国近几年的经济表现，不免让人失望，反倒是芬兰一枝独秀，一九九六至二○○ 六年十年间的平均实质经济成长率，高达三．八％，说明只要政策好，欧洲还是很有成长 潜力的。十年来芬兰经济转型成功，靠的正是「知识经济」的根底。 欧盟成长缓慢有几个结构性的原因，其一是各国政府急着解决非技术性劳工的失业问题， 反而让生产力无法增加。欧洲生产力成长比美国缓慢的另个原因，是没有充分运用新科技 工具，也因雇用制度缺乏弹性，无法运用全球分工的利基。 --- 好奇搜寻一下芬兰 也能在第一页就看到 台商网 - 芬兰 - 投资环境简介 - 劳工 芬兰并未规定一般性的最低工资， 各行业的集体协议通常会规定该行业的最低工资及工作条件 正好也是无最低工资的。即很凑巧的 欧洲经济最好的几国 德国瑞士芬兰..等都无最低工资 且欧洲无最低工资国 经济没有坏的 亚洲最好的新加坡 也恰好无最低工资 反之，劳动管制最严加最低工资高的 长期而言都是走向萧条与产业衰败的 如西班牙和法国等等 总结即非常简单 因为投资最多 最能吸引人投资 各种工作机会最多 经济自然最好 而背後的根源是无最低工资 + 劳动管制最少 + 自由开放 那篇新闻在上面就拿来回说 欧洲很多国家劳动管制很严或最低工资很高..等 久了对经济和产业就产生伤害了 在回文的地方都没提到中国 美国则和欧洲差别大 前二十年的科技创新与创业也正好差别大 而中国是高税的国家 就业管制也好像比台湾和香港严 如刚搜寻到的这篇中间第3页左右 http://0rz.tw/TwgKY 现在只因人均还很低 经济快速增长没什麽特别 但未来发展想必不会太好的 恩,感谢你的评论 文章也暂回到这 没强力要让文章论述深入加严谨 都大概而已 很多就搜寻一下文章加贴上 就主要只表达最低工资、劳动管制等 其实很明显了 对经济肯定是负面的 ※ 编辑: author 来自: 124.9.165.14 (08/17 00:39) 只是很简单的理论 新加坡、瑞士、德国、北欧..等的经济类的决策者 就是为何没订法定最低工资 不过大致因顾选票，加上讨好不少人们的刻板印象 觉得有最低工资很好 所以很多国家当然订了最低工资或严格的劳动管制 而任何人例如官员 更在意的当然是自己的位置 而不是长期的民众与後代的福祉 因为花精神去坚持 可能也不会更有钱或薪水更高 在国内的名声更好 所以很多官员即使心知肚明无最低薪资对国家的好 但当然还是放弃去坚持了 自己做得快活更重要 新加坡、瑞士、德国、北欧..等因为比较进步 层次高一截 所以全国能做到没订最低工资 ※ 编辑: author 来自: 124.9.162.161 (08/17 23:33)