http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ufacturing

Get in!

Like it said, small companies will struggle with that, especially ones that aren't established yet. That's no trivial wage.

No but then no wage should be trivial, really, should it? You should pay the people who work for you enough to live on. There are no valid excuses for exploiting people. I've never been to Switzerland but I understand the cost of living there is pretty fierce. In which case wages should reflect that.

On the other hand, the companies have to be competitive, if they are to survive. If they are 2 - 3 tomes what their neighbours do, let alone Asia, they won't be in business very long.

if the company can only survive by exploiting it's workers, it doesn't deserve to survive.

If the workers demand so much that the company fails, they didn't deserve jobs.

A wage that's enough to put healthy food on the table and a decent roof over your families heads is an unfair demand now is it?

IF YOU HAVE TO EXPLOIT YOUR WORKERS TO KEEP YOUR BUSINESS AFLOAT, YOUR BUSINESS DOESN'T DESERVE TO SURVIVE.

This is not a point for negotiation, it's a moral effing imperative. If you exploit people, that's wrong. This is not a grey area.

It might be high by minimum wage standards, but 27K is hardly mega dosh and the majority of workers are on much more than that.

A few companies with thin margins, making low value products, using lots of minimum wage workers and servicing too much debt to invest in automation aren't doing the economy, their investors, or their employees much good. They are a waste of their employees talents, their lenders capital, and everybody's time.

During the bad seasons it might be comforting if some combination of low wages, low interest rates, and general inertia, keeps these zombies walking around. But the shot to the head is a mercy killing. The minimum wage level is only a problem if it is set too high for anyone to create new jobs in the companies that inevitably spring up to replace the deceased zombie corps.

Similarly, a lot of healthy companies will respond by automating jobs and shedding staff. But that would and should happen anyway. That basic principle is why we can afford to have lots of doctors and teachers. Continuing the trend means we can eventually have more.

It is about twice what my other half and the girls earn. In fact it is double what a majority of shop workers, hairdressers, waiters, cooks, bakers, butchers etc. earn.

If the increased wage bill of a company prices threatens to price that company out of the market, and the company is even remotely footloose, the company will simply attempt to re-locate to where the labour is cheaper.

This is not a point for negotiation, it's an economic and mathematical effing imperative. Labour is always cheaper somewhere else. This is not a grey area.

If the workers are too stupid to realise this, they don't deserve jobs. Fairness doesn't come into it.

I wonder however if Switzerland is uniquely able to have a min wage this high. They don't have a large manufacturing base (to the best of my knowledge) and so the majority of the lower paid jobs will be in the service industry which cant be outsourced - you cant outsource to China your hairdresser. 0tT will just mean a period of inflation as prices for services go up to cover the increased wages

So you your point is it's better for people to be out of work than have a wage that only just provides for them? You describe an ideal world where morality is everything. It doesn't work like that in the real world. No matter how distasteful it maybe, economics matters. Other countries, companies, people etc won't buy your products and services if it's much cheaper from another supplier.
You use the word 'exploit'. Swiss workers are hardly being exploited the way some are in the fast east etc. By all means set a minimum wage if you don't have one, but it needs to be at a level that is both fair to the workers and economically viable. Setting it at an idealist level just won't work in the long term.
There's also the issue of inflation to consider. If wages go up massively, then costs go up proportionally, then the wage isn't enough any more. It has potential to be a vicious circle. You can increase wages over inflation without any problems if it's done at a reasonable pace.

Well, let me put it this way, do you think it's better to just not have enough money, or go out and work for 40 hours a week and still not have enough money? I'm not talking about indulging people here. I'm not talking about giving people the average wage as a minimum wage (which would be a contradiction, anyway, of course). I'm talking about being able to live a life that isn't day to day, hand to mouth, not knowing if you will be able to eat properly next week. What I'm saying is the race to the bottom of 'someone else is prepared to be exploited so you have to allow yourself to be' is immoral and just plain wrong. If you disagree with that point then fair enough, because we're probably not going to be able to convince of each other to change our views on that.


I believe in attempting to create a world where morality is something. Where people have some consideration for the welfare of others. An entirely capitalist world is amoral, and anyone watching the news would have a very hard time denying some of the people taking advantage of our capitalist system are immoral. Or at least I think so. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of 'enlightened capitalism' - where the capitalist system is used to reward those who succeed, while ensuring everyone has enough to get by. And let's not beat about the bush here, the developed work has more than enough resources to ensure that would be so. But I don't think anyone with any sort of sense of social justice can look at the growing degree of inequality in our society and say that they're fine with that.


The 'real world' (not that there is such a thing - we all view the world subjectively) works the way we all want it to work. Throwing your hands up and saying 'well, that's just the way the world is' is the worst sort of cop out.


I haven't yet seen an argument in this thread that suggests the proposed Swiss minimum wage isn't economically viable in Switzerland. I've read a few people who aren't in Switzerland saying 'well that's a lot more than I'd get', but then they aren't in Switzerland so the point is kind of irrelevant. I've also read a few people roll out the same tired arguments I heard when the minimum wage was being introduced in the UK. They were bollocks then and they're bollocks now.


Undoubtedly so. But the fallacy in the argument as it applies to this case is you're not raising everyone's wages are you? You're just raising the wages of the people who probably didn't have very much money to spend before at all and won't be all that well off now. In a developed economy, the difference between 'not having a minimum wage' and 'having a minimum wage' in terms of the total money flow isn't necessarily all that great. Certainly not enough to create an inflationary bubble.



Define 'reasonable' when you're faced with a choice between paying the rent and buying food.

Indeed. There's certainly a need for a minimum wage of some sort. The issue is the level of minimum wage.

I quite agree with you in that a fair day's work should be rewarded with a fair day's pay. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work like that.


Except that your argument only works for companies that trade only within Switzerland e.g the local butcher's shop.

If you take an industry like software engineering (i.e. one that trades in intangibles), one of the highest costs to any such company tends to be its wage bill. As soon as such a Swiss company trades internationally, it is competing with the prices and necessarily the wage bills of similar companies in other countries.

If there are two similar software products, both equally well-made and supported, but the one made in Switzerland costs 10% more than the Spanish one, which one do I buy? I had this exact problem 2 years ago; I bought the Spanish one.