首先，有些人可能認為不支持最低工資不道德，因為工作那麼辛苦，拿不夠28元（要不33元）一個小時是一種侮辱。但問題是如果我們相信基本的資本主義，就會發現工資是不可能隨便定的。就拿觀塘到北角的渡輪來打比喻，前一陣子坐過一次，只有十多二十個人坐，現在船費5元，一程收入也不夠100元。大概油錢就花上幾十元，除了船長，有一個水手，如果要做到收支平衡，工資是真的上不去。 先不說對消費者的影響，即使加價也不一定能提高收入，因為從觀塘到北角坐港鐵應該會比較快，只是也比較貴。如果加船費，大概乘客就變得更少了。 要維持服務，很有可能就只好把水手除去。
社會上類似的例子有很多，諷刺的是，最底工資冠冕堂皇的要保障弱世社群，而被排濟的剛好就是這些技術較低或老弱殘疾的一群。事實上，自最底工資立例而後，已經常常可以聽得見殘疾人事被解僱或是被減低工時。 就先前的例子，很容易看到工資是沒有可能人為地隨便上漲。所以當訂立最底工資為28元，就等於把所有原來小於28元的工作全部禁掉。這樣的道理，經濟學家一早就明白，而比較早實施最低工資的地區已經看到一些低工資的工作從社會中永遠消失。比如說在美國，油站再沒有服務員幫忙加油，快餐廳飯後顧客要自己收拾，電影院不再有帶位員，香港也不免會慢慢地步上美國的後塵。
有些人可能覺得像這種低層次的工作，即使消失掉也不用惋惜。可是，對於技術較底或經驗較淺的人士，這可能是唯一給予他們自力更生的機會。對很多雇主來說，這些在職場直接打滾的經驗，可能比一些無關的學位銜頭更具吸引力，所以這些經驗都不應該只是用金錢來衡量的。而更大問題的是，最低工資把傳統的學徒制度非法化。不管職業學校搞得再好，都沒有在實際環境中實習學得更好更多。但由於最低工資，傳統像美容院實行學徒制的行業已經不能再負擔學徒，如果這個得不到解決，人才斷層的問題將會在很多行業中發生。
當然，最低工資並不是完全沒優點。由於它把工資成本提高，它迫使企業轉型及使用自動化，長遠來說可能會提高整體社會的生產力，但是這對於原來拿最低工資的人士來說可是一點好處也沒有。返過來說，他們剛好是最低工資引發的社會進步的犧牲品，因為當企業轉型完成後，他們將會永遠失去他們的工作。這樣的道理，對大力支持最低工資的議員不會不明白，但是比起面對解釋清楚給民眾的麻煩，直接從支持最低工資來拿到政治本錢當然就吸引得多了。而且，這個到底是不是最好的提高生產力的方法呢？比如說，政府為企業提供科研的稅務優惠也可以達到同樣的效果，而且最低工資引來的經濟的代價不一定被稅務優惠要小。更甚的是，在信息萬變而通訊發達的現代，應該善用民眾的智慧來集思廣益，刻意誤導群眾只會為政府帶來越來越多的麻煩。
那如果不用最低工資，怎麼能保障工人有足夠的收入生活呢？大概也會有人說，如果沒有最低工資，工人的工錢可能比不工作拿綜援還小，那怎麼可以吸引就業呢？這個事實上只是一個簡單的數學問題，綜援竟然比工作的收入還多是政府稅制欠缺規劃的結果。政府絕對可以對於工錢過低的市民加以補助，事實上政府的就業交通津貼就是一個很好的開始。而且類似的補助可以通過現有的報稅程序來處理，這樣就不會大量的增加行政負擔。而且，就如剛才說的，工作給予的，絕對不只是工錢，尊嚴跟經驗是不能用金錢來衡量的，政府應該多鼓勵全民就業而減少對長期失業人士作出補貼，或可以跟隨外國用食物卷來代替對後者的補助。
========================================================================================================
Hong Kong (HK) is in its second year in experimenting its minimum wage law. It is at the moment where we are discussing if we should raise the minimum wage from 28 HK dollars (about $3.6 US) to more. Some suggests to raise to 30 or 33 HK dollars. Just a little bit background of HK: HK is a developed country in Asia with per capital GDP of about 30K US dollars. After the handover in 1997, it is now a special administration region of China. It is running under the so-called one country, two systems ideal and has a capitalist economy. The HK government is responsible for domestic affairs except diplomatic relations and national defense. Below is a rough translation of the above text targeting to the minimum wage policy in HK. However, most arguments are suitable to other countries such as the US.
First of all, many people believe that opposing minimum wage is immoral since that declines the “right” of individual earning a living wage. However, the wage in job market is controlled by supply and demand just like other markets in a capitalistic society. Take the example of a ferry service crossing the Victory Harbor in HK, the current fare is HK $5. The last time I toke the ferry it has less than 20 passengers. So the total revenue is less than HK $100. The gas probably costs more than HK $40 per trip. Besides the captain, there is one sailor on the ferry. Not only there is not much space available for salary increase, it is not even easy to maintain the service at the current rate. Ignoring the induced social cost, even raising the fare may not increase the revenue as there is a competitive subway service for crossing the harbor. It is more expensive and typically faster. So the ferry company probably will lose customers if they raise the fare. One would foresee that if the minimum wage law (MWL) continues, probably the remaining one sailor has to be laid off as well.
Such an example is everywhere in our society. Ironically, while the MWL is imposed to protect the lower class, it is exactly the same people who are affected most by the law. After a year of imposing the law, we have already found numerous complains from the poorest and the lowest skilled, who are either laid off or underemployed. From the above example, we can see that wage cannot be set arbitrarily in general. When the minimum wage of HK $28 is imposed, it basically bans every job with wage less than that amount. This is well agreed and understood by economists. And societies which have MWLs imposed in earlier years have seen low-wage jobs disappeared permanently. For example, there are no longer attendants in gas station or cleaners in MacDonald in the US. HK apparently will follow suit in near future.
Some people may feel that losing such low-level jobs has nothing to pity for. However, this job serves as stepping stones for the unskilled and the youth to prove themselves to future employers. This experience can be more persuasive than an unrelated associated degree. More importantly, the MWL essentially makes the traditional apprenticeship system illegal. No matter how well design a program in a vocational school, it cannot be matched with actual job experience. With the introduction of the MWL, industry that adopts the apprenticeship tradition, like the beauty salon industry, can no longer afford apprenticeship. If this cannot be resolved, the problem of the shortage of talent will occur in many industries in a generation or two.
Of course, the MWL is not without advantage. It forces industry to upgrade technology to reduce human workforce. In a long run, it is likely to increase the productivity of the society as a whole. However, the poor are hardly the beneficiary of this improvement. On a contrary, they are exactly the victims of this social progress. After the entire industry successfully transformed, they are no longer needed and will be laid-off permanently. The politicians who strongly support the MWL of course realize this. However, comparing to explaining this fact to the public, it is way easier to gain political capital simply supporting the law. Looking back, there are many other ways to improve productivity also. For example, the government should impose tax incentive to R&D and probably obtain the same result. And the social cost of minimum wage can even be higher than that of tax incentive. Moreover, nothing can be worse than deliberately mislead the public to achieve political gain. Therefore, despite the above advantage, I don’t think it is moral to support the MWL on this basis.
Now, if we don’t impose the law, how we can ensure that the poor can earn enough to support their living? Moreover, some argue that the MWL is needed because one working below the minimum wage may even earn less than those who receive the unemployment checks. In this regard, I believe the problem is a technical but not a fundamental one. The latter is a direct result of the lack of planning of the government tax system. None forbids the government to subsidize those who work below the minimum wage. Actually, the recently imposed government’s employment transportation allowance is a very good start. Moreover, the similar subsidies can be handled by the existing tax system and thus this shouldn’t increase the administrative cost significantly. After all, the government should continue to encourage full employment and may consider to stop unemployment benefit for those who receive it indefinitely. Alternatively, it can also consider providing unemployment benefit through food stamps just like some other foreign countries.