News Forum - Minimum daily wage in Thailand looks set to increase to 492 baht

[Thaidup]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:51 AM, Thaiger said:

The Labour Ministry is expected to approve a rise in Thailand’s daily minimum wage from 336 baht to a flat rate of 492, according to a Nation Thailand report. The sharp increase comes just 2 years after a previous hike and is expected to mainly favour labourers. It’s understood that 2 agencies representing workers in the Tripartite Wage Committee have proposed the increase and approved it in principle. The Tripartite Wage Committee consists of employers, worker representatives, and government officials. The government is represented by the Labour Ministry, workers are represented by the Thai Labour Solidarity Committee and State Enterprises […]

The story Minimum daily wage in Thailand looks set to increase to 492 baht as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

Does this apply to imported labor? Burma,Laos? could not find it in the report.

[Stonker]

57 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

Does this apply to imported labor? Burma,Laos? could not find it in the report.

Formal (salaried) or informal?

Registered (legal) and salaried or registered (legal) but not salaried but paid by quota / production?

... and, as for Thais, before or after deductions for accommodation and food?

[longwood50]

On 2/17/2022 at 1:04 PM, Stardust said:

I agree with you that the education system is a huge problem in Thailand

It is not just Thailand.  In the USA only 59% of the black males graduate from high school.  And who are the "minimum wage workers" the uneducated.  

As said, help these people by training them.  Just because Thailands educational system is poor does not mean these minimum wage workers can not be taught to weld, do electrical work, be a brick mason, a plumber, etc.  That raises them from the poverty of a minimum wage job.  That is true in Thailand and it is true in the USA.  

[longwood50]

On 2/17/2022 at 11:33 AM, Stardust said:

Sorry I will not follow anything if you not even understand the infrastructure of the economy in Thailand, south east asia or China. 

Sorry but it is obvious you know nothing about how business operates.  Business whether the USA, China, Japan, Korea, or anyplace else on earth earns the difference between what it can sell its products/services for and what it costs to produce those products/services.  

Labor for most companies is the single highest expense.  That is true irrespective of where the business is located.  So business owners wanting to make the most profit try to lower their costs whenever possible.  So with minimum wage rates increasing it will have them focus on how to eliminate more of them. 

As previously mentioned the wage rate in Vietnam is already lower than Thailand.  And you want to increase that disparity and think somehow that will be good for Thailand workers.  I suggest that it is you who do not know about the economies here in SE Asia.  If I am a rice exporter and now Vietnam can sell cheaper, do you really think that is good for my company and its workers?  If I am an assembler looking to place a factory in SE Asia and I can get the requisite skills in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos at a much lower cost than locating it in Thailand do you really think that cost differential is not detrimental to growth of new business in Thailand?  

The road to prosperity for everyone is to make your country to "most favored" place to do business.  Business creates jobs, and jobs are what allow people to earn enough to live.  The more businesses, the more jobs, and hence a labor shortage that turns into rising wages.  Also menial jobs like harvesting rice or rubber will never bring meaningful wages.  If Thailand was really interested in elevating the standard of living, it should make a concerted effort to target certain industries like chip manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.  Now that will entail also a concerted effort on the part of government to train workers in the requisite skills to fill those jobs making Thailand an attractive place to do business.  No different than why Apple chooses to do so much manufacturing in China.  It is not the low cost labor, it is the quality and quantity of skilled "not unskilled" workers. 


 

 

 

[Stardust]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Sorry but it is obvious you know nothing about how business operates.  Business whether the USA, China, Japan, Korea, or anyplace else on earth earns the difference between what it can sell its products/services for and what it costs to produce those products/services.  

Labor for most companies is the single highest expense.  That is true irrespective of where the business is located.  So business owners wanting to make the most profit try to lower their costs whenever possible.  So with minimum wage rates increasing it will have them focus on how to eliminate more of them. 

As previously mentioned the wage rate in Vietnam is already lower than Thailand.  And you want to increase that disparity and think somehow that will be good for Thailand workers.  I suggest that it is you who do not know about the economies here in SE Asia.  If I am a rice exporter and now Vietnam can sell cheaper, do you really think that is good for my company and its workers?  If I am an assembler looking to place a factory in SE Asia and I can get the requisite skills in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos at a much lower cost than locating it in Thailand do you really think that cost differential is not detrimental to growth of new business in Thailand?  

The road to prosperity for everyone is to make your country to "most favored" place to do business.  Business creates jobs, and jobs are what allow people to earn enough to live.  The more businesses, the more jobs, and hence a labor shortage that turns into rising wages.  Also menial jobs like harvesting rice or rubber will never bring meaningful wages.  If Thailand was really interested in elevating the standard of living, it should make a concerted effort to target certain industries like chip manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.  Now that will entail also a concerted effort on the part of government to train workers in the requisite skills to fill those jobs making Thailand an attractive place to do business.  No different than why Apple chooses to do so much manufacturing in China.  It is not the low cost labor, it is the quality and quantity of skilled "not unskilled" workers. 


 

You really obviously have no knowledge about operating a business or company in Thailand thats why you not understand the differences including the different obstacles. I worked since the 90s in south east asia and the family has a company. You have zero knowledge aboit south east asia never had a company here or worked in any! It is a jome sombody has no experience about it and want to explain me something about a subject he was never inside! Lets agree we disagree! As I also was in europe for my education in the mid and late 80s and worked there, too, I am fully aware about the differences compare to you it would be incompetent nonsense to tell them the conditions would be the same like in Thailand or in Thailand the same like in Europe. Sombody who telling such rubbish it would be the same or I have to make the same meassures like I use in Europe for Thailand has really zero knowledge about managing a company or economy. Sorry but it is nonsense what you write and shows me about you never was inside in such things otherwise you would understand the differences!

[Stardust]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

It is not just Thailand.  In the USA only 59% of the black males graduate from high school.  And who are the "minimum wage workers" the uneducated.  

As said, help these people by training them.  Just because Thailands educational system is poor does not mean these minimum wage workers can not be taught to weld, do electrical work, be a brick mason, a plumber, etc.  That raises them from the poverty of a minimum wage job.  That is true in Thailand and it is true in the USA.  

Why you not write that to the government? Everybody is aware in Thailand about the problems of the education system! I explained you that before and thats why you see so much foreigners in the companies because they have problems to get the skilled labour. And on top of it they have to pay more wages for example to skilled labour from Germany more than in Germany. I thought you have the knowledge to understand what are the obstacles and most high costs in Thailand and it is for sure not the minimum wage, you showed me you never were inside a company doesn't understand anything of it but want to explain it the people in Thailand. It is not the USA! Not Europe! And your claims that it would be everywhere the same it is just pure nonsense and ypu should make your experience first by doing and work in different countries/continents to understand it isn't the same!

[LoongFred]

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Sorry but it is obvious you know nothing about how business operates.  Business whether the USA, China, Japan, Korea, or anyplace else on earth earns the difference between what it can sell its products/services for and what it costs to produce those products/services.  

Labor for most companies is the single highest expense.  That is true irrespective of where the business is located.  So business owners wanting to make the most profit try to lower their costs whenever possible.  So with minimum wage rates increasing it will have them focus on how to eliminate more of them. 

As previously mentioned the wage rate in Vietnam is already lower than Thailand.  And you want to increase that disparity and think somehow that will be good for Thailand workers.  I suggest that it is you who do not know about the economies here in SE Asia.  If I am a rice exporter and now Vietnam can sell cheaper, do you really think that is good for my company and its workers?  If I am an assembler looking to place a factory in SE Asia and I can get the requisite skills in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos at a much lower cost than locating it in Thailand do you really think that cost differential is not detrimental to growth of new business in Thailand?  

The road to prosperity for everyone is to make your country to "most favored" place to do business.  Business creates jobs, and jobs are what allow people to earn enough to live.  The more businesses, the more jobs, and hence a labor shortage that turns into rising wages.  Also menial jobs like harvesting rice or rubber will never bring meaningful wages.  If Thailand was really interested in elevating the standard of living, it should make a concerted effort to target certain industries like chip manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.  Now that will entail also a concerted effort on the part of government to train workers in the requisite skills to fill those jobs making Thailand an attractive place to do business.  No different than why Apple chooses to do so much manufacturing in China.  It is not the low cost labor, it is the quality and quantity of skilled "not unskilled" workers. 


 

Well said. In short increase job skills/productivity and wages will follow. Invest in training and make Thailand the most desirable workforce.  Failure to do this will make countries noncompetitive on the world market. 

Thai excell where fine motor skills are important. Efforts need to be stresses to maximize physical traits. 

[longwood50]

20 hours ago, Stardust said:

rry but it is nonsense what you write and shows me about you never was inside in such things otherwise you would understand the differences!

You obviously lack any common sense.  Whether Thailand, China, Germany, the UK or the USA all businesses operate the same.  They try and sell for the highest price they can, and produce for the lowest cost they can.  Show me where that is not true.  Geography plays no role in that economic reality. 

If the cost for a business goes up, whether that is rent, utilities, raw materials, or labor there are only two choices for the business.  1. Raise prices  or 2. earn less money.  Show me how that is not true in Thailand but somehow true in other countries.  

The only thing we agree on is helping the low income worker.  However what we disagree on is the methodology to do so.  I say train them to make them more valuable and improve the level of work performed here in Thailand.  You believe you can just dump the burden on business and there are no ill effects.  

Again tell me how the rice or rubber exporter here in Thailand if they raise prices due to higher labor costs is not disadvantaged when their product reaches the world market because as you say "Thailand is different" 

[longwood50]

18 hours ago, LoongFred said:

Well said. In short increase job skills/productivity and wages will follow.

Businesses select a region to locate and expand to for two major reasons 1. Cost and 2. Availability of the requisite skills to produce their products.  Burundi has what is reported to be the lowest cost of labor in the world.  Why doesn't Toyota, Apple and Samsung build their products there?  Why because the skill level and infrastructure doesn't exist to support it. 

So if Thailand wants to have a higher standard of living for its people, it needs to secure companies that employ workers with higher paying jobs.  That entails two things.  First Thailand should incentify businesses and actively recruit those businesses that it believe will benefit from being in Thailand and actively go after them.  Secondly, it should prepare for their arrival by "training" those workers so that it can support those companies once they make the decision to arrive. 

Whether it is appliances, cars, computer chips, pharmaceuticals, etc all of those require skilled labor and skilled labor commands a higher wage than picking rice, or harvesting rubber.  So don't make the cost greater for those engaged in harvesting agricultural products making them less competitive.  Transform from a third world country dependent on natural resources and tourism to one whose workers offer skills to an increasingly technology driven world. 

[Benroon]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You obviously lack any common sense.  Whether Thailand, China, Germany, the UK or the USA all businesses operate the same.  They try and sell for the highest price they can, and produce for the lowest cost they can.  Show me where that is not true.  Geography plays no role in that economic reality. 

If the cost for a business goes up, whether that is rent, utilities, raw materials, or labor there are only two choices for the business.  1. Raise prices  or 2. earn less money.  Show me how that is not true in Thailand but somehow true in other countries.  

The only thing we agree on is helping the low income worker.  However what we disagree on is the methodology to do so.  I say train them to make them more valuable and improve the level of work performed here in Thailand.  You believe you can just dump the burden on business and there are no ill effects.  

Again tell me how the rice or rubber exporter here in Thailand if they raise prices due to higher labor costs is not disadvantaged when their product reaches the world market because as you say "Thailand is different" 

But you keep missing the point that higher labour costs can be offset in a well run company and even helping the bottom line as a result. You've already been given the answers you seek but you've chosen to ignore them. Even if you leave aside the moral argument for giving people a decent minimum wage and reducing poverty, anyone who runs a business progressively will tell you that a higher minimum wage will increase productivity as poor morale costs through various factors such as theft, absenteeism, bad mouthing, poor productivity and a workforce that is constantly looking to move elsewhere etc etc, and that comes straight off the bottom line (anyone with business experience would know that). Happier people are more productive, more productive means the company wins too. Higher production leads to more staff not less. Absenteeism is a huge headache for businesses, massively demoralising for the staff that do turn up and dead money - guess what happens if everyone turns up for work? 

Then there's the exorbitant cost of finding staff, if no-ones leaving you can spend that budget on something else - companies facing higher costs will (again if run well) have an increased incentive to invest and increase their workers productivity to absorb the extra cost. The company expands, word gets round they pay well and guess what, you get good workers and all the benefits that brings.

No-one is going to disagree with you on the training skills angle, but if you are talking about rice pickers or  thousands of women canning tuna, what are you going to train them in ? Where would be the budget to pick up tens of millions of the lowest paid, and without being unkind not the brightest probably through no fault of their own, and train all of them to be machine setters/doctors/CEO's ? Where is the demand ? Your idea is fine but you're dreaming and they need to eat today! 

You are looking through a one dimensional lens and not picking up the bigger picture. But I stress this is only going to apply to a well run company with good management and not one that doesn't give a shit about the staff in their quest to line their own pockets at their expense. Perhaps you worked for/ran one of them and never got the chance to experience the other side.

[oldschooler]

22 hours ago, LoongFred said:

Well said. In short increase job skills/productivity and wages will follow. Invest in training and make Thailand the most desirable workforce.  Failure to do this will make countries noncompetitive on the world market. 

Thai excell where fine motor skills are important. Efforts need to be stresses to maximize physical traits. 

Undeveloped Asian country cultures all conflict with quality. So skills do not matter. Thai builders all self taught or family taught so quite bad without constant educated supervision. So Thailand & China etc. can only ever sell tourism & junk to developed world.few exceptions like Chinese electronics. 

[Benroon]

On 2/16/2022 at 2:48 PM, longwood50 said:

I dont know where you get your figures from but youth unemployment in the UK is high

 

Statistics and all that - however it's not - it's halved in the last 10 years and the highest since records began in 1971. The total (if you believe the govt) is only 465k, 133k less than just 12 months earlier and that's in a declining age area of the population.

Still you've managed to fool one person, surprised he allowed you to speak for yourself !

[Stardust]

30 minutes ago, Benroon said:

But you keep missing the point that higher labour costs can be offset in a well run company and even helping the bottom line as a result. You've already been given the answers you seek but you've chosen to ignore them. Even if you leave aside the moral argument for giving people a decent minimum wage and reducing poverty, anyone who runs a business progressively will tell you that a higher minimum wage will increase productivity as poor morale costs through various factors such as theft, absenteeism, bad mouthing, poor productivity and a workforce that is constantly looking to move elsewhere etc etc, and that comes straight off the bottom line (anyone with business experience would know that). Happier people are more productive, more productive means the company wins too. Higher production leads to more staff not less. Absenteeism is a huge headache for businesses, massively demoralising for the staff that do turn up and dead money - guess what happens if everyone turns up for work? 

Then there's the exorbitant cost of finding staff, if no-ones leaving you can spend that budget on something else - companies facing higher costs will (again if run well) have an increased incentive to invest and increase their workers productivity to absorb the extra cost. The company expands, word gets round they pay well and guess what, you get good workers and all the benefits that brings.

No-one is going to disagree with you on the training skills angle, but if you are talking about rice pickers or  thousands of women canning tuna, what are you going to train them in ? Where would be the budget to pick up tens of millions of the lowest paid, and without being unkind not the brightest probably through no fault of their own, and train all of them to be machine setters/doctors/CEO's ? Where is the demand ? Your idea is fine but you're dreaming and they need to eat today! 

You are looking through a one dimensional lens and not picking up the bigger picture. But I stress this is only going to apply to a well run company with good management and not one that doesn't give a shit about the staff in their quest to line their own pockets at their expense. Perhaps you worked for/ran one of them and never got the chance to experience the other side.

Exactly, but he claims he knows economy better and how to run a company. And the most absurd he claims the operation/meassures would be everywhere the same never mind in USA, Europe or south east asia. And at this point I normally stopping reading, because if sombody claim such nonsense for sure has no knowledge about managing a company and the differences in each countries and conditions etc.

[longwood50]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:45 PM, Benroon said:

Still you've managed to fool one person, surprised he allowed you to speak for yourself !

I doubt that you have ever owned a business, had to sell a product against competitors or hired an employee.  I have both managed a large department for a major USA bank and owned and ran four businesses.  Whether Thailand, the UK, Germany, or the USA or anyplace else on earth.  COSTS MATTER.  If they didn't you would not see companies relocate to other countries to reduce the operating costs including labor. 

Now I will ask you a simple question, see if you can answer. 

You have a restaurant in the UK and you pay your servers minimum wage approximately 10 Euro per hour.  The government mandates a 46% increase to $14.60 per hour.  Now what are you going to do to recoup the loss to profits? 

You have a restaurant here in Thailand and you pay your servers minimum wage of 332 baht per hour.  The government mandates a 46% increase to 492 baht per hour.  Now what are you going to do to recoup the loss to profits? 

I seriously doubt you can come up with how these two business people treat the prospect of higher costs any differently.  

There are only three solutions and/or some combination of them.  1) reduce staff or staffing hours  2) accept lower profits  3) raise prices. 

If you reduce staff or hours it hardly benefits those who you intend to "help" with raising the minimum wage. If the owner accepts lower profits you are assuming that the owner already is making a substantial profit and can absorb the loss and still have the financial incentive to remain in business. If you pass the cost on to the consumer, you help the server, hurt the customer.  Plus the higher the cost of the food, the less inclanation people have to dine out.  The lower customer traffic results in both less profit for the business owner and further reduces the need for minimum wage help. 

IMPROVE THE SKILLS OF THOSE WORKERS DON'T DUMP THE PROBLEM OF LOW WAGES ON THE EMPLOYERS. 

 

[longwood50]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:36 PM, Benroon said:

But you keep missing the point that higher labour costs can be offset in a well run company and even helping the bottom line as a result.

Ok I owned 4 companies.  How many have you owned. 

Now tell me. Here is Walmart arguably one of the most efficiently run companies in the world  Look at the NET PROFIT MARGIN.  Never higher than 3% and currently running at 1.4%.  The net margin if you don't know is the percentage left over for the business  after all expenses are paid. Now tell me with your great wisdom if Walmart was even to have a 10% increase in its wage costs let alone the 46% proposed here in Thailand WHAT WOULD WALMART DO TO as you suggest "offset" an increase that would amount to a percentage greater than their net profit margin.   I will wait for you "ideas" 

 

 

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/net-profit-margin

[Fluke]

6 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Ok I owned 4 companies.  How many have you owned. 

Now tell me. Here is Walmart arguably one of the most efficiently run companies in the world  Look at the NET PROFIT MARGIN.  Never higher than 3% and currently running at 1.4%.  The net margin if you don't know is the percentage left over for the business  after all expenses are paid. Now tell me with your great wisdom if Walmart was even to have a 10% increase in its wage costs let alone the 46% proposed here in Thailand WHAT WOULD WALMART DO TO as you suggest "offset" an increase that would amount to a percentage greater than their net profit margin.   I will wait for you "ideas" 

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/net-profit-margin

Cut down on shoplifting 

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

2 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Ok I owned 4 companies.  How many have you owned. 

Now tell me. Here is Walmart arguably one of the most efficiently run companies in the world  Look at the NET PROFIT MARGIN.  Never higher than 3% and currently running at 1.4%.  The net margin if you don't know is the percentage left over for the business  after all expenses are paid. Now tell me with your great wisdom if Walmart was even to have a 10% increase in its wage costs let alone the 46% proposed here in Thailand WHAT WOULD WALMART DO TO as you suggest "offset" an increase that would amount to a percentage greater than their net profit margin.   I will wait for you "ideas" 

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/net-profit-margin

You are mixing percentages, you claim Walmart wouldn't have enough profit margin to survive raising salaries a 46%... I neither agree nor disagree cuz we don't have all the data, instead I just ask you, how do you know? 

Do you know what percentage of the revenue goes to paying salaries? 

But yes, I agree, that raising salaries by X% you can't put that on the companies, you have to create the economic conditions to support those higher salaries across the whole country. Higher supply of currency etc etc 

 

[longwood50]

4 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

Do you know what percentage of the revenue goes to paying salaries? 

Walmart pays 7.6% of its total top line sales in wages  so a 10% increase in wages would be .76% or 47% of the net profit it enjoys.  A 20% increase in wages would mean Walmart would make nothing in net profits. Now the increase in employee expense might not just be wages.  If government increased the FICA tax, or raised unemployment insurance premiums, or cost of mandatory health care went up.  All of those are wage costs. 

Again there have been numerous posts that companies can somehow "magically" improve their efficiency to absorb those increases.  Of course those same posters fail to mention just exactly how they would do that.  

It also is nonsensicle.  Do you really think that Walmart of any other company does not try already to reduce cost and improve efficiency to the maximum.   
 

[longwood50]

4 hours ago, Fluke said:

Cut down on shoplifting 

You really think they don't try and do that already.  Also you fail to mention that places like San Francisco have already decriminalized shoplifting so if anything government policies are causing it to increase. 

It is estimated that Walmart loses approximately 1% of total sales to shoplifting.  A 10% increase in labor costs is .76% So Walmart would have to reduce shoplifing by 76% just to break even.  Not realistic.   At some point the costs of impeding the shoplifting are greater than the cost of the lost goods. 

 

[Fluke]

1 minute ago, longwood50 said:

You really think they don't try and do that already.  Also you fail to mention that places like San Francisco have already decriminalized shoplifting so if anything government policies are causing it to increase. 

It is estimated that Walmart loses approximately 1% of total sales to shoplifting.  A 10% increase in labor costs is .76% So Walmart would have to reduce shoplifing by 76% just to break even.  Not realistic.   At some point the costs of impeding the shoplifting are greater than the cost of the lost goods. 

 

They will have to raise prices to pay their workers a livable salary 

[Stonker]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:45 PM, Benroon said:

Statistics and all that - however it's not -... (snip) ...

Still you've managed to fool one person, surprised he allowed you to speak for yourself !

As I'm guessing that I'm the "one person" who you think @longwood50 "managed to fool" I checked his stats. maybe you should have done the same.

 

On 2/16/2022 at 9:48 PM, longwood50 said:

The youth unemployment rate was 11.1%, compared to an unemployment rate of 4.1% for the whole population. The inactivity rate for young people is 39.7%, down from 39.9% in the previous quarter. 77% of the young people who are economically inactive are in full-time education.

That was a direct quote from the first entry for a Google search for 'youth employment rate UK', taken from the House of Commons Library last week.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05871/SN05871.pdf

 

[Stardust]

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

As I'm guessing that I'm the "one person" who you think @longwood50 "managed to fool" I checked his stats. maybe you should have done the same.

That was a direct quote from the first entry for a Google search for 'youth employment rate UK', taken from the House of Commons Library last week.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05871/SN05871.pdf

And what has it to do for Thailand and the reality in Thailand? Is it like your Thai in the google translation but not understand the differences about it?! Not understand the thai and then want to explain us how the Thais are saying it without understand any Thai or how the Thais speaks and claiming it is not Thai. Now the conditions and economy are the same like in Thailand, wow. You never saw a company from inside in Thailand. Knowing is not the same like believing or guessing. Experience google cannot give you same google cannot translate you the Thai languages of all areas or how is it common to talk because it changes all the tome and depends which area. You will tell the southerner and Isan it is not thai even they born in Thailand and their ancestors because you not see them in the forum. You should first have a company in Thailand or work there and then for example in Europe to get the experience to understand the differences and google cannot give you that!

[Stonker]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:45 PM, Benroon said:

Statistics and all that - however it's not - it's halved in the last 10 years and the highest since records began in 1971. The total (if you believe the govt) is only 465k, 133k less than just 12 months earlier and that's in a declining age area of the population.

... and you'd have also seen that contrary to what you claimed, youth unemployment wasn't " the highest since records began in 1971" (presumably you mean the lowest) since as the same report also says:

Comparing the latest quarter, October-December 2021, with the pre-
pandemic quarter of January-March 2020:
• The number of young people in employment has fallen by 103,000, a
3% fall. The fall for men has been larger, with employment levels
falling by 4% for men and by 1% for women.

... and while youth unemployment is currently at 11.2% it was under 11% in both mid-2018 and early 2019, as it was from 2001 to 2004 (10.25% in 2001).

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/youth-unemployment-rate

https://www.statista.com/statistics/813142/youth-unemployment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom/

While there are a number of factors so it's not as cut and dried as it may appear, particularly demographics, and some stats can avoid that such as looking at the numbers in employment as well as out of work, many economists consider that the minimum wage rate plays a clear part above certain levels and the stats support that as the steady drop in youth unemployment ended in 1999 - the same time that a minimum wage was introduced in the UK.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018044/message-to-the-tuc-the-minimum-wage-causes-youth-unemployment/

 

[Stonker]

On 2/20/2022 at 12:10 PM, longwood50 said:

You obviously lack any common sense.  Whether Thailand, China, Germany, the UK or the USA all businesses operate the same.  They try and sell for the highest price they can, and produce for the lowest cost they can.  Show me where that is not true.  Geography plays no role in that economic reality.

Exactly (on all counts ) - the same basic economic rules of supply and demand apply world-wide, although there are obvious differences such as in skill levels, training, education, and particularly the actual level of wages.

If the minimum wage is low (but above the poverty line), and increases are in line with inflation / the cost of living then the effect will be minimal but the higher it gets (the closer to the average wage) the more effect it will have as differentials inevitably have to be retained.

The article I linked to above ( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018044/message-to-the-tuc-the-minimum-wage-causes-youth-unemployment/  ) actually puts specifics on it which can be related directly to Thailand's wages, and that's also repeated by Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/03/the-effect-of-the-minimum-wage-on-youth-unemployment  ):

 

"The background is really very simple. If you raise the price of something then people will buy less of it. Raise the price of labour and fewer people will be employed. This was all pointed out when the NMW was introduced but as has been said since, the promised wave of mass unemployment didn't happen. Why not?

For the detailed numerical argument you can go here but simply put it depends upon what the minimum wage is. If it's less than 45 per cent or so of the average wage then the effects will be very small. Some tens of thousands of people perhaps and we'll not really notice that given that the economy as a whole creates and destroys two to three million jobs a year. However, once that wage starts to get over 50 per cent of the average wage, then we start to see the effects. As a percentage of youth wages, what is the youth minimum wage? Answer: for 18-21 year-olds, 65 per cent; for 16-18 year-olds, 76 per cent.So, in that 18-21 year group, we’ve a minimum wage which is 65% of the mean wage. Well into our territory where we expect to see substantial employment effects. For 16-18 year olds, the minimum wage it’s £3.68……76%.

Ooops!"

TO RELATE THAT SPECIFICALLY TO THAILAND:

Prior to the last major hike in 2012/13, the minimum wage was 239 baht so around 45% of the then unskilled mean average wage of 12,255 baht per month.  Upping it to 300 increased it to nearly 60% of that. Upping it now from 336 to 492, with an unskilled mean average wage of 14,700 baht per month ( https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages  ) puts it at 80% of that.

If your minimum wage is 80% of your unskilled mean average wage, as it will be in Thailand, there's just no possible way that any employer can absorb that sort of cost without reducing staff, accepting lower profits, raising prices or going out of business.

There are no other options, and any of them will hit the lowest paid harder than anyone else - the opposite of what's intended.

 

 

[longwood50]

18 hours ago, Fluke said:

They will have to raise prices to pay their workers a livable salary

Well thank you at least you are honest.  There are those who believe that there is just an imaginary pot of money that every corporation can dip into and there are no ill effects. 

In economics there is what is known as price elasticity.  The higher the price goes, the less demand for it there is.  So when prices rise, sales fall and supposedly that does not impact the company or the jobs for those people?

Also, I don't know if you have ever shopped at a Walmart but it is not the Rodeo Drive or Beverly Hills crowd that shops there.  The vast majority of shoppers are low to moderate income people trying to make their money goes as far as it can.  So have you considered, you are essentially forcing one income group to make a sacrifice by paying a higher price for their products for the betterment of the minimum wage group who will see the increase. 

Finally, why do you believe that people should risk their money to invest in a business and that they be mandated that to do so they must "provide a living wage".  Is there no mandate on those who have minimal skills to improve their worth so that they have a better life or does that burden only fall on the employers.