Balanced policy for the minimum wage

On Wednesday the government announced the smallest increase in the minimum wage in ten years from $12.50 to $12.75 (yay 25 cents!). Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, and Business NZ Chief Executive, Phil O'Reilly, claim this is in line with inflation and reasonable enough to not price unskilled workers out of the labour market. But, understandably, Labour and the unions are calling the increase "miserly" and want it raised to at least $15. Opponents of the minimum wage argue that would price unskilled workers of the labour market as employers would choose skilled workers at the same price. Increasing the minimum wage is something that has arguments for and against but I've got a policy that should satisfy everyone.

The minimum wage should be increased to $15 to keep up with the cost of living. But I also understand that this would make unskilled and inexperienced people who aren't worth that much unemployable. So I think businesses (or at least small businesses) should receive tax credits (or at least some other form of compensation) so they won't feel like they're taking too much of a risk in hiring people who aren't as skilled. There should be give and take from both sides. If businesses are going to be forced to pay more for hiring someone they should get something back to compensate. You can only get at least the minimum wage if you've got a job so, if you're competing for a minimum wage job with someone who's more skilled and got more experience, then the other person would probably get picked over you. Giving tax credits to offset the increase in the minimum wage should balance things out a bit. Workers should be paid enough to survive on and not be oppressed but this doesn't mean businesses should be punished. Not all rich people and businesses are huge mean corporations that oppress and stomp on workers just like not all poor people and beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers that just want to stay on welfare. Small businesses don't have endless pits of money so they don't want costs increased for no reason. If they can't pay less than $15 an hour for someone then they wouldn't want to take a risk with someone who's not worth that much. It's all about balance!

Anyway, that's the main idea. So what do you guys think? I know I haven't figured out all the numbers and practical stuff yet but the main idea is about balance - if you're going to increase compliance costs in one area you should decrease compliance costs in another. Your feedback, comments and opinions below are always welcomed. Give me your suggestions as to how my policy can be implemented (if at all!).

Top Ten Tweets from Osama bin Laden - Your ideas

Remember Osama bin Laden? You know, everyone's favourite terrorist filmmaker  mastermind that everyone's supposed to be looking for in those caves? Well he's back with his latest vlog entry and letting us know what's up following the Christmas Day underpants bomber attack. Now what if he was on Twitter? Let's see who can come up with the:

Top Ten Tweets from Osama bin Laden

Comment below.

David Beckham victim of feminist hypocrisy

Throughout itstory personkind (yes I'm deliberately being PC) has been inundated with the feminazi propaganda that feminists only want equal rights for both men and women and that neither gender should be treated differently from the other. So everyone naively goes through life with that myth. But, while that may have been true back in the Victorian days, this latest incident over David Beckham has revealed the all-too uncommon hypocrisy that feminists are guilty of these days.

If you still don't know what I'm on about: basically David Beckham was doing an interview in Milan, Italy when a female reporter from a so-called comedy show grabs his...ahem...bits and pieces (you know..his package, private sector, whatever, you know what I mean). I'm not going to get into the graphic details. The point is feminists are such hypocrites. They go on about how women have been oppressed by men and get offended by even the slightest jokes about women so they want things to be "equal". Yet they don't say a word when David Beckham gets sexually assaulted. Apparently when a man gets that sort of treatment feminists feel vindicated and it's not such a big deal. Fairness and equality don't feature in their vocabulary. I'd bet America's national debt that if the genders were reversed and a male reporter was engaged in that sort of disgusting behaviour there would be lawsuits flying around the place and the media would have such a field day over a sportswoman getting sexually assaulted that Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton would look like eunuchs. They'd go on and on about it and there'd be a huge media brouhaha. The fact that the media has shoved this under carpet only proves the infiltration of the feminazi agenda and double standards. David Beckham did nothing to deserve this brutal treatment. He's never abused a woman (sexually or otherwise). So the vindictive argument that David Beckham was only getting what women have been subjected too throughout history won't wash with anyone. He's well within his rights to sue the proverbial out of that reporter for sexual assault at the very least.