Re: [請益] 希望跟各位經濟學系的先進討論

[author (AUTHOR)]

不好意思 不小心刪太多
刪到原本這篇的文



※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 124.9.165.33
推 HotAirFlow:你去問住在瑞士的人 隨便打兩份臨時工 月薪就十幾萬了
→ HotAirFlow:這個國家的勞工法規非常嚴格 讓瑞士人過得非常舒服
→ HotAirFlow:至於北歐和瑞士為何競爭力超強，經濟學很難去解釋XD
連基本工資都沒有 "勞動僱用管制上"當然是不嚴的
其他的勞工法規  也大概多和勞動僱用管制無關  或不具勞動僱用管制意義
而是和其他法規結合的

推 mk2:小朋友的個人推論真令人大開眼界啊!應該是勞動經濟學教授的錯?
→ mk2:德國的工會被說成這樣子.德國工人哭哭了.
這一句對前文一些貼出來的資料 毫無反駁的效果

前文不是談到了 有關德國出現許多的工資極低的工作與工人們嗎

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.


另外看一下德國
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=UN_DEN
那trade union density 已經降到18.5％了，2010
這數字不高吧


推 mk2:光看那個將來對瑞士有負面衝擊的推論. 難道是上市公司大老板?
推 ilw4e:這篇的邏輯真的是可笑......
推 ilw4e:公司不可能會拿清潔工的薪水去補貼技術人才，傻傻



簡單地比較好了 A國無最低公司，B國有較高的最低工資
兩國內都各有一間的甲產業的大型公司，分別為a和b

這兩間公司都需聘僱不少較低階的技術員、清潔人員或行政客服人員等

a公司在A國內  成功的聘請到這些人力，且求職者皆很樂意他們的工作
而對b公司而言，由於B國有較高的最低工資
所以也成功地聘僱了和a公司人數與生產成果相同的非高階人力
但是成本則是a公司的2倍。再加上其他非高階人力的固定成本0.5億元後
假設這些成本分別是1.5億元與2.5億元 並假設皆處於此條件時的a和b公司
在聘僱人數相同與職缺分佈相近的高階人力時，
兩間公司會完成品質與額度幾乎相同的產品，並得到幾乎相同的利潤

那麼各國的股東們 會很快地估算並決定 他們願意為a公司投入更多的資本在高階人力上
舉例而言 當a、b兩間公司各再多投入2億於高階人力時，
投入在a公司的2億 所得的報酬率比b公司多整整28.6%  ( (1/3.5)/(1/4.5) = 1.286 )

也可推算出， 假設全球投資者們在觀察市場與兩間公司的獲利、利潤..等後
共願意投入共8億元在這兩家公司，並假設在高階人力、
低階人力與其他支出而達成的生產力 都同為4:2:1時效率最高
以及他們的投資以達到最大化利潤為目標

則依上面所列條件作計算，他們願意投資在a公司4.5億元，b公司3.5億元，
此時也即可算出 a公司投注在高階人力的成本為4.5*4/(4+2+1)=2.57億元
b公司則投注3.5*4/(4+4+1)=1.56億元  


所以很明顯 各國資金投注在A國的甲產業
所創造的甲產業的高階職缺  將遠遠高於B國的


另外  其實當b國公司處於這狀況時 以現在的各產業作對照
常常不會像上面這麼均衡  而是b會被a公司打趴的機會比較大
舉例而言 一間公司生產的手機的CP值 可能只小輸另一間十幾二十趴 不會太巨大
但市占率與營收、利潤的差距  則可能非常巨大

則此時AB國在甲產業中創出的高階工作職缺數  差距就更巨大了



→ tonyd:"因為沒最低工資，這些高薪、高技術的工人職缺才會出現"這個
→ tonyd:結論 有什麼研究做支撐嗎??
沒最低工資 高薪、高技術的工人職缺出現的比例就會顯著變高 機會顯著增加
這就是字面的意思  上面的計算中也能清清楚楚呈現

「因為沒最低工資，這些高薪、高技術的工人職缺才會出現」
  中間補幾個字
「因為沒最低工資，這些高薪、高技術的工人職缺才會有較高機會出現」
(指某個高薪、高技術的工人職缺機會很多的沒最低薪資的國家)

吹毛求疵攻擊一句語句稍有瑕疵 但主旨清楚且不受影響的話
就沒什麼意義了

舉例而言，一般口語中的中文，例如
「因為晚上每天溫習功課，他們才會考上醫科」和
「因為晚上每天溫習功課，他們才會有較高的機率考上醫科」
(指某個考上醫科比率很高的高中)
意義是幾乎相同的

另外稍微比較 美國和歐洲大陸 就是典型的例子了

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/apr/16/today-e25.htm

歐洲新創公司紛前進紐約掛牌

編譯盧永山／特譯

社群網站臉書5月將在那斯達克市場公開上市，引發投資人熱烈回響，很多歐洲科技新創
公司和創投業者也躍躍欲試，準備前進紐約吸金。分析師表示，若這股趨勢持續下去，對
歐洲經濟將是一大損失。

臉書5月上市將籌資50億美元，目前已有不少投資人備妥鈔票，搶購這家潛力無窮的公司
。臉書上市受到熱烈回響，也刺激愛爾蘭通訊軟體開發商Openet、捷克防毒軟體業者
Avast Software等前往紐約上市。

歐洲創新果實落在美國

彭博指出，倫敦、都柏林和斯德哥爾摩等歐洲城市無法成為培育新創企業的沃土，前往美
國上市後，歐洲企業可能逐步把營運遷往美國，最後使得歐洲科技創新的果實落入美國之
手。

倫敦創投公司Balderton Capital創業合夥人馬龍尼（Barry Maloney）表示：「若在十年
前，我們會預期多數企業會選在歐洲上市，只有少部分會選在美國上市，如今情況完全相
反，歐洲經濟將錯失巨大的機會，因為很多企業的價值是在上市後創造出來的。」

去年，包括俄羅斯搜尋引擎Yandex在內的歐洲4家企業赴紐約上市，籌募了18億美元資金
，這些企業不在本國交易所上市，而前往美國開疆闢地，主要因為美國較少受到歐債危機
影響，且能提供較高的估值和流動性。

截至4月4日，MSCI美國資訊科技指數成分股的平均股價淨值比為3.7倍，Stoxx Europe
600指數的科技股則為2.3倍。

美國銀行歐非中東股票資本市場部門主管柯本（Craig Coben）表示，美國的投資大眾更
了解資訊科技部門，願意花錢投資，以追求未來的成長。

在美掛牌募資金額高於歐洲

根據彭博整理的數據，去年科技公司在美國首次公開上市（IPO）籌募的金額達45億美元
，歐洲僅3.89億美元。總部位於舊金山，為臉書設計遊戲軟體的Zynga，去年12月上市時
籌募了10億美元，截至四月五日，股價上漲19%。LinkedIn去年5月上市，籌募了3.89億美
元。

歐洲先前金額最大的網路公司IPO案是在2010年，當時俄羅斯的Mail.ru集團在倫敦上市，
籌措了9.12億美元。

儘管歐洲市場今年出現若干復甦跡象，荷蘭有線電視營運商Ziggo和瑞士行銷集團DKSH
Holdings上市時，共籌措了20億美元，但歐洲今年IPO的總金額仍低於美國3分之1。

即使歐洲創投公司有成功的投資經驗，如歐洲線上音樂巨擘Spotify，創投公司對歐洲科
技業的投資腳步仍落後美國。根據歐洲私募基金和創投協會的資料，去年第三季創投公司
在美國的投資金額為歐洲的近七倍。全球市值前十大科技公司中，只有德國軟體巨擘SAP
擠進榜單，美國科技業的市值達三兆美元，西歐科技業僅3,510億美元。


美國的最低工資  遠低於歐洲非德非瑞士非北歐的多數國家
結果長年來的科技創新的果實 與高階科技職缺的數目、佔人口比率等
也正好打趴歐洲無最低工資的非德非瑞士非北歐外的其他歐洲國家

而歐洲相對於美國 近二十年來也明顯相對缺席於世界科技創新的舞台
在全球的份量顯著下降

→ tonyd:結論 有什麼研究做支撐嗎??
http://www.nownews.com/2012/06/29/11800-2829364.htm

調查顯示：大陸有望取代矽谷　成為全球創新中心

 6月28日消息，畢馬威(KPMG)周三發布的2012年全球科技創新調查顯示，43%的受訪者說
到2016年硅谷(矽谷)將把全球技術創新中心的桂冠拱手讓給別國。中國成為下一個技術創
新中心的可能性最大(45%)，其次分別為印度(21%)、日本(9%)和韓國(9%)，以色列排名第
五，而歐洲國家則鮮有人提及。

根據騰訊科技報導，畢馬威歐洲(KPMG Europe)技術主管奧務(Tudor Aw)對於中國可能發
展為顛覆性技術的『製造中心』並不感到意外。他說，只要看看日本的汽車業便知，它先
是打破了原有的成本模式，並且也正因如此才得以逐漸向價值鏈高端移動。

調查還發現，中國和美國是未來兩到四年裡最有可能實現影響全球的『顛覆性技術突破』
的兩個國家。

被問到四年後將改變商業格局的下一個技術突破是什麼時，28%的受訪者說是移動技術、
智慧手機和平板電腦，17%的人說是雲計算和雲存儲，13%的人說是先進的IT和3D技術。

奧務在承認歐洲不足的同時，也並不過分悲觀。他說，英國一直是領導創新的國家之一，
但該國在把創造力商業化方面表現不力。

奧務承認，缺乏技能以及工程技術人員數量偏少可能是歐洲的一個問題，但那種發明顛覆
性技術的公司很快就能建立起來，而且對重型工程技術的依賴相對較小。

奧務說，如果我們試圖再建一個羅爾斯‧羅伊斯公司(Rolls Royce)，硬體和軟件工程技
術人員數量偏少不會像以前那樣是個重大障礙。他說，但如果是像Facebook這樣的公司，
兩三年就能建起來。

全球共有668名科技業高管接受了這次調查，其中三分之一的高管來自美國和加拿大，14%
來自中國，9%來自以色列，其餘高管分別來自亞洲、歐洲、中東和非洲。他們的雇主包括
科技初創企業(32%)、中等規模企業(37%)、大型科技公司(23%)、風投機構及天使投資人
等。

這次調查以全球科技業高管作為採訪物件，掛『首席』頭銜的管理者在受訪人群中占了很
大比例，其中僅擔任首席執行長一職的人就占受訪者的20%。創業者、併購主管、公司發
展和戰略主管也都占有一定比例。

上文是個調查。這篇則談到"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"
最低薪資降低工會成員面對的競爭，
而"unions, whose members have historically been highly skilled and seldom hold
minimum wage jobs"；工會有顯著較高比例為高技術、高階人員參加
於是時日一久，這個有最低薪資的國家  許多較被保障的高階人員面對的競爭下降,
競爭力也走下坡 相對於較低或無最低薪資的國家而言，高階職缺也將越來越少
因為投資者將外移到更具競爭力的國家

舉例而言 上面都談到  「創投在美國投資的金額壓倒性高於歐洲」
以及「歐洲在全球科技創新中心的調查中鮮少被提及」
這就是個活生生的例子

不僅如此，還更造成"while leaving the unskilled unemployed"而已

http://cli2010.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=3014975
這篇則是參考 介紹歐洲干預勞動市場 與工時急跌 經濟走向衰退的關係




推 EvanYang:樓上，我相信沒有，那是一相情願的幻想
推 saar:和簽ECFA股市就能上萬點一樣令人匪夷所思
※ 編輯: author          來自: 124.9.160.136        (08/16 01:48)
推 mk2:小朋友是很認真,可惜,大方向全錯,分析邏輯和思考也差太遠.
→ mk2:拿歐洲和美國,矽谷和大陸相比,就知道你不懂產業和記者等級相同
→ mk2:依這種邏輯,台灣應該早就飛上天了,輪不到世界其它的國,科科..
推 mk2:最低工資和創投高科技相關性這麼大,應該要登上金氏世界世錄!
剛又搜尋到一篇
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.
即較需技術創新的產業的發展快,變化大，投資者就會特別不想在
勞動管制嚴格的地方投資  然後產業創新程度+未來競爭力也自然走下坡

最低工資是勞動管制的一部分 若其他方面勞動管制都不嚴
而最低工資沒特別高 那大概高階就業機會就沒什麼差
和沒最低工資國比 或許就只差初階與青年員工失業率比較高


http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=32894
天下雜誌這小段也補充說明

歐盟中央銀行總裁特里謝：歐洲經濟需要「體制變革」大手術

歐盟會員國近幾年的經濟表現，不免讓人失望，反倒是芬蘭一枝獨秀，一九九六至二○○
六年十年間的平均實質經濟成長率，高達三．八％，說明只要政策好，歐洲還是很有成長
潛力的。十年來芬蘭經濟轉型成功，靠的正是「知識經濟」的根底。

歐盟成長緩慢有幾個結構性的原因，其一是各國政府急著解決非技術性勞工的失業問題，
反而讓生產力無法增加。歐洲生產力成長比美國緩慢的另個原因，是沒有充分運用新科技
工具，也因雇用制度缺乏彈性，無法運用全球分工的利基。

---

好奇搜尋一下芬蘭  也能在第一頁就看到
台商網 - 芬蘭 - 投資環境簡介 - 勞工
芬蘭並未規定一般性的最低工資，
各行業的集體協議通常會規定該行業的最低工資及工作條件

正好也是無最低工資的。即很湊巧的
歐洲經濟最好的幾國 德國瑞士芬蘭..等都無最低工資
且歐洲無最低工資國 經濟沒有壞的
亞洲最好的新加坡 也恰好無最低工資

反之，勞動管制最嚴加最低工資高的
長期而言都是走向蕭條與產業衰敗的 如西班牙和法國等等

總結即非常簡單 因為投資最多 最能吸引人投資
各種工作機會最多 經濟自然最好
而背後的根源是無最低工資 + 勞動管制最少 + 自由開放

推 ilw4e:算數跟翻譯很簡單，但該想想邏輯合理嗎?跟現實符合嗎?
推 EvanYang:拿新聞回應，就弱了。會說中國取代矽谷，根本對於矽谷
→ EvanYang:一無所知。矽谷兩大強點，學生間創意風氣＆創投投資潮流
→ EvanYang:。創業的腦袋跟金流的援助，製造導向的中國，毫無可能
那篇新聞在上面就拿來回說 歐洲很多國家勞動管制很嚴或最低工資很高..等
久了對經濟和產業就產生傷害了  在回文的地方都沒提到中國
美國則和歐洲差別大 前二十年的科技創新與創業也正好差別大

而中國是高稅的國家 就業管制也好像比台灣和香港嚴
如剛搜尋到的這篇中間第3頁左右  http://0rz.tw/TwgKY
現在只因人均還很低 經濟快速增長沒什麼特別
但未來發展想必不會太好的


→ tonyd:回一下元波 勞動供需曲線在闡述最低工資時 已經用剪刀理論
→ tonyd:解釋最低工資會造成失業的情況 這點應該是不用再解釋 只是
→ tonyd:你的推論欲強化到"最低工資排擠高薪,高技術工人出現比率"
→ tonyd:則顯得論證不足 以你的假設 最低工資b企業勞工 是a企業薪資
→ tonyd:的兩倍 就已經實現最低工資促成高薪的結果 你的假設已經跟
→ tonyd:欲推論的情境衝突 甚至如果納入總體的國際貿易條件 人才會
→ tonyd:往待遇較高處流動(基本供需定理) 則更促成B國家高階人才供
→ tonyd:給的增加 這些都是在設定條件與現實環境 要考量的點
→ tonyd:當然 我覺得你設定的情境與推論還蠻有架構與邏輯的 這點頗
→ tonyd:值得讚賞 那接下來勉勵你注意條件設定的現實性 避免變成
→ tonyd:Robinson或Coase口中對以前經濟學很嗤之以鼻的"黑板經濟學"
→ tonyd:下場(只能在很侷限非現實下 在黑板推演 無法拿來實證與套用)
恩,感謝你的評論  文章也暫回到這   沒強力要讓文章論述深入加嚴謹
都大概而已    很多就搜尋一下文章加貼上
就主要只表達最低工資、勞動管制等 其實很明顯了 對經濟肯定是負面的
※ 編輯: author          來自: 124.9.165.14         (08/17 00:39)
推 EvanYang:矽谷是建造世界的身份，中國幹的是複製的角色，中國本質
→ EvanYang:上沒有任何成為矽谷的可能性，尤其又是製造外銷經濟體
推 mk2:這麼厲害的推論,早就是諾貝爾獎得主加上在台灣年薪兩三百萬了.
推 mk2:經建會主委也該讓賢了.科科
只是很簡單的理論 新加坡、瑞士、德國、北歐..等的經濟類的決策者
就是為何沒訂法定最低工資
不過大致因顧選票，加上討好不少人們的刻板印象 覺得有最低工資很好
所以很多國家當然訂了最低工資或嚴格的勞動管制

而任何人例如官員 更在意的當然是自己的位置
而不是長期的民眾與後代的福祉
因為花精神去堅持 可能也不會更有錢或薪水更高 在國內的名聲更好
所以很多官員即使心知肚明無最低薪資對國家的好 但當然還是放棄去堅持了
自己做得快活更重要

新加坡、瑞士、德國、北歐..等因為比較進步 層次高一截
所以全國能做到沒訂最低工資
※ 編輯: author          來自: 124.9.162.161        (08/17 23:33)
推 HotAirFlow:少來 北歐和瑞士的黑工不比其他歐美國家多
→ HotAirFlow:你到底有沒有透過國外友人來證實你的觀點？