pgm
Member
Then I have to ask, why is it 1/2 of that here? I checked your info and at a 38 hour weeks is what it related to was correct
I have already found that upon these wages reaching this level it looks as though they have a 38 hour work week, which is still a hell of allot better than a 40 hour week @ 7-8.00 an hour (pending what state your in)
Are you asking me why Australia has a $15 an hour minimum wage? I don't really know.
I do know that Australia is a lot more economically flat than the U.S. There are a lot less poor people and a lot less rich people. It helps that they have a smaller population (larger countries tend to have greater income inequality). Australia has an income inequality of about 30% compared to America's 45%, so Australia is about as economically equal as Western Europe and Canada and the U.S. is on par with China and Mexico (but not nearly as pronounced as Hong Kong, Brazil or South Africa). We have a lot more billionaires (412 or 13.2 per 10 million people) than Australia (11 or about 5 per 10 million people), but also a lot more poor people.
The average American is better in purchasing power (PPP GDP per capita), but the average Australian is better off in nominal terms per capita. So, when you adjust for exchange rates and for how much things cost in Australia, the average American makes about $7000 a year more than the average Australian. If you want to know nominal terms (which is better for international travel/purchases), Australians make about $9000 more per year on average. So, it's hard to say who is better off, an American or an Australian. Australians make more money, but have to pay more for goods.
I think paying $7/hr vs. $15/hr is part of what makes America, "America." People don't really view a minimum wage job as something permanent and certainly don't think people should be trying to make a living off of it. It makes sense to have a low minimum wage job for teens and other entry-level workers. It's unfortunate that so many have to try to live off of the minimum wage. Perhaps we could have the minimum wage at $8/hr for new workers and a bit higher for those who have worked at a company for some time. Most companies tend to do that already--this would just make it mandatory. The law of unintended consequences says that employers would simply only hire people for a year, but I don't see that as so likely because a high worker turnover is a big strain for companies. Many low-wage employers are reluctant to hire employees that they think will leave in a few months and they are reluctant to spend more than the minimum wage for new and potentially incompetent employees. This would address both as it incentivizes company loyalty and doesn't force companies to pay new people more. The only question after that is what is a fair minimum wage for new hires and what is fair for seasoned veterans. Ideally, those with experience should be making as close to a living wage as possible.
If you're question is just about Toyota factories in Australia, then I have a different answer. Toyota doesn't simply have factories in the U.S. because costs are cheaper than Australia. It realizes that hiring Americans to make cars in America to be sold to other Americans is a good business strategy. Labor is only a small part of the costs of a car, so the higher quality of work makes up for some of the higher costs. Also, the cars will already be in America, so shipping costs are lower. The American-made cars have less appeal to Japanese consumers (Toyota, Honda, Subaru, et al sell some different cars to Japanese consumers), so there's little point in making these cars in Japan. Finally, there's a PR boost to making things in America with American workers.