昨天，分析員L來電，說要考思哲的算術。
L問︰「早幾天工會出來說，要快餐也受最低工資規管。現在我們行頭，基層員工的平均時薪是20多元，工會說要加至30元。現在快餐業零售成本中，約兩成是基層員工的薪酬開支，如果這筆成本，要全數反映在零售價當中，那麼我們要加價多少？」
思哲︰「這是小學生的數嘛，加一成。」
L說︰「好！平均每份餐算它25元，那就是2.5元吧！」
思哲︰「那又如何？」
L說︰「你知道嗎？香港人平均每年大概吃掉20多億份快餐，那就是50至60億的額外消費了！」
思哲︰「嗯……對不起，我還是不太明白你的意思。」
L說︰「最低工資，說穿了，只不過令快餐業變成政府的稅吏，不過，在收到這筆款項，至出糧的30天，有規模的快餐連鎖集團，卻可以不斷地賺取這額外現金流生出來的利息。」
思哲︰「你是假設了香港的快餐業可以同時加價，否則又怎可以將這『稅』，全數轉嫁消費者？」
L說︰「世銀的營商報告不是說過，香港的發牌程序，比蒙古更沒有效率嗎？在這種環境下，何來contestable market？快餐連鎖集團要一起加價，又有何難？」
思哲︰「小型快餐店不會公道點嗎？要是它們不以一樣的幅度加價，豈不是直接挑戰快餐連鎖集團嗎？」
L說︰「別傻了！小型快餐店的工資開支，比例可能更高，也就是說，最低工資對它們的影響更大，小型快餐店在這個額外的政策成本下，只怕更難捱了。正正是它們不可以全數將這筆成本反映在售價，經營是難上加難了。」
思哲︰「現實一點，有些甚麼好建議？」
L說︰「最低工資可是貧者越貧的政策啊！越窮的人，就越要吃快餐，這政策令更多人生活艱難，也就是令更多人要吃快餐，加上剛才講過的其他利好因素，還不快做點功課研究341？」
2007年10月9日刊於《蘋果日報》
October 10, 2007 at 7:51 am
so complicated logic, especially on “假設了香港的快餐業可以同時加價，否則又怎可以將這『稅』，全數轉嫁消費者” i dont really understand?!
October 10, 2007 at 9:59 am
思哲兄：
L君（唔係明燈？）可能只去五星酒店，好耐冇去過快餐店。
1. 統計處資料每年飲食消費約600億，光算快餐店，那來50-60億”額外消費”？
2. 快餐店每年利息收入：10% x （1/12）x 5%pa < 0.05% of annual revenue
收入微不足道
3. 根據需求定理，加價會減少客量，因為顧客會選擇帶飯或回家吃飯。
4. 連鎖快餐店主要對手是茶餐廳，但茶餐廳員工一般要兼顧介紹菜，技術及知識需求較高，人工亦較高，最低工資引致人工上漲，對連鎖快餐店打擊應大於茶餐廳
5. 最低工資會令部份貧者失業，就無需出外午飯。因為冇收入，應該要改食住家飯，令快餐店收入減少
October 10, 2007 at 12:14 pm
深奧！看了兩遍，自認無法完全明白內裡的logic，是我中文差勁？還是…
思哲兄，幫幫手，get to the point，don’t play with the words。
Quote:”…越窮的人，就越要吃快餐…” — 今時今日大路快餐店不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
October 10, 2007 at 12:19 pm
依L君說法，快餐店員工減薪就可富者越貪，貪者越富？
October 10, 2007 at 2:06 pm
to apm, tax incidence is an economic concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
in normal everyday language, who bear the burden of taxation depends upon the degree of competition of the specific market. If the market is highly competitive, the tax incidence more or less skew to the supply-side. If competition is suppressed in a certain market, the tax incidence would skew towards the demand-side.
A concerted effort in increasing price to shifting the tax burden, is more likely to happen in a less competitive market. I hope that would answer your question.
Indeed, I should apologize for the assumption that everyone reads our column would turn to the appropriate field of knowledge for following the arguement.
October 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm
To 波蘿游:
1. Can you elaborate on item number 1? WWhat is the relationship between the number you cited by CSD versus the size of the industry, i.e. 2 bil sets of fast food meal?
2. Perhaps you don’t get the point here: L means Fast Food Industry doesn’t really care and will not be hurt by minimum wage. Please refer to this line: 最低工資，說穿了，只不過令快餐業變成政府的稅吏
3. Do you understand elasticity of demand?
4. Please refer to the part regarding 小型快餐店 – which include also 茶餐廳. By the way, 茶仔 doesn’t earn as much as you thought.
5. Thank you for supporting the idea that minimum wage causes unemployment amongst low income / underpriviledged group.
October 10, 2007 at 2:21 pm
To Shopping Mall,
We didn’t play with words. If you doesn’t understand any specific point, we are more than happy to elaborate.
If you are talking abour poor people cannot afford fast food, then we have to clarify on one definition – what do you mean by saying “poor”?
We were referring to those who has to work and do get a job but cannot afford the time and money (certainly the membership) to dine at private club or luxurious restaurants.
I am sure many people falls into this category and you will find them every Mon to Fri, from 12:30 to 1:45, in Central, Admiralty, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok, Kwun Tong… you name it. And amongst these people, many of them altough work in an office, the barely earn above minimum wage.
Also, by the way, fast food doesn’t only mean MCD. Cafe de Carol is fast food, even those small stall selling lunch boxes are classified as fast food.
October 10, 2007 at 2:25 pm
To ton:
Logic works this way:
Set A:
1. Minimum wage implies poverty.
(最低工資可是貧者越貧的政策啊！)
2. If you do not want to see poverty, do not legislate minimum wage.
Also, the another key message here is: minimum wage constitute a transfer of wealth from the poor to the poor, not from capitalist to the poor.
October 10, 2007 at 2:37 pm
To ton (again),
What you have done:
1. connecting two statement which does not have any direct causal relationship in any arguement,
(快餐店員工加薪 and 貧者越貧)
2. turn it up-side down and
(快餐店員工減薪 and 貧者越富)
3. put words into the oppositions’ mouths
It is not a very honorable debating technique. What L said was “最低工資可是貧者越貧的政策”, not “加薪令社會貧者越貧”. Perhaps you don’t see the difference.
Also, if you really have knowledge in logic, what you assumed could only leads to “社會 富者越貧/貧者越富是因為沒有加薪”, and it doesn’t necessarily implies 減薪.
October 10, 2007 at 2:54 pm
好久不見這麼熱鬧了，恭喜呀!
哈哈
October 10, 2007 at 3:03 pm
ShoppingMall,
我撐你!
今時今日大路高爾夫球場不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路香港女性（港女）不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路交通工具（的士）不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路名牌手袋不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路股票如港交所不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路半山豪宅不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
今時今日大路威士忌不會平，不見得窮人afford起。
October 10, 2007 at 3:21 pm
思哲兄：
1.”Can you elaborate on item number 1? WWhat is the relationship between the number you cited by CSD versus the size of the industry, i.e. 2 bil sets of fast food meal?”
P: Assume 30% of restaurant receipts come form Fast Food Shops (FFS). Then with 10% increase in revenue in FFS, the annual increase of revenue of FFS = 60b x 30% x 10% = $1.8b (I think Mr L mis-counts all restaurant receipts as from FFS to get his $5 to 6 b figure)
2.“ Perhaps you don’t get the point here: L means Fast Food Industry doesn’t really care and will not be hurt by minimum wage. Please refer to this line: 最低工資，說穿了，只不過令快餐業變成政府的稅吏 “
P: Mr L thinks that the interest earning is significant (making it worth to invest in FFS). I compute and get it as 0.05% of total revenue only. No more than a peanut.
3. “Do you understand elasticity of demand?”
P: Mr L assumes volume maintains with price increase. Is he telling us that elasticity is 0 or –ve, by assuming that there’s no substitution like 住家飯？
4.”Please refer to the part regarding 小型快餐店 – which include also 茶餐廳. By the way, 茶仔 doesn’t earn as much as you thought.”
P: 茶仔D uncle staff can talk and sell the products and they know some customers. FFS staff only handle food & beverage delivery and cleaning like a machine. In general, FFS requires lower skill with lower $ per hour.
5.”Thank you for supporting the idea that minimum wage causes unemployment amongst low income / underpriviledged group.”
P: I am always doubtful with minimum wage policy.
October 10, 2007 at 7:38 pm
To 波蘿游:
1 & 2. If you want to be accurate with the numbers, why don’t you just look at the payment to workers. The total salary payment in this industry, according to CSD, is 19 billion. 10% increase in salary is 190 million. So, you don’t even have to assume that fast food industry comprises 30% whatsoever. Isn’t it way easier? I must say you are right and it’s our oversight.
But you still don’t get the point of this arguement, i.e. restauranteurs can shift the burden of minimum wage consumers.
You are again putting words in someone elses mouth. Can you pin-point where he said or imply ” that the interest earning is significant”?
3. So, you don’t understand elasticity of demand. It doesn’t have to be perfectly inelastic for an exogeneous increase in price to lead to an increase in revenue.
4. Is it again assumption? I would say because the capital and managerial competency of fast food chain, productivity of each employee is higher, hence compensate for the effect you mentioned. Pay relates to productivity, not the skill required – only classical Marxists or Ricardians make this kind of arguement.
5. Really? So, what is your point then?
Lastly, thank you for pointing out the statistic of the total industry receipts. But, can you point out how it affects the arguement?
October 11, 2007 at 12:29 am
計番時薪, 餐廳仔時薪唔係大家想像咁好ga jar…
你話”茶餐廳員工一般要兼顧介紹菜，技術及知識需求較高，人工亦較高”
果位的確人工較高, 因為佢叫老細.我地一般打工9up d菜出黎之ma, 通常都要佢叫套餐, 唔使諗ar ma
October 11, 2007 at 11:35 am
思哲︰
如是者政府立法定下最高工資則會貧者越富/富者越貧，那就解決全球化經濟帶來的惡效應囉，快快立法呀！
October 13, 2007 at 11:22 pm
幾有趣, What a high cost high price paradox.
如果快餐店這麼有定價權,當然要買341.
Anyway, deeply impressed by your follow up on comments. Bravo.