[bootlegga]

Brenda Brenda:

uwish uwish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm guessing you mean TFW, not TFA...the fact is most fast food places and retail places in Alberta were already paying more than minimum wage, at least when the economy was booming and most young people preferred to go to work in the oil patch for far more than the $13 or $14 McDonald's and Old Navy were offering here in Edmonton. That's also why the Tim Horton's in Fort Mac couldn't operate 24/7 during the boom - there simply weren't enough people willing to work for $17/hour when they could earn twice that in the patch.

The difference between 2014 and now is the economy in Alberta - the oil patch is not adding workers, they are shedding them and that means a labour glut (especially in the unskilled segment), not a shortage like we had for the past decade.

No matter some analyst at TD says, unemployment here is higher than it's been in more than two decades (and higher than Nova Scotia):

http://globalnews.ca/news/2867455/alber ... a-scotias/

The biggest problem with minimum wage increases is that eventually employers raise their prices and inflation eats up a significant chunk of their raise (usually the rest is lost to taxes/CPP/EI/etc.), leaving them barely any better off than before the increase. Minimum wage increases are nothing more than a giant hamster wheel for the poor.

The way to get the poor off minimum wage is to teach them skills other than how to make french fries or fold shirts for the sales table. We have to help those who want to help themselves and just accept that some people simply aren't willing to work hard enough to get ahead in this world.

Well said Boots!

Although I agree with your sentiment, it always astounds me that there is so little appreciation for people skills. The one thing that cannot be taught.

Dealing with people, with rude, obnoxious, demanding and 'deserving' people is exhausting and can be nerve wrecking.
Customer service ain't that easy!

I agree that customer service isn't easy, but it is much easier to teach people to deal with difficult customers than it is to do heart surgery. Or how to be lawyer. Or how to teach. Or how to write code. Or just about any other skilled job.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Yeah, yeah, training. But we'll always have workers at the bottom of the pile. They need a min wage set that is livable, then needs to be tied to inflation. Of course if you never raise the rate, eventually inflation will eat it all up - what a shitty argument for not raising it. And if they're paying more sales taxes from increased consumption - isn't that a good thing - they get to buy more? Or should they just live on bread and water?

And again, it's amazing to me how much influence min wage workers have over the economy, where any raises they get will cause such massive inflation that their wage increase will all get eaten up - what nonsense.

Yeah, you got me, I'm a heartless asshole who doesn't give a shit about anyone other than myself.

Who do you think gets hurt more by McDonald's increasing the cost of Big Mac from $5.99 to $6.49 - someone on minimum wage or someone earning $50K+ year? Or when Wal-Mart decides to increase the cost of dozen eggs to $3.49 from $3.29?

It sure as hell isn't the second person I mentioned.

And what do you think Wal-Mart, McDonald's and lots of other corporations that pay people minimum wage will do when their labour costs go up? Eat the cost?

If you think that, then you're even dumber than you look.

That's why I've said dozens of times (in this thread and other similar-themed ones), the best way to help people is to get them off minimum wage McJobs and into careers, not have them spend their lives on it. Let teenagers and seniors who want to earn some extra income work as cashiers and Wal-Mart greeters, not middle-aged parents.

[Brenda]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Brenda Brenda:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm guessing you mean TFW, not TFA...the fact is most fast food places and retail places in Alberta were already paying more than minimum wage, at least when the economy was booming and most young people preferred to go to work in the oil patch for far more than the $13 or $14 McDonald's and Old Navy were offering here in Edmonton. That's also why the Tim Horton's in Fort Mac couldn't operate 24/7 during the boom - there simply weren't enough people willing to work for $17/hour when they could earn twice that in the patch.

The difference between 2014 and now is the economy in Alberta - the oil patch is not adding workers, they are shedding them and that means a labour glut (especially in the unskilled segment), not a shortage like we had for the past decade.

No matter some analyst at TD says, unemployment here is higher than it's been in more than two decades (and higher than Nova Scotia):

http://globalnews.ca/news/2867455/alber ... a-scotias/

The biggest problem with minimum wage increases is that eventually employers raise their prices and inflation eats up a significant chunk of their raise (usually the rest is lost to taxes/CPP/EI/etc.), leaving them barely any better off than before the increase. Minimum wage increases are nothing more than a giant hamster wheel for the poor.

The way to get the poor off minimum wage is to teach them skills other than how to make french fries or fold shirts for the sales table. We have to help those who want to help themselves and just accept that some people simply aren't willing to work hard enough to get ahead in this world.

Although I agree with your sentiment, it always astounds me that there is so little appreciation for people skills. The one thing that cannot be taught.

Dealing with people, with rude, obnoxious, demanding and 'deserving' people is exhausting and can be nerve wrecking.
Customer service ain't that easy!

I agree that customer service isn't easy, but it is much easier to teach people to deal with difficult customers than it is to do heart surgery. Or how to be lawyer. Or how to teach. Or how to write code. Or just about any other skilled job.

I don't agree. People skills cannot be taught.

Btw, why compare very expensive apples who went to school for 10 years, with pineapples are expected to HAVE those skills when they are born? There is a school for heart surgeons. Not one for people skills.
Yet everyone is bitching about the shitty service everywhere.

[BeaverFever]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

The biggest problem with minimum wage increases is that eventually employers raise their prices and inflation eats up a significant chunk of their raise (usually the rest is lost to taxes/CPP/EI/etc.), leaving them barely any better off than before the increase. Minimum wage increases are nothing more than a giant hamster wheel for the poor.

Let's unpack this:
- Inflation eats up the wage increase, therefore lets not increase the wage:

Inflation is driven by many things, like the price of oil, energy, grain, etc. The minimum wage in local jurisdiction has very little impact, especially in a global economy.

Inflation happens regardless, so raising the minimum wage actually leaves them with more money in their pocket, not less.

- The rest is lost taxes, CPP, etc.
CPP and taxes are not 100% of income. A worker in Alberta earning $12.20 per hour and working full-time (37.5 hours per week, = $23,790 per year) will have a net federal and provincial effective rate of 10.01% and will have an after-tax income of $21,409. Compared with $19,956 at the previous rate of $11.20, that is an increase to after-tax pay of almost 7.33%, almost $1500 per year, several times the rate of inflation.

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

I worked minimum wage jobs for nearly a decade and minimum wage increases never helped me or anyone I know get off that hamster wheel - the thing that got me into a decent career was getting an education and working hard, period. I doubt anyone in North America has ever gotten out of poverty due to increases in minimum wage.

As I've said many times, if society wants to help those on minimum wage, the best way is not to raise minimum wage, which long term hurts them more than it helps them, but to provide training to them to help them get off the hamster wheel.

I would argue that grants/bursaries or maybe even low-interest/interest-free loans to help those willing to put in the effort to get a skill would benefit society more than minimum wage increases. Those willing to put in the effort would find it easier to become a plumber, hair stylist, teacher or whatever and the increased taxes they'd pay over the course of said career (income taxes and sales taxes) would provide more revenue to government, which would allow better services for everyone. Win-win-win.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Lastly as Andy said, it's comical that people somehow only think raises affect inflation when its a minimum wage being raised. Nobody seems to think anyone else wages, especially THEIR raises affect anything. When have any of you said "oh, no thank you, I don't want a raise, it will just drive inflation and I'll be worse off than before".

See above...

Of course education and training are the key, but what you're missing is that those only deliver results in the LONG TERM. It's not like you start earning middle class wages the day you register for college. People not only need to afford tuition, they need to get by while going to college, and often it takes months or even years to find a stable job after you graduate plus there are student loans that need to be repaid. Now you are also trying to support a family at the same time. Minimum wage is what these people make and every cent in their pocket helps. The minimum wage is not meant to provide a middle-class lifestyle, its meant to prevent the worst of the worst from occurring.

[Unsound]

I don't personally think that a dollar increase in min wage is going to have a very noticable effect. Combine that with a carbon tax that'll increase the cost of everything...

Im oretty sure that with the coming increases in the cost of gas and heating my home, I'll probably quit going in for a coffee or a treat when i fill up.

How many other people will do the same?

How many less coffees or choclate bars less sold in a day will lead to the gas station owners cutting hours?

Seems to me that the first expenses people will cut as the cost of living goes up are the kinds of things that tend to be supplied by minimum wage earners.

That's personal opinion and I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows better...

[Lemmy]

I've said this 100 times before on CKA: if we want poor people to have more money, it'd be better to give them cash. A guaranteed minimum income would allow us to do away with unemployment insurance, welfare, minimum wages and all the other programs do more harm than good. Minimum wage laws are a bad idea and, what's worse, rather than listening to experts (yes, labour economists), we continue to maintain an inefficient and ineffective program even though there are simple alternatives that would work much, much better.

Unsound Unsound:

Seems to me that the first expenses people will cut as the cost of living goes up are the kinds of things that tend to be supplied by minimum wage earners.

That's personal opinion and I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows better...

We need to know elasticities of demand to know which products people will stop consuming in response to price increases/wage decreases. Coffee is relatively inelastic, so it's unlikely to respond much at the margin.

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I've said this 100 times before on CKA: if we want poor people to have more money, it'd be better to give them cash. A guaranteed minimum income would allow us to do away with unemployment insurance, welfare, minimum wages and all the other programs do more harm than good. Minimum wage laws are a bad idea and, what's worse, rather than listening to experts (yes, labour economists), we continue to maintain an inefficient and ineffective program even though there are simple alternatives that would work much, much better.

Unsound Unsound:

Seems to me that the first expenses people will cut as the cost of living goes up are the kinds of things that tend to be supplied by minimum wage earners.

That's personal opinion and I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows better...

We need to know elasticities of demand to know which products people will stop consuming in response to price increases/wage decreases. Coffee is relatively inelastic, so it's unlikely to respond much at the margin.

Is it coffee in general that's inelastic? Or specifically a cup at the gas station? I know i probably wont drink less coffee, but I'll make sure to bring it from home rather than grabbing it at the store.

What about the other little luxuries that tend to be supplied by min wage people? A night at the movies? Dinner out? Etc Do you much about how that stuff responds?

I'd like to agree aboit the min income thing, but I'm not sure how much we'd actually save on all the other programs. It would still have to be means tested and distributed, which implies a bureaucracy. And things like health care, Particularily for mental illness would still be expensive. Just giving cash to people who don't have the mental capacity to handle it responsibly wouldn't help much. Most homeless would probably still be homeless.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

I don't personally think that a dollar increase in min wage is going to have a very noticable effect. Combine that with a carbon tax that'll increase the cost of everything...

Im oretty sure that with the coming increases in the cost of gas and heating my home, I'll probably quit going in for a coffee or a treat when i fill up.

How many other people will do the same?

How many less coffees or choclate bars less sold in a day will lead to the gas station owners cutting hours?

Seems to me that the first expenses people will cut as the cost of living goes up are the kinds of things that tend to be supplied by minimum wage earners.

That's personal opinion and I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows better...

I don't have an answer but it feels like our pattern of consumption is way out of wack. Compared with our parents, grandparent, and great grandparents, we seem to consume a lot more goods and services just going about our daily lives, that our goods and services consume a lot more energy and resources to produce, and that much more of our consumption consists of frivolous luxury items (even though we may think many of these frivolities are necessities). We dispose of perfectly good items just because they're no longer "in style" or because something newer and fancier is available. People today hire plumbers to fix a leaky faucet, mechanics to change their tires and oil, and nannies to look after their kids and do the housework. But back in the day these were basic tasks that every dad and mom was expected to do for themselves. I'm sure it's true that by paying other people to do things for us, and by buying more and more stuff we don't need, we've grown the economy, created jobs, etc. but it seems we've entered this viscous circle where everyone wants more for himself and less for the next guy so we're all in a race to he bottom with only a few people at the top winning.

$1:

I've said this 100 times before on CKA: if we want poor people to have more money, it'd be better to give them cash. A guaranteed minimum income would allow us to do away with unemployment insurance, welfare, minimum wages and all the other programs do more harm than good.

Ontario is piloting that in several areas currently. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[Lemmy]

Unsound Unsound:

Is it coffee in general that's inelastic? Or specifically a cup at the gas station? I know i probably wont drink less coffee, but I'll make sure to bring it from home rather than grabbing it at the store.

What about the other little luxuries that tend to be supplied by min wage people? A night at the movies? Dinner out? Etc Do you much about how that stuff responds?

There are many factors which determine elasticity. In general, goods that are necessities or addictive are inelastic. Goods that have few substitutes are inelastic. Goods that represent a small percentage of consumers' total spending are inelastic. So all three of those factors would make coffee inelastic. Yes, where a good is sold impacts its elasticity. Coffee is more elastic at the grocery store than at the drivethru. Estimates of coffee's elasticity of demand are about -0.25. That means a 1% increase in coffee's price leads to a 0.25% decrease in its consumption. The overwhelming factor, I suspect (not being an expert on consumer theory) is coffee's small percentage of total spending. If it's $1 or $3 people will still buy it because, hey, it's only a couple of bucks. And yes, some will search out the substitute good (homemade coffee vs. Timmy's) but I think most'll just pony up the extra quarter or loony, bitch about it perhaps, but carry on with their drive-thru tradition.

Unsound Unsound:

I'd like to agree aboit the min income thing, but I'm not sure how much we'd actually save on all the other programs. It would still have to be means tested and distributed, which implies a bureaucracy. And things like health care, Particularily for mental illness would still be expensive. Just giving cash to people who don't have the mental capacity to handle it responsibly wouldn't help much. Most homeless would probably still be homeless.

One bureaucracy is better than the dozen we have now. Not sure why healthcare would be affected since we have universal coverage. It's not priced by the market nor paid for at the "farm gate". Homeless people, you're right, will likely still be homeless. But homeless people are sort of outside of this discussion because they don't work at any wage, gov't imposed or other. They also tend not to access any social services (welfare, unemployment, public housing, etc) because, as you note, their issues are mental health, not economic disadvantage. People wrongly believe that the homeless are sucking up their tax dollars on the public tit. Most homeless are completely off the grid, as well as their heads.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

One bureaucracy is better than the dozen we have now. Not sure why healthcare would be affected since we have universal coverage. It's not priced by the market nor paid for at the "farm gate". Homeless people, you're right, will likely still be homeless. But homeless people are sort of outside of this discussion because they don't work at any wage, gov't imposed or other. They also tend not to access any social services (welfare, unemployment, public housing, etc) because, as you note, their issues are mental health, not economic disadvantage.

The homeless, as citizens, would qualify, working or not.

That's one problem with universal income.


And while they may be slow to use things like social services ( which would not then exist, and then turn to hospitals
as a public institution to get their fix from virtue signaling doogooders, and drugs, )

you can be damn sure they will pony up for the dough every month.



If it was such a great fix, someone ( like the Swiss who voted No )
would have tried it by now.

It isn't the magic fix pill.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

I'd like to agree aboit the min income thing, but I'm not sure how much we'd actually save on all the other programs. It would still have to be means tested and distributed, which implies a bureaucracy.

All of the individual benefits that minimum income is meant to replace (EI, CPP, disability, welfare, Child benefits, etc.) already have their own bureaucracy so this would actually be a reduction. The income testing is probably the easiest part, that's already mostly done by CRA for a wide range of federal and provincial programs, it's just simple calculation fed by the information provided in your tax return. The real bureaucracy of these benefits is in their specific program administration: enrolling/dis-enrolling participants, policing all the various participation rules, manning call centres for questions, etc.

[BartSimpson]

I'm still against the minimum wage because it discriminates against the very low-skilled, entry-level workers it's supposed to help. The higher the wage is set the more it marginalizes people who desperately need a job...any job.

It also encourages illegal immigration because such workers will work off the books for the lower wages that the minimum wage supposedly outlaws...and then the same politicians who rabidly advocate the minimum wage concurrently advocate on behalf of illegal aliens and the employers who hire them.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The higher the wage is set the more it marginalizes people who desperately need a job...any job.

How so?

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

The higher the wage is set the more it marginalizes people who desperately need a job...any job.

How so?

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... y-n2102804

$1:

The people who are harmed by an increase in the minimum wage are low-skilled workers. Try this question to economists who argue against the unemployment effect of raising the minimum wage: Is it likely that an employer would find it in his interests to pay a worker $15 an hour when that worker has skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value an hour to the employer's output? Unlike my fellow economists who might argue to the contrary, I would say that most employers would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition, but they might hire him at $5 an hour. Thus, one effect of the minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of low-skilled workers.

In our society, the least skilled people are youths, who lack the skills, maturity and experience of adults. Black youths not only share these handicaps but have attended grossly inferior schools and live in unstable household environments. That means higher minimum wages will have the greatest unemployment effect on youths, particularly black youths.

A minimum wage not only discriminates against low-skilled workers but also is one of the most effective tools in the arsenal of racists. Our nation's first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the legislative debates, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., complained of the "superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor."

During South Africa's apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers' Union, Gert Beetge, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that "while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed."

[BeaverFever]

That article ia misleading because its suggests that there are reliable, employable people out there who are out of work because they are not skilled enough to work for the minimum wage rate, and would gladly work a lower-paying, less skilled job if only they were allowed to. This is false.

The definition of minimum wage job is basically a job that doesn't require any special skills, some don't even require ability to read or write and even employ people with significant mental disabilities.

Anyone who is not currently employable at the minimum wage rate is basically not employable at any rate as the only criteria for a lot of minimum wage jobs is just to show up when you're supposed to and do what you're told. If they can't do that, they won't be able to work anywhere.