Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 120

Thread: Minimum Income Vs Minimum Wage

  1. #1
    grish
    Guest

    Default Minimum Income Vs Minimum Wage

    To seed the discussion:

    From Andrew Coyne of NP:

    Guarantee a Minimum Income, Not a Minimum Wage

    From the toronto star and Mayor Nenshi + Mayor Iveson:
    Alberta Mayors Back Guaranteed Minimum Income


    My take: I agree with the idea of Minimum Income Guarantee. What I think it will do:

    1. Establish a minimum income for every person (adjusted for some circumstance I would think–i.e. a person who is severely disabled would have a higher minimum to allow for additional care costs)
    2. Simplify and streamline all other programs. Reduce the administration costs to all governments.
    3. Actually guarantee people would have the means to provide for themselves.
    4. I would expect employment to pick up if, for example, minimum wage is reduced, but minimum income is installed.
    5. Create a system where people are actually encouraged to complete personal income taxes and provide governemnts better data on the population needs and current state.
    6. Past examples and trials suggested that with minimum income guarantees, the overall people's health is improved–people can afford better shelter, proper medical attention etc thus reducing the cost of emergency health care and other added costs.

    Negatives are negatives with every social assistance system–fear of abuse of the generosity of taxpayers. That negative already exists with every form of social support currently in place.

  2. #2

    Default

    We had some discussion on this in another thread. Minimun income is a horrible idea because:

    1. People on the streets aren't suddenly going to behave "nicely" and not spend all that money on whatever vice it is they might have (drinking, drugs, gambling, or whatever), ahead of shelter / food, etc. So it won't solve anything on streets (will be good for drug dealers, liquor stores, and casinos though, so they would be good investments if this proceeds).

    2. We will end up like Europe with a bunch of lazy teenage kids in their parents basements not bothering to go out and get jobs (or in my home country, lying on the beach surfing), just living off the few dollars the government gives.

    PS. I almost gave something to a homeless person for the first time in my life the other day. He was standing outside a liquor store and said "can you give me a beer"? At least he was honest (nobody really takes money for a coffee / train ride home, etc.).
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-06-2015 at 02:31 PM.

  3. #3
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    We had some discussion on this in another thread.
    I know. I wanted to revisit the idea without taking over another thread.

  4. #4
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Minimun income is a horrible idea because:

    1. People on the streets aren't suddenly going to behave "nicely" and not spend all that money whatever vice it is they might have (drinking, drugs, gamling, or whatever), ahead of shelter / food, etc. So it won't solve anything on streets.
    It would for those "working poor" and "working homeless" we keep reading about. There are a fairly large portion of the food bank and shelter users who are quite in favour of working and are not abusing anything.

    The ones who abuse–already do so under present conditions. This minimum income idea isn't going to drive any additional substance abusers towards more substance abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    2. We will end up like Europe with a bunch of lazy teenage kids in their parents basements not bothering to go out and get jobs, just living off the few dollars the government gives.
    We already do have some bunch of lazy kids... But then again we also have a bunch of hard working ones. From my experience, kids these days are not content to do the bare minimum. The ones who do are already doing it. But you raise an interesting problem and also suggest a fairly easy solution:

    There should be a minimum age on the minimum income. Or, as I suggested earlier, minimum income should be adjusted based on living arrangements. If the young adult elects to live in parents basement and no rent is paid, then minimum income could possibly be lower. If rent is paid, parents should declare it as income when filing their taxes.

    PS just realized you said "teenagers". If they are under 16 or 18, parents are typically getting child benefit. I would say it has to be one or the other. Either a child files his or her income tax or parent receives child benefit payment.
    Last edited by grish; 19-06-2015 at 02:39 PM.

  5. #5
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    We had some discussion on this in another thread. Minimun income is a horrible idea because:

    1. People on the streets aren't suddenly going to behave "nicely" and not spend all that money on whatever vice it is they might have (drinking, drugs, gambling, or whatever), ahead of shelter / food, etc. So it won't solve anything on streets (will be good for drug dealers, liquor stores, and casinos though, so they would be good investments if this proceeds).

    2. We will end up like Europe with a bunch of lazy teenage kids in their parents basements not bothering to go out and get jobs (or in my home country, lying on the beach surfing), just living off the few dollars the government gives.

    PS. I almost gave something to a homeless person for the first time in my life the other day. He was standing outside a liquor store and said "can you give me a beer"? At least he was honest (nobody really takes money for a coffee / train ride home, etc.).
    How dare you!.. In Europe we have cellars not basements. And I think you'll find it's where we keep our wine not our gruby, good-for-nothing teens. They can generally be found abusing both themselves and the system in an upstairs bedroom the size of an average north American closet.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  6. #6

    Default

    ^I've always thought the best way to help the working poor would be to increase the bottom bracket at which individual tax kicks in. Child tax credits and similar are another means for working families, which we already have, but could be expanded, I'd prefer that to some guaranteed income (sort of Trudeaus idea).

  7. #7
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^it was in part Trudeau Sr idea and in part an idea that has been proposed overtime by others. Reading about a trial in Manitoba a few decades ago—it was apparently a great success.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    Grish, I'm curious about your point #3:
    "Actually guarantee people would have the means to provide for themselves."
    How does this guarantee people would be providing for themselves?
    Doesn't it guarantee that other people will provide for them?

  9. #9
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ good point... badly expressed thought on my part. The money is clearly coming from the government (i.e. from taxes others pay). So, in that it would not guarantee the recepients would have the means to provide for themselves.

    My actual thought was along the lines of not needing, for example, a food bank anymore or needing it less. That is, a recepient of "negative tax" under a minimum income scheme would be able to go and buy groceries, rather than going to pick up some cans at a food bank. That is really what I meant by saying "provide for themselves".

    More generally, under such system every person would have the means to arrange for shelter, food, clothing–anything and everything that should be considered as a basic right–without a patchwork of handouts and programs. This system creates an opportunity for each person to be somewhat independent and develop a sense of normal life–one that is worth supporting and improving.

  10. #10

    Default

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.....

    Even Lenin said "he who does not work, neither shall he eat"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_w...r_shall_he_eat

  11. #11

    Default

    ^lol, I like Trostsky's:

    "The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

  12. #12

    Default

    What's "work"?

    Asking for money is often considered work. Fundraising, political fundraising, etc.

    Maybe asking for "free" money isn't work? However, think of the salesman that tries to manipulate a buyer into a transaction with some outrageous margin. Seems to be a case of asking for free money by not revealing a true cost.


    Some history:

    Mincome
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

    Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It
    Posted: 12/23/2014 9:38 am EST Updated: 03/12/2015
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12...n_6335682.html



    A Town Without Poverty?
    Canada's only experiment in guaranteed income finally gets reckoning
    SEPTEMBER 5, 2011

    "Trudeau's Liberals, already on the defensive for an overhaul of Canada's employment insurance system, killed the program and withheld any additional money to analyze the data that had been amassed.

    “It's hugely unfortunate and typical of the strange ways in which government works that the data was never analyzed,” says Ron Hikel who coordinated the Mincome program. Hikel now works in the United States to promote universal healthcare reform.

    “Government officials opposed [to Mincome] didn't want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn't work,” says Hikel, who remains a strong proponent of guaranteed income programs.

    “And the people who were in favour of Mincome were worried because if the analysis was done and the data wasn't favourable then they would have just spent another million dollars on analysis and be even more embarrassed.”

    But Forget has culled some useful info from Manitoba labour data. Her research confirms numerous positive consequences of the program.

    Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work.

    It turns out they did.

    Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families.

    The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. ..."

    http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

    Last edited by KC; 21-06-2015 at 09:30 AM.

  13. #13
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Mincome might be a good idea now because of the large baby boomer population approaching pension. How does this program speak to low income seniors?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  14. #14
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ I think "mincome" if implemented would be set with circumstance in mind:

    1. Single vs married
    2. With children vs without
    3. A student vs not a student
    4. Retired vs not retired
    5. With health related disability vs fully healthy.
    6. Caregiver to disabled child vs not
    7. ??? more

    So, the old age security and income supplement programs could be rolled into this one. A guaranteed minimal income would be different for different people based on the circumstance including old age.

  15. #15
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^ The cracks would need to be filled for sure. I could see this program or something like it if the Federal NDP were to be elected in October.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #16
    grish
    Guest

  17. #17
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    If the Alberta NDP increases minimum wage this October, it's going to force a lot people out of work for small business. The only thing that could save small business now is the Small business tax credit.
    Last edited by envaneo; 26-06-2015 at 10:46 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    If you are a small business with 5 employees receiving minimum wage you will need to come up with $6.40 per day for each employee. This would be a total of $32 per day for all 5 employees. The minimum wage is going up from $10.20 to $11 in October. Oct 2016 it will go up another dollar. If you are unable to raise the $32 per day from your business I guess you had better shut that business down now Envaneo. Businesses will cry wolf though and see this as an opportunity to raise their prices and make even more profit than ever, especially the large corporates.

  19. #19
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^ I work for a small business that employs about 50 people. Minimum wage is supposed to increase here in Alberta to $12 from $10.20 in October.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    OK, I had read that the govt would be revealing the figure in july. I had heard 11 but I hope its $12. Very few pay less than 12. even Mcds, so very little effect I would say. I still think many businesses will see this as an opportunity to raise their prices and blame it on the government, even if they are already paying $12.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 26-06-2015 at 11:33 AM.

  21. #21
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^ Most employers pay above minimum as it is but barely above.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ I work for a small business that employs about 50 people. Minimum wage is supposed to increase here in Alberta to $12 from $10.20 in October.
    Although I agree with increasing the minimum wage, it does have an undeniable ripple effect in a company.

    Your Tier 2 people making $12 now will want a increase proportionally over minimum wage of entry level Tier 1 staff. Then the Tier 3 staff will ask for increases over Tier 2, Tier 4 over Tier 3 and so on. Even top managers will state that if minimum wage went up 17% then they want a 17% increase which is disingenuous as the $1.80 increase of minimum wage translate only to a 1% or 2% increase on top tier staff salaries.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #23
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^That's all fine and well but doesn't work in the real world. $12 employees wont get a increase. Its only tier 1 employees that will see a increase. So anyone making like me $11 will get $12 and so on.

    Its the ripple affect that gives me pause but like I said above, if the Province retains it's small business tax credit, then it should be ok.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  24. #24

    Default

    If I was working for a year and finally making $12, then I would be upset that I would be back to square one and at minimum wage.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #25

    Default

    creating addictions...

    The Dutch 'Basic Income' Experiment Promises Free Money for Those on Welfare - CityLab



    "Supporters of basic income say it is a good mechanism to alleviate poverty and social exclusion. A recent study conducted in 18 European countries concluded that generous welfare benefits make people likely to want to work more, not less."



    http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/08/...cities/401201/


    Poverty's most insidious damage is to a child's brain


    July 20, 2015, Source: Washington University in St. Louis
    Summary:


    "An alarming 22 percent of U.S. children live in poverty, which can have long-lasting negative consequences on brain development, emotional health and academic achievement. Now, even more compelling evidence has been provided suggesting that growing up in poverty has detrimental effects on the brain."


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0720115142.htm
    Last edited by KC; 16-08-2015 at 10:22 AM.

  26. #26

    Default

    A more recent article...

    Prospect of minimum income gaining steam as Canada clamours for new ways to manage welfare and benefits


    In response, Evelyn Forget, one of the few researchers to have actually studied the policy in the wild, described guaranteed basic income as an idea whose time has come, and “definitely doable.”

    She is the University of Manitoba economist who analyzed data from a pilot program during the 1970s, where everyone in Dauphin, Man., was guaranteed a “mincome” as a test case. The program ended without an official final analysis, but Forget did her own and found minor decreases in work effort but larger benefits on various social indicators, from hospitalizations to educational attainment.

    ...
    It has had proponents such as Milton Friedman, the iconic free marketeer who liked it as a simplification of welfare, and leading Canadian Tories from Robert Stanfield to Hugh Segal. No less a neo-con pair than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney once oversaw a mincome pilot project for the Nixon White House, aimed at measuring labour market reactions.

    ...
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...019/story.html
    Last edited by KC; 28-12-2015 at 01:56 AM.

  27. #27
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    389

    Default

    I see Finland is about to adopt the minimum income:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...0-a-month.html

    here:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33977636

    My big question is how do you implement this without causing price inflation of rents?

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Rent controls?

  29. #29

    Default

    ^^ There remains more difficult questions to answer than the fate of rents.

    Around the time of Dauphin experiment in Canada, US also did some experiments under the title of Negative Income Tax (NIT), that Milton Freidman advocated. (A NIT is the most direct way of implementing a minimum income in practice).

    There are evidence from the US experiments, that opposite to Freidman's theory, a disincentive to work exists under NIT (theory was by imposing a minimum wage, a worker whose labor value is below that minimum becomes unemployable, so if this disruption is avoided more "cheap" labor will be available giving employers incentive to hire locally rather outsource low skilled jobs). Furthermore, unintended consequences such as an increase in family breakups emerged. (Source)

    While, as Dauphin experiment shows, the low income portion of community will likely (I say likely because as the above link points out sometimes the existing welfare programs are more generous than NIT) benefit from such wealth redistribution program, I wonder what happens to the incentive of high skill, high earners. The only experiment I've come across that focused on top earners is the case of Gravity Payments in Seattle where the CEO raised the minimum salary to 70k. Within 4 months the company hit severe troubles, when some of its top talent left as they thought now they are unfairly treated (the salary raise was not proportionally applied to higher salary employees).

    All this was to say there is no clear answer here. Any social welfare model we adopt as a nation, will have positive and negative consequences. I hope we get a chance of fair debate of merits of each approach and adopt one based on clear thinking rather ideological dogma.
    Last edited by FamilyMan; 02-01-2016 at 09:33 PM.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^thanks, the gravity one is interesting. I can see why other staff were upset though, and even the people getting a raise. Generally a higher salary comes with more responsibility, more ownership of the role, which brings with it more pressure to not make mistakes. A lot of people don't want that. Maybe in this case it was smart, a publicity stunt to make the pie bigger so no big deal that the pie is being shared differently. Then again, maybe not.

  31. #31
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    What Finland proposes will never work here in Canada.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    If someone else other than the Government of Canada was running this second largest country in the world with an abundance of untapped resources and fertile land I'm sure we could all receive much more than Finland . Unfortunately we are stuck with all of these idiots running this great nation of ours.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    If someone else other than the Government of Canada was running this second largest country in the world with an abundance of untapped resources and fertile land I'm sure we could all receive much more than Finland . Unfortunately we are stuck with all of these idiots running this great nation of ours.
    Sometimes randomness works out pretty well. It's all choices and priorities. Maximizing resources and land could be seen as maximizing short term needs over long term needs and maximizing the level of short term environmental destruction.

  34. #34
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    We can't follow Finland's lead because we have a rather large elephant in the room: The USA. Something like what Finland wants to do wouldn't work here for other reasons as well, mainly the proposed TPP.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    We can't follow Finland's lead because we have a rather large elephant in the room: The USA. Something like what Finland wants to do wouldn't work here for other reasons as well, mainly the proposed TPP.
    Can you elaborate? Nothing you said explains why it wouldn't work here.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  36. #36
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^ I wounder if the Finland scenario would compromise the TPP?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  37. #37
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    We can't follow Finland's lead because we have a rather large elephant in the room: The USA. Something like what Finland wants to do wouldn't work here for other reasons as well, mainly the proposed TPP.
    Can you elaborate? Nothing you said explains why it wouldn't work here.
    It wouldn't work here because of the structure of our division of powers between federal and provincial governments. If we took the total direct federal spending on programs and transferred it to a minimum income payment, it would amount to far less than the proposed amount in Finland.

    To make this possible (i.e. a livable amount) we would need to fundamentally change the structure of our constitution so that no social programs are offered by provinces and the associated taxes are sent to the federal government to be redistributed.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    We can't follow Finland's lead because we have a rather large elephant in the room: The USA. Something like what Finland wants to do wouldn't work here for other reasons as well, mainly the proposed TPP.
    Can you elaborate? Nothing you said explains why it wouldn't work here.
    It wouldn't work here because of the structure of our division of powers between federal and provincial governments. If we took the total direct federal spending on programs and transferred it to a minimum income payment, it would amount to far less than the proposed amount in Finland.

    To make this possible (i.e. a livable amount) we would need to fundamentally change the structure of our constitution so that no social programs are offered by provinces and the associated taxes are sent to the federal government to be redistributed.
    So it would work here? (To a lesser degree)

  39. #39

    Default

    Minimum income "experimenting" is back in Canada, now in Ontario:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02...n_9328264.html

  40. #40

    Default

    It should soon become clear (again for the nth time) that U.I. / E.I. really doesn't work very well when you have an economy that is increasingly specialized and subject to sectoral collapse. People with specialized skills gained over years on the job in say automotive plants, oil-sands operations, etc. can't just walk into another career path. When the entire industry or sector encounters a downdraft those that have been laid off can't just jump over to the next identical business and get work. Moreover, as a result of globalization, the local failing business laying off workers isn't being put out of business by the guy across the street who is then hiring. They are being put out of business by people in another country who are never going to be hiring Alberta's, Ontario's or Canada's unemployed.

  41. #41

    Default

    (Apologies for this long rambling. I know this is an Alberta thread, and we are not currently in a position to experiment with welfare models, but here are some data points if anyone cares to further explore this topic.)

    UK's minimum wage law is coming into effect this Friday. The Tory Chancellor Osborn swapped tax credits for lower income households for a "living wage" in 2015 budget announcement. Yet another way of experimenting to find the right welfare balance. The Economist, given its conservative views, was not a fan.

    He announced plans to cut the deficit further, while trimming rates for business, slashing inheritance tax and furthering radical devolution to England’s neglected cities. Boldest of all, he declared an overhaul of the welfare system, replacing benefits with a higher minimum wage. With this, and measures to raise the personal tax allowance and double free child care for parents, he marched his party onto ground once considered too left wing even for Labour.
    The more liberal Financial Times covers it more favorably:

    Nick Boles, the skills minister, has claimed it will be “one of the biggest increases in the legal minimum wage that any government has done in the western world in living memory”.

    But the Conservatives did not always feel this way about the minimum wage. Indeed, the party opposed the UK’s introduction of the policy in 1998, arguing it would destroy jobs. “We bring to it the zeal of converts,” Mr Boles admitted.
    The classic argument against hiking minimum wage is that it makes low-skilled labor force unemployable:


    Source

    Evidence on this is mixed (for example above linked FT article), but it no doubt incentives employers to find measures to protect their profit. In particular, technology is now a potent threat as many low-skill tasks can reliably be automated. Indeed, even white collar, middle-class jobs are now not that far from the reach of algorithms and robots. This is a tectonic shift. Thomas Friedman, memorably phrased it: "Average is Over"

    In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius.
    So modern economy is transformed to what some call a "superstar economy" or "winner-take-all economy". And data backs up this claim. Here is a chart of real wage growth in US, 2007-2015, by wage percentile:



    Source

    Only the top percentile wage earners have seen a real income growth. And on the bottom of the chart, the lowest 10-percentile have seen a shift recently as US states started to legislate new minimum wage levels.

    I don't know which model will stand the test of time, but I do think we should think carefully about a new approach to welfare.

  42. #42
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Increase the Alberta Non-Refundable Tax Credit to around $30,000.

    Done.

  43. #43
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    There is the Alberta Job Corp program.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  44. #44

    Default

    Warren Buffett's thoughts on minimum wages, flat taxes, deficits and debt.


    Warren Buffett: Modern deficits don't matter | Fox Business Video

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/48748...#sp=show-clips


  45. #45

    Default

    In post # 29, I linked the story of a Seattle firm imploding after it raised the minimum salary to 70K. It turns out, same dynamics works at the lowest pay scale too. Known as "wage compression" (increasing the minimum wage, while not being able to give higher ups the same boost) affects morals. Just something to consider for our policymakers.

    Wall Street Journal, 5-May-2016
    Push for $15 Raises Pay—And Tensions

    ...“As you’re raising that bottom, it’s affecting everybody,” said Catherine Knowles, a district manager overseeing eight Mud Bay Inc. pet-supply stores in Washington state....

    Employees who had spent a year or two on the job before reaching the $12 hourly wage told managers that it felt unfair that newcomers were paid the same amount, Ms. Knowles said.

    “They felt that they weren’t able to get compensated for what they learned,” she said.

    Managers showed the workers copies of the company’s pay scales and explained that, while the company was raising the minimum wage, it couldn’t give everyone raises...

    ...Gap won accolades in February 2014 for announcing it was raising pay to a minimum $10 for its more than 60,000 hourly employees the following year. The retailer has recorded a double-digit increase in job applicants since then, according to spokeswoman Laura Wilkinson, as well as increased employee retention.

    A current Chicago-area Gap sales associate said the wage hikes prompted her to look for other work. She joined the company in 2013, earning $9.25 an hour, won a small raise in 2014 and had hoped to reach $11 by 2015. Instead, she was given $10 an hour last June, just like new employees, though she had been with the retailer for two years.

    “Where is the reward for having some seniority?” said the employee. “You’re back on the bottom rung and you fight just like they do now for the next raise.”

    ...Last year, Laura Jankowski raised pay for entry-level employees at her three Tropical Smoothie Café franchise locations on Long Island to comply with New York laws raising minimum pay for fast-food chains. New hires now earn $9.75 an hour—the same wage that the café’s shift leaders had been earning.

    “I can’t punish them,” Ms. Jankowski said of the shift leaders. She raised their pay to $10.75 an hour, boosting prices by 30 to 50 cents to cover costs. She now schedules one less person per hour and expects employees to work faster...

    ..People derive more happiness from pay when they know they’re earning more than co-workers, research shows. In a famous 1998 study by economists Sara Solnick and David Hemenway, half of 257 people surveyed said they would rather make $50,000 a year when others around them earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 while peers earned $200,000...
    Last edited by FamilyMan; 06-05-2016 at 09:37 AM.

  46. #46
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    It seems weird to me to compare yourself to others like that so much. If someone else is able to make more money, even if they don't have as much experience as you, why does it matter? You're still getting the same money and quality of life as you were before, but now someone elses life is improved. It seems extremely selfish to me.

    The one concern I guess would be that increasing wages for the lowest common denominator will increase prices, and thats something you cant really know until this stuff is implemented on a full scale.

  47. #47
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    The only concern I have with increasing minimum wage (at least here in Alberta) is how it will affect our economy. So far I've seen little evidence of the economy being affected with the last min wage increase, although it was a really small increase. It seems the AG is going about this in a responsible way, so far. If a minimum income were to be introduced who would qualify? How would a minimum income affect the market place/Free enterprise etc?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #48

    Default Swiss voters overwhelmingly reject guaranteed income

    I'm not surprised, I would probably quit work and laze around all day if someone gave me 30k a year for nothing, would quickly run out of workers to pay for it:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/swis...come-1.3617059
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-06-2016 at 06:50 PM.

  49. #49
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    At that rate austerity would be just around the corner.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    In post # 29, I linked the story of a Seattle firm imploding after it raised the minimum salary to 70K. It turns out, same dynamics works at the lowest pay scale too. Known as "wage compression" (increasing the minimum wage, while not being able to give higher ups the same boost) affects morals. Just something to consider for our policymakers.

    Wall Street Journal, 5-May-2016
    Push for $15 Raises Pay—And Tensions

    ...“As you’re raising that bottom, it’s affecting everybody,” said Catherine Knowles, a district manager overseeing eight Mud Bay Inc. pet-supply stores in Washington state....

    Employees who had spent a year or two on the job before reaching the $12 hourly wage told managers that it felt unfair that newcomers were paid the same amount, Ms. Knowles said.

    “They felt that they weren’t able to get compensated for what they learned,” she said.

    Managers showed the workers copies of the company’s pay scales and explained that, while the company was raising the minimum wage, it couldn’t give everyone raises...

    ...Gap won accolades in February 2014 for announcing it was raising pay to a minimum $10 for its more than 60,000 hourly employees the following year. The retailer has recorded a double-digit increase in job applicants since then, according to spokeswoman Laura Wilkinson, as well as increased employee retention.

    A current Chicago-area Gap sales associate said the wage hikes prompted her to look for other work. She joined the company in 2013, earning $9.25 an hour, won a small raise in 2014 and had hoped to reach $11 by 2015. Instead, she was given $10 an hour last June, just like new employees, though she had been with the retailer for two years.

    “Where is the reward for having some seniority?” said the employee. “You’re back on the bottom rung and you fight just like they do now for the next raise.”

    ...Last year, Laura Jankowski raised pay for entry-level employees at her three Tropical Smoothie Café franchise locations on Long Island to comply with New York laws raising minimum pay for fast-food chains. New hires now earn $9.75 an hour—the same wage that the café’s shift leaders had been earning.

    “I can’t punish them,” Ms. Jankowski said of the shift leaders. She raised their pay to $10.75 an hour, boosting prices by 30 to 50 cents to cover costs. She now schedules one less person per hour and expects employees to work faster...

    ..People derive more happiness from pay when they know they’re earning more than co-workers, research shows. In a famous 1998 study by economists Sara Solnick and David Hemenway, half of 257 people surveyed said they would rather make $50,000 a year when others around them earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 while peers earned $200,000...
    Well, that's a really interesting and odd discovery (see excerpt below). Not sure why. Maybe people really don't need much to live on so it's more about the other factors in social relationships, or something.


    ...People derive more happiness from pay when they know they’re earning more than co-workers, research shows. In a famous 1998 study by economists Sara Solnick and David Hemenway, half of 257 people surveyed said they would rather make $50,000 a year when others around them earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 while peers earned $200,000...

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I'm not surprised, I would probably quit work and laze around all day if someone gave me 30k a year for nothing, would quickly run out of workers to pay for it:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/swis...come-1.3617059
    Or near $40K/Cdn a year per the article's example, but they say that just covers basic needs. Ouch.

    I think in short order, you'd be looking for work in order to do, and have, other things in life.

    Initially that plan would trigger all kinds of people quitting their jobs. Then after a few months those people would be suffering cabin fever from their lack of discretionary funds and soon out looking elsewhere for jobs and ending up taking other work at much reduced rates compared to their old jobs. Companies would have loved it for the wage deflation it could have brought them.

  52. #52
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    78% against. Idiots.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    78% against. Idiots.
    Yeah, it was stupid to put such a daft idea to a vote. Why would anyone go get a job as a nurseaid, or as a retail worker, or a construction worker, when you get almost as much playing xbox at home? Just a dream that that there are these super rich people in our society who will happily support us all to do nothing, and all the food, shelter and everything will just magically appear...

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    78% against. Idiots.
    Yeah, it was stupid to put such a daft idea to a vote. Why would anyone go get a job as a nurseaid, or as a retail worker, or a construction worker, when you get almost as much playing xbox at home? Just a dream that that there are these super rich people in our society who will happily support us all to do nothing, and all the food, shelter and everything will just magically appear...
    Then, it might be wise to eliminate all tax subsidies for pensions, RRSPs, etc.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Then, it might be wise to eliminate all tax subsidies for pensions, RRSPs, etc.
    Are they really a subsidy? The income that goes into them is still taxed, the tax is just deferred to when you retire, government of Canada is going to get a tax revenue boom as all the boomers start drawing on their pensions, RRSP's, etc.

  56. #56

    Default Canadians think guaranteed income good, but too expensive and it makes people lazy: survey

    Canadians may support a guaranteed minimum income in principle, but they don’t want to pay for it and they suspect it may turn people into shiftless louts, according to a new survey by the Angus Reid Institute.

    As many as 67 per cent of respondents backed a guaranteed income set at $30,000, provided that the payment would “replace most or all other forms of government assistance.”

    However, nearly as many (66 per cent) said they would not be willing to pay more taxes to support such a program, and 59 per cent said it would be too expensive to implement.

    A further 63 per cent said it would “discourage people from working.” Among Conservative voters, this sentiment jumped to 74 per cent of respondents. But even in the NDP camp respondents were split 50-50.

    “It’s not as though you see people on the left of the spectrum incredibly supportive of this,” said Shachi Kurl with the Angus Reid Institute.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...le-lazy-survey

  57. #57

    Default

    I don't see "discouraging people from working" as a universally bad thing. It's not a wonderful thing that so many people have to continue working when they would rather be retired, or that so many single parents have to take a second job. Sure, it wouldn't look good on the economic numbers if you think that's what matters, but so what?

    For the record I think that a minimum income would be too expensive, at least at that level - 30,000 is really high for a single person. You would want it to be at a low subsistance level, like max CPP+OAS is around 1600/month, or AISH is something like 1300/mo. There's nothing wrong with benefits that would require a recipient to have a roommate to make it work in a major city. Could get rid of subsidised housing too, and for those unable to manage the money themselves it wouldn't be unreasonable to have programs set up so that the payment could be directly remitted to housing/care providers.
    There can only be one.

  58. #58

    Default

    ^The risk is you end up like Europe, where teenage kids / young adults just live in their parents place, taking their subsidy, and using it to play xbox and smoke weed. I don't think that's very laudable, its for sure not something I want to pay for.

  59. #59
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    ^Or the mentally ill and / or people with addictions not spending the money on things they need. I don't think more money is necessarily the answer to our social problems.
    Last edited by Mla; 14-08-2016 at 12:30 AM.

  60. #60

    Default

    In many cases both parents work because the system mandates it. The family unit can't easily survive the job loss of the sole income earner.

    Moreover our "advanced society" is getting worse because our jobs are requiring more and more specialization. The job I did for a number of years was so specialized that it had only a handful of other people were doing it in the whole province. Any unemployment there pretty much would have required a career change. Such career changes don't come quickly so EI could easily run out before employment was found. Plus living on just one EI payment isn't an option for many couples, so both often work.
    Last edited by KC; 14-08-2016 at 08:44 AM.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^The risk is you end up like Europe, where teenage kids / young adults just live in their parents place, taking their subsidy, and using it to play xbox and smoke weed. I don't think that's very laudable, its for sure not something I want to pay for.
    Less competition for your job.

    Those same kids may be there anyway. As Trump's success highlights the changing mix of employment globalization, free trade and advanced societies are doing away with entire sectors and the remaining ones are requiring far more education. (Then society limits access to that education.) So there's a large segment of the population that are now losers under the course society has set for itself. And an increasingly larger portion of society may be less and less suitable for the narrowing of economic opportunities. Raising minimum wages will reduce the remaining jobs so what alternative is society left with? Might as well go with the most efficient means possible to provide subsistence level funding To all those unfit for the modern workforce we have created.



    Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage - WSJ


    "...Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy. Think back to the agrarian America of only 200 years ago. Most jobs could then be ably performed by most people. In a world where only primitive machinery and animals were available to aid farmers, the difference in productivity between the most talented among them and those with ordinary skills was modest.

    Many other jobs of that time could also be carried out by almost any willing worker. True, some laborers would outdo others in intelligence or hustle, but the market value of their output would not differ much from that of the less talented.

    Visualize an overlay graphic that positioned the job requirements of that day atop the skills of the early American labor force. Those two elements of employment would have lined up reasonably well. Not today. A comparable overlay would leave much of the labor force unmatched to the universe of attractive jobs. ...

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-t...age-1432249927
    Last edited by KC; 14-08-2016 at 09:06 AM.

  62. #62
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Min wage jobs are suppose to be transitional jobs for people going to school or bettering themselves. IT IS NOT for living on forever. If you make that choice, dont cry about your wage, you selected that lifestyle.
    Stop illegal aliens! Enforce the LAW!

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Min wage jobs are suppose to be transitional jobs for people going to school or bettering themselves. IT IS NOT for living on forever. If you make that choice, dont cry about your wage, you selected that lifestyle.
    Since when?

    And who "selects" that lifestyle? A lot of things in life are selected for you

    On the radio they're saying that 16 and 17 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote - because they can't make good judgements. (And that's the tip of the iceberg in determining people's lifestyle. Add in wealth of parents, careers of parents, location of parents, childhood traumas, academic achievement, biological capabilities, etc.)
    Last edited by KC; 15-08-2016 at 05:11 PM.

  64. #64
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Just what have you done to improve your value to your present and future employer?When you can replaced by somebody else with just a few days training, then you can't expect raises. Employers are looking for great employees. They are hard to find. People that show up on time every day and go the extra mile are rapidly promoted and get raises. Fast food outlets are frequently owned by former employees, Chick-fil-a has a majority of it's owners as former employees that worked their way through the ranks and were then loaned the down payment by the company. Look inward to see the problem.

  65. #65

    Default

    Often it's a competitive pyramid with only a few able to rise up the ladder. Add in, say, childcare issues and you have competing time requirements.

  66. #66
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Ov they are so poor that they cannot provide for their children they should have never had them. WHAT the hell were they thinking?
    That's a form of child abuse!
    ( bring a child into a poverty stricken home)

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Ov they are so poor that they cannot provide for their children they should have never had them. WHAT the hell were they thinking?
    That's a form of child abuse!
    ( bring a child into a poverty stricken home)
    I don't think thinking comes into the picture in most such situations. 'What works in theory may not work in practice.' (Question: Should we lower the voting age? If not why not? There's maybe your answer about teen pregnancies and what were they thinking.)

    Then there's other cases where people's mental conditions just make them unsuitable for the jobs available.

    Then there's cases where schooling doesn't prepare kids for the jobs that are available.

    Start combining these conditions and some people will never be in a position to successfully compete for the higher income employment. ...and if they are successful, then some other loser(s) in that competition gets the minimum wage position.



    This should be everyone! Yeah right.
    How a 30-something couple got rich and retired...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/hous...alth-1.3716641
    Last edited by KC; 17-08-2016 at 07:46 AM.

  68. #68
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Ov they are so poor that they cannot provide for their children they should have never had them. WHAT the hell were they thinking?
    That's a form of child abuse!
    ( bring a child into a poverty stricken home)


    Then there's other cases where people's mental conditions just make them unsuitable for the jobs available.

    /snip
    How a 30-something couple got rich and retired...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/hous...alth-1.3716641
    The bolded part is a huge huge thing in policy right now with duty to accommodate and where that duty currently extends to and where it should extend to.

  69. #69
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Alberta restaurants say wage hike will mean cutting hours, staff

    Alberta's minimum wage went up Saturday by one dollar to $12.20 an hour, and $1.50 for liquor servers, with the elimination of the liquor server wage.


    FILE PHOTO
    Restaurant owners in Alberta say they'll have to either cut hours or lay people off to deal with a minimum wage hike in the province.


    By: The Canadian Press Published on Wed Oct 05 2016
    EDMONTON - Restaurant owners and operators in Alberta say they will have to cut hours or lay people off to cope with a higher minimum wage.

    Mark von Schellwitz, vice-president of the Western Canada region of Restaurants Canada, says 78 per cent of operators have said they will cut hours, while nearly half will go through a round of layoffs.

    Alberta's minimum wage went up Saturday by one dollar to $12.20 an hour, and $1.50 for liquor servers, with the elimination of the liquor server wage.

    Von Schellwitz says Alberta members recently participated in a workshop in Calgary to find ways to reduce labour costs.

    They looked at balancing what they pay between higher-paid front-of-house service staff and back-of-house kitchen staff who don't earn gratuities through new service charge or self-service options.

    He says 35 cents of every dollar by a restaurant earned goes to labour costs.

    “If you are an owner-operator you're going to have to work those seven days a week and cover shifts that normally you'd have a staff member cover ... in order to stay viable our guys are just saying, 'look, I guess we're going to have to work more hours to try and keep our labour costs aligned,” von Schellwitz said in a phone interview.

    “We'd lost a number of food service businesses over the last year and in the first nine months since the last minimum wage increase, from October to July, we were down several thousand employees already. That doesn't count how many people are getting reduced hours. Their take-home pay is actually less and not more with the minimum wage increases.”
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...=1475695838189

  70. #70

    Default

    I don't believe that 78% of operators will give themselves self-inflicted wounds by cutting hours and service levels. I won't dine out if the service sucks, and if they aren't open when I want to eat, well, that's also a problem. Last I checked, restaurants have lots of fixed costs and they don't make any money when closed.

    I think it's mostly talk. Crappy operators might go under, but shaking them out and letting new ones fill in isn't a bad thing.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  71. #71

    Default Minimun Income would cost $177 billion a year

    ^I think it just means more sweat equity by themselves. Many are hanging on by a thread right now, stupid government policies like this, along with higher energy bills, will be enough to tip a lot over into failure. The strong restaurants will be fine, but a lot of the mid / lower tier ones are in trouble.

    On the OP, more reason this idea won't work (just creates dependency):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ar-report-says
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-10-2016 at 03:55 PM.

  72. #72

    Default

    Higher energy bills? If you can't afford the rates going up from the near-historical lows they've been at then you'd be susceptible to just about anything taking out your business through a negligible increase in any other of your costs.

    Kinda like if you can't afford your house if interest rates go up even a titch, you couldn't really afford your house in the first place.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #73

    Default

    Recall the food price hikes in 2007 or 2008 when oil prices shot up. Anyone notice the mass corporate carnage?

  74. #74

    Default

    I'll say this: if your business goes under because you have to pay an extra buck to your lowest earners, wages are not your problem. Sales are. You don't offer a compelling enough product for people to buy it at a profit.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  75. #75

    Default

    Nonetheless, we have a problem. Raising costs leads to some reduced employment. Moreover, going the other way by removing all minimum wage laws would increase employment, but there would be limits to the numbers hired and there would be employers doing all they can to push the downside limits of wages as they negotiate from strength. Poverty would increase along with all the associated societal costs many of which are financial and just create greater inefficiencies than min wage regs do.

    Everyone should re-read Buffett's opinion piece posted above in post #61.

  76. #76
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Often it's a competitive pyramid with only a few able to rise up the ladder. Add in, say, childcare issues and you have competing time requirements.
    At the end of the day it comes down to personal accountability. It is a very slippery slope when you start giving people things. They generally don't appreciate them and are never satisfied.

    A mincome appeals to me in that it could streamline gov't, but does anyone think that the bureaucracy is going to be streamlined? Especially when it would only be implemented by a Liberal or NDP gov't? You would probably end up with new or expanded existing departments.

    I would be in favor of a small scale test but any larger implementation would have to include how the result would involve reduction of gov't administration otherwise what is the point? Whole thing goes against my understanding of human nature.

  77. #77
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I'll say this: if your business goes under because you have to pay an extra buck to your lowest earners, wages are not your problem. Sales are. You don't offer a compelling enough product for people to buy it at a profit.
    Yes, sales are a problem now esp. if you are a restaurant in Alberta where 100,000 ppl who used to eat out a lot are not anymore because they are out of work. Bad time to raise min. wage by 47% over 3 years.
    Last edited by 2cents; 06-10-2016 at 07:33 AM. Reason: bad grammer

  78. #78
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Maybe some could revert back to paying a monthly salary instead.

  79. #79
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Warren Buffett's thoughts on minimum wages, flat taxes, deficits and debt.


    Warren Buffett: Modern deficits don't matter | Fox Business Video

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/48748...#sp=show-clips

    I wonder if Buffett has ever been asked by a US President to be a secretary in their cabinet? If he was running for President against Clinton or Trump he would win in a landslide.

  80. #80

    Default

    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with


    Agre. It's like the royalty review. The real world contains a lot of variables in flux. Still any change in costs hits some businesses somewhere and causes real changes.

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with
    It's those last few customers a day that provide the profit. The first customers cover the costs. That said, I'm always surprised at the failure of restaurants to look after things that seem critical to bringing in sufficient customer numbers or charging those that do come in a sufficiently high price. Eg. Signage with good clear visibility, obvious cleanliness, decent utensils, etc.

  83. #83
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with
    At the end of the day it's really a question of attitude. Is the gov't pro business or labour. But this move and a few others is going to result in the unintended consequence of a lot of small businesses that are barely holding on going under. We can argue over whether that is going to happen until the cows come home. Let's see what happens in a year or two after the carbon tax and min. wage has taken effect.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with
    At the end of the day it's really a question of attitude. Is the gov't pro business or labour. But this move and a few others is going to result in the unintended consequence of a lot of small businesses that are barely holding on going under. We can argue over whether that is going to happen until the cows come home. Let's see what happens in a year or two after the carbon tax and min. wage has taken effect.
    Pro business vs pro labour

    Why does everything have to be bisected and turned into an overly simplistic black and white, or us vs. them view of life? It's just people with negative fanatical extremist prone personality types that fuel these debates.

    I agree that cumulative coincidental 'hits' can do damage but people also need to realize that many of these changes don't strip money out of the economy but redirect it and just cause it to circulate differently within the province.

    Trends towards buying more luxury cars, electronics, smartphones, etc. likely does far more damage because that money leaves Alberta altogether, and much of it never comes back - unless we have high commodity prices - on our exports.
    Last edited by KC; 06-10-2016 at 09:19 AM.

  85. #85

    Default

    ^its not quite that simple, but special interest groups have influence. NDP is controlled by unions. Unions are concerned about wages of their members. They are not concerned about people who are unemployed who aren't members, they are not concerned about businesses that fail and fire non members, or even that concerned when a business fails and its members are laid off (they are just fewer to worry about), they are not concerned about people trying to set up a small business. So a union always pushes for higher wages, even if it means, as economics tells us it does, higher unemployment.

    As to people saying, its just a few hundred dollars, I know for me personally a few hundred dollars can be the difference between being positive or negative in a month. If a restaurant or a small business is border line right now, that's enough to tip it over, a little bit higher utilities, a little higher wages. So, they lay off the staff, and the owner has to work longer hours, so that it remains competitive. The union doesn't care, it doesn't really impact them (the staff probably aren't union members anyway), but for the people layed off, and for the all the suppliers to that restaurant, and the businesses that no longer get the patronage of the people layed off, it all snowballs.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-10-2016 at 09:24 AM.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The min wage increase is honestly rather irrelevant. Restaurants have to deal with price spikes all the time: tomatoes when there's a frost in Mexico, beef prices, etc. and they do just fine. This was announced a year out. Any operator claiming the sky is falling was already so deep in the s--t that they should have quit a long time ago.

    Math from Reddit so I don't have to re-type out the same argument:
    lets do the math 20 employees make a dollar more an hour for 8 hours will cost you a whopping $160 extra. That's a whopping 2-4 bills and in a restaurant that has 20 people working an 8 hours in one day that's a drop in the bucket. What about the struggling mom and pop shop who hires 3 employees? that's $24 dollars a day,I'm sorry if that's what makes your business fail it was already failing to begin with
    At the end of the day it's really a question of attitude. Is the gov't pro business or labour. But this move and a few others is going to result in the unintended consequence of a lot of small businesses that are barely holding on going under. We can argue over whether that is going to happen until the cows come home. Let's see what happens in a year or two after the carbon tax and min. wage has taken effect.
    This is pro-business in a sense: It'll shake out crap businesses, opening up space in high-demand locations for better operators to come in, ones that likely have a better plan, can employ more people, and offer a superior product or service that the community will enjoy.

    Why do some of you shed tears for utter crap? Some people run businesses and they just don't pan out. Not everyone's good at it. If I was your co-worker and terrible at my job, you'd applaud if they replaced me. Same situation here.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is pro-business in a sense: It'll shake out crap businesses, opening up space in high-demand locations for better operators to come in, ones that likely have a better plan, can employ more people, and offer a superior product or service that the community will enjoy.
    No it won't, it will shake out the small locally owned businesses, Tshirt stores, Weed stores, art house stores, niche cafes. The big chains will be fine, be they restaurants or retail, and they will take their place. You might think that's great for the cities fabric, I don't.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-10-2016 at 09:29 AM.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is pro-business in a sense: It'll shake out crap businesses, opening up space in high-demand locations for better operators to come in, ones that likely have a better plan, can employ more people, and offer a superior product or service that the community will enjoy.
    No it won't, it will shake out the small locally owned businesses, Tshirt stores, Weed stores, art house stores, niche cafes. The big chains will be fine, be they restaurants or retail, and they will take their place. You might think that's great for the cities fabric, I don't.
    Locally owned doesn't mean they're broke bud. Big chain doesn't mean they're flush. Target is a multi-billion$ outfit that caved in less than a year. Woodwork will still sling cocktails after minimum wages go up and carbon taxes hit.

    A year from now, know what will have changed? Absolutely nothing. I guarantee it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  89. #89
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is pro-business in a sense: It'll shake out crap businesses, opening up space in high-demand locations for better operators to come in, ones that likely have a better plan, can employ more people, and offer a superior product or service that the community will enjoy.
    No it won't, it will shake out the small locally owned businesses, Tshirt stores, Weed stores, art house stores, niche cafes. The big chains will be fine, be they restaurants or retail, and they will take their place. You might think that's great for the cities fabric, I don't.
    tbh I don't think it's really pro-business or labour. You can give them the benefit of the doubt and say it is well intentioned, would be very surprised if it has the desired effect. If the intention is to help the working poor anyways, could be more just to increase the wages of unions.

    But what happens to the working poor when their employer goes under? Just seems like a cavalier and ham fisted approach in a very trying economic situation and small business owners are people too. Ppl are quick to say the working poor are doing the best they can, well so are a lot of small business owners.
    Last edited by 2cents; 06-10-2016 at 09:42 AM.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Locally owned doesn't mean they're broke bud. Big chain doesn't mean they're flush. Target is a multi-billion$ outfit that caved in less than a year. Woodwork will still sling cocktails after minimum wages go up and carbon taxes hit.
    I don't think you have any experience of what running a small business is like, I have some from my father (whose business got wiped out when a large supermarket chain moved in), and just from providing services to them over the years. Yes, there will be national chain failures, there always will be, but no, they won't fail nationally just because of a law change in Alberta. But for small Alberta businesses duking it out for an ever decreasing market, more cost simply means fewer of them will survive, and the chains will pick up that slack. Innovative companies starting out, just won't be able to start out, or at least, will only be able to do it with sweat equity. Lets see in a year, when our power bills are higher, cost of doing business is higher if you want staff, lets see what the unemployment rate is then versus now. All these sorts of regulations / costs do is favor large enterprises that have the bureaucracy and multi-provincial breadth of revenue to cover those costs, they kill innovation / start ups.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-10-2016 at 10:27 AM.

  91. #91
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^its not quite that simple, but special interest groups have influence. NDP is controlled by unions. Unions are concerned about wages of their members. They are not concerned about people who are unemployed who aren't members, they are not concerned about businesses that fail and fire non members, or even that concerned when a business fails and its members are laid off (they are just fewer to worry about), they are not concerned about people trying to set up a small business. So a union always pushes for higher wages, even if it means, as economics tells us it does, higher unemployment.
    I think you really hit the nail on the head there.

    I've lived in Alberta all my life and like most, I formed an opinion of the NDP a long time ago and didn't really think about them often because they were irrelevant. But suddenly they have become extremely relevant with prejudice. And it's hard to really see the logic in a lot of their actions, whose interests are they advocating? It's not really labour in general or even specifically union workers. If you ever talk to a journeyman they rarely have anything nice to say about their union, usually a blue streak rant about necessary evils and not much else.

    Seems to be mostly run by academics and union leadership and supported by public service union members. Everybody is going to be bitten by this min wage increase and carbon tax.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Locally owned doesn't mean they're broke bud. Big chain doesn't mean they're flush. Target is a multi-billion$ outfit that caved in less than a year. Woodwork will still sling cocktails after minimum wages go up and carbon taxes hit.
    I don't think you have any experience of what running a small business is like, I have some from my father (whose business got wiped out when a large supermarket chain moved in), and just from providing services to them over the years. Yes, there will be national chain failures, there always will be, but no, they won't fail nationally just because of a law change in Alberta. But for small Alberta businesses duking it out for an ever decreasing market, more cost simply means fewer of them will survive, and the chains will pick up that slack. Innovative companies starting out, just won't be able to start out, or at least, will only be able to do it with sweat equity. Lets see in a year, when our power bills are higher, cost of doing business is higher if you want staff, lets see what the unemployment rate is then versus now. All these sorts of regulations / costs do is favor large enterprises that have the bureaucracy and multi-provincial breadth of revenue to cover those costs, they kill innovation / start ups.
    I've been working on a personal level with small businesses for over a decade. They hire me to help them succeed. I've worked with hundreds, and had interactions with thousands. I'm very very aware of what they go through. I see how successful small businesses operate, and I see how the unsuccessful ones do. I can tell you, a buck an hour is not the challenge for the unsuccessful ones.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  93. #93
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Locally owned doesn't mean they're broke bud. Big chain doesn't mean they're flush. Target is a multi-billion$ outfit that caved in less than a year. Woodwork will still sling cocktails after minimum wages go up and carbon taxes hit.
    I don't think you have any experience of what running a small business is like, I have some from my father (whose business got wiped out when a large supermarket chain moved in), and just from providing services to them over the years. Yes, there will be national chain failures, there always will be, but no, they won't fail nationally just because of a law change in Alberta. But for small Alberta businesses duking it out for an ever decreasing market, more cost simply means fewer of them will survive, and the chains will pick up that slack. Innovative companies starting out, just won't be able to start out, or at least, will only be able to do it with sweat equity. Lets see in a year, when our power bills are higher, cost of doing business is higher if you want staff, lets see what the unemployment rate is then versus now. All these sorts of regulations / costs do is favor large enterprises that have the bureaucracy and multi-provincial breadth of revenue to cover those costs, they kill innovation / start ups.
    I've been working on a personal level with small businesses for over a decade. They hire me to help them succeed. I've worked with hundreds, and had interactions with thousands. I'm very very aware of what they go through. I see how successful small businesses operate, and I see how the unsuccessful ones do. I can tell you, a buck an hour is not the challenge for the unsuccessful ones.
    A buck an hour isn't. Once it hits $15/hr across the board, there will be more implications.

    Moreover, the macro effect that I worry about more, is wage compression. That is one of the things that has been brought up at the policy level and it is hard to measure in the short term. I fear we won't see the effects of that in the short term. You're going to have to pay all those jobs such as LPN's, social workers, etc etc more money. A lot of that money comes from the public purse. Unfortunately, the NDP aren't thinking long term in that regard, and why should they? They won't be around to deal with it. Don't get me wrong, people deserve to earn a living wage, and a year is more than enough time for businesses to prepare for the incremental roll out of these increases, but it is not enough time to study the overall market effects and gather policy information across all sectors to make an informed decision.

  94. #94

    Default

    Why do they need to be paid more? Minimum going up from $10 to $11 today doesn't mean anyone who makes $35 needs a raise.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  95. #95
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Why do they need to be paid more? Minimum going up from $10 to $11 today doesn't mean anyone who makes $35 needs a raise.
    Actually it's $12.20 October 1st

  96. #96
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Why do they need to be paid more? Minimum going up from $10 to $11 today doesn't mean anyone who makes $35 needs a raise.
    A lot of LPN's and individuals working in social services make around $15-$18/hr. Hygienists, etc. Those 1-2 year professional programs.

    You may understand small business, but it is obvious you don't understand the implications of wage compression.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    Alberta restaurants say wage hike will mean cutting hours, staff

    Alberta's minimum wage went up Saturday by one dollar to $12.20 an hour, and $1.50 for liquor servers, with the elimination of the liquor server wage.
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...=1475695838189
    Wage math...

    $1 per hour increase per server=$8 per day=less than or equal to the cost of one meal per day.

    If your restaurant would fail because you serve one meal less per day per server, you aren't going to survive anyway. It's not the wage that's your problem, it's the volume of your sales or the value of your sales. Review your pricing. Either lower your prices to increase the volume or increase prices, reduce volume, maintain quality and service.

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    You're going to have to pay all those jobs such as LPN's, social workers, etc etc more money. A lot of that money comes from the public purse.

    Absolutely. Salary grids for every position in non-profit agencies and charities across the province will have to be bumped up because of this minimum wage increase. A lot of these organizations rely on government grants to pay for staffing. I know some people who work in non-profits and are worried that they won't be able to do as much because they will have to cut back staff hours. After all, they cannot afford to give everyone raises unless the government commits to giving them more money to help them operate.

  99. #99

    Default Minimum Income vs Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    You're going to have to pay all those jobs such as LPN's, social workers, etc etc more money. A lot of that money comes from the public purse.

    Absolutely. Salary grids for every position in non-profit agencies and charities across the province will have to be bumped up because of this minimum wage increase. A lot of these organizations rely on government grants to pay for staffing. I know some people who work in non-profits and are worried that they won't be able to do as much because they will have to cut back staff hours. After all, they cannot afford to give everyone raises unless the government commits to giving them more money to help them operate.
    I am familiar with a number of not for profit organizations and I don't know of many that are paying staff minimum wage or close to minimum wage. Only one organization I am familiar with had one position effected by the change so far and that person received a modest increase that their budget could accommodate without needing any additional government funding. They have no other staff even close to the current or future planned minimum wage levels so I doubt it will affect the wages for other staff.

  100. #100

    Default

    ^ I should emphasize that they are worried about the $15 per hour wage that the NDP has promised.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •