Minimum Income Vs Minimum Wage

[Dave]

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.

Yes, there are a number of things businesses can do to deal with the change in minimum wage that can help them adapt. What works best will depend on each businesses circumstances. It is a level playing field, as all restaurants in Alberta have to deal with it, so its not like the competition can pay less. They are all facing the same costs.

[Moodib]

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.

That is anecdotal information though.

When one looks at the numbers across the Province, a lot of organizations are going to struggle in the short term. MrOilers is bang on in terms of the need for salary grids to be adjusted. This will affect both not-for-profits, and front line workers that work in the CFSA/Disability regions, etc. A lot of work had been done to increase wages through a number of initiatives the past few years, but now wages will be compressed again closer to minimum wage. This has more implications in the social services sector than it does for small businesses. Most social services can't simply generate more revenue to make up for the increase in costs. They aren't funded that way.

Why go to school for a year if you can get a job at minimum wage that pays the same? That is why there will be a need to increase salary grids across all positions. It means organizations can't hire as many FTE's, because all of a sudden, it costs you the same to pay 3 people as it cost you to pay 4 people, previously.

These concerns were voiced up the chain when the policy on this was being developed, but since they promised it in their platform, they have to plow ahead with it. I'm not arguing against it by any means, I'm simply saying this is what is going to happen. This is the reality on the ground across Alberta.

[Spudly]

I found cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
(Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?) to be very informative about empirical research into the matter and considerations of all the effects, negative and positive.

[Chmilz]

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.

LPN's making $15/hr in social services is a whole travesty on its own with no connection to minimum wage. It's tough work with high requirements that shouldn't be paying that low to begin with. Raising the minimum wage doesn't change that.

[Dave]

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.

That is anecdotal information though.

When one looks at the numbers across the Province, a lot of organizations are going to struggle in the short term. MrOilers is bang on in terms of the need for salary grids to be adjusted. This will affect both not-for-profits, and front line workers that work in the CFSA/Disability regions, etc. A lot of work had been done to increase wages through a number of initiatives the past few years, but now wages will be compressed again closer to minimum wage. This has more implications in the social services sector than it does for small businesses. Most social services can't simply generate more revenue to make up for the increase in costs. They aren't funded that way.

Why go to school for a year if you can get a job at minimum wage that pays the same? That is why there will be a need to increase salary grids across all positions. It means organizations can't hire as many FTE's, because all of a sudden, it costs you the same to pay 3 people as it cost you to pay 4 people, previously.

These concerns were voiced up the chain when the policy on this was being developed, but since they promised it in their platform, they have to plow ahead with it. I'm not arguing against it by any means, I'm simply saying this is what is going to happen. This is the reality on the ground across Alberta.

Yes, my information is anecdotal. However, when you refer to looking at the numbers across the Province, which numbers are you referring to? I didn't actually see any numbers or statistics in your post either.

[Replacement]

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.

That is anecdotal information though.

When one looks at the numbers across the Province, a lot of organizations are going to struggle in the short term. MrOilers is bang on in terms of the need for salary grids to be adjusted. This will affect both not-for-profits, and front line workers that work in the CFSA/Disability regions, etc. A lot of work had been done to increase wages through a number of initiatives the past few years, but now wages will be compressed again closer to minimum wage. This has more implications in the social services sector than it does for small businesses. Most social services can't simply generate more revenue to make up for the increase in costs. They aren't funded that way.

Why go to school for a year if you can get a job at minimum wage that pays the same? That is why there will be a need to increase salary grids across all positions. It means organizations can't hire as many FTE's, because all of a sudden, it costs you the same to pay 3 people as it cost you to pay 4 people, previously.

These concerns were voiced up the chain when the policy on this was being developed, but since they promised it in their platform, they have to plow ahead with it. I'm not arguing against it by any means, I'm simply saying this is what is going to happen. This is the reality on the ground across Alberta.

This is pure misinformation. Name one position in the Social Services sector that pays minimum wage. Community social service orgs are not effected by this.

btw please humor me with more fiction on these concerns being ''voiced up the chain"

The professional association I am a member of and with one of the biggest memberships in Alberta BACKED the minimum wage change.

[Replacement]

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.

LPN's making $15/hr in social services is a whole travesty on its own with no connection to minimum wage. It's tough work with high requirements that shouldn't be paying that low to begin with. Raising the minimum wage doesn't change that.

There is no position in the Province, or country afaik know that REQUIRES an LPN and that pays that low. Now whether LPN might be working in a lesser job is another matter. In bust economies many people accept jobs that are less than their qualifications would allow them to do.

Even Nursing aides get more than $15/hr

[Replacement]

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.

This is correct Dave. I don't know of any Social Services sector position that will be impacted by this change. Any entry level position I am aware of exceeds minimum wage.

[Moodib]

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.

That is anecdotal information though.

When one looks at the numbers across the Province, a lot of organizations are going to struggle in the short term. MrOilers is bang on in terms of the need for salary grids to be adjusted. This will affect both not-for-profits, and front line workers that work in the CFSA/Disability regions, etc. A lot of work had been done to increase wages through a number of initiatives the past few years, but now wages will be compressed again closer to minimum wage. This has more implications in the social services sector than it does for small businesses. Most social services can't simply generate more revenue to make up for the increase in costs. They aren't funded that way.

Why go to school for a year if you can get a job at minimum wage that pays the same? That is why there will be a need to increase salary grids across all positions. It means organizations can't hire as many FTE's, because all of a sudden, it costs you the same to pay 3 people as it cost you to pay 4 people, previously.

These concerns were voiced up the chain when the policy on this was being developed, but since they promised it in their platform, they have to plow ahead with it. I'm not arguing against it by any means, I'm simply saying this is what is going to happen. This is the reality on the ground across Alberta.

This is pure misinformation. Name one position in the Social Services sector that pays minimum wage. Community social service orgs are not effected by this.

btw please humor me with more fiction on these concerns being ''voiced up the chain"

The professional association I am a member of and with one of the biggest memberships in Alberta BACKED the minimum wage change.

They don't.

Wage compression means that by raising minimum wage to $15/hr, certain positions in the social services sector that make $15-$18 an hour will make minimum wage in the future. It compresses wages. That is, it brings wages closer together, which means those that made a higher wage previously aren't going to make a higher wage in the future and their wage will have to be increased.

$15/hr used to be a decent wage; it wasn't always min wage, but in the future, it will be, and there will have to be market correction in order for that position to be desirable. Same with those that made $18/hr, $20/hr, etc etc.

It doesn't mean that a bunch of people in the sector are CURRENTLY making minimum wage. Not everyone that works for a not-for-profit is represented by a professional organization, unfortunately.

Regardless, I support the wage increase, so I'm done in here!

[buildthemhigh]

In the Early 70's Minimum wage would buy you 5 big macs a hour with some change left over Now it buy's you 1.5 so minimum wage in the 70's if kept to inflation would be over 25$ hour today as what it had for purchasing power in the early 70's

[MrOilers]

Wage compression means that by raising minimum wage to $15/hr, certain positions in the social services sector that make $15-$18 an hour will make minimum wage in the future. It compresses wages.

That's right. Plus, why work in a stressful job that starts at $16 an hour, when you can get a job sitting at a kiosk in the mall and play on your phone all day for only a dollar less? Employers will have to bump up all their salary grids.

[Chmilz]

In the Early 70's Minimum wage would buy you 5 big macs a hour with some change left over Now it buy's you 1.5 so minimum wage in the 70's if kept to inflation would be over 25$ hour today as what it had for purchasing power in the early 70's

Have you considered that the costs to make a Big Mac have gone up substantially, as opposed to wages being crap? Minimum wage can buy you 11 Junior Cheeseburgers per hour. Nobody's starving, if that's what you're getting at.

[KC]

This is British but it's interesting in that it says these photos "shocked the nation". When you consider that England has had its debt problems but would never have been considered a third world nation or anything close, there should be some valuable lessons to be learned here to improve the lives of individual families, and so the economy and society.

The slum children who shocked Swinging Sixties Britain: Just 50 years after Shelter released stark images of youngsters living in abject poverty in post-war UK, how did their lives pan out?
Between 1968 and 1972, photographer Nick Hedges captured a series of images showing poverty in UK cities
His images painted Britain in the Swinging Sixties in a new light - showing how some could barely afford food
Channel Five documentary will revisit the families in his photos - and show that for some, little has changed
By Amie Gordon For Mailonline
PUBLISHED: 17:58 GMT, 6 December 2016


More than four decades ago, stark images of poverty-stricken children in cities across the UK shocked the nation.

Photos from the Swinging Sixties often paint Britain in a hedonistic and carefree light, showing mods and rockers, glamorous models, pop stars and hippies striking a pose in Carnaby Street and partying until dawn at festivals.

But Hedges' project captured the reality of what lay beneath - those with no money, hot water and little food in squalid living conditions as the nation was gripped by a housing crisis.

His project run by housing charity Shelter aimed to expose the abject poverty some three million people were living in in post-war Britain.

The pictures document life in some of Britain's biggest cities: London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Newcastle.

The Channel Five documentary this evening will revisit the families in those images - and in some cases, show little has changed.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Britain.html

[KC]

GAI is back in the news in Ontario this time.

Denley: Ontario should have a guaranteed income for those with disabilities
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/col...h-disabilities

Ontario to test guaranteed-income program amid warnings about costs, effectiveness
http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3740373?client=safari


More on the Manitoba experiment with "mincome":

THE TOWN WITH NO POVERTY:
A history of the North American Guaranteed Annual Income Social Experiments1
(Draft 12 May 2008. Please do not cite without permission.)
http://economix.fr/pdf/seminaires/H2S/forget.pdf


A related link in c2e:
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...ion-of-poverty

[envaneo]

Is this an old story or am I late to the party:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/finland-giv...erhaul-1601167

[KC]

Old story but I'm not sure if it was posted somewhere earlier on this thread. Glad some places have the courage to try and find better ways rather than sticking with systems that don't seem to work very well.

[Highlander II]

I like to imagine our carbon tax rebate as an embrionic minimum income/negative income tax. Just has to grow roughly 70-fold and lose the phase-out.

[KC]

Here's news out of Ontario. Great to see openness to new experimenting with old ideas:



Ontario to roll out basic income in three cities
RACHELLE YOUNGLAI, HAMILTON, The Globe and Mail, Apr. 24, 2017


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle34795127/



And a must read posted earlier in the thread about Dr. Evelyn Forget's rediscoveries and research:

A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It
Zi-Ann Lum, 12/23/2014

"...Dauphin, Manitoba...
"
The program was dubbed “Mincome” – a neologism of “minimum income” – and it was the first of its kind in North America. It stood out from similar American projects at the time because it didn’t shut out seniors and the disabled from qualification.

The project’s original intent was to evaluate if giving cheques to the working poor, enough to top-up their incomes to a living wage, would kill people’s motivation to work. It didn’t.

But the Conservative government that took power provincially in 1977 – and federally in 1979 – had no interest in implementing the project more widely. Researchers were told to pack up the project’s records into 1,800 boxes and place them in storage.

A final report was never released. ..."



“...I’m enough of an optimist to believe that eventually we’re going to end up there. I think we already have part of the program in place,” said Forget, referring to existing supplements including the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors and the National Child Benefit.

“The one gap in the system right now is the working poor: people working in insecure and precarious jobs.”

* * *

A ‘classic Ottawa initiative’

Two years before the Harper government shut down its operations, the National Council of Welfare released a damning report criticizing how welfare rules are trapping people in poverty.

“Canada’s welfare system is a box with a tight lid. Those in need must essentially first become destitute before they qualify for temporary assistance,” said TD Bank’s former chief economist Don Drummond after the social agency’s report was released in 2010.

“But the record shows once you become destitute you tend to stay in that state. You have no means to absorb setbacks in income or unexpected costs. You can’t afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade your skills.”

Former Conservative senator Hugh Segal is a longtime proponent of a guaranteed annual income policy. He believes the program could save provinces millions in social assistance spending on programs like welfare.

Instead of being forced through the welfare system, people’s eligibility would be assessed and reassessed with ..."


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12...n_6335682.html

bolding was mine



Note:
On c2e, there's two threads on a similar subject here. This thread above seems to be about the theory and application and the other one, linked below, seems specific to Alberta and the NDP's political platform:

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...t-Might-Happen

[Highlander II]

Does a geographic roll-out make any sense other than for research purposes? Wouldn't it be better and more generally popular overall to just start with a general rebate (something like our carbon rebate or the GST rebate) and gradually make it more universal and roll more and more other programs into it (or diminish those other programs as the rebate increases?

[KC]

Does a geographic roll-out make any sense other than for research purposes? Wouldn't it be better and more generally popular overall to just start with a general rebate (something like our carbon rebate or the GST rebate) and gradually make it more universal and roll more and more other programs into it (or diminish those other programs as the rebate increases?

"other than for research purposes" Maybe not. Actually, probably not. Big plans, big rollout ideas tend to go nowhere and get shut down by 'old school' thinking. So unless these are desperate times requiring desperate measures, I think it takes multiple instances of "research" plus overwhelming evidence towards positive outcomes before any form of broad acceptance sets in.


eg. Spreading the women's vote took around a 100 years, basic social programs began in the mid to late 1800s and took decades to spread, and still aren't accepted as viable in many countries.


I have a copy of Britains's Way to Social Security by Francois Lafitte, 1945. Fascinating read about the hardships presented by the old ways - yet people tolerated such bad inhuman systems for decade upon decade. (Basically, those who lack experience, lack 'intelligence' and so lack empathy and a willingness to create change.)

https://books.google.ca/books/about/...AJ&redir_esc=y

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Bri...tte/B0006D8UXK