Fallout from min. wage increase decisions hitting cities like Seattle and SF already

[Warhippy]

I won't spend all day sifting through CNN or NBC or any leftist publication that's going to spew bull**** about how great random minimum wage increases are to try and find a realistic business article to satisfy random people on the internet. Just like I won't sift through some Christian family websites about why gay marriage or polygamy isn't a big deal. You'll just have to be satisfied with it, or not, doesn't matter to me. It won't hurt my feelings if you dismiss the source I use rather than the information in it.

Obviously minimum wage increases will be affordable to the largest of corporations, but apparently liberals care about small businesses, who will undoubtedly be hit big time. So when push comes to shove, the consumer will ditch the small businesses without the logistics of large corporations (and thus have to pass that on to consumers), for lower prices. Then the portion of dumb consumers will turn around and complain about where the jobs are, pointing to the greedy corporations rather than their own stupid choices. Meanwhile, minimum wage increases won't actually increase the wealth whatsoever of people in Seattle because more will be unemployed. Or, as this article stated, work less hours to sustain welfare entitlements.

Well bud

Bad news.

I just went through and spent some time researching the Seattle issue you mention.

Fancy that, I am reading the EXACT same quotes from such reputable rags as FOX, United Liberty, Right Hand of Freedom, right hand man cordon from Seattles council, Heartland etc.

All have the exact same quotes all have the exact same talking points.

You might not want to spend hours pouring through Lefitst publications spewing whatever you suggest. But at least they're looking for positives and actually writing something different.

So quite simply let me pose this to you.

Instead of being an inflammatory right winger and using crap terms like leftist or socialist.

How about you delve deeper in to your intelligence than the bubbling surface of right wing nonsense and tell us, what other alternatives are there? It appears to me more and more that the left is currently looking out for workers and families in the same ways that the right USED to, where as the right are looking more and more foolish every day by simply attacking instead of creating alternatives.

[Mr. Ambien]

so to be clear

You read FOX thought hey this seems unbiased. Refused to corroborate and get other areas of statement on this and posted it like it was intelligent

And tell us you refuse to actually delve into facts because it might be leftist bs

Ya....i can't for the life of me recall why i gave up being a conservative and became more of a centrist

I dunno what to say, you didn't even address anything I posted, you just fabricated some argument/belief of mine and responded to your own theory.

Although, you showed here that you can self aggrandize like a boss. Just clean up the mess when you're done tooting your own horn.

People like to say the economics of this is too hard for businesses to survive. I'm trying to point out that it's not. EVERY single time there is a min wage increase people complain and say the economics of it isn't good. I don't think I've ever seen anyone look at the positive effects of the people on min wage getting slightly more money. Most people who work in those jobs are trapped in low paying jobs and while they may work their way up a little bit it's very hard to get out of poverty.

If you could point out a few tips for people to get out of poverty I'm sure they would be grateful. Please begin with the step after stop being lazy.

Trying to follow what you're saying here, minimum wage increases like this doesn't address why these people live in poverty to begin with, it's just social justice for liberals to feel good about raising some ambiguous wage to think they're accomplished something. Of course, these people also tend to bash big corporations, yet these minimum wage hikes are helping those same corporations by knocking out small businesses who don't have the scale of logistics corporations have to compete with senseless wage hikes. So less jobs come from that, less competition comes from that, which is ultimately bad for the consumer. Less jobs means poverty isn't changing.

So it goes back to addressing why these people are in poverty to begin with, and it has nothing to do with minimum/living wages.

[Warhippy]

Sorry ambien.

I couldn't spend a moment of my day reading that rightist bull****

It's easier to post something entirely contrary without corroborating than it id to read that tripe because it suits my agenda and belief structure

[Sapper]

Mr Ambien -

On my welfare reform suggestions - to be clear my ideas would cost a ton more money up front in order to fix it long term. My suggestions are not "kick them all off welfare". In goverment its not the workers that need to be contracted out - its the managment. Could you imaging a billion dollar company only doing year by year budgets? Could you imagine them only doing departmental budgets? In Billion dollar companies the budgetary process is not only yearly but planned decades in advance. The cuts to one area are considered in the budget impact in other areas when presented. In goverment they can close one unit in a hospital and brag about the Million dollar savings and bury the 3 million extra in overtime in a different department that resulted from the closure ( a 2 million deficit becomes a million dollar savings in goverment fudget budgets ) Same thing for welfare - there is a need to do a 10 year budget/planning that has as a goal to see all current or exisisting welfare recipents fall into 2 groups only - medically unable to work and pensioned off with a higher monthly allowance to permit a dignified existance , and employeable and either in school or at work.

My ideas would cost billions across canada to impliment but once it would be - the cost of welfare overall would drop significantly. Current trends such as simply boosting monthly amounts a few bucks do nothing to break the cycle of welfare. However if we invested enough money to properly train someone - pay to move them with their family to the job - we could end that cycle and remove the need for many TFW's. Think of it this way - unemployed youth comes into the welfare office in Toronto - fills out welfare form and then gets a cheque. No help other than maybe the money for some boots or lunch kit is normally given in order to find them work. What if that intake officer was able to say - there is a job in a Canadian Tire in Saskatoon that is full time - We will be paying to move you and your belongings to Saskatoon and cover your first months rent in an apartment we have found for you. In the current form the cost may be $800 per month - in the second example it might be $3000/$4000 up front. After 12 months the current system has cost the tax payers $9600. In the second example the cost was $3000/4000 and the individual paid $2000 in taxes during the year from that job so it actually only took $1000/2000 from the system.

Now on the second post you suggest is unreasonable - you have completly missed the points in my post. I don't care what the supply vs demand issue is in relation to the respect we place on workers. Any person going to work and putting in a good honest hard days work is worthy of respect. They may not get paid alot but consider someone a lesser value or less worthy is ridiculous. The right wing have sucessfully made labour a dirty word. People look down on a hard working women who does Janitor work 40 hours a week because somehow that job is for the lazy because she hasn't gone back to school to move up? Give me a break - any person who works hard and works full time should make enough money to feed themselves and pay rent on a safe place to live. Work needs to lift you out of poverty not keep you in it. Your comments at the end about handing money out to lazy people shows you just don't get it. There are lazy people on welfare but there are an even greater number who are anything but lazy - they are in a system that keeps them from breaking that cycle.

And your response flips from talking about Seattle to US/Mexican border towns. Detriot and Seattle face dire poverty issues and the costs associatied with it. I thought we were discussing Seattle and San Fransico and not Border cities. Seems on course that the diversionary debating skills of the right wing is pretty consistant. Again - in your original post the Fox news takes the info that a few workers have asked a few employers to drop their hours after the $1 per hour raise. Fox gave no numbers - no reasons and did not interview a single person to find out why. Not only is it very poor reporting - they got their desired results in having right wing supports grap the story and run around like chicken little screaming "see see - the sky is falling".

Consider the following

The "few" that did ask for less hours could be because of

1 - They are retired and on pension and after a certain dollar amount get it clawed back

2 - They have high financial needs for assistance due to childcare or medical that could be jepordized

3 - They are a second job and only need/want certain amounts of money monthyly ( their partners are the main earners )

4 - It could be 2 or 3 that can't keep up and can't continue with that many hours

5 - It may be a few workers that are ok financially and see co workers struggling with the low pay and give up hours so they can work more

Too bad the news story didn't actually investigate. If you look for bad or lazy your going to find it - everywhere. The term bad and lazy is a label that doesn't discriminate - it applies equally no matter how much money one makes.

And lastly - every worker earning less than a living wage gets assistance from some form of goverment. Here in BC if you earn below a living wage you get free BC medical - varying levels of dental or optical care ( for those coming off welfare ) - you get GST rebates and can apply for other assistance for your kids at school etc and you pay no taxes. . Were do you think that money comes from? There is only one taxpayer and that's us!!!! So every single ADULT worker who earns less than a living wage is being financailly topped up by the tax payer. Those companies that need ADULT workers are having the tax payer foot the bill so that they can maintain a profit margin. Those companies don't have to declare that worker top up - its a free Billion dollar gift on behalf of you and I. The point behind a living wage for Adult workers is so that any person who is willing to work full time earns enough so that they can look after and pay for most of their own basic needs. This socialism for corperate businuess has to end.

If you or I went into our bank and said we wanted to buy a house that had a mortage beyond our desire to pay however we deserve that house so please send 33% of the bill each month to the shareholders.... well we would be told to not let the door hit us on the way out. We all get it that if you can't afford your bills you cant afford it. We have no problem telling people in debt that its their own fault - and we seem to have no issue telling those on minimum that they deserve only what they get and not to ask for more.

Now when businuess shows up with the same line about wanting to keep that profit margin so they want to offload Adult workers onto the shareholders .... heck we can't get those trucks of money to them fast enough. We will pick the pockets clean if needed to make sure they owner gets the profit margins they demand.

Imagine if businuess was treated like the individual? If you need others to support your investment to maintain a desired proft margin .... you can't afford it. All places like seattle are doing is sending that message - if you want to run a for profit businuess your going to have to ensure you can afford employees on your own - not at wages so low its plannable for us to have to budget their top up from the get go.

[Mr. Ambien]

Mr Ambien -

On my welfare reform suggestions - to be clear my ideas would cost a ton more money up front in order to fix it long term. My suggestions are not "kick them all off welfare". In goverment its not the workers that need to be contracted out - its the managment. Could you imaging a billion dollar company only doing year by year budgets? Could you imagine them only doing departmental budgets? In Billion dollar companies the budgetary process is not only yearly but planned decades in advance. The cuts to one area are considered in the budget impact in other areas when presented. In goverment they can close one unit in a hospital and brag about the Million dollar savings and bury the 3 million extra in overtime in a different department that resulted from the closure ( a 2 million deficit becomes a million dollar savings in goverment fudget budgets ) Same thing for welfare - there is a need to do a 10 year budget/planning that has as a goal to see all current or exisisting welfare recipents fall into 2 groups only - medically unable to work and pensioned off with a higher monthly allowance to permit a dignified existance , and employeable and either in school or at work.

My ideas would cost billions across canada to impliment but once it would be - the cost of welfare overall would drop significantly. Current trends such as simply boosting monthly amounts a few bucks do nothing to break the cycle of welfare. However if we invested enough money to properly train someone - pay to move them with their family to the job - we could end that cycle and remove the need for many TFW's. Think of it this way - unemployed youth comes into the welfare office in Toronto - fills out welfare form and then gets a cheque. No help other than maybe the money for some boots or lunch kit is normally given in order to find them work. What if that intake officer was able to say - there is a job in a Canadian Tire in Saskatoon that is full time - We will be paying to move you and your belongings to Saskatoon and cover your first months rent in an apartment we have found for you. In the current form the cost may be $800 per month - in the second example it might be $3000/$4000 up front. After 12 months the current system has cost the tax payers $9600. In the second example the cost was $3000/4000 and the individual paid $2000 in taxes during the year from that job so it actually only took $1000/2000 from the system.

Now on the second post you suggest is unreasonable - you have completly missed the points in my post. I don't care what the supply vs demand issue is in relation to the respect we place on workers. Any person going to work and putting in a good honest hard days work is worthy of respect. They may not get paid alot but consider someone a lesser value or less worthy is ridiculous. The right wing have sucessfully made labour a dirty word. People look down on a hard working women who does Janitor work 40 hours a week because somehow that job is for the lazy because she hasn't gone back to school to move up? Give me a break - any person who works hard and works full time should make enough money to feed themselves and pay rent on a safe place to live. Work needs to lift you out of poverty not keep you in it. Your comments at the end about handing money out to lazy people shows you just don't get it. There are lazy people on welfare but there are an even greater number who are anything but lazy - they are in a system that keeps them from breaking that cycle.

And your response flips from talking about Seattle to US/Mexican border towns. Detriot and Seattle face dire poverty issues and the costs associatied with it. I thought we were discussing Seattle and San Fransico and not Border cities. Seems on course that the diversionary debating skills of the right wing is pretty consistant. Again - in your original post the Fox news takes the info that a few workers have asked a few employers to drop their hours after the $1 per hour raise. Fox gave no numbers - no reasons and did not interview a single person to find out why. Not only is it very poor reporting - they got their desired results in having right wing supports grap the story and run around like chicken little screaming "see see - the sky is falling".

Consider the following

The "few" that did ask for less hours could be because of

1 - They are retired and on pension and after a certain dollar amount get it clawed back

2 - They have high financial needs for assistance due to childcare or medical that could be jepordized

3 - They are a second job and only need/want certain amounts of money monthyly ( their partners are the main earners )

4 - It could be 2 or 3 that can't keep up and can't continue with that many hours

5 - It may be a few workers that are ok financially and see co workers struggling with the low pay and give up hours so they can work more

Too bad the news story didn't actually investigate. If you look for bad or lazy your going to find it - everywhere. The term bad and lazy is a label that doesn't discriminate - it applies equally no matter how much money one makes.

And lastly - every worker earning less than a living wage gets assistance from some form of goverment. Here in BC if you earn below a living wage you get free BC medical - varying levels of dental or optical care ( for those coming off welfare ) - you get GST rebates and can apply for other assistance for your kids at school etc and you pay no taxes. . Were do you think that money comes from? There is only one taxpayer and that's us!!!! So every single ADULT worker who earns less than a living wage is being financailly topped up by the tax payer. Those companies that need ADULT workers are having the tax payer foot the bill so that they can maintain a profit margin. Those companies don't have to declare that worker top up - its a free Billion dollar gift on behalf of you and I. The point behind a living wage for Adult workers is so that any person who is willing to work full time earns enough so that they can look after and pay for most of their own basic needs. This socialism for corperate businuess has to end.

If you or I went into our bank and said we wanted to buy a house that had a mortage beyond our desire to pay however we deserve that house so please send 33% of the bill each month to the shareholders.... well we would be told to not let the door hit us on the way out. We all get it that if you can't afford your bills you cant afford it. We have no problem telling people in debt that its their own fault - and we seem to have no issue telling those on minimum that they deserve only what they get and not to ask for more.

Now when businuess shows up with the same line about wanting to keep that profit margin so they want to offload Adult workers onto the shareholders .... heck we can't get those trucks of money to them fast enough. We will pick the pockets clean if needed to make sure they owner gets the profit margins they demand.

Imagine if businuess was treated like the individual? If you need others to support your investment to maintain a desired proft margin .... you can't afford it. All places like seattle are doing is sending that message - if you want to run a for profit businuess your going to have to ensure you can afford employees on your own - not at wages so low its plannable for us to have to budget their top up from the get go.

A lot to respond to..

My response regarding border states/towns/counties and cities like Detroit changes because not every situation is the same. Detroit doesn't have illegal immigrants bleeding local governments dry on even remotely the same level as many US-Mexico border state jurisdictions. For them, it's other self-imposed problems like subsidizing entertainment / prioritizing sports entertainment over emergency services.

Nextly, you suggest that every job, based on the "hours" should make a living wage. Well, under this guise, you're going to create more unemployment by artificially raising the labour wage because small businesses rely the most on paying those low wages to survive. It's the large "corporate socialism" your idea caters to because it puts out of business the very companies that compete with these mega corporations. That is why the market is best at deciding what prices are. When government gets into the business of deciding prices at random like it does now, and plays favourites with stimulus, FTA's, etc., this is what occurs.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

@iwtl

The big concern about raising is minimum wage is the inflation it creates across the board. Small business owner now have to compete with wages from big chains.

If my employees are making $16-18 per hour, is that $2 per hour enough incentive to work in a demanding work environment when for $15 per hour you could work at your local Walmart or McDonalds and put half the effort in. No it’s not, my employees are going to expect a similar wage increase.

I’m left with three options, Increase prices to make up for operation expenses (which mean’s now you have to pay more for my service), take a hit from my own salary, or hire less employees and expect the same output (not realistic).

Let’s put is in math terms, if my business in brings in $300,000 gross. A rough statement looks like, 25% (75k) goes to operation costs, 45% (135k) goes to employee cost, and 30% (90K) is was I take home. Currently I pay out 135,000 in 4 employee expenses at an average of $16.88 per hour. If they expect a raise to even just $19 per hour which still might not be competitive enough to retain them. That means my employee expenses now jumps to $152,000. Where does that 17K come from? I’m going to have to raise prices. Depending on the market I am in, raising prices could put me out of business, as the bigger national companies can take the wage increase hit much easier than I and not have to increase service prices. Customers are not loyal to local anymore, They are easily bought to who provides the cheapest option.

Bigger companies do things at a much larger scale then everyone else, they can purchase everything in bulk at lower costs, which means their operation costs are much less. They can take the hit (wage increases) off the top without having to increase sales at much because they have way higher margins to play with than everyone else. All increasing minimum wage is going to do is hurt the small business’ and strengthen the market share big corporations have on the market.

In today’s society minimum wage is set as a starting out job. Jobs for people just entering the workforce. Your right no person should be living off minimum wage, But the only jobs that are paying minimum wage are the ones that are (less work, less stress, less effort). Once you start getting into the jobs that require more effort, the wage tends to go up. In my opinion anyone currently making minimum wage is doing so by choice. There are ton of jobs available that pay above the minimum wage level, all you have to do is actually want to put the effort in.

There should be better ways to help people stuck in poverty but raising minimum wage doesn’t help their cause. Companies that have the option will now look to overseas’ for cheaper labour (reducing jobs). Services and products increase (meaning now you have to spend more). Inflation balances it out.

[jdatb]

@iwtl

The big concern about raising is minimum wage is the inflation it creates across the board. Small business owner now have to compete with wages from big chains.

If my employees are making $16-18 per hour, is that $2 per hour enough incentive to work in a demanding work environment when for $15 per hour you could work at your local Walmart or McDonalds and put half the effort in. No it’s not, my employees are going to expect a similar wage increase.

I’m left with three options, Increase prices to make up for operation expenses (which mean’s now you have to pay more for my service), take a hit from my own salary, or hire less employees and expect the same output (not realistic).

Let’s put is in math terms, if my business in brings in $300,000 gross. A rough statement looks like, 25% (75k) goes to operation costs, 45% (135k) goes to employee cost, and 30% (90K) is was I take home. Currently I pay out 135,000 in 4 employee expenses at an average of $16.88 per hour. If they expect a raise to even just $19 per hour which still might not be competitive enough to retain them. That means my employee expenses now jumps to $152,000. Where does that 17K come from? I’m going to have to raise prices. Depending on the market I am in, raising prices could put me out of business, as the bigger national companies can take the wage increase hit much easier than I and not have to increase service prices. Customers are not loyal to local anymore, They are easily bought to who provides the cheapest option.

Bigger companies do things at a much larger scale then everyone else, they can purchase everything in bulk at lower costs, which means their operation costs are much less. They can take the hit (wage increases) off the top without having to increase sales at much because they have way higher margins to play with than everyone else. All increasing minimum wage is going to do is hurt the small business’ and strengthen the market share big corporations have on the market.

In today’s society minimum wage is set as a starting out job. Jobs for people just entering the workforce. Your right no person should be living off minimum wage, But the only jobs that are paying minimum wage are the ones that are (less work, less stress, less effort). Once you start getting into the jobs that require more effort, the wage tends to go up. In my opinion anyone currently making minimum wage is doing so by choice. There are ton of jobs available that pay above the minimum wage level, all you have to do is actually want to put the effort in.

There should be better ways to help people stuck in poverty but raising minimum wage doesn’t help their cause. Companies that have the option will now look to overseas’ for cheaper labour (reducing jobs). Services and products increase (meaning now you have to spend more). Inflation balances it out.

Excellent post. +1.

[Mr. Ambien]

Excellent post. +1.

I agree.

[Lockout Casualty]

@iwtl

The big concern about raising is minimum wage is the inflation it creates across the board. Small business owner now have to compete with wages from big chains.

If my employees are making $16-18 per hour, is that $2 per hour enough incentive to work in a demanding work environment when for $15 per hour you could work at your local Walmart or McDonalds and put half the effort in. No it’s not, my employees are going to expect a similar wage increase.

I’m left with three options, Increase prices to make up for operation expenses (which mean’s now you have to pay more for my service), take a hit from my own salary, or hire less employees and expect the same output (not realistic).

Let’s put is in math terms, if my business in brings in $300,000 gross. A rough statement looks like, 25% (75k) goes to operation costs, 45% (135k) goes to employee cost, and 30% (90K) is was I take home. Currently I pay out 135,000 in 4 employee expenses at an average of $16.88 per hour. If they expect a raise to even just $19 per hour which still might not be competitive enough to retain them. That means my employee expenses now jumps to $152,000. Where does that 17K come from? I’m going to have to raise prices. Depending on the market I am in, raising prices could put me out of business, as the bigger national companies can take the wage increase hit much easier than I and not have to increase service prices. Customers are not loyal to local anymore, They are easily bought to who provides the cheapest option.

Bigger companies do things at a much larger scale then everyone else, they can purchase everything in bulk at lower costs, which means their operation costs are much less. They can take the hit (wage increases) off the top without having to increase sales at much because they have way higher margins to play with than everyone else. All increasing minimum wage is going to do is hurt the small business’ and strengthen the market share big corporations have on the market.

In today’s society minimum wage is set as a starting out job. Jobs for people just entering the workforce. Your right no person should be living off minimum wage, But the only jobs that are paying minimum wage are the ones that are (less work, less stress, less effort). Once you start getting into the jobs that require more effort, the wage tends to go up. In my opinion anyone currently making minimum wage is doing so by choice. There are ton of jobs available that pay above the minimum wage level, all you have to do is actually want to put the effort in.

There should be better ways to help people stuck in poverty but raising minimum wage doesn’t help their cause. Companies that have the option will now look to overseas’ for cheaper labour (reducing jobs). Services and products increase (meaning now you have to spend more). Inflation balances it out.

That's approximately 5% increase in revenue needed to make up for the shortfall. After inflation, which in Canada ranges between 1 and 3 percent depending on the recent years, I would say your business needs to increase revenues by ~3% to account for extra expenses. That works out to about 10,000.

Now you have two options. You can either: 1. Increase prices or 2. Take it out of your own pay. I obviously don't know what industry you're in or type of business you run, but I don't think you should have so much trouble raising your prices mere 3%. If you do operate in a market where you compete with maybe Nike and Bangladesh, and your margins are so razor thin, I don't see why you wouldn't just take the extra out of your own salary. Would you rather have no business, than a business that earns you 10% less than before? I think the answer to this is obvious, no?

Furthermore, the wage increase would be felt less and less the higher up the scale you go. Companies paying 30/hr likely won't feel any pressure to increase wages as a reflection of the minimum wage. So really, we`re talking about increasing minimum wage to a living minimum, at the expense of a few percent more expensive small business prices? And that's a problem somehow?

Now if you're a small business with revenues of only 300k, perhaps like other small businesses, you rely on the local economy being healthy and people having money to buy your products. With a 15 minimum wage, wouldn't you have more customers? I sure would!

That said, I'm not in favor of a high minimum wage. I prefer a form of mincome instead.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

That's approximately 5% increase in revenue needed to make up for the shortfall. After inflation, which in Canada ranges between 1 and 3 percent depending on the recent years, I would say your business needs to increase revenues by ~3% to account for extra expenses. That works out to about 10,000.

Now you have two options. You can either: 1. Increase prices or 2. Take it out of your own pay. I obviously don't know what industry you're in or type of business you run, but I don't think you should have so much trouble raising your prices mere 3%. If you do operate in a market where you compete with maybe Nike and Bangladesh, and your margins are so razor thin, I don't see why you wouldn't just take the extra out of your own salary. Would you rather have no business, than a business that earns you 10% less than before? I think the answer to this is obvious, no?

Furthermore, the wage increase would be felt less and less the higher up the scale you go. Companies paying 30/hr likely won't feel any pressure to increase wages as a reflection of the minimum wage. So really, we`re talking about increasing minimum wage to a living minimum, at the expense of a few percent more expensive small business prices? And that's a problem somehow?

Now if you're a small business with revenues of only 300k, perhaps like other small businesses, you rely on the local economy being healthy and people having money to buy your products. With a 15 minimum wage, wouldn't you have more customers? I sure would!

That said, I'm not in favor of a high minimum wage. I prefer a form of mincome instead.

The problem is, the people that are going to be affected by the increase are not my target market (home owners). Lets cut to the case and just talk about Alberta. Since that's where I live and the 40% min wage increase is in the process of happening

The new NDP government in Alberta has indicated that it will aggressively increase the province’s minimum wage from $10.20 to $15 per hour over the next three years. There are a number of problems with this campaign promise that is now becoming policy. Ignoring experience and pursuing policies based on good intentions and ideology will not solve the province’s pressing problems.

First and contrary to some pundits, there is a preponderance of evidence, particularly from Canada that minimum wage increases adversely affect low-skilled and young workers. A recent comprehensive review of international research led by Professor David Neumark, one of the world’s foremost experts, concluded that the balance of the research shows that minimum wage hikes negatively affect employment among low-skilled and young workers.

Canada is often used for minimum wage research because of the variation between provinces. In fact, there are over a dozen Canadian studies examining provincial minimum wage increases. The Canadian evidence finds that, on average, a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage decreases youth employment by between three and six per cent.

Simply put, when governments impose a minimum wage higher than what would otherwise prevail and without corresponding productivity increases, employers find ways to operate with fewer workers and/or reduced labour costs. While the more productive workers gain through a higher wage, their gain comes at the expense of those who now have fewer employment opportunities. Young and low-skilled workers are most adversely affected because of their dearth of experience and skills.

The NDP’s plan to hike the minimum to $15 is clearly linked with moves in the U.S. in several cities, including high-profile examples in Seattle and Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the real-world experience in Seattle confirms the research noted above as many small businesses are downscaling employment in an attempt to manage costs.

Second, while the intentions of the government may be noble in terms of trying to help the poor, empirical research in Canada has consistently found increasing the minimum wage does not reduce the share of Canadians living in poverty. One academic study, for instance, found minimum-wage hikes actually increased the share of families falling below the relative poverty line, which suggests low income families are especially hurt by the reduced employment opportunities emanating from minimum wage hikes.

The key reason minimum wage hikes do not generally reduce poverty is because so few of those earning the minimum wage live in poor households. According to Statistics Canada data, 50 per cent of minimum wage workers in Alberta in 2014 lived with their parents and the majority of these individuals were aged 15 to 24 and in school. Of the remaining minimum wage workers, 26 per cent had working spouses, which means their household income was higher than would be expected by a single minimum wage earner. The reality of who actually earns the minimum wage is distinctly different from the general perception and certainly the narrative offered by the current Alberta government.

Indeed, according to Statistics Canada, only 1.5 per cent of minimum wage workers were single parents with young children. Surely we can all agree that a program designed to help this group would be beneficial but that doesn’t entail changing the minimum wage for the remaining 98.5 per cent of low-skilled workers.

Third, Alberta has a long history of policy leadership in the country, meaning that when Alberta gets things right, it tends to encourage other provinces to follow. Conversely, when Alberta gets it wrong, like aggressively increasing the minimum wage, it also encourages other provinces to follow suit.

Finally, at a time when most Albertans and many investors outside of the province are anxiously assessing the direction of policy, this is yet another sign that the government intends to act dogmatically and ideologically rather than pragmatically. In addition, such policy changes do nothing to clarify what the new government intends to do on the province’s most pressing issues such as deficits and energy. This worryingly echoes the experience of Bob Rae and the NDP in Ontario in the early 1990s, which didn’t end well.

[Sapper]

I get it why businuess is apposed - if I had someone paying my mortage I would fight to keep that as well.

Look if a businuess has 10 adult workers and they are paying them all minimum with a living wage at 16 bucks per hour the break down is as follows

Full time hours - 2080

Difference in pay $5 per hour

Total 10 employees x 10,400 = $104000.00 per year in tax payer subsidies.

If someone was tax free paying that for my home I would fight it tooth and nail as well. For places like Walmart that adds up to over a Billion a year in Canada in tax free handouts to keep their profit margins.

I also get it that small businuess needs to compete with big businuess and that is what keeps putting pressure on you. I would suggest the following rules should be in place

- All companies ( collectivley not individually ) with profits exceeding 250 Million per year should be forced to pay a minimum wage that reflects the living wage.

- The extra tax revenue that is collected as a result of the living wage paid to the above employees have a portion put aside for small businuess

- Small businuess that pays a living wage may write off the portion between minimum and living wage

- Small businuess that can not afford to pay a living wage must prove this to be accurate then in a joint program with welfare and employement insurance the goverment can match people to work and pay the top up portion to a living wage with the employer paying minimum.

And I disagree with your comments that minimum wage earners have less stressful or physical jobs. Some of the most back breaking work I did in my youth was ditch digging and spetic tank work for mininimum wage during the summer. I get it that the work was an oppurtunity to gain useful skills and I was ok with the pay. Let me tell you though that work was physically demanding and the spectic tank work was disgusting and stressful. This is my point where I say the right wing demonizes low paid work as somehow not being hard work and only for the lazy. It in fact is far from it.

And in regards to entry level jobs - Ask yourself this.... Is this employement during school hours or over night? If yes then its adult work not student work. As entry level adult work if it only pays minimum wage - Why? If its in a tire shop and the clean up kid starts at minimum and as they get skills with changing tires they move up the ladder to higher wages... I get it they traded wages for skills upgrades with a path to achieving it. If the work does not provide specific experience that is required to move up ( and work just for the sake of calling it work doesn't count ) - then I disagree that they are entry level. In order to be entry level there must be the upward path with skills gained along the way specific to the job. What companies that are using unskilled labour that offers nothing more than saying they had a job - its not entry level - its unskilled labour and deserves to be paid above minimum.

Mom and pop restaurants for example... I have no issue with them bringing in Kitchen helper at minimum and once they get 2000 hours then moving them to cooks helper and providing a pay raise. If the employer is offering job skills training that is recognized as legitmate training then that has value - and put together with minimum may be a reasonable wage. Work without recognized training is nothing more than labourer work and shouldn't get a free ride

[Mr. Ambien]

The problem is, the people that are going to be affected by the increase are not my target market (home owners). Lets cut to the case and just talk about Alberta. Since that's where I live and the 40% min wage increase is in the process of happening

Can you cite that? I'd like to read what you quoted.

Thing is, Notley made it well known she would hike the minimum wage before the election. People voted for "NDP" as a general rule in our elections so they accepted what comes with it.

I mean, you can't elect a "party" and not expect there to be policies you think suck. Hence why parties are pointless.

I get it why businuess is apposed - if I had someone paying my mortage I would fight to keep that as well.

Look if a businuess has 10 adult workers and they are paying them all minimum with a living wage at 16 bucks per hour the break down is as follows

Full time hours - 2080

Difference in pay $5 per hour

Total 10 employees x 10,400 = $104000.00 per year in tax payer subsidies.

If someone was tax free paying that for my home I would fight it tooth and nail as well. For places like Walmart that adds up to over a Billion a year in Canada in tax free handouts to keep their profit margins.

I also get it that small businuess needs to compete with big businuess and that is what keeps putting pressure on you. I would suggest the following rules should be in place

- All companies ( collectivley not individually ) with profits exceeding 250 Million per year should be forced to pay a minimum wage that reflects the living wage.

- The extra tax revenue that is collected as a result of the living wage paid to the above employees have a portion put aside for small businuess

- Small businuess that pays a living wage may write off the portion between minimum and living wage

- Small businuess that can not afford to pay a living wage must prove this to be accurate then in a joint program with welfare and employement insurance the goverment can match people to work and pay the top up portion to a living wage with the employer paying minimum.

And I disagree with your comments that minimum wage earners have less stressful or physical jobs. Some of the most back breaking work I did in my youth was ditch digging and spetic tank work for mininimum wage during the summer. I get it that the work was an oppurtunity to gain useful skills and I was ok with the pay. Let me tell you though that work was physically demanding and the spectic tank work was disgusting and stressful. This is my point where I say the right wing demonizes low paid work as somehow not being hard work and only for the lazy. It in fact is far from it.

And in regards to entry level jobs - Ask yourself this.... Is this employement during school hours or over night? If yes then its adult work not student work. As entry level adult work if it only pays minimum wage - Why? If its in a tire shop and the clean up kid starts at minimum and as they get skills with changing tires they move up the ladder to higher wages... I get it they traded wages for skills upgrades with a path to achieving it. If the work does not provide specific experience that is required to move up ( and work just for the sake of calling it work doesn't count ) - then I disagree that they are entry level. In order to be entry level there must be the upward path with skills gained along the way specific to the job. What companies that are using unskilled labour that offers nothing more than saying they had a job - its not entry level - its unskilled labour and deserves to be paid above minimum.

Mom and pop restaurants for example... I have no issue with them bringing in Kitchen helper at minimum and once they get 2000 hours then moving them to cooks helper and providing a pay raise. If the employer is offering job skills training that is recognized as legitmate training then that has value - and put together with minimum may be a reasonable wage. Work without recognized training is nothing more than labourer work and shouldn't get a free ride

I see you're very interested in making business running decisions for businesses that aren't yours.

[Jägermeister]

I love the fact that some people actually believe raising the minimum wage will have a major impact on poverty.

"The poor people will be making more money, problem solved!"

It's not that simple people.

[Jägermeister]

@iwtl

The big concern about raising is minimum wage is the inflation it creates across the board. Small business owner now have to compete with wages from big chains.

If my employees are making $16-18 per hour, is that $2 per hour enough incentive to work in a demanding work environment when for $15 per hour you could work at your local Walmart or McDonalds and put half the effort in. No it’s not, my employees are going to expect a similar wage increase.

I’m left with three options, Increase prices to make up for operation expenses (which mean’s now you have to pay more for my service), take a hit from my own salary, or hire less employees and expect the same output (not realistic).

Let’s put is in math terms, if my business in brings in $300,000 gross. A rough statement looks like, 25% (75k) goes to operation costs, 45% (135k) goes to employee cost, and 30% (90K) is was I take home. Currently I pay out 135,000 in 4 employee expenses at an average of $16.88 per hour. If they expect a raise to even just $19 per hour which still might not be competitive enough to retain them. That means my employee expenses now jumps to $152,000. Where does that 17K come from? I’m going to have to raise prices. Depending on the market I am in, raising prices could put me out of business, as the bigger national companies can take the wage increase hit much easier than I and not have to increase service prices. Customers are not loyal to local anymore, They are easily bought to who provides the cheapest option.

Bigger companies do things at a much larger scale then everyone else, they can purchase everything in bulk at lower costs, which means their operation costs are much less. They can take the hit (wage increases) off the top without having to increase sales at much because they have way higher margins to play with than everyone else. All increasing minimum wage is going to do is hurt the small business’ and strengthen the market share big corporations have on the market.

In today’s society minimum wage is set as a starting out job. Jobs for people just entering the workforce. Your right no person should be living off minimum wage, But the only jobs that are paying minimum wage are the ones that are (less work, less stress, less effort). Once you start getting into the jobs that require more effort, the wage tends to go up. In my opinion anyone currently making minimum wage is doing so by choice. There are ton of jobs available that pay above the minimum wage level, all you have to do is actually want to put the effort in.

There should be better ways to help people stuck in poverty but raising minimum wage doesn’t help their cause. Companies that have the option will now look to overseas’ for cheaper labour (reducing jobs). Services and products increase (meaning now you have to spend more). Inflation balances it out.

Thank you.

[Sapper]

Can you cite that? I'd like to read what you quoted.

Thing is, Notley made it well known she would hike the minimum wage before the election. People voted for "NDP" as a general rule in our elections so they accepted what comes with it.

I mean, you can't elect a "party" and not expect there to be policies you think suck. Hence why parties are pointless.

I see you're very interested in making business running decisions for businesses that aren't yours.

I see you suppport picking my pockets to pay for their profit margins. Sorry but if I gotta pay to top up those employees I believe I should have some input into how my taxes are used. Corperate socialism is becomming extremly taxing to say the lest

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Can you cite that? I'd like to read what you quoted.

Thing is, Notley made it well known she would hike the minimum wage before the election. People voted for "NDP" as a general rule in our elections so they accepted what comes with it.

I mean, you can't elect a "party" and not expect there to be policies you think suck. Hence why parties are pointless.

Here's the link.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/lammam-and-clemens-increasing-the-minimum-wage-wont-reduce-poverty

As far as the election went, it was a whirl wind of things that lead NDP to winning. It wasn't so much as people voted for NDP because they believed in their platform as it was Alberta was fed up with Prentice and NDP was the result. I mean people voted for Deborah Drever in their riding area, she lasted a whole week and now we pay her a 125k per year to do nothing, for the next four years as a result. Talk about wasting money.

[Hugor Hill]

LOL @ Fox News and anyone who cites them.

[Mr. Ambien]

Here's the link.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/lammam-and-clemens-increasing-the-minimum-wage-wont-reduce-poverty

As far as the election went, it was a whirl wind of things that lead NDP to winning. It wasn't so much as people voted for NDP because they believed in their platform as it was Alberta was fed up with Prentice and NDP was the result. I mean people voted for Deborah Drever in their riding area, she lasted a whole week and now we pay her a 125k per year to do nothing, for the next four years as a result. Talk about wasting money.

Thanks dude.

I wouldn't say that Drever is doing nothing, she still has riding she represents to look after and cut deals for.

[Sapper]

The linked story is written by the Fraser Institute. It was also based on the economic realities for Alberata Only WHILE THE OIL BOOM as on. Thanks dude - I almost considered it until I saw the source. I would suggest that nearly umm - zero of the information in that story is now correct.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304675504579391201355442502

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/1010-minimum-wage_n_4532723.html

And one could easily find a ton of posts from US Tea Party supporters claiming having any minium wage at all destroys the economy. Heck they even go so far as to say cutting the rate would help poor people.

In the end people most seemed entrenched on their position based on which side of the Minimum wage they are on ( earning it or paying it ).

And your thread should come with a spoiler alert so people don't spill coffee laughing - Fraser institute lmao .... just like the union you almost had me

[Hugor Hill]

The linked story is written by the Fraser Institute. It was also based on the economic realities for Alberata Only WHILE THE OIL BOOM as on. Thanks dude - I almost considered it until I saw the source. I would suggest that nearly umm - zero of the information in that story is now correct.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304675504579391201355442502

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/1010-minimum-wage_n_4532723.html

And one could easily find a ton of posts from US Tea Party supporters claiming having any minium wage at all destroys the economy. Heck they even go so far as to say cutting the rate would help poor people.

In the end people most seemed entrenched on their position based on which side of the Minimum wage they are on ( earning it or paying it ).

And your thread should come with a spoiler alert so people don't spill coffee laughing - Fraser institute lmao .... just like the union you almost had me

Again, only the pathetic ones would give any credit to such fiction.