Tim Hortons Heirs Cut Paid Breaks and Benefits After Minimum Wage Hike

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It's not a matter of being like other countries, because, yes, we are Canada, but rather taking examples that work in other countries and learning from them. Take the names of countries aside and let's collectively look at what works and what doesn't and become the best Canada that we can be.

Well the countries he mentioned are full blown socialist nations so no thank you to that. Certainly we are not looking to follow the American method, we are Canada, maybe we aren't perfect but probably closer to perfect than any other nation on earth.

[Kragar]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I agree with a lot of what @ForsbergTheGreat says but I do disagree with some things. @Kragar made a good post asking would raising the minimum wage stop the end to only rich and poor?

 

We do need a healthy middle class which unfortunately imo minimum wage workers don't fall in to. My biggest concern is the cost of living in Canada, even middle class workers are suffering. 

Exactly.  Low skilled jobs should never be the driver of an established economy.  Especially considering how the majority of people in our countries have far more education, and education opportunities, than the majority of the world.  Technology has been whittling away at middle-class jobs for a couple hundred years now, and that isn't going to change.  Despite his speeches and best intentions, Trump will not change that here in the US - those kinds of factory jobs are gone.  Technology is now also cutting down on low-skilled jobs.  

 

If you force low-skilled people to be overpaid compared to higher skilled workers, there will be more demand for those low-skilled jobs.  There will be people who decide they would rather not work or study so hard, and get by with whatever job they can get that meets their needs.  The less low-skilled jobs that are available, the tougher it is on teens and immigrants looking to get started in the workplace.  And, if you raise most of the other wages so you still compensate skill, then those pushing for min-wage increases haven't gained anything, because you just get more inflation.  

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Well the countries he mentioned are full blown socialist nations so no thank you to that. Certainly we are not looking to follow the American method, we are Canada, maybe we aren't perfect but probably closer to perfect than any other nation on earth.

Yeah, it's not all rosy there.

 

Denmark, Sweden and Norway: their VAT makes our sales taxes look wonderful (25% on goods and services, for most things).  Earn average income in Denmark, you are going to pay about 45% of that in income tax.  Compare that with what Canadians are paying, with your already sizable safety net.  Or, try putting those taxes into place in the US, where half of the people don't pay income tax.  Give them a 100% raise and then take half in taxes?  Yeah, that will solve the wealth gap here  

 

No wonder they need higher wages.  Yes, Nordic countries get more is social services, for now.  Like anywhere else, as their average age gets higher, that creates a greater strain on social services.  For those places more dependent on social services, the more they'll be impacted by this demographic shift.  And given how those countries are typically less accommodating for immigrants, immigration won't solve that issue as well as some might hope.

 

It's great to look outside for influence on how to do things better at home.  I think the solution is far more complicated than what is being suggested here.

[Jester13]

19 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Yeah, it's not all rosy there.

 

Denmark, Sweden and Norway: their VAT makes our sales taxes look wonderful (25% on goods and services, for most things).  Earn average income in Denmark, you are going to pay about 45% of that in income tax.  Compare that with what Canadians are paying, with your already sizable safety net.  Or, try putting those taxes into place in the US, where half of the people don't pay income tax.  Give them a 100% raise and then take half in taxes?  Yeah, that will solve the wealth gap here  

 

No wonder they need higher wages.  Yes, Nordic countries get more is social services, for now.  Like anywhere else, as their average age gets higher, that creates a greater strain on social services.  For those places more dependent on social services, the more they'll be impacted by this demographic shift.  And given how those countries are typically less accommodating for immigrants, immigration won't solve that issue as well as some might hope.

 

It's great to look outside for influence on how to do things better at home.  I think the solution is far more complicated than what is being suggested here.

I completely agree with the bolded. One of the reasons why it works in those countries is because of their size and the fact that they are such homogenous societies. The one thing I see that they do better, which we could learn from, is to look long term on issues and find solutions to current and future problems--i.e. proactive rather than reactive.

 

Having said this, I believe in the social safety net and think we can do better/be more efficient in order to improve on being there for each other as a society. I think not enough people are paying their share of taxes, and I want to see us transition away from fossil fuels an onto clean energy quicker, in such ways as training programs for those working in the fossil fuel industry, for example.

 

One of my biggest laments about Canada is that we are laggards in many ways. We have opportunities to be leaders in so many ways in the world, yet our in-fighting between ideologies and political parties hinders us from making strides.

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Current minimum wage $11.35 x 40/w x4weeks -25% deductions = $1362.00

Rent w/ utilities $475 (Prince George w/ 1 roomate basement suite) 

food $300

bus pass $50

clothing $50

cell phone $60

entertainment $100

emergency fund $100

cable and internet $75

savings $150

-------------------

remaining $2

 

If someone thinks that making minimum wage is not a fare wage they are an idiot. 

 

 

 

Can you now make one of these for a single parent?

 

Also, why do think minimum wage has incrementally increased since its conception in the 20s?

[TheOgRook]

27 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Can you now make one of these for a single parent?

 

Also, why do think minimum wage has incrementally increased since its conception in the 20s?

And not in Prince George lol 

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Current minimum wage $11.35 x 40/w x4weeks -25% deductions = $1362.00

Rent w/ utilities $475 (Prince George w/ 1 roomate basement suite) 

food $300

bus pass $50

clothing $50

cell phone $60

entertainment $100

emergency fund $100

cable and internet $75

savings $150

-------------------

remaining $2

 

If someone thinks that making minimum wage is not a fare wage they are an idiot. 

 

 

 

Anyone that spells fair  by typing fare is an ........

 

sorry could not resist..

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jester13 said:

I completely agree with the bolded. One of the reasons why it works in those countries is because of their size and the fact that they are such homogenous societies. The one thing I see that they do better, which we could learn from, is to look long term on issues and find solutions to current and future problems--i.e. proactive rather than reactive.

 

Having said this, I believe in the social safety net and think we can do better/be more efficient in order to improve on being there for each other as a society. I think not enough people are paying their share of taxes, and I want to see us transition away from fossil fuels an onto clean energy quicker, in such ways as training programs for those working in the fossil fuel industry, for example.

 

One of my biggest laments about Canada is that we are laggards in many ways. We have opportunities to be leaders in so many ways in the world, yet our in-fighting between ideologies and political parties hinders us from making strides.

Ya like an Energy superpower.

[Jester13]

22 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Ya like an Energy superpower.

 

Are you against transitioning from fossil to clean energy?

 

 

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, Jester13 said:

I completely agree with the bolded. One of the reasons why it works in those countries is because of their size and the fact that they are such homogenous societies. The one thing I see that they do better, which we could learn from, is to look long term on issues and find solutions to current and future problems--i.e. proactive rather than reactive.

 

Having said this, I believe in the social safety net and think we can do better/be more efficient in order to improve on being there for each other as a society. I think not enough people are paying their share of taxes, and I want to see us transition away from fossil fuels an onto clean energy quicker, in such ways as training programs for those working in the fossil fuel industry, for example.

 

One of my biggest laments about Canada is that we are laggards in many ways. We have opportunities to be leaders in so many ways in the world, yet our in-fighting between ideologies and political parties hinders us from making strides.

It is interesting with Canada.  Resources have supported the country for so long, but I've always felt (I grew up in Lower Mainland, moved to US in 1999) that more is needed to drive the economy than such a strong dependence on the natural resource sector.  The problem is more than just politics, but I agree with you.

 

I'm torn on the safety net concept.  I can see the obvious value in it, especially with many medical procedures and care can get quite pricey.  But there are costs, and not just monetary ones.  When government gets involved, actual costs goes up, since those government workers need to be paid to administer whatever care is involved (health care, unemployment, pensions, etc.).  Also, putting the government in charge takes your power away.  You cannot decide how your CP pension funds are invested, so you earn less than you would if you invested in simple index funds.  If we each make an effort to invest for our own retirement, and take responsibility to fund our own unemployment risk, we are better off than being dependent on the safety net.   For health care, the CMA has far more input as to what is covered than you do.  There are plenty of non-medicinal treatments that are treated as second-class as far as our insurance goes.  The safety net allows for decreased personal responsibility.  Some may be fine with that trade-off, but many people see the faults there, too. 

 

Personally, I think the net needs reduction in many areas, and probably improvements in others.  Despite my differences with @kingofsurrey here, I agree that some services he mentions need help.  But overall, we as a society need to recapture a sense of personal responsibility, and not depend on the safety net so much.  It should be there for emergencies that we cannot deal within our own families.  Perhaps by being more responsible for ourselves, the government can do a better job and have more resources to help those that are more desperate.

[kingofsurrey]

3 minutes ago, Kragar said:

It is interesting with Canada.  Resources have supported the country for so long, but I've always felt (I grew up in Lower Mainland, moved to US in 1999) that more is needed to drive the economy than such a strong dependence on the natural resource sector.  The problem is more than just politics, but I agree with you.

 

I'm torn on the safety net concept.  I can see the obvious value in it, especially with many medical procedures and care can get quite pricey.  But there are costs, and not just monetary ones.  When government gets involved, actual costs goes up, since those government workers need to be paid to administer whatever care is involved (health care, unemployment, pensions, etc.).  Also, putting the government in charge takes your power away.  You cannot decide how your CP pension funds are invested, so you earn less than you would if you invested in simple index funds.  If we each make an effort to invest for our own retirement, and take responsibility to fund our own unemployment risk, we are better off than being dependent on the safety net.   For health care, the CMA has far more input as to what is covered than you do.  There are plenty of non-medicinal treatments that are treated as second-class as far as our insurance goes.  The safety net allows for decreased personal responsibility.  Some may be fine with that trade-off, but many people see the faults there, too. 

 

Personally, I think the net needs reduction in many areas, and probably improvements in others.  Despite my differences with @kingofsurrey here, I agree that some services he mentions need help.  But overall, we as a society need to recapture a sense of personal responsibility, and not depend on the safety net so much.  It should be there for emergencies that we cannot deal within our own families.  Perhaps by being more responsible for ourselves, the government can do a better job and have more resources to help those that are more desperate.

Families structures are destroyed in the ever changing , ever moving BC lower mainland.

We can not depend on families providing support for sick , mentally ill or the injured,  or even unemployed.

We can not afford to have thoussands of homeless on the streets of BC going to the emerg at night because it is warm and safe.

 

You are wrong in the the American medical system is actually way more expensive to offer...  and prevention is way more cost saving than  emergency.....

 

Canada has it right and the USA has it wrong.  

 

A  basic minimum level of living /  care  / medical   is actually going to save our government money in the long run as  emergency med , police,  drug treatment,  shelters,,,  etc would drop tremendously.

 

Caring for our neighbours is an investment.  It will save us all money in the long run. 

[Ryan Strome]

35 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

 

Are you against transitioning from fossil to clean energy?

 

 

Nope, but this Country has the ability to make huge money during the transition. Obviously clean energy is the future but leaving money on the table is silly, in fact we can use that money to invest in new green technologies.

[Kragar]

47 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Families structures are destroyed in the ever changing , ever moving BC lower mainland.

We can not depend on families providing support for sick , mentally ill or the injured,  or even unemployed.

We can not afford to have thoussands of homeless on the streets of BC going to the emerg at night because it is warm and safe.

 

You are wrong in the the American medical system is actually way more expensive to offer...  and prevention is way more cost saving than  emergency.....

 

Canada has it right and the USA has it wrong.  

 

A  basic minimum level of living /  care  / medical   is actually going to save our government money in the long run as  emergency med , police,  drug treatment,  shelters,,,  etc would drop tremendously.

 

Caring for our neighbours is an investment.  It will save us all money in the long run. 

Then some people need to smarten up.  That may be where society is heading, but it's a dark path.  Government money isn't going to fix that.  In fact, if it's not temporary (which it rarely is) it will eventually make matters worse as government dependency increases.  

 

I understand people and their families can't cover everything, and shouldn't be expected to cover everything, but there are some things we can (and should) do on our own.  If more people can take on just a little more responsibility to be less dependent on government, that will leave more for the government to help those, like the mentally ill, who truly need the help more.

 

I never said that the US system was cheaper.  The government is involved in health care here, too, even before Obamacare.  I said that government involvement increases costs.

 

A basic minimum level of living is a different discussion than minimum wage, since even the minimum wage rate you are supporting would not provide that.  Regardless, I disagree that most of those items will save money.  Increase wages and benefits, and addicts and drunks will just be be addicts and drunks with more money to spend on their vices.  Shelters might see less demand, but the other services, not so much.  

 

You keep coming back with something like "caring for our neighbors is an investment".  Some people can afford that investment and others can't, but your social policies and proposals don't fully succeed in making that distinction.  If more people made the investment and learned to take better care of themselves, their families, and even their neighbors, we'd save even more money. 

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

You keep coming back with something like "caring for our neighbors is an investment".  Some people can afford that investment and others can't, but your social policies and proposals don't fully succeed in making that distinction.  If more people made the investment and learned to take better care of themselves, their families, and even their neighbors, we'd save even more money. 

We can all afford to live in a country that takes care of its citizens and provides a basic level of housing ( shared ) , food , and clothing to its citizens.  

 

Thats the kind of a country that will move forward and eliminate child poverty.   Kids that are fed / and safe sheltered will actually be able to get a education..... and the poverty cycle may finally be broken.

 

That is the country that i want to live in.   A country that is moving forward and improving the lives of its citizens.

 

A country is only committed  to improving the lives e of the 1 %   ......   that  is not progress and can not be sustained in the long term. 

 

[Kragar]

35 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

We can all afford to live in a country that takes care of its citizens and provides a basic level of housing ( shared ) , food , and clothing to its citizens.  

 

Thats the kind of a country that will move forward and eliminate child poverty.   Kids that are fed / and safe sheltered will actually be able to get a education..... and the poverty cycle may finally be broken.

 

That is the country that i want to live in.   A country that is moving forward and improving the lives of its citizens.

 

A country is only committed  to improving the lives e of the 1 %   ......   that  is not progress and can not be sustained in the long term. 

 

Bullcrap.  Someone out there making 35-40K, struggling to raise a kid or two, can afford to pay more to support someone else?  Ahhh, no.

 

Anyhow, we're talking minimum wage, not living wage.  Two different things, with two different goals.  Child poverty is not going to get resolved by changing the minimum wage.  

 

I feel we've come to an impasse.  You've made some claims.  I've made my points.  When you can't debate them, you return to emotional platitudes with nothing more to support them than wishes.   Time to crank up the DVR and see what happened with the Canucks.  Enjoy the weekend.

[CanuckinEdm]

6 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Can you now make one of these for a single parent?

 

Also, why do think minimum wage has incrementally increased since its conception in the 20s?

Well I'll assume 1 child (in diapers) you would get $533 extra per month from the government (tax free) plus child support from the other parent assuming they also make minimum wage you would get another $200 or so per month.

 

Current minimum wage $11.35 x 40/w x4weeks -25% deductions = $1362.00 + $733.00 child money 

Rent w/ utilities $475 (Prince George w/ 1 roomate basement suite) 

food diapers ect $550

bus pass $50

clothing $50 x2

child care $600

home phone $20

cell phone $60 

entertainment $50

emergency fund $100

cable and internet $75

savings $150

-------------------

remaining $0

 

I'm fine with an incremental increase on minimum wage but 32% is not incremental. 

 

6 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Anyone that spells fair  by typing fare is an ........

 

sorry could not resist..

Phone auto correct, but yeah great argument on how the current minimum wage is not a fair wage...  

 

6 hours ago, TheOgRook said:

And not in Prince George lol 

You cant and should not expect to live in the most expensive city in Canada making minimum wage that being said you can move to most smaller cities that have normal rental prices. 

[Jester13]

58 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Well I'll assume 1 child (in diapers) you would get $533 extra per month from the government (tax free) plus child support from the other parent assuming they also make minimum wage you would get another $200 or so per month.

 

Current minimum wage $11.35 x 40/w x4weeks -25% deductions = $1362.00 + $733.00 child money 

Rent w/ utilities $475 (Prince George w/ 1 roomate basement suite) 

food diapers ect $550

bus pass $50

clothing $50 x2

child care $600

home phone $20

cell phone $60 

entertainment $50

emergency fund $100

cable and internet $75

savings $150

-------------------

remaining $0

 

I'm fine with an incremental increase on minimum wage but 32% is not incremental. 

 

Phone auto correct, but yeah great argument on how the current minimum wage is not a fair wage...  

 

You cant and should not expect to live in the most expensive city in Canada making minimum wage that being said you can move to most smaller cities that have normal rental prices. 

I learned a couple of things today:

 

1) One simplified low-income budget fits all situations of people living on low incomes; and 

 

2) Everyone living on low income should be displaced and move to smaller cities where there's cheap rent and an abundance of jobs. 

 

FWIW, when you call people idiots for having a different opinion...

 

... Well, I'm sure you can think of a few ways to finish that sentence on your own. 

[kingofsurrey]

5 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I learned a couple of things today:

 

1) One simplified low-income budget fits all situations of people living on low incomes; and 

 

2) Everyone living on low income should be displaced and move to smaller cities where there's cheap rent and an abundance of jobs. 

 

FWIW, when you call people idiots for having a different opinion...

 

... Well, I'm sure you can think of a few ways to finish that sentence on your own. 

true that

 

candians won tbe lottery being born in this great country 

 

i am more than happy to help my needy neighbours 

 

when i help others , i am making my community a better place 

 

this only helps me and my kids 

 

we are so lucky to be canadian

[CanuckinEdm]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I learned a couple of things today:

 

1) One simplified low-income budget fits all situations of people living on low incomes; and 

 

2) Everyone living on low income should be displaced and move to smaller cities where there's cheap rent and an abundance of jobs. 

 

FWIW, when you call people idiots for having a different opinion...

 

... Well, I'm sure you can think of a few ways to finish that sentence on your own. 

I'm just showing that it is possible to live on minimum wage, as people have claimed that it isn't a liveable fair wage.

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, CanuckinEdm said:

I'm just showing that it is possible to live on minimum wage, as people have claimed that it isn't a liveable fair wage.

And I'm letting you know that, although you may be right in some cases, your example is far from the reality in most cases. But, hey, at least we can agree that the debate should actually be about how quickly and by how much minimum wage should increase.