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

[Warhippy]

44 minutes ago, cdubuya said:

a socialist dictatorship....

Not so much.  The pretense of socialism involves taking care of the people of the  state for the state.

 

It is a purely dictatorial country masquerading as something else 

[Jester13]

3 minutes ago, Dral said:

 

This is 100% absolutely wrong...

 

Almost all the peer reviewed studies done on minimum wage have shown that as long as the increases are small, the net overall effect on the economy is negligible...

 

 

 

Sorry, but only a few minutes of searching Google scholar provides lots of examples -  much more than opposing reports; in fact, I've still yet to find one - that raising minimum wage to keep up with inflation and the current standards of living helps economies in the long run, and after as little as a year or two. You either don't know how to do a proper search or you're lying through your teeth. 

[Dral]

7 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Sorry, but only a few minutes of searching Google scholar provides lots of examples -  much more than opposing reports; in fact, I've still yet to find one - that raising minimum wage to keep up with inflation and the current standards of living helps economies in the long run, and after as little as a year or two. You either don't know how to do a proper search or you're lying through your teeth. 

 

Ok so... I'm actually totally 100% not trying to insinuate or insult you right now.... because I'm prepared to have a serious discussion on this...

 

Where is your knowledge/education/experience that gives you your opinion, coming from? Did you read the the published research papers or just the over-view/tag line/synopsis? Are you prepared for a thorough discussion on the methodologies of any particular article we quote?

 

The data, on peer reviewed studies, shows that basically, as long as minimum wage increases are done in small increments over time, the overall effect on the economy is negligible... Testing out the causal impact on employment (not the economy, just on employment) is difficult and depends on what/where/how the analysis is done... and even what measure you are using (participation rates or unemployment rates).... it's very well known that how you frame a question will have a very profound impact on the results of your data...

 

 

So I'm going to admit right now that I actually don't know what "most economists" will tell you - I don't even know how you would define an "economist", and then to take a survey based on that definition... well I don't know the results of that anyways...

 

But I will tell you what an anecdotal survey of business professors take on this subject is - and that is "inconclusive" or "negligible"

 

 

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, Dral said:

 

Ok so... I'm actually totally 100% not trying to insinuate or insult you right now.... because I'm prepared to have a serious discussion on this...

 

Where is your knowledge/education/experience that gives you your opinion, coming from? Did you read the the published research papers or just the over-view/tag line/synopsis? Are you prepared for a thorough discussion on the methodologies of any particular article we quote?

 

The data, on peer reviewed studies, shows that basically, as long as minimum wage increases are done in small increments over time, the overall effect on the economy is negligible... Testing out the causal impact on employment (not the economy, just on employment) is difficult and depends on what/where/how the analysis is done... and even what measure you are using (participation rates or unemployment rates).... it's very well known that how you frame a question will have a very profound impact on the results of your data...

 

 

So I'm going to admit right now that I actually don't know what "most economists" will tell you - I don't even know how you would define an "economist", and then to take a survey based on that definition... well I don't know the results of that anyways...

 

But I will tell you what an anecdotal survey of business professors take on this subject is - and that is "inconclusive" or "negligible"

 

 

University economics, business and political science courses with lots of reading and research papers. I'm not an expert, by any means, but I'm decently educated on the subject. 

 

Admittedly, doing a quick search, because I haven't had to read full peer reviewed articles for a few years, I only read abstracts, but they are - after all - at the opening for that reason. 

 

Aside from that, what I'm reading from you  is that small incremental minimum wage increases over time will have negligible effects on an economy and that effects on employment rates are inconclusive.

 

If yes, please let me know why you're against increasing MW again? I mean, given the results you've given, why wouldn't you raise it if it the effects are negligible? 

 

In my experience, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong if shown so, increasing MW positively impacts a large portion of the lower-waged working population and even on workers making more than the new MW due to ripple effects; and fostering more spending from the bottom up subsequently helps businesses at the same time. In fact, an article I read today even stated that Walmart reported a positive impact very quickly after they increased their wages. (Walmart!). It also has a positive impact on society, such as helping families, minority groups, and overall those who need a higher wage to keep up with increasing inflation rates and standards of living that happens each year. 

 

Blowback on increases have always happened since MW was first introduced, yet historically the alarmist warnings has been shown to be quite unfounded, as - like you mentioned - reports (both peer reviewed and anecdotally from other countries around the world with their recent examples) show. 

[Dral]

21 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

University economics, business and political science courses with lots of reading and research papers. I'm not an expert, by any means, but I'm decently educated on the subject. 

 

Admittedly, doing a quick search, because I haven't had to read full peer reviewed articles for a few years, I only read abstracts, but they are - after all - at the opening for that reason. 

 

Aside from that, what I'm reading from you now - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that small incremental minimum wage increases over time will have negligible effects on an economy and that effects on employment rates are inconclusive.

 

If yes -  putting aside the fact that you'd now essentially be agreeing with me; although the reports I've read are more positive than negligible - please let me know why you're against increasing MW again? I mean, given the results you've given, why wouldn't you raise it if it the effects are negligible? 

 

In my experience, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong if shown so, increasing MW positively impacts a large portion of the lower-waged working population and even on workers making more than the new MW due to ripple effects; and fostering more spending from the bottom up subsequently helps businesses at the same time. In fact, an article I read today even stated that Walmart reported a positive impact very quickly after they increased their wages. (Walmart!). It also has a positive impact on society, such as helping families, minority groups, and overall those who need a higher wage to keep up with increasing inflation rates and standards of living that happens each year. 

 

Blowback on increases have always happened since MW was first introduced, yet historically the alarmist warnings has been shown to be quite unfounded, as - like you mentioned - reports (both peer reviewed and anecdotally from other countries around the world with their recent examples) show. 

 

No - I'm not agreeing with you - I'm firmly taking a stance in the "we should remove minimum wage completely" category...which is directly opposed to your "we should increase minimum wage" category...

 

 

So - lets start this off by both agreeing.... particular 'sound bites' taken from abstracts and conclusions of articles are a poor indication of what the data will show... (because you can not sum up an entire paper from any sentence in either the first or last page of a study)... that actually being able to calculate a causational effect on the economy is problematic in that it really depends on how your define the problem and the many many different factors you take into account...

 

 

 

[Jester13]

10 minutes ago, Dral said:

 

No - I'm not agreeing with you - I'm firmly taking a stance in the "we should remove minimum wage completely" category...which is directly opposed to your "we should increase minimum wage" category...

 

 

So - lets start this off by both agreeing.... particular 'sound bites' taken from abstracts and conclusions of articles are a poor indication of what the data will show... (because you can not sum up an entire paper from any sentence in either the first or last page of a study)... that actually being able to calculate a causational effect on the economy is problematic in that it really depends on how your define the problem and the many many different factors you take into account...

 

 

 

I deleted the bolded part after realizing as such. But I didn't realize you're on the side of completely getting rid of it. Damn. Why? 

 

Abstracts are designed to explain a report and its findings quickly, but I do agree that uncovering effects can be problematic, as there is so much involved and it can be hard to tangibly measure. 

 

My response earlier that most economists believe its a positive thing for an economy is better said as many (less hyperbolic). But all you have to do is look at basically every developed country having a mw that continues to increase over time. The real life positive examples, and reports, are out there, and they show the effects a proper living wage has are plentiful and, in my opinion, much better for society as a whole rather than just for business owners and corporations. I'd much rather live in an empathetic society that ensures its people are taken care than not. I'm not some far left hippie liberal, I just read lots of stuff about progressive countries that are doing things much better than Canada, and especially the US, are doing.

[J-23]

So...am I the only one who still drinks hot chocolate 

[Dral]

54 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I deleted the bolded part after realizing as such. But I didn't realize you're on the side of completely getting rid of it. Damn. Why? 

 

Abstracts are designed to explain a report and its findings quickly, but I do agree that uncovering effects can be problematic, as there is so much involved and it can be hard to tangibly measure. 

 

My response earlier that most economists believe its a positive thing for an economy is better said as many (less hyperbolic). But all you have to do is look at basically every developed country having a mw that continues to increase over time. The real life positive examples, and reports, are out there, and they show the effects a proper living wage has are plentiful and, in my opinion, much better for society as a whole rather than just for business owners and corporations. I'd much rather live in an empathetic society that ensures its people are taken care than not. I'm not some far left hippie liberal, I just read lots of stuff about progressive countries that are doing things much better than Canada, and especially the US, are doing.

 

Abstracts (and individual sentences in conclusions) do not necessarily state results of a paper, quite often they state the purpose or idea of why the paper was written...the problem with using a papers abstract or conclusion to sum it up, is that it's very easy to take and cherry pick out of context... what is actually shown - MSM is very much a culprit in this and I dont want either of us to quote something out of context...

 

Many economists believe its positive, and also many believe it's negative.... but the data, at best shows basically a neutral effect... although there is a significant coloration between MW increases and youth unemployment... after that, the interpretation of results is pretty much neutral at best...

 

 

Ok, so

"all you have to do is look at basically every developed country having a mw that continues to increase over time. The real life positive examples, and reports, are out there, and they show the effects a proper living wage has are plentiful"

 

Can we also look at basically every developed country that does not have a MW that continues to increase over time? Singapore is a great example... their GDP is amazing... yes some progressive countries are doing things better then Canada,, but some conservative countries are also doing things better then Canada...

 

 

 

I'm against minimum wage because I believe the number of people who are hurt by it are greater then the number of people who are helped by it... (and this number is greater in both the rich and poor people affected by it). I'm against minimum wage because I think a society, from top to bottom, is better off when there is competition and struggle, and incentive to make oneself and something else better then what is. I'm against MW because I think it promotes laziness and entitlement, despite class, culture, race and gender.... I'm against it because I think people should take responsibility for themselves, their work ethic and their ability to negotiate their own wage based on skills, knowledge and that work ethic.... and finally, I'm against MW because I think when people do take responsibility for themselves, instead of claim "society" or "life" owes them, (as in, claiming a fundamental human right), then our society and our country become much stronger as a better place to live in

 

 

"I'd much rather live in an empathetic society that ensures its people are taken care than not"

Again, people who are against minimum wage aren't against it because they are soulless monsters who want to exploit workers and rule the world... empathy is not a patent the pro-MW people can make a claim on... its about a different way of trying to help out those people everyone actually cares about...

 

I'm not a conservative, but I do think some conservative ideas are good... I'm not liberal, but I do think some liberal ideas are good... I'm a self loathing hedonistic nihilist, so don't assume my political affiliation

 

 

 

 

Ok, now we've got all of that out of the way....

 

Why do you think minimum wage is a necessity?

 

[riffraff]

11 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/why-a-15-minimum-wage-is-good-for-business/

 

When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.

When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.

So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.

 

So which is it?

 

 

 

Would really like to see how Macleans comes to these conclusions.

 

vacations? Luxury goods?  In the same sentence as minimum wage?  Wtf?

 

more nutritious food?  Prove it.  Do people's health and lifestyle decisions suddenly change with pay increase?

 

eating out = waste of money.

 

i haven't taken a vacation since 2007.  I have a family. I don't make minimum wage.

 

earn the lifestyle you want.

[Dral]

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

 

So which is it?

 

 

 

Would really like to see how Macleans comes to these conclusions.

 

vacations? Luxury goods?  In the same sentence as minimum wage?  Wtf?

 

more nutritious food?  Prove it.  Do people's health and lifestyle decisions suddenly change with pay increase?

 

eating out = waste of money.

 

i haven't taken a vacation since 2007.  I have a family. I don't make minimum wage.

 

earn the lifestyle you want.

 

You didn't bold the important part...

 

 

"

When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.

When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.

So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.

"

[D-Money]

12 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Why don’t you tell me what you think an individual right is?  Define it, then we will both no what you are talking about when you claim a guaranteed minimum wage as a right. Secondly, you might want to point out to me where in the charter a minimum wage is guaranteed...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25.(1)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself [or herself] and of his [or her] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to se-curity in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

The whole point of minimum wage legislation is ensuring that people aren't being paid so low that it affects their ability to care for their family's needs...which is chartered human right.

 

Sure, it doesn't state the words "minimum wage", but 1+1=2.

 

 

12 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Thirdly, insults are not arguments, they simply illustrate a person’s complete lack of the ability to make a rational argument - ad hominem attacks are simple logical fallacies employed by the arrogantly ignorant.  

Thanks for that. Irony is always at its best when encapsulated within a single sentence.

 

 

12 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

The source of higher wages is not government fiat, it is increased productivity.  Ever wonder why some jobs garner higher wages than others, it isn’t because some employers are more generous to some professions than others, it is because some talents, and levels of ability are more in demand than others.  Oil companies pay more for petroleum engineers than they pay for janitors because they HAVE to.  The free market requires businesses to bid up the price paid for the quality people they need - it is not charity, it is supply and demand that drives up wages.  Successful businesses are always on the lookout for talent, that is why headhunting firms exist, it is why businesses advertise for employees, and why in non-unionized firms wages are often stratified, even among people doing ostensibly the same job.  Most people that make more money do so because their skill is in demand. If you are not making what you think you should, then maybe your first step is to look in a mirror.

That sounds great, but how does that explain every successful labour movement in history? History is full of cases where jobs garnered higher wages and better working conditions only because people/government MADE the ones in charge do it. And even though it may have ate into profits, it led to better living conditions for many, and businessmen generally still made plenty of money.

 

Much of the "supply and demand" in the labour market is based on forced checks and balances, such as minimum wage and labour unions. Non-unionized employers have to offer wages and benefits that attract workers from unionized employers...but if the unions didn't exist, eventually the wages and benefits across the job market would be retracted. The problem in recent years has been trying to compete in a global economy with well-paid employees against countries that can more freely exploit their labour force. Some say the solution is to become more like those countries. I don't like the sound of that.

 

For example, let's say the minimum wage legislation went the other way, and minimum wage was set back to...for example's sake $6/hr. Now, the immediate effect might not be that noticeable, as most companies wouldn't claw back wages immediately. But eventually, after a series of re-hires, cutbacks, etc., what do you think the average wage would be at McDonald's, Tim Horton's, or your local gas station? Probably closer to $6 than to the minimum wage in 2017. Will that have any effect on the livelihood of minimum wage workers? But would it increase the profits for businesses? So...which is more important?

 

12 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

No, the rich and the wealthy are unlikely to give you anything, why should they?  Are you willing to pay $20 bucks for a ten dollar burger?  People who have earned their wealth are usually very good at getting value for a buck, but when they see a value, they see an opportunity and are willing to pay for it - the rich didn’t get rich by letting opportunities go to waste.  And you always have the right to create your own job instead of whining about what other people won’t give you.  If you want more, work for it, create something of value, get off your donkey.

I am not personally wealthy, but I have a close family member who is. Along with numerous successful investments, he runs a business that you wouldn't think would be as profitable as it is, and yet it is a cash-generating machine. Expenses are not very high, as he only generally needs to employ one staff member at a time. If there was a small business that could easily absorb a minimum wage increase, his would be it. The effect on his outstanding profits will be paltry at best.

 

However, on multiple occasions I've heard him whining about the minimum wage hike. Now, I love the guy, but every time I just want to punch him in his stupid head. He's a multi-millionaire, and he's still in his 40's. His business is very successful. This will have almost no affect on him whatsoever, but help those who work for him. In fact, I'm perturbed that he wasn't already paying as much in wages. But of course he wasn't - because he didn't need to. His business mindset was only concerned with the bottom line.

 

The bolded statement in the paragraph reminded me of this. Because what you say is true. When people who have earned their wealth see an opportunity, they jump on it - and that often includes the opportunity to exploit others. Some "willing to pay for it", by selling out morals, ideals, dignity of self and others. (I'm not saying my family member is completely like this, but I see the tendency when business is involved.)

 

If a $6 minimum wage was law, and business owners could get away with paying $6/hr, guess what they'd pay? Probably $7 - and they'd convince themselves the extra dollar was just evidence that they're a generous fellow. But perhaps, if your business model is based on paying people so little that their life sucks, and making profits from their work, maybe it's not all that viable. Maybe you're not such a smart guy. Maybe your community is better off without your business in the first place.

 

For me, just a quick look in the history books and around the world convinces me a minimum wage is absolutely necessary to prevent rampant exploitation.

 

12 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

You are right that ‘average’ people don’t make millions waiting around for somebody to give them what that party has worked for.  It is extraordinary people who do well at anything, whether it is for money, or just the satisfaction of doing something well.  Being envious and resentful will earn you little, if you want more, do something of value to others.  If you want to be loved, be a person who loves; if you want to be rich, be a person who produces wealth, if you want to be happy, find a way to do what you love to do for a living - but it won’t be easy, you’ll have to work hard to be good at something worthwhile.  

I am not envious or resentful at all. I am happy with my job and life. Happier than the aforementioned family member. And it seems, much happier than his friend, who was one of the richest men in Canada, but committed suicide a couple of months back.

 

And, I'm happy for all of the people in my city and community who will benefit from the minimum wage hike. I hope your families are more secure and satisfied as a result.

 

As for the business owners who can't afford to pay the wage, and go out of business, you have my condolences. But if you want to be successful, it won't be easy - you'll have to work hard to be good at something worthwhile.

 

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, J-23 said:

So...am I the only one who still drinks hot chocolate 

NO man, I found this delightful after eight hot chocolate mix that goes amazingly well with some baileys and creme de menthe

[riffraff]

14 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Doing the right thing is always simple. Didn't your mommy ever teach you that. 

Wtf?

 

doing the right thing, is most often the most difficult!  That's why nobody does the right thing.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 hour ago, D-Money said:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25.(1)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself [or herself] and of his [or her] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to se-curity in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

The whole point of minimum wage legislation is ensuring that people aren't being paid so low that it affects their ability to care for their family's needs...which is chartered human right.

 

Sure, it doesn't state the words "minimum wage", but 1+1=2.

 

 

Thanks for that. Irony is always at its best when encapsulated within a single sentence.

 

 

That sounds great, but how does that explain every successful labour movement in history? History is full of cases where jobs garnered higher wages and better working conditions only because people/government MADE the ones in charge do it. And even though it may have ate into profits, it led to better living conditions for many, and businessmen generally still made plenty of money.

 

Much of the "supply and demand" in the labour market is based on forced checks and balances, such as minimum wage and labour unions. Non-unionized employers have to offer wages and benefits that attract workers from unionized employers...but if the unions didn't exist, eventually the wages and benefits across the job market would be retracted. The problem in recent years has been trying to compete in a global economy with well-paid employees against countries that can more freely exploit their labour force. Some say the solution is to become more like those countries. I don't like the sound of that.

 

For example, let's say the minimum wage legislation went the other way, and minimum wage was set back to...for example's sake $6/hr. Now, the immediate effect might not be that noticeable, as most companies wouldn't claw back wages immediately. But eventually, after a series of re-hires, cutbacks, etc., what do you think the average wage would be at McDonald's, Tim Horton's, or your local gas station? Probably closer to $6 than to the minimum wage in 2017. Will that have any effect on the livelihood of minimum wage workers? But would it increase the profits for businesses? So...which is more important?

 

I am not personally wealthy, but I have a close family member who is. Along with numerous successful investments, he runs a business that you wouldn't think would be as profitable as it is, and yet it is a cash-generating machine. Expenses are not very high, as he only generally needs to employ one staff member at a time. If there was a small business that could easily absorb a minimum wage increase, his would be it. The effect on his outstanding profits will be paltry at best.

 

However, on multiple occasions I've heard him whining about the minimum wage hike. Now, I love the guy, but every time I just want to punch him in his stupid head. He's a multi-millionaire, and he's still in his 40's. His business is very successful. This will have almost no affect on him whatsoever, but help those who work for him. In fact, I'm perturbed that he wasn't already paying as much in wages. But of course he wasn't - because he didn't need to. His business mindset was only concerned with the bottom line.

 

The bolded statement in the paragraph reminded me of this. Because what you say is true. When people who have earned their wealth see an opportunity, they jump on it - and that often includes the opportunity to exploit others. Some "willing to pay for it", by selling out morals, ideals, dignity of self and others. (I'm not saying my family member is completely like this, but I see the tendency when business is involved.)

 

If a $6 minimum wage was law, and business owners could get away with paying $6/hr, guess what they'd pay? Probably $7 - and they'd convince themselves the extra dollar was just evidence that they're a generous fellow. But perhaps, if your business model is based on paying people so little that their life sucks, and making profits from their work, maybe it's not all that viable. Maybe you're not such a smart guy. Maybe your community is better off without your business in the first place.

 

For me, just a quick look in the history books and around the world convinces me a minimum wage is absolutely necessary to prevent rampant exploitation.

 

I am not envious or resentful at all. I am happy with my job and life. Happier than the aforementioned family member. And it seems, much happier than his friend, who was one of the richest men in Canada, but committed suicide a couple of months back.

 

And, I'm happy for all of the people in my city and community who will benefit from the minimum wage hike. I hope your families are more secure and satisfied as a result.

 

As for the business owners who can't afford to pay the wage, and go out of business, you have my condolences. But if you want to be successful, it won't be easy - you'll have to work hard to be good at something worthwhile.

 

I really enjoyed your post, D-Money, and wholeheartedly agree with the stance and sentiment. The bolded made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that. Today has been challenging, and that sentence took the edge off.

[Shift-4]

12 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Wtf?

 

doing the right thing, is most often the most difficult!  That's why nobody does the right thing.

If we drank, we would make great drinking buddies!

[riffraff]

1 minute ago, Shift-4 said:

If we drank, we would make great drinking buddies!

I drink.

[Sapper]

It is time the tax payer says ENOUGH of the right wing nonsense. Every single job that is held by someone NOT still in high school,  and is paid below $15 bucks per hour , IS subsidized by the tax payer. Those employees don't earn enough to pay taxes - and they qualify for maximum government subsidies such as GST rebates etc. Years ago businesses use to pay a fair share of taxes so could use the argument that their business taxes paid for it so it was a wash.  Now with businesses paying the lowest tax rates in our history - it is you and I paying nearly the entire bill.  We should legislate that all businesses paying adults less than $15 per hour must include on the receipt how much annually tax payers are topping up their wages.  Imagine at a tims seeing that a couple hundred grand a year of your taxes was used to keep that owners profit margins.

 

Businuess tax cuts were given in part to address this and business pocketed the money - OUR money. I feel that all business tax cuts should be reversed completely.  Those that pay atleast 15 per hour can have the cuts back - those that don't wont. Tax cuts need to benefit the tax payer and not just profit margins.

 

Lets call it what it is - Business has had free run for 3 decades - and has controlled legislation across north America. The result is lower unionization - wages that have not kept up and credit debt is the highest in our history at the same time that corporate profits are also the highest in our history ( the 2 go hand in hand ).

 

Any company that can not or will not pay adult workers enough to eat and have some kind of indoor shelter should not be in business.  Tax dollars are not meant to be profit protection for companies and its time voters started holding politicians to account for selling out to business and doing nothing to protect working families and individuals.  I would love to be able to tell people not working to simply get a job - but we made it illegal for them to set up tents in the city and working waqes are too low to pay rent and eat.

 

Yes minimum is suppose to be a entry job wage - but it still needs to be enough to provide basic human needs. It's time voters stopped looking to others and look at themselves - Its not that they will make too much - its that you as well make too little. I am not against capitalism and business profits - I am against corporate socialism that has transferred their costs to the tax payers and left working for a large number a dire poverty situation ... work should lift you out of poverty not keep you in it. Labor laws are completely unbalanced and what is going to happen when interest rates go up again? New record credit debt. 

 

No business tax cuts without strings attached to ensure we are not left with the bill to pay their employees what in a sense is top up. 

 

For the record I am fine with everything going up in price to cover their cost - then without increasing taxes we would have enough to fund things we need like health education etc. What I am opposed to is the primary use of tax cuts as a profit padding situation.

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, D-Money said:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25.(1)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself [or herself] and of his [or her] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to se-curity in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

The whole point of minimum wage legislation is ensuring that people aren't being paid so low that it affects their ability to care for their family's needs...which is chartered human right.

 

Sure, it doesn't state the words "minimum wage", but 1+1=2.

 

 

Thanks for that. Irony is always at its best when encapsulated within a single sentence.

 

 

That sounds great, but how does that explain every successful labour movement in history? History is full of cases where jobs garnered higher wages and better working conditions only because people/government MADE the ones in charge do it. And even though it may have ate into profits, it led to better living conditions for many, and businessmen generally still made plenty of money.

 

Much of the "supply and demand" in the labour market is based on forced checks and balances, such as minimum wage and labour unions. Non-unionized employers have to offer wages and benefits that attract workers from unionized employers...but if the unions didn't exist, eventually the wages and benefits across the job market would be retracted. The problem in recent years has been trying to compete in a global economy with well-paid employees against countries that can more freely exploit their labour force. Some say the solution is to become more like those countries. I don't like the sound of that.

 

For example, let's say the minimum wage legislation went the other way, and minimum wage was set back to...for example's sake $6/hr. Now, the immediate effect might not be that noticeable, as most companies wouldn't claw back wages immediately. But eventually, after a series of re-hires, cutbacks, etc., what do you think the average wage would be at McDonald's, Tim Horton's, or your local gas station? Probably closer to $6 than to the minimum wage in 2017. Will that have any effect on the livelihood of minimum wage workers? But would it increase the profits for businesses? So...which is more important?

 

I am not personally wealthy, but I have a close family member who is. Along with numerous successful investments, he runs a business that you wouldn't think would be as profitable as it is, and yet it is a cash-generating machine. Expenses are not very high, as he only generally needs to employ one staff member at a time. If there was a small business that could easily absorb a minimum wage increase, his would be it. The effect on his outstanding profits will be paltry at best.

 

However, on multiple occasions I've heard him whining about the minimum wage hike. Now, I love the guy, but every time I just want to punch him in his stupid head. He's a multi-millionaire, and he's still in his 40's. His business is very successful. This will have almost no affect on him whatsoever, but help those who work for him. In fact, I'm perturbed that he wasn't already paying as much in wages. But of course he wasn't - because he didn't need to. His business mindset was only concerned with the bottom line.

 

The bolded statement in the paragraph reminded me of this. Because what you say is true. When people who have earned their wealth see an opportunity, they jump on it - and that often includes the opportunity to exploit others. Some "willing to pay for it", by selling out morals, ideals, dignity of self and others. (I'm not saying my family member is completely like this, but I see the tendency when business is involved.)

 

If a $6 minimum wage was law, and business owners could get away with paying $6/hr, guess what they'd pay? Probably $7 - and they'd convince themselves the extra dollar was just evidence that they're a generous fellow. But perhaps, if your business model is based on paying people so little that their life sucks, and making profits from their work, maybe it's not all that viable. Maybe you're not such a smart guy. Maybe your community is better off without your business in the first place.

 

For me, just a quick look in the history books and around the world convinces me a minimum wage is absolutely necessary to prevent rampant exploitation.

 

I am not envious or resentful at all. I am happy with my job and life. Happier than the aforementioned family member. And it seems, much happier than his friend, who was one of the richest men in Canada, but committed suicide a couple of months back.

 

And, I'm happy for all of the people in my city and community who will benefit from the minimum wage hike. I hope your families are more secure and satisfied as a result.

 

As for the business owners who can't afford to pay the wage, and go out of business, you have my condolences. But if you want to be successful, it won't be easy - you'll have to work hard to be good at something worthwhile.

 

@Dral, this is how I feel ^. Im sorry, but I just don't believe people like Trump, who wants to get rid of mw, are out for the greater good of society. There are just too many historical and current examples to show otherwise. 

 

@D-Money, nicely said. Your friend is a great example of "penny wise, dollar stupid". I've worked for owners like that before. Sure, they will make more tangible money in the short term, but long term they will spend more money on turnover, recruitment, training, and the likes, and consequently make less money. But lots of owners are just too near-sighted to think like that. 

 

But I've also worked for owners who pay more than the going rate and see the long-term benefits: happy employees, better productivity, less turnover, less money wasted on training, less stress on themselves, and more money in their pocket. And their mentality has also been that even if they make less money in the long term, they still prefer knowing that their employees - who become like family - are taken care of. That's the empathic society I want to live in, and that's the type of business owners my wife and I will be in the next few years. 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

Tim Horton's blows anyway.

[Monty]

41 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Tim Horton's blows anyway.

I don’t know. I like it better than the other cheap drive through coffee and quick breakfast alternative.