31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[dre]

What I can't figure it is why you think that the laws of supply and demand do not apply. Raise the cost of workers means businesses will hire fewer people. This means higher unemployment and more people collecting social benefits for non-workers. It is a lose-lose scenario.

They DO apply. And if the government took other peoples money and gave it to poor people to buy big screen TV's, then demand would increase for those too.

We arent talking about real supply and demand here, we are talking about the government manipulating pricing by paying for some of the things the low income workers need. If they didnt do that then yes... wages would go up, and costs of the products and services those workers provide would go up. But taxes would go down.

And a company that cannot afford to pay its workers enough to live, has already failed. Its not profitable without government subsidies and its not competitive. We should let it fail instead of picking part of the living costs of its laborers and paying their entire tax bill for them.

1. Start taxing ALL workers.

2. Increase the minimum wage in each area so that each employee's after tax income equals the Market Basket Measure.

3. End all social programs and subsidies targeted specifically towards low income workers.

4. Fire all the government employees that do nothing but redistribute income from tax payers to low income workers.

5. Lower taxes for the middle class and businesses by the amount now being paid by low income workers, and the amount saved by firing the government middle men.

[cybercoma]

Oh and you've got links, I've got links. But I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore the findings here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/10/so-far-the-seattle-minimum-wage-increase-is-doing-what-its-supposed-to-do/

[cybercoma]

Funny how the economy in Seattle is destroying national averages with such "detrimental" higher minimum wage policy.

[taxme]

On the news today, it was pointed out that there were 31,000 jobs lost in Canada. Can anyone explain to me as to why Canada keeps bringing in more new immigrants and especially refugees when their is no work available, especially for those refugees who are coming to Canada and who have to be fed, clothed and housed while they try to look for work if they can find any? They will be competing with those 31,000 people who now will be looking for work also. Is there no thought or care or compassion for Canadians anymore by the Federal government and it's screw ball politicians and their stunned programs and agendas, and who appear to treat Canadians who are unemployed as cattleand who don't exist?

I am at a loss as to why this keeps happening at all. Our immigration policy is way out of whack along with our politicians who keep bringing in more immigrants then we can handle. We need to have a moratorium on immigration for as long as a decade or so until we can get our unemployment rate down next to nil. Bringing in more new immigrants is not going to solve the unemployment problem, it will only add to it.

So, should Canada close the door to all immigration for awhile until we can get our unemployment problem under control? Bringing in more people than we can handle is costing the Canadian taxpayer's hundreds of millions if not billions of tax dollars to try and feed, clothe and house people who come here and who should not be here and really do not deserve Canadians hard-working tax dollars to keep them here. Are Canadians unemployed going to be considered more important than the rest of the world.

What say you? Over.

Now I saw the other day on one of our Canadian news channels that there has been a job loss of 110,000 recently. But lets just keep bringing new immigrants in because they will surely help fix up our unemployment problem and will be able to get those 110,000 unemployed Canadians back to work. Maybe we should just open the border gates and let the rest of the world walk in. Viola, maybe no more unemployment. Wow. Alright then.

[TimG]

Funny how the economy in Seattle is destroying national averages with such "detrimental" higher minimum wage policy.

Seattle already had a "booming" economy so it is not a relevant point. Nor is should anyone expect a minimum wage to "destroy" the over all economy in places like Seattle. The problem with minimum wages is they reduce job opportunities for people with few skills and that is a bad thing.

If you want a case study in minimum wages causing great harm look at Puerto Rico:

https://generationopportunity.org/articles/2016/04/15/puerto-ricos-disastrous-economy-shows-consequences-of-increasing-minimum-wage/

After the 2007 Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed, each of the fifty states was required to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in 2006, to $7.25 by 2009.

...

The impact on the economies of American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands was devastating. In American Samoa, by 2009, after only three of the ten scheduled minimum-wage increases, overall employment dropped 30 percent 58 percent in the critically important tuna-canning industry. Real per capita GDP in American Samoa fell nearly 10 percent from 2006 levels. In the Northern Mariana Islands, by the end of 2009, employment was down by 35 percent, and real per capita GDP off by 23 percent.

...

Economic activity declined and Puerto Rican unemployment surged. Between 2007 and 2013, Puerto Rico’s GDP per capita declined by nearly 7 percent, while over the same period it was unchanged nationwide.

Of course, you don't want to pay attention to data like that because it undermines your narrative. You will likely bend over backwards looking for any other explanation for why the laws the economics worked exactly as expected.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

Oh and you've got links, I've got links. But I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore the findings here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/10/so-far-the-seattle-minimum-wage-increase-is-doing-what-its-supposed-to-do/

Modest increases in wages would only effect companies with extremely small profit margins, that are not competitive with other companies that sell the same products and services. Those companies are bound to fail anyways.

In general there's only one thing that effects staffing decisions at most companies. Demand for their products and services. A profitable company is going to chase increasing demand by increasing operations... end of story.

[TimG]

Modest increases in wages would only effect companies with extremely small profit margins, that are not competitive with other companies that sell the same products and services. Those companies are bound to fail anyways.

You are making excuses. You could use that logic to dismiss of the job losses to Mexico and China because obviously the companies employing people here 'weren't worth saving'.

In general there's only one thing that effects staffing decisions at most companies.

Not any reality that I am aware. The cost of employees is a HUGE factor at most businesses. If that was not the case there wouldn't be such a strong effort to outsource as much as possible to cheaper locale. Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

Seattle already had a "booming" economy so it is not a relevant point. Nor is should anyone expect a minimum wage to "destroy" the over all economy in places like Seattle. The problem with minimum wages is they reduce job opportunities for people with few skills and that is a bad thing.

If you want a case study in minimum wages causing great harm look at Puerto Rico:

https://generationopportunity.org/articles/2016/04/15/puerto-ricos-disastrous-economy-shows-consequences-of-increasing-minimum-wage/

Of course, you don't want to pay attention to data like that because it undermines your narrative. You will likely bend over backwards looking for any other explanation for why the laws the economics worked exactly as expected.

Correlation does not always equal causation.

After the 2007 Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed, each of the fifty states was required to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in 2006, to $7.25 by 2009.

Hmmmmmmm! What else happened between 2007 and 2009. Oh yeah! The Global Economic Catastrophuck!!!

[TimG]

Correlation does not always equal causation.

Except in this case we have a well understood economic principle that says they are causally related and which means the onus is on people to show it is not.

Hmmmmmmm! What else happened between 2007 and 2009. Oh yeah! The Global Economic Catastrophuck!!!

1) GNP was already falling in 2007 according to your chart (can't blame that on 2008 banking crisis)

2) Puerto Rico's peers (Jamaica, Dominican Republic) did not have anything close to the same drop (their labour forces were not arbitrarily made too expensive).

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

You are making excuses. You could use that logic to dismiss of the job losses to Mexico and China because obviously the companies employing people here 'weren't worth saving'.

Not any reality that I am aware. The cost of employees is a HUGE factor at most businesses. If that was not the case there wouldn't be such a strong effort to outsource as much as possible to cheaper locale.

Right but I mentioned modest increases in wages. Companies that move operations offshore often see labor costs reduced by as much as 90%. In my US shop labor costs are 400% higher than in our Manila shop.

Also... minimum wage worker costs are usually a small percentage of a companies wages in the first place.

And... most minimum wage jobs are in the domestic services sector. Waitresses fast food workers, nannies, janitors, retail sales people, agricultural workers etc. Its tough offshore any of those jobs.

[TimG]

Also... minimum wage worker costs are usually a small percentage of a companies wages in the first place.

Which is why I said I did not expect to have a huge impact on the economies of large rich cities.

What I see as most devastating are province/state/country wide minimum wages that apply to a wide range of local economies with varying ability to absorb the increase. That is why Puerto Rico was hit so hard.

[Bryan]

Fire all the government employees that do nothing but redistribute income from tax payers to low income workers.

Who exactly would that be? Even in the welfare offices, actually paying that welfare cheque is a very small part of the job, Most of their days are spent dealing with much bigger problems.

[Argus]

No, you haven't. Its absolutely and completely true.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

[dre]

Saying so doesn't make it so.

I didn't just say that, I explained the whole thing, and even gave you easy to understand examples.

Here's another one...

I'm a minimum wage worker in a city where basic shelter costs 900 dollars, food costs 500, and other basic expenses add up to another 600. I CANT LIVE in that city unless I make 2 thousand dollars a month, so I'm clearly not going to take a job that pays less. This simple fact will increase the market wage for low skilled workers because companies would have to pay them at least 2k per month.

BUT... If the government gave me 1000 dollars a month for free of other tax payers money then I would suddenly be able to live on 1000 dollars a month and this would drive the market wage for the lowest skilled workers down, and allow companies to hire workers for less. This is whats know as an indirect subsidy.

You guys are just advocating socialism, subsidies, and government distorting the labor market.

Edited August 14, 2016 by dre

[dre]

Who exactly would that be? Even in the welfare offices, actually paying that welfare cheque is a very small part of the job, Most of their days are spent dealing with much bigger problems.

The people that manage the GST tax credit, the people that manage the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement), the people that manage the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), the people that manage the National Child Benefit (NCB).

The people that provide all of these things to low income families...

• Adult Allowance — food, personal, travel, household and clothing needs
• Board and Room Allowance — includes clothing and personal needs
• Shelter Allowance — rent/ mortgage (maximum limits are set)
• Utility Allowance —power, gas, fuel oil, water, sewer and basic telephone Northern Food Supplement — additional $50 per person per month is provided
• Advances — those that receive the adult allowance can request an advance for clothing and household needs. The advance is recovered from future payments.
• Special Needs — extra money may be available in some situations. Please discuss your needs with your worker.

[Bryan]

The people that provide all of these things to low income families...

• Adult Allowance — food, personal, travel, household and clothing needs
• Board and Room Allowance — includes clothing and personal needs
• Shelter Allowance — rent/ mortgage (maximum limits are set)
• Utility Allowance —power, gas, fuel oil, water, sewer and basic telephone Northern Food Supplement — additional $50 per person per month is provided
• Advances — those that receive the adult allowance can request an advance for clothing and household needs. The advance is recovered from future payments.
• Special Needs — extra money may be available in some situations. Please discuss your needs with your worker.

Again, the people who provide those funds do substantially more than just give out money. It's a tiny fraction of their jobs.

[dre]

Again, the people who provide those funds do substantially more than just give out money. It's a tiny fraction of their jobs.

Its not just giving out money. Administering social programs is actually a pretty big part of what the government does.

[eyeball]

IOW, businesses are cutting back on hours which is the expected response to higher costs.

Many working poor work at two or even more jobs and a raise may offer an opportunity to increase their quality of life a little by working a little less. If anything this should increase employment not lessen it.

[Bryan]

Its not just giving out money. Administering social programs is actually a pretty big part of what the government does.

Are you advocating for no social programs of any kind?

[dre]

Are you advocating for no social programs of any kind?

Almost. We need social programs for people who are unable to work at all. But I would get rid of all the rest, as long as all workers were paid at least enough to live. No full time worker should ever get handouts from the government, and they wouldn't need them if they were paid a living wage.

I would keep welfare, and Medicare and get rid of everything else as long as all full time workers were paid enough to support themselves without assistance.

[cybercoma]

No disability? No worker's compensation? No child care benefit? No GIS or OAS for the elderly?

That's a position further right than the CPC.

[dre]

No disability? No worker's compensation? No child care benefit? No GIS or OAS for the elderly?

That's a position further right than the CPC.

I still want to solve those problems but I have an open mind to doing it differently for full time workers.

Workers compensation is actually a good example. In my day job my employer takes care of it. At my own company I send 3.5% of my total payroll to WorkSafe BC to keep my employees covered (its different for each industry). I arbitrarily decided that I would chip in 1.5% and I would deduct 2% off their checks.

For Old Age Security and GIS, at my day job I put 5% of my gross pay into an RRSP plan and my company matches that amount, chipping in another 5%. Ill retire with at least a few hundred thousand dollars depending on when I retire.

Child Care Benefits aren't necessary as long as workers are paid enough.

I would roll income assistance for the disabled, and for the elderly into the existing "Welfare" program. If these people haven't paid into retirement plans, or if they got injured outside of work, or were born with a disability clearly we need to take care of them. But combine the whole thing into a single program called "Income Assistance".

This is going to shift a lot of the burden from tax payers to employers, so we can reduce taxes on businesses to offset that... even if it means not taxing them at all.

All we are really doing is taking out the middle man, and the redistribution layer.

If we decide we want to give companies perks to help them create jobs, then that's ok... But make that assistance DIRECT. For example, I have an office in the the Philippines, and they don't start collecting any taxes at all from a business until its 5 years old. This encourages new business startups and helps companies make it through the tough "formative" years, and establish themselves.

I don't know if these are left wing or right wing solutions. Left wingers often don't like when you try to make the government smaller... Right wingers don't like it when you force companies to provide benefits or increase minimum wages. I see my ideas as apolitical attempts to solve problems.

Also I'm just "some dude"... certainly not an authority on the subject, and I realize its easier to SAY these things than to actually implement them. Common sense apolitical solutions often ruffle enough feathers on either side of the House of Commons that they are impossible to implement. Left and Right wing ideologues want their solutions or nothing. There's no middle ground anymore.

Edited August 14, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

I didn't just say that, I explained the whole thing, and even gave you easy to understand examples.

Here's another one...

I'm a minimum wage worker in a city where basic shelter costs 900 dollars, food costs 500, and other basic expenses add up to another 600. I CANT LIVE in that city unless I make 2 thousand dollars a month, so I'm clearly not going to take a job that pays less.

You will take what you can get, even if it pays less than that, and then search out part-time work to supplement your income. I've done it myself. Have you never been poor? I used to work as a security guard, for example. Now, the good part about this crummy job is that the employee base is not exactly dedicated, and there is a constant need to fill last minute vacancies. Someone who makes it known they are eager to work can expect to be called a lot to fill those last minute positions in addition to their own post, and will get overtime almost every pay.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[square]

It's crazy to put the Blame on the Liberals for this. The current state of the economy is because of the Conservatives.

[Argus]

It's crazy to put the Blame on the Liberals for this. The current state of the economy is because of the Conservatives.

Really? They're responsible? That means they did something wrong. What was it? Please enlighten us. Did they conspire with the Saudis to lower the international price of oil, for example?

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus