31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[Argus]

Well as far as all the perks you mentioned above... most minimum wage earners cant afford them.

We have something called the Market Basket Measure, that is built from a basket of basic living necessities. Shelter, Clothing, Food, and Footwear. The cost of the basic low income standard of life defined in the MBM depends on where you live in Canada but its somewhere around 1700 dollars per month in most places, and despite the fact that the MBM is lower than the "povery line", most minimum wage earners in Canada do not make enough to pay for their own basic necessities. Never mind cars, or cell phones, or Xboxes.

I don't know about that. The minimum wage in Ontario translates to about $22k per year. The basic basket is around $20,000 across the country. And you leave out the way people can get things cheaper by buying used (or stolen) or save money in other ways.

So how are businesses being subsidized by the government for paying minimum wage when people CAN live off minimum wage if they focus on necessities?

Edited August 13, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Have any of you tried applying for jobs today without the Internet or a cellphone?

I can probably apply for one without a PS4, smart TV, and cable/satellite package. I know a lot of very 'poor' people that have all of those things, but cant afford food.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Smallc

[dialamah]

I agree - but they tend to have them anyway. Priorities are pretty out of whack for most people.

Sometimes those things are gifts because other people believe even poor people can enjoy luxuries.

[Smallc]

Sometimes those things are gifts because other people believe even poor people can enjoy luxuries.

Sometimes - but usually not. My fiancés family is very poor, as are most of the people that I deal with on a daily basis. They lack knowledge and understanding to set proper priorities.

But I drifted off topic.

[dre]

I don't know about that. The minimum wage in Ontario translates to about $22k per year. The basic basket is around $20,000 across the country. And you leave out the way people can get things cheaper by buying used (or stolen) or save money in other ways.

So how are businesses being subsidized by the government for paying minimum wage when people CAN live off minimum wage if they focus on necessities?

Because many of them cant.

If you are have one child, and you live in Vancouver or Calgary you need 25 thousand just to get basic necessities. If you live in toronto you need 26K, Halifax 23k and so on. But after deductions you probably make about 20k.

These workers are eligible for various means tested benefits. These benefits are DIRECT subsidies to these workers because they allow workers to have a higher standard of life than they could otherwise afford. They are INDIRECT subsidies to their employers because without them their employers would have to pay these workers more.

And then there's taxes! Iv seen a number of posts by you on here ranting about how "one third of Canadian workers pay zero income tax", and you're right! And again...

These tax exemptions are DIRECT subsidies to these workers because they allow workers to have a higher standard of life than they could otherwise afford. And they are INDIRECT subsidies to their employers because without them their employers would have to pay these workers more.

If these workers were taxed at 15% then employers would have to pay them more. But instead, tax payers pick up this tab, and by doing so we are paying 15% of a companies payroll for each tax exempt worker.

The following would be a common sense approach to this issue...

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 by the amount now being paid by low income workers, and the amount saved by firing the government middle men.

Edited August 13, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

These workers are eligible for various means tested benefits. These benefits are DIRECT subsidies to these workers because they allow workers to have a higher standard of life than they could otherwise afford. They are INDIRECT subsidies to their employers because without them their employers would have to pay these workers more.

They are direct subsidies to these workers but not indirect subsidies to business. Business would have no problem getting enough workers even if you gave no subsidies. People would simply have to work longer hours - and they would. A lot of people work two jobs to make ends meet. But remember, it is mere convention that people work a 40hrish work week. Most people worked 70hrs a week in the eighteenth century, and even into the twentieth most still worked about 60hrs a week. Today, a lot of immigrants work a lot more hours because that's what they're used to. Taxi drivers work very long hours, so do all those mom and pop convenience store owners. From what I understand a lot of high tech people work extra long hours, too, even though they don't get paid extra.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

The following would be a common sense approach to this issue...

There is nothing common sense about setting up a bureaucracy to decide what people should be paid. It is more like an absurdity from a monty python script.

As I said before: social programs are NOT subsidies to employers. They are shared benefits to taxpayers. If government wants to fund social programs it collects taxes from people and corporations.

It is simply ridiculous to such that corporations should be "taxed" with government inflated wage requirements. If government thinks it can get more money from corporations it should increase taxes. None of this back door taxation nonsense that will provide a huge disincentive to hire people.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

Sometimes - but usually not. My fiancés family is very poor, as are most of the people that I deal with on a daily basis. They lack knowledge and understanding to set proper priorities.

When I went to school decades ago, there was home ec(nomics), which consisted of cooking and sewing, but not money management. Money management would have been more useful over the long term, since my parents taught me cooking and sewing (sort of) but never discussed money with us other than saying "can't afford it", whilst getting big-ticket items that my mother wanted. I had no idea of budgetting and no sense of priorities when I got out on my own. I don't know if schools teach real-world money skills now, but do you think it would help (or have helped) your fiance's family (and others you work with) to have that kind of education? Or is there something else at play, in your opinion?

[dre]

There is nothing common sense about setting up a bureaucracy to decide what people should be paid. It is more like an absurdity from a monty python script.

As I said before: social programs are NOT subsidies to employers. They are shared benefits to taxpayers. If government wants to fund social programs it collects taxes from people and corporations.

It is simply ridiculous to such that corporations should be "taxed" government inflated wage requirements. If government thinks it can get more money from corporations it should increase taxes. None of this back door taxation nonsense that will provide a huge disincentive to hire people.

The "backdoor nonsense is whats happening now"

There is nothing common sense about setting up a bureaucracy to decide what people should be paid.

You don't need to set up a bureaucracy. We already have that information for every Canadian City.

Its he're...

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/ref/dict/table-tableau/t-3-5-eng.cfm

[Smallc]

When I went to school decades ago, there was home ec(nomics), which consisted of cooking and sewing, but not money management. Money management would have been more useful over the long term, since my parents taught me cooking and sewing (sort of) but never discussed money with us other than saying "can't afford it", whilst getting big-ticket items that my mother wanted. I had no idea of budgetting and no sense of priorities when I got out on my own. I don't know if schools teach real-world money skills now, but do you think it would help (or have helped) your fiance's family (and others you work with) to have that kind of education? Or is there something else at play, in your opinion?

I definitely think financial awareness classes would help. It also has a lot to do with a culture of poverty and bad choices (poverty begets poverty - definitely true) - but that's for another thread.

[TimG]

You don't need to set up a bureaucracy. We already have that information for every Canadian City.

You do know how statistics work? Medians mean some people are paid less and some people are paid more. What you propose is to make it illegal to pay people less than the median which is turn raises the median in a never ending spiral that leaves companies bankrupt and people without jobs.

This problem, of course, would be resolved by a bureaucracy to determine what the "correct" wages levels are for each category - complete with various lobbiests and rent seekers currying favour with politicians so wages levels that affect them are set at levels they like.

It is a truly absurd proposal that based on an entirely false premise.

If governments want money for social programs it needs to raise taxes.

Trying to hide tax increases as regulations always causes more harm than good.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

They are direct subsidies to these workers but not indirect subsidies to business.

All direct subsidies to an employees minimum wage workers are indirect subsidies to the employer. Without them those worker flat out could not afford to support themselves on those wages, and those workers would become more expensive in the labor market.

Its pretty damn simple.

[dre]

If governments want money for social programs it needs to raise taxes.

Trying to hide tax increases as regulations always causes more harm than good.

Nope. Get RID of the social programs directed towards medium wage workers don't raise taxes. Full time workers should support themselves and have to pay taxes. If they had to do that prices in the labor market for these workers would go up whether or not you raised the minimum wage to the Market Basket Measure.

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.

And we ALREADY HAVE minimum wages, and the bureaucracies that manage them. But when we calculate them, we take into account that those workers wont have to pay taxes and will receive all kinds gifts from the tax payer. End those gifts, and stop accounting for them, and the minimum wage would be set at MBM.

Why are you so determined to be on the hook for paying a low income persons taxes for them, instead of them paying their own taxes out of compensation for their employment? Why are you so enamored with socialism, subsidies, and wealth redistribution?

You do know how statistics work? Medians mean some people are paid less and some people are paid more.

Those are not medians. They are fixed numbers for a basket of goods and services needed to provide for basic needs in each city.

Edited August 13, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

All direct subsidies to an employees minimum wage workers are indirect subsidies to the employer. Without them those worker flat out could not afford to support themselves on those wages,

I've already explained why that is not true.

[TimG]

Those are not medians. They are fixed numbers for a basket of goods and services needed to provide for basic needs in each city.

Numbers which go up as the wage levels increase. The only way the numbers don't go up is if you assume that businesses relocate to places with lower wages.

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.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

Numbers which go up as the wage levels increase. The only way the numbers don't go up is if you assume that businesses relocate to places with lower wages.

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.

Reduce the number of employees, provide poorer service to your clients, lose clients, lose money, lay-off more people to save costs, produce poorer product, lose business, eventually go out of business. There's not much logic to the contention that a company is going to hire more people than it needs because they're "cheap", and hire less people than they need because they're 'expensive'.

[TimG]

Reduce the number of employees, provide poorer service to your clients, lose clients, lose money, lay-off more people to save costs, produce poorer product, lose business, eventually go out of business.

Yep. Which is why some businesses will close down entirely rather pay higher wages.

There's not much logic to the contention that a company is going to hire more people than it needs because they're "cheap".

It is actually quite logical. Every employee is directly connected to a revenue stream. If the revenue stream is not large enough to justify the wages the business has to adjust its business model. For example, a business that used to operate late at night may decide that the extra revenue is not worth the additional costs. The net result is job losses.

Our entire society runs on the principal of supply and demand. Many of the core leftist policies such as carbon taxes are based on the premise that a high price means a lower demand. The only irrational people are those that claim that the number of jobs is NOT affected by the price.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Our entire society runs on the principal of supply and demand.

Doesn't it work on the principle of greed?

[taxme]

Centuries ...

LOL. I suppose that video was flying around in Canadian school classrooms by the politically correct white guilt liberal elite trying to tell the Caucasian kids that they are illegal here. This is not their land but it is all Indian land and that they should not be here. They should be thankful that the Indians allowed us in and be able to live here. And because we are here then we should be all assimilating into their culture and traditions and try to learn the many languages spoken by various Indian tribes. I would like to see the Indians trying to tell some Muslim today that they have to assimilate. We white people can't even do that. Instead it would appear as though Canadians are the ones assimilating into their Muslim culture. IE: Prayer rooms put aside in schools for praying Muslims and women only swimming days at some pools for Muslim women won't have to swim with men around as requested by Muslims. But that is another story and topic.

I can just imagine if all of us had to assimilate into Native Indian culture? You would probably not be sitting where you are right now in front of your computer with all the comforts of home if it were not for the Europeans coming to North America and doing something with the place. I am certainly glad that I did not have to assimilate into their culture. I would have given up and gone back to Europe. Living in teepees in the winter is just not for me. Btw, did the Indians have border guards and use passports back then? Just curious.

Your video does not convince me that we are illegal here. First of all, I was born here. I cannot be an illegal immigrant here if I were born here. I am a North American native. Maybe the video is making me think that Indians may have come to North America and knocked off the inhabitants at the time. But today we do see lots of illegals coming into this country. And unlike the Indians back then we can do something about it. It just takes some of our politicians to show some leadership and stop it for taxpayer's sake. I guess the Native Indians are getting a double whammy here. They have not only been forced to live with the white man/woman, now they are being forced to live with the rest of the world. I would not want to be an Indian today.

[taxme]

You do know how statistics work? Medians mean some people are paid less and some people are paid more. What you propose is to make it illegal to pay people less than the median which is turn raises the median in a never ending spiral that leaves companies bankrupt and people without jobs.

This problem, of course, would be resolved by a bureaucracy to determine what the "correct" wages levels are for each category - complete with various lobbiests and rent seekers currying favour with politicians so wages levels that affect them are set at levels they like.

It is a truly absurd proposal that based on an entirely false premise.

If governments want money for social programs it needs to raise taxes.

Trying to hide tax increases as regulations always causes more harm than good.

Wrong. If government needs more money for social programs then start shutting down useless tax supporting programs and agendas. Did you not think about the billions upon billions of tax dollars that have been blown since daddy trudeau was around on programs and agendas like bilingualism, multiculturalism,foreign-aid, illegal immigrants, and bringing in 50,000 refugees who will be sucking money away from social services from Canadians and instead will be given away to people who do not deserve it. Think about all those billions saved and going into more important programs for Canadians. Raising taxes is not the problem. The problem is with the government and our politicians that treats our hard working tax dollars like it was theirs, and blowing those tax dollars on their pet projects that no one asked for. Sounds like a bit of common sense and logic to me. And you?

[cybercoma]

Numbers which go up as the wage levels increase. The only way the numbers don't go up is if you assume that businesses relocate to places with lower wages.

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.

Supply and demand isn't a perfect system with no other influences. For instance, the government can tax the hell out of smokes and booze. People still pay it. If they overtaxed mechanical pencils, people would just buy regular pencils instead.

Regardless, you keep pushing this unsupported claim that higher wages means fewer jobs. The evidence in communities that increased wages is that higher wages means more customers. Henry Ford knew this two generations ago. Business has forgotten the compromise he made with labour.

Edited August 13, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

For instance, the government can tax the hell out of smokes and booze. People still pay it.

But they buy less of it.

Regardless, you keep pushing this unsupported claim that higher wages means fewer jobs.

It is not unsupported. It is a fundamental law of economics (i.e. the null hypothesis). If you want to claim otherwise you need to provide a lot of data from a lot of different circumstances. Isolated studies that show no conclusive results are not enough to invalidate the null hypothesis. Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

I've already explained why that is not true.

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

[cybercoma]

It is a misunderstanding of the "fundamental laws" of economics. The problem with economics is that it tries to measure complex social systems. Often times it fails. Often times economists disagree. But one thing has been demonstrated, when workers have more money, businesses have more customers. That's why inflation goes up when unemployment goes down.

Edited August 13, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

It is a misunderstanding of the "fundamental laws" of economics.

No economist disagrees with the principal that higher cost means lower demand. The debate is whether other factors are enough to cancel out that effect. And, as I said, the onus is on the people claiming that such effects exist to demonstrate that they exist in the real world across a wide variety of circumstances.

So far the studies show that effect only shows some of the time with some employers which makes it a dumb thing to count on.

Here is some data from seattle's foray into a $15 minimum wage:

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early-returns-from-seattle-s-minimum-wage-experiment

So what did they find? People are getting paid a higher wage -- and yet, earnings didnt rise much, because people are also working less. People who made less than $11 an hour before the law took effect saw, on average, a modest bump in their paycheck (about $72 every three months). The median number of hours worked fell by about four hours per quarter.

...

Which it seems to. According to the study, the share of those low-wage workers who were still employed after the law took effect fell by 1.2 percent.

IOW, businesses are cutting back on hours which is the expected response to higher costs. Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG