Canadian Immigration

[TimG]

Henry Ford had it all wrong, eh?

You are repeating a common myth. Henry Ford had to deal with competition for workers from other employers so his objective was to reduce turnover by paying them better than the competition. This logic obviously does NOT apply to hikes in the minimum wage and cannot obviously apply to every company because the differential is what matters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#6af977b11c96

The link also does some basic math and shows how increasing the wages of your workers so they can buy your products can only lose you money.

Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

You are repeating a common myth. Henry Ford had to deal with competition for workers from other employers so his objective was to reduce turnover by paying them better than the competition. This logic obviously does NOT apply to hikes in the minimum wage and cannot obviously apply to every company.

Further to this point on immigration and Henry Ford:

Henry Ford, whose auto plants employed immigrant workers from every corner of Europe, was such a firm believer in the melting pot that he literally built one. Ford, who once declared that "these men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live," forced his immigrant workers to attend lengthy "Americanization" courses, in which they were schooled in the English language and Ford's own conservative ideology.

http://www.shmoop.com/ellis-island-immigration/society.html

Yet another swing and miss for American examples to prove a policy point in Canada.

Edited August 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

I think we can learn from Sweden on this front. It has code termination laws like Germany, meaning that half of the board of directors of major companies are elected by the workers, but the chairman is elected by shareholders and his vote breaks any tie. Unions can negotiate a starting wage for their members.

But hey this. First, Sweden also has right-to-work laws, so closed shops are prohibited. No one can be forced to join a union.

Second, Sweden has no legal minimum wage.

It has an officially recommended minimum wage below which a worker can quit his job or refuse the offer with no penalty in his ability to receive social assistance, but no obligatory minimum.

As a result, unions have been able to negotiate their wages down in their best interest in tough economic times and so keep their jobs.

In Canada, a union could not do that since it's the government that imposes the minimum wage.

Result? Unemployment.

[G Huxley]

Most women are just to emotional in their ways of thinking to think rationally. Sad to say but many lack any common sense and logic. A sob story gets to them every time, and dam the consequences of what they will go along with until later which may be too late by then. The feminist movement is a real joke which is sadly being dumped on many women who just never bother to ask questions about who or what feminism is supporting or why. They support feminism because it mainly sounds like a good thing for a women to belong too and become. They have been led to believe that most men are nothing more than a bunch of anti-women a-holes who only look at them as sexual objects, and they eat up that nonsense.

Of course many women are for open borders and are pro-immigration because they see and read all this stuff about poor refugees and others who are in need of help. Being of a caring and loving nature, they are conned into believing that they must help these poor people. And they don't care as to what the benefits are for the country or how much tax dollars this will all cost. They just want to help which in the end could end up being a disaster for their country.

Agreed.

I agree that neither of the parties you mentioned nor those which you did not mention (like green party) would do the right thing and adopt the SMART immigration policy which is cutting the number in half and SELECTIVITY of those who admit in based on financial situation and cultural compatibility. However I am not going to vote for an extreme right wing party who may be willing to select based on race and religion and skin color or stop immigration altogether as I enjoy cultural diversity in Canada and I see it as one reason why this country is the best in the world.

Even if you completely stopped immigration tomorrow there wouldn't be a lack of cultural diversity in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Another great Canadian !

Brits developed the entire philosophy of your sacred constitution and political institutions. stfu already about people mentioning Americans. This discussion was about his philosophy not his bloody citizenship.

[cybercoma]

You are repeating a common myth. Henry Ford had to deal with competition for workers from other employers so his objective was to reduce turnover by paying them better than the competition. This logic obviously does NOT apply to hikes in the minimum wage and cannot obviously apply to every company because the differential is what matters.http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#6af977b11c96The link also does some basic math and shows how increasing the wages of your workers so they can buy your products can only lose you money.

Basic math says employees with more money become customers with more money for not only your business but other people's businesses too. No shit a single company raising wages doesn't have the effect of raising that company's sales. That's why people are calling for a new legislated minimum.

[cybercoma]

Further to this point on immigration and Henry Ford:

Henry Ford, whose auto plants employed immigrant workers from every corner of Europe, was such a firm believer in the melting pot that he literally built one. Ford, who once declared that "these men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live," forced his immigrant workers to attend lengthy "Americanization" courses, in which they were schooled in the English language and Ford's own conservative ideology.

http://www.shmoop.com/ellis-island-immigration/society.html

Yet another swing and miss for American examples to prove a policy point in Canada.

Hey, guys! Here's some completed unrelated thing; therefore, the thing you're talking about is wrong. Sound logic.

[TimG]

for not only your business but other people's businesses too.

You are the one who brought up Henry Ford as if it supported you claims. Your other claims are also dubious because large portions of any income people have go to pay for goods and services imported from other regions. Raising the costs of a fast food restaurant by 20% would reduce the profits of that location by 50% or more because their profit margin is so small. The chances of 'additional business' making up that lost profit is next to zero.

[cybercoma]

Pulling numbers out of the air doesn't help support your case, it makes you look desperate. I know you think it's "common sense" that people lose jobs when min wage goes up but it doesn't work that way in practice over the long term because this is not a zero sum game. I've explained over and over, across multiple threads. I can't understand it for you too.

[cybercoma]

Also Tim, if you're actually interested in learning something instead of pretending you know everything, this article has references to numerous studies that show raising minimum wage does not have the effect of simple supply and demand diagrams. Labour is not a widget. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment

[TimG]

Pulling numbers out of the air doesn't help support your case, it makes you look desperate.

No. They are realistic numbers based on the profit margins of these kinds of businesses and the illustrate a point about how low profit margins means businesses need very large increases in business in order to make up the losses from higher labour costs. The only reason you have a problem with is you have no clue what is involved in running a profitable business.

it doesn't work that way in practice over the long term because this is not a zero sum game.

Adny I have explained over and over that your simplistic and ideologically motivated focus on one minor factor while ignoring other much larger factors make no sense. Furthermore, the data shows that you are wrong. Puerto Rice was devastated by the imposition of the federal minimum wage and is a text book example of minimum wages having the effect that one would expect. Even the Seattle data shows hours and employment dropping relative to others in the areas with the high minimum wage.

[cybercoma]

Numerous studies say your wrong. I just posted an article that references them. Square that circle and we will talk. You clearly don't know what you're talking about when your position is literally the opposite of 600 economists, including 7 Nobel winners. http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

I don't know why I keep arguing with someone who consistently and repeatedly ignores the evidence and scholarly research in favour of talking points from conservative blogs. Or are you going to tell me that Nobel Prize winning economists don't understand supply and demand either?

Edited August 26, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Numerous studies say your wrong.

And numerous studies say there is a negative effect on jobs. You can't make your case by cherry picking studies. For my part I will concede that the negative effects will be minimal in some circumstances but that does not justify a policy of increasing minimum wages given that other studies do confirm the negative effect.

If you want studies that show the opposite start here:

http://economics21.org/html/despite-studies-minimum-wage-hikes-reduce-employment-1527.html?utm_campaign=Young+Voices&utm_content=24165365&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

A 2013 paper by Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West of Texas A&M University discovered exactly this. Consistent with Card-Krueger, Meer and West found that states which raised their minimum wages did not see any short-term reduction in employment. However, there was a strong negative effect on job growth. According to the authors findings, a real minimum wage increase of 10 percent reduces job growth in a state by 0.5 percentage points.

Another study, published in 2014 by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither of the University of California at San Diego, confirmed the longer-term effects of the minimum wage. They found that over the course of the late 2000s, the average minimum wage rose by 30 percent and reduced the national employment-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points.

gnores the evidence and scholarly research

In this case you are cherry picking and/or misrepresenting research to suit your ideological preferences. If you actually assessed all of the research your would see it supports my position which is: minimum wages hikes reduce the number jobs, however, other factors may mask this effect in some locations at some times. Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

you're talking about when your position is literally the opposite of 600 economists

Pluuze... A bunch of ideologically motivated economists (47% of which are not qualified to be treated as an authority on the topic) lobbying for policy changes does not make their claims true or uncontroversial

https://www.minimumwage.com/2014/02/about-those-600-economists-who-support-a-10-10-minimum-wage/

There are still highly-qualified and intelligent signers on this list–not the least of which are the seven Nobel Laureates supporting a jump to $10.10. But there are also at least nine Nobel Laureates in economics who historically opposed a higher minimum wage–including major names in the field like Friedman, Becker, Buchanan, and Tobin.

Why do you reject the opinion of Nobel Laureates when they say things you don't like?

There is no consensus within economic circles on this point because many studies show a negative impact.

To support this last point:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.

...

In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence ofpositive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model generally predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

You have a lot of nerve lecturing me about ignoring the literature for ideological reasons when it is clearly you are is doing that. Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[Machjo]

Numerous studies say your wrong. I just posted an article that references them. Square that circle and we will talk. You clearly don't know what you're talking about when your position is literally the opposite of 600 economists, including 7 Nobel winners. http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

I don't know why I keep arguing with someone who consistently and repeatedly ignores the evidence and scholarly research in favour of talking points from conservative blogs. Or are you going to tell me that Nobel Prize winning economists don't understand supply and demand either?

Si why not raise the minum wage to fifty dollars per hour then?

[dialamah]

Pulling numbers out of the air doesn't help support your case, it makes you look desperate. I know you think it's "common sense" that people lose jobs when min wage goes up but it doesn't work that way in practice over the long term because this is not a zero sum game. I've explained over and over, across multiple threads. I can't understand it for you too.

Having suffered a significant pay reduction lately, I can tell you that there are quite a few businesses that no longer see me in their stores. Everyone I know has reduced their spending when their income decreased, and ramped it up again when their income increased. It seems odd that anyone would keep denying this happens.

[TimG]

Having suffered a significant pay reduction lately, I can tell you that there are quite a few businesses that no longer see me in their stores. Everyone I know has reduced their spending when their income decreased, and ramped it up again when their income increased.

If it ramped up again because a business improved their productivity and they shared their additional profit with you then your additional spending would be a net benefit to the economy. However, if it ramps up simply because the government told your employer to pay you more it would be a net negative because any additional spending from you would never replace the business income lost by being forced to pay you more.

What amazes me is so many people think you can get money for nothing. If that premise was true government could simply increase taxes on businesses as much as they want since any tax increases would be more than replaced by extra business they get when government spends the money.

Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Having suffered a significant pay reduction lately, I can tell you that there are quite a few businesses that no longer see me in their stores. Everyone I know has reduced their spending when their income decreased, and ramped it up again when their income increased. It seems odd that anyone would keep denying this happens.

Yeah. Apparently the economy works best when people have as little money as possible to spend in local businesses. Hundreds of economists including 7 Nobel Prize winners are just biased according to Tim. All the studies that say he's wrong are "cherry picked." Edited August 26, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Hundreds of economists including 7 Nobel Prize winners are just biased according to Tim. All the studies that say he's wrong are "cherry picked."

Well the forum page rolled over so you probably think you can simply pretend I did not post a complete debunking of your "list" along with a reference to the literature that says a sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.

Basically, the claim of the list authors that the literature is clear on this point is nothing but ideological BS.

Economists that make such a claim are simply lying.

Further, at least 9 nobel winning economists are on record of being opposed to minimum wages.

I guess they don't count cause they don't say things that conform to your ideology.

So please spare me your pathetic and baseless appeals to authority.

Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You don't even understand that labour doesn't follow supply and demand like widgets because here's an imbalance of power between employers and employees. And you want me to give credit to your position? The very first article I posted addressed past studies and made it a point to show how economists have been coming around to a new understanding thanks to numerous real-world examples of the previous bought being wrong. You still can't wrap your head around that. And frankly I don't care because you're a dogmatic partisan wo no interest in learning anything that doesn't confirm your biases. It's a simple truism that businesses thrive when customers have money to spend. Customers get their money from businesses paying them better wages. If that simple truth is lost on you, then there's no hope for any discussion with you because you are not just blind but wrong. Completely and totally wrong.

[Big Guy]

You don't even understand that labour doesn't follow supply and demand like widgets because here's an imbalance of power between employers and employees. And you want me to give credit to your position? The very first article I posted addressed past studies and made it a point to show how economists have been coming around to a new understanding thanks to numerous real-world examples of the previous bought being wrong. You still can't wrap your head around that. And frankly I don't care because you're a dogmatic partisan wo no interest in learning anything that doesn't confirm your biases. It's a simple truism that businesses thrive when customers have money to spend. Customers get their money from businesses paying them better wages. If that simple truth is lost on you, then there's no hope for any discussion with you because you are not just blind but wrong. Completely and totally wrong.

I am not an economist nor pretend to be. Respectfully - How does one then identify the point at which the employees are getting paid "too much" (i.e. minimal wage too high) and the economy suffers?

[TimG]

The very first article I posted addressed past studies and made it a point to show how economists have been coming around to a new understanding thanks to numerous real-world examples of the previous bought being wrong.

The article cherry picked a couple studies that claim previous studies were wrong (some of which predate the meta analysis I posted which says the majority of credible studies show a negative effect). That does not mean there is anything close to a consensus in the field. Trying to pretend there is one is ideological nonsense.

TAnd frankly I don't care because you're a dogmatic partisan

Pot meet kettle. If you weren't such a partisan you would admit there is nothing resembling a consensus within the field of economists on this question. OTOH, I acknowledge that some studies show minimal negative effects which suggests that, under some conditions, the harmful effects of minimum wage increases can be cancelled out. The question that should be asked is what are those conditions and, most importantly, how do we know that they apply in any given jurisdiction looking at increasing the minimum wage.

It's a simple truism that businesses thrive when customers have money to spend. Customers get their money from businesses paying them better wages.

If that was true then wages should be doubled or tripled. Or better yet - mandate that every fast food work be paid 100K a year. It should be fine because businesses do better when employees have money to spend - right? I assume you are bright enough to understand that your logic is complete nonsense if taken to absurd extremes so the question is where is the dividing line between wage levels which have positive net effects and wages levels which destroy businesses? There is no easy answer to that question and the government is certainly not qualified to answer it. This is why your naive analysis is so lacking. Edited August 26, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

If it ramped up again because a business improved their productivity and they shared their additional profit with you then your additional spending would be a net benefit to the economy. However, if it ramps up simply because the government told your employer to pay you more it would be a net negative because any additional spending from you would never replace the business income lost by being forced to pay you more.

Let's me see if I can work this through.

Scenario 1: My company makes $10,000 per week and pay me and four co-workers $5,000 per week; $4,500 is additional overhead, leaving them $500 profit. Over a year, their gross revenue increases by 10%, so they are now making $11,000 per week. They give everyone a $100 raise, their overhead doesn't increase, but they have another $500 profit. My coworkers and I contribute our $100 to the economy, increasing it by $500. The company also contributes their extra profit to the economy, at least that part of it that isn't paid to shareholders who live out of country. My company does not gain any new customers (revenue) because other companies did not raise their employees wages.

Scenario 2: The government mandates all employees receive a $100 raise; my company has to pay out an extra $500 per week which obviously will reduce their profit at least in the short term. However, because *everyone* has more money to spend, people who have never been to my company start purchasing our product. There isn't any reason to think that the increase in business won't allow my company to break even or even increase their profit. Perhaps they'll even have to hire more people, which means even more money flowing through the economy, supporting more businesses.

You can say that some companies won't survive the short-term pain of raising wages, and will go out of business and jobs will be lost. No doubt you are right; at the same time, that won't be true of all businesses. It's the consumer who support capitalism. The less money people have to spend, the more at risk are companies who need to sell their product to survive.

What amazes me is so many people think you can get money for nothing. If that premise was true government could simply increase taxes on businesses as much as they want since any tax increases would be more than replaced by extra business they get when government spends the money.

Indeed. The government has to spend it somewhere, eh? And wherever they spend is going to benefit.

You seem to think that companies don't need people to buy their products. What good is a pizza joint to the owner if nobody in his neighborhood can afford to buy a pizza because they've spent all their income on basic necessities, like rent/heat/real food? If 50% of the population only shops at Value Village or Salvation Army because they don't have enough money even for Walmart clothing, how long till more upscale clothing stores are going to close?

Business does not drive the economy; they profit from it. People who have money to buy stuff is what drives the economy.

[taxme]

I enjoy diversity more than the food factor. I enjoy to see oriental faces, the east indians, the middle eastern, the eastern European, the latins, africans as well as Caucasians. I am happy to live in a country where a small portion of my tax dollars mat be going to support people in need (economic immigrants, refugees, foreign aid). I do NOT stand for what you stand for. I do not discriminate, like or dislike based on color of skin or race. It is the size of the hearts and minds that matters to me not skin color. White skin does not make a person better or superior but big hearts and intelligent minds do. I believe immigrant proportion should be based on regional distribution on the planet. The Caucasian race is about 25 to 30% of planet's population and I think this is also the portion of our immigrants too or should be.

The last I heard Caucasian make up about 8-9% of world population. If so, you are way out of whack. So, in effect white people are in the minority if you want to take in world population. Flooding white countries with more non-whites than whites will make those numbers drop even further. I am not for that. I want my grandchildren to see and know that they were born and brought up in a white country with a white culture, with white morals and values and principles, not non-white ones. Why you or anyone else want to see the white people in this country become a minority is beyond me.

[taxme]

What if immigrants just all bleached their faces white?

Not going to work. After their second or third shower their true colors will eventually show. Their DNA and their genes makeup won't allow it to continue on forever. Eventually we will find out what their real colors are.