What Should Canada's Minimum Wage be?

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, cannuck said:

If you don't like what an employer is offering and paying, you simply go somewhere else

Which is more economical - paying a higher wage, or constant staff turnover?  Being chronically short-staffed because nobody wants to work for a pittance?  Hiring people who can barely speak English (or French) because they're the only ones desperate enough to take a small wage?  Constant turnover, short-staffing, poor communication all impact customer service, which impacts customer base.  

 

13 minutes ago, cannuck said:

but if you/they ever got off their ass and TRIED to actually be in business - at ANY level - you/they would find out in a hurry that it is not all that simple to be in and stay in, and a hell of a lot harder to actually make a profit in early stages or most small businesses. 

Odd that you'd assume left-leaning people don't operate successful businesses-or do you maybe have sources to back that assumption up?

[Shady]

On 12/18/2019 at 10:15 AM, dialamah said:

Which is more economical - paying a higher wage, or constant staff turnover? 

It really depends on the business.  Most of the time, businesses would rather not have high turnover.  That's why they offer higher wages than minimum wage, and higher benefits.

[cannuck]

On 12/18/2019 at 9:15 AM, dialamah said:

Which is more economical - paying a higher wage, or constant staff turnover?  Being chronically short-staffed because nobody wants to work for a pittance?  Hiring people who can barely speak English (or French) because they're the only ones desperate enough to take a small wage?  Constant turnover, short-staffing, poor communication all impact customer service, which impacts customer base.  

 

Odd that you'd assume left-leaning people don't operate successful businesses-or do you maybe have sources to back that assumption up?

Paying a higher wage than what?   If you raise all wages (as in minimum wage going up) all of the costs simply flow through and things everyone has to buy go up proportionally - and the minimum wage earner is right back where they started.  MARKETS need to set wages, as no fixed number from a bureaucrat can possibly account for regional, even local differences.  IF wage was the only factor, a business simply has to be paying more than its competitors (as in responding to market forces).   At the bottom end of the scale, there is not much required in the line of skills, experience, etc. and those without that and language competency are simply not worth as much money as those with.   Again, MARKET forces, not something a governement can do.  Shit, I have yet to see a government that could organize a piss-up at a brewery, never mind run an economy (or a government for that matter).

People in business from the left tend to be employees and/or those using O-Pee-uM (Other People's Money).  Entrepreneurs who are fully vested are the polar opposite of the left, and for the most part, since they have to deal with reality, realize that a business has to be a business, not a social service.

[PIK]

$11

[cougar]

Can't believe 50% of the voters (so far) here think they can live and prosper on $9/hour or less.   What a screwed up bunch of forum members we are.

[Yzermandius19]

On 12/6/2019 at 6:50 PM, ProudConservative said:

It makes absolutely no sense why you want to get rid of the minimum wage, and have a universal basic income. You just created an incentive to have everyone sit on their ass.

UBI does not create an incentive to sit on your ass, you get it whether you work or not. Also UBI is better than minimum wage because it doesn't force employers to pay employees more than they are worth, which results in less jobs being available and less hours for those jobs that aren't as productive as their wage. The incentive with minimum wage leads to more people sitting on their ass than UBI.

It makes perfect sense to prefer UBI to a minimum wage, you clearly haven't thought it through. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell know, Negative Income Tax FTW, Minimum Wage for the fail.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[cannuck]

The other component of GAI or whatever you want to call it would be IMHO complete removal of almost all government services for able bodied people. No more welfare, no more unemployment enjoyment, no more treaty money, etc.  People should not have to beg to overpaid bureaucrats for the right to survive.   Add to that: none of this "progressive" taxation BS that penalizes success.   From the first to the last dollar earned by WORKING, one tax, flat tax.   Very different deal for capital gains or any other kind of wealth redistribution that creates zero wealth = tax the crap out of it so investment money ends up being productive, not speculative.

Life on GAI should be near miserable for those able to work but you would free up business to find an appropriate wage for the value of the work being done.  It would also reduce the idiotic need for child care - as taxing speculative gain would burst the real estate bubble and allow families who wish to do so to live on a single income.

Edited December 21, 2019 by cannuck

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Very different deal for capital gains or any other kind of wealth redistribution that creates zero wealth = tax the crap out of it so investement money ends up being productive, not speculative.

If capital gains created zero wealth, then there would be no gains to realize. Do not tax the crap out of the best way to make money, that isn't going to help the poor at all, that is going to make it even harder for them to climb the ladder, just to punish people with capital for no good reason.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[cannuck]

24 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If capital gains created zero wealth, then there would be no gains to realize. Do not tax the crap out of the best way to make money, that isn't going to help the poor at all, that is going to make it even harder for them to climb the ladder, just to punish people with capital for no good reason.

Sorry, not the truth at all.   Wealth can only be created by two means: adding value to a resource or delivering a service in support of same.   ANYTHING else merely redistributes wealth.   When you have a capital gain (i.e. speculative change in value) you will indeed have one winner, but to redistribute the wealth, you must also have a corresponding loser.  It is a zero sum game since when Casino Capitalism increases the money supply, you simply devalue the actual value of the currency in which it was inflated.   It is a zero sum game that merely takes money from those who may well be productive and redistributes it to those who are not productive, but parasitic.  When you do actual productive work or business, you create wealth.  Since someone gets value for the improved resource or service, you increase the actual value of the state that is behind the value of its money supply and currency.  It is a 100% win.

It is vital to understand that increasing the price is not the same as increasing the value.

The most powerful influence on human financial behaviour is taxation.  You tax the crap out of transactions that create no wealth, but tread very, very lightly on wealth that has been created.  The end result is that to earn money, one would invest in productive business instead of simply gambling on how the value of the stock might change (or, please note, interest would be paid on debt - that should be similarly taxable).  The only way to prevent another 1929 only on a MUCH bigger scale is to defund Wall/Bay Street and fully fund Main Street.

Edited December 21, 2019 by cannuck

[Yzermandius19]

13 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Wealth can only be created by two means: adding value to a resource or delivering a service in support of same. 

Or you give people the capital to help them do that. You can call it redistribution if you want, it's still the best way to make money, and taxing the shit out of it is not going to be good for the economy, or poor people. You are just going to make it harder to add value to a resource or deliver a service by doing that, derp.

There is nothing wrong with capital gains, it supports the productive economy too, pretending it hurts the productive economy is just zero-sum thinking that does not apply. In economics, win-win situations are totally a thing, one part of the economy doing well doesn't necessarily come at the expense of other parts of the economy, and capital gains is a great example of that.

If you want to tax labor less, I agree with you, if you want to tax capital gains more, that's just stupid, and that doesn't help labor. You don't need to tax labor less and capital gains more or vice versa, you need to tax less in both instances if you want a strong economy. Labor does well when capital does well, and capital does well when labor does well, their interests are not opposed, punishing labor hurts capital and punishing capital hurts labor.

Enough of the stick, and heavy on the carrot.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[cannuck]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Or you give people the capital to help them do that. You can call it redistribution if you want, it's still the best way to make money, and taxing the shit out of it is not going to be good for the economy, or poor people. You are just going to make it harder to add value to a resource or deliver a service by doing that, derp.

I edited the last post while you were posting, it explains some of this.  Investing capital in productive ventures is NOT wealth redistribution.  You put "$XX" into the company and it shows as "$X" on the balance sheet, and since you OWN those shares, you have not redistributed wealth, you just moved it from your bank account to company's.  It is still your money and same value.  We call that capitalism.

Giving money to a bank, fund, etc. to be traded against the "market value" creates no wealth (the actual money is already accounted for on the balance sheet = "book value").  That is why the market value of a stock does NOT appear inside of the balance sheet, it is a note that has literally NOTHING to do with the actual business.   That abstract redistribution of wealth is called "Casino Capitalism" and creates not one penny of wealth (i.e. value).

[Yzermandius19]

Casino capitalism is fake news, it's just scapegoating those who are successful for any problems in the economy. All investing is a gamble, it's still helps the productive economy. Punishing capital and investments does not help labor.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Shady]

8 hours ago, cougar said:

Can't believe 50% of the voters (so far) here think they can live and prosper on $9/hour or less.   What a screwed up bunch of forum members we are.

Live is different than prosper.  I’m not sure what you mean by proposer.  If that’s your goal you probably should be seeking a higher skilled job that demands higher pay.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Casino capitalism is fake news, it's just scapegoating those who are successful for any problems in the economy. All investing is a gamble, it's still helps the productive economy. Punishing capital and investments does not help labor.

Respectfully: that is pure BS.  When you buy an existing equity, you are NOT investing.  Only the IPO or any subsequent PO goes to the company.   After that, it is 90% speculation (allowing some for dividends - which should NOT be taxed).  Putting capital into the hands of speculative transactions is punishing business (i.e. Main Street) by diverting trillion$$ into the hands of banks/finance instead of putting it where it needs to be - in the hands of productive endeavor.

We all saw how that went sideways the last time (1929) and what really went wrong is that in 2008/9 when it should have crashed and once more been fixed by legislation, instead of paying for their treachery, finance was rewarded with trillions of "too big to fail" bailouts for schemes that had no business surviving.

[jacee]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

Can't believe 50% of the voters (so far) here think they can live and prosper on $9/hour or less.   What a screwed up bunch of forum members we are.

I'd guess those voting for $9 are owners/employers who cheap out on staffing, training, materials and likely everything else. Don't buy products or services from cheapskates: They will be inferior and crappy, and that business won't last long, because the owners just don't have a head for business.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by jacee

[cougar]

9 hours ago, Shady said:

Live is different than prosper.  I’m not sure what you mean by proposer.  If that’s your goal you probably should be seeking a higher skilled job that demands higher pay.

OK, have you tried to live on $9/hour at today's prices?

Might work if you are at school and Mommy  and  Daddy are paying for the roof over your head, food and hydro bills.  Otherwise you will soon join the tent of the homeless in the park.

[Yzermandius19]

18 hours ago, cannuck said:

Respectfully: that is pure BS.  When you buy an existing equity, you are NOT investing.  Only the IPO or any subsequent PO goes to the company.   After that, it is 90% speculation (allowing some for dividends - which should NOT be taxed).  Putting capital into the hands of speculative transactions is punishing business (i.e. Main Street) by diverting trillion$$ into the hands of banks/finance instead of putting it where it needs to be - in the hands of productive endeavor.

We all saw how that went sideways the last time (1929) and what really went wrong is that in 2008/9 when it should have crashed and once more been fixed by legislation, instead of paying for their treachery, finance was rewarded with trillions of "too big to fail" bailouts for schemes that had no business surviving.

That speculation does not hurt productive endeavors, it aids productive endeavors, hence it's existence in the first place. Legislation is not required, the market corrects, no need for bailouts. Market corrections happen, blaming speculation is a scapegoat. Casino capitalism is fake news, you can outlaw certain forms of speculation, and that will not prevent a market correction from happening.

Many of these corrections are exacerbated by government interference in the economy, that doesn't mean if there was no government intervention there would be no correction, it just means that overdoing it on the regulation side of things like you are trying to do with over burdensome tax rates on capital gains, doesn't help the economy.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Yzermandius19