Minimum Wage Proposal $10.00 hour

[scribblet]

How does everyone feel about the proposed federal raise to $10 hour by NDP MP Peggy Nash .... is it time or does it not make economic sense?

[crazymf]

I do not know about the rest of the country, but I need to pay my employees $13/hour just to keep them from going back to Mcdonalds. $10 probably doesn't cut it here around Edmonton.

[TravellingTimeMachineSalesman]

Its just outright insanity that will devastate "low level job" opening as well as kill jobs. Any one in favour of a $10.00 an hour minimum wage is either insane or " a few ice cubes short of a 'planters' punch'!!!

[Argus]

How does everyone feel about the proposed federal raise to $10 hour by NDP MP Peggy Nash .... is it time or does it not make economic sense?

Stupid idea. It's one of those simplistic, feel-good things the Left is so noted for, which shows the proponent has no time for complexities.

Raising the minimum wage by that much will drastically increase the costs for cheap, low-skill labour, in many cases forcing costs to rise beyond sustainable levels. It would force a lot of companies to either relocate or invest in automation machinery or go out of business. It would also put a huge upward pressure on lower skilled but still higher paid wages. I mean, if minimum wage is $8, and you're paying $10-11 to get a higher quality person for something, the raise of minimum wage suddenly makes your wage less attractive. You'll have to bump it up to $12-13 to get anyone good. And so on, and so on.

Some companies could just pass that along to the consumer, but in most there would be a corresponding fall in demand for their goods or services, which will result in job cuts and job transfers to low wage countries.

[cybercoma]

How does everyone feel about the proposed federal raise to $10 hour by NDP MP Peggy Nash .... is it time or does it not make economic sense?

How do you feel about unemployment?

If a company has $x to spend on wages and $10 minimum wage hike increases their expenses by $x + 10% (completely arbitrary, the number doesn't matter), do you not think the company will let go as many people as it needs to get back to $x?

[Guest Warwick Green]

How does everyone feel about the proposed federal raise to $10 hour by NDP MP Peggy Nash .... is it time or does it not make economic sense?

Political posturing by the socialists.

http://www.fls-ntf.gc.ca/en/fin-rpt.asp

This is the report of the task force looking at federal work standards released last Monday. Nash decided to try and buy a few votes by looking at one issue and bringing in a PMB. The government is acting more responsibly by holding consultations across the country.

This is an example of why the NDP will always be a fourth place party.

[August1991]

Imagine if the government passed a law making it illegal to buy or sell a car for less than $40,000. What would happen? Well, people who drive BMWs would be unaffected. But the law would seriously affect people who drive Hyundais.

It has never failed to amaze me how people who profess to want to help poor people can advocate policies that achieve the exact opposite.

The best way to help people working on low wages would be to cut all payroll deductions (CPP, EI and so on). It is a crime that the government takes any money from a person earning minimum wage.

Stupid idea. It's one of those simplistic, feel-good things the Left is so noted for, which shows the proponent has no time for complexities.

Not only is the idea stupid but given the current labour market, this proposal is vaguely ridiculous. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in 30 years and in all likelihood it will just fall further.

BTW, federal minimum wage regulations affect a very small number of people in Canada.

[Guest Warwick Green]

BTW, federal minimum wage regulations affect a very small number of people in Canada.

The task force report determined that only a handful of people would be affected - couriers and airport security.

Nash knows that. She wants the provinces to pick it up too.

[White Doors]

Imagine if the government passed a law making it illegal to buy or sell a car for less than $40,000. What would happen? Well, people who drive BMWs would be unaffected. But the law would seriously affect people who drive Hyundais.

It has never failed to amaze me how people who profess to want to help poor people can advocate policies that achieve the exact opposite.

The best way to help people working on low wages would be to cut all payroll deductions (CPP, EI and so on). It is a crime that the government takes any money from a person earning minimum wage.

Stupid idea. It's one of those simplistic, feel-good things the Left is so noted for, which shows the proponent has no time for complexities.

Not only is the idea stupid but given the current labour market, this proposal is vaguely ridiculous. Unemployment is the lowest it has been in 30 years and in all likelihood it will just fall further.

BTW, federal minimum wage regulations affect a very small number of people in Canada.

Well said. I read thta this would only affect the 8% of companies who are regulated federally. The vast majority are regulated provincially.

[crazymf]

Argus,

IMO it's a myth that you'll get a higher quality person by paying more. I've tried throwing money at employees to get more stability in my work force and it doesn't work. I think it's a sign of the times that the younger generation has a work ethic that sucks. For the most part they want stuff but don't want to work for it.

August,

I don't think cutting CPP and EI is a good thing either. Low wage earners don't pay much tax so that's not much of an issue. However, low paying jobs aren't normally very stable and people need the EI to fall back on, unless you're merely suggesting they go directly on welfare. The CPP is in big trouble in the future from what I hear and all wage earners should contribute. Don't forget that we as employers match the CPP deduction and pay 1.4 times the EI deduction in Alberta.

I can hardly find employees as it is because right now anyone who wants to work in Alberta is working. With 3% unemployment, you may as well say 0%.

Minimum wage should not be raised. I agree with the pyramid effect up the chain being very detrimental to business. There should be a low minimum wage with the onus on the worker to make him or herself worth more.

[August1991]

August,

I don't think cutting CPP and EI is a good thing either. Low wage earners don't pay much tax so that's not much of an issue. However, low paying jobs aren't normally very stable and people need the EI to fall back on, unless you're merely suggesting they go directly on welfare. The CPP is in big trouble in the future from what I hear and all wage earners should contribute. Don't forget that we as employers match the CPP deduction and pay 1.4 times the EI deduction in Alberta.

Crazy, don't get me wrong. These people should be entitled to EI and a pension. I just don't think they should contribute.

It is insane that an employer has all this paperwork to collect so little from people who have even less. When we speak of a minimum wage, we forget that the employer pays more than than the employee receives because the government takes a cut - and the employer has to fill out all these forms. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it costs an employer on average $10 an hour to pay an employee $8 an hour because of payroll taxes and forms.

If the government were serious about raising the minimum wage, it would stop taking its cut and would make it far easier for employers to have employees on staff.

Mulroney tried to reform UIC and then walked away from it.

[crazymf]

You're right. Most workers don't realize what it costs us to employ them.

At the end of the day, the only thing that works is to keep employees happy that they're working at your business. It's an impossible feat to do for every person, but we keep trying.

[Riverwind]

Imagine if the government passed a law making it illegal to buy or sell a car for less than $40,000. What would happen? Well, people who drive BMWs would be unaffected. But the law would seriously affect people who drive Hyundais.

Imagine if the gov't passed a law setting a minimum price for carbon emitting fuels? I bet the consumption would go down and the poorest people in society would be hurt a lot. Yet many people argue that the gov't should artificially increase the price of fuel to further ill-defined social priorities.

Minimum wages kill jobs - not question there. But they also force employers to use the people they hire more effectively by investing in technology and training. This will lead to increase in productivity in the long run. In additon, employers tend to treat employees which cost more with more respect.

This argument does not mean the minimum wage should be high - just means that it should exist.

[August1991]

Imagine if the gov't passed a law setting a minimum price for carbon emitting fuels? I bet the consumption would go down and the poorest people in society would be hurt a lot. Yet many people argue that the gov't should artificially increase the price of fuel to further ill-defined social priorities.

No one is suggesting that there be a minimum price for carbon-emitting fuels. What some have suggested - Ignatieff most recently - is to impose a carbon tax. That's very different from a minimum wage.

At present, anyone can spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at no cost. We treat the atmosphere as a costless resource. We treat it like a slave who has not a minimum wage but no wage at all.

Minimum wages kill jobs - not question there. But they also force employers to use the people they hire more effectively by investing in technology and training. This will lead to increase in productivity in the long run. In additon, employers tend to treat employees which cost more with more respect.

It is in the interest of employers now to adopt new technology - if it is cost effective.

This argument does not mean the minimum wage should be high - just means that it should exist.

That's patronizing. IOW, it should not be higher than what you earn, Riverwind.

[Riverwind]

What some have suggested - Ignatieff most recently - is to impose a carbon tax. That's very different from a minimum wage.

Not really. A minimum wage and a carbon tax are both policies that increase the cost of something and are justified by intangible social values rather than pure economics.

It is in the interest of employers now to adopt new technology - if it is cost effective.

It is the interest of people to burn as much cheap fuel as possible. The purpose of a carbon tax is to make it cost effective for people to choose alternatives that emit less carbon.

That's patronizing. IOW, it should not be higher than what you earn, Riverwind.

A lot less partronizing than telling those people that they should only be paid what the 'market' decides even if that is 0.50/hour.

Pratically speaking we need to have a minimum wage that is higher that social assistance payments.

[bradco]

Absolutly horrible idea! This would, in my opinion, result in higher unemployment. If I have to pay a higher wage to all my employees Im going to lay off the less talented ones and pay more to my more talented ones to make sure they stick around and work hard for me. This is yet another example where the NDP is out of touch with reality. They let things that sound good on the surface form their policies without thinking of what the consequences of such policies will be.

"I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it costs an employer on average $10 an hour to pay an employee $8 an hour because of payroll taxes and forms."

Correct. Personally, only about 80% of my labour costs are actually paid out in wages. The rest goes to matching cpp, ei contributions and insurance.

"A lot less partronizing than telling those people that they should only be paid what the 'market' decides even if that is 0.50/hour."

The minimum wage is fine where it is though. A lot of people dont work hard enough and deserve the wages they are already getting.

[Slavik44]

This whole minimium wage thing is meerley another one of those feel good vote buying strategies that the NDP is renowned for. The problem is that ciggarettes also are supposed to make you feel good, personally the possibility of a longterm negative impact is just to high, especially considering the little to no short term gain, the same can be said for minimium wage.

Lets face it when the economy is really hot, you can't even attract a patient from a mental asylum to work for minimium wage, cause across the street someone will be offering 50% more. Even when the economy is just doing good, there are plenty of jobs available, almost all of them paying more then minimium wage. If my current employer threatened to cut my pay to minimium wage, I would walk away, I have the luxury to do so, because there are so many jobs out there paying more then minimium it would be stupid for me to work for the minimium at a such a physically challanging job. Your average burger flipper at Mcdonalds earns more then minimium wage. Companies are not beign stupid when they pay people more then minimium. They are simply responding to the facts of the Labour Market, that if you want an employee, you are going to have to offer something that is in line with everyone else, or your not going to get an employee.

When companies make wanted adds in the newspaper, they actually do want something, go figure. And they are going to do every reasonable thing to ensure they get what they want. A wanted add that says, Wanted hard working, reliable, expirenced shipper reciever, will pay $4/hour, isn't going to cut it. I think the problem becomes the fact that people see the "wanted" as the same thing as a five year olds Christmas wish list. The truth is, wanted could just as easily be replaced by needed. They don't want a shipper reciever, they need one. And they are not going to offer $4 an hour, because no sane shipper reciever is going to work for that. The company has a need, and they will do everything they can to get that need filled, that most likely means changing the $4 to a $14. Companies are not insane for offering more then minimium wage, with the current economic state it is almost a neccesity, in order to promplty fill open positions.

But what about when things take a down turn, is that when minimium wage has a benifiet? Not really. Minimium wage primarily affects students. I am a student so I will take me as an example. I currently work for $10.50/hour +bonuses ($20-30/day). Now this is great I can pay for school in about two months, and then have money left over for other things. Now if the economy suddenly took a turn for the worse and my employer said I need to cut your bonuses, I would say sure. Maybe it goes even worse, and he needs to take away my .5 sure....maybe it gets even worse....in fact maybe the economy really goes down the shitter, I would still probabley work for $4.50 an hour. Am I insane? No, my primary goal is to be able to pay my tuition, if the economy starts going down, I would be willing to re-adjust my earnings based on this in order to stay in school. If forced to I would take any wage that allows me to do that, over un-employment. There are some people that would choose un-employment. That should be their choice as an individual. I have different priorities and I would make a different choice.

Unfortunately with minimium wage at $8 an hour I wouldn't be able to make that choice, let alone with moving it to ten. The choice would be made for me, and all I could do is hope I am one of the lucky ones who gets to keep their job. But I would rather be put in the position where I have control over keeping myself in the workforce. It is my labour, and when it comees down to it, I want to set the price of my labour...it is mine. Minimium is almost a suggestion that we don't believe people have the ability to think for themselves, that somehow we can make better choices on their behalf. If thats the case then fine, let me go down to hastings and get a wife for one of peggy Nash's children.

[Charles Anthony]

Not really. A minimum wage and a carbon tax are both policies that increase the cost of something and are justified by intangible social values rather than pure economics.

Uh.... what do you mean by "intangible social values rather than pure economics." ?

It is in the interest of employers now to adopt new technology - if it is cost effective.

It is the interest of people to burn as much cheap fuel as possible. The purpose of a carbon tax is to make it cost effective for people to choose alternatives that emit less carbon.

Not really. The purpose of a carbon tax is to place a cost upon the environment which is currently used for free.

That's patronizing. IOW, it should not be higher than what you earn, Riverwind.

A lot less partronizing than telling those people that they should only be paid what the 'market' decides even if that is 0.50/hour.

The "market" does not decide anything. People decide for themselves. The "market" is just a statistical summary of aggregate individual behavior.

Minimum wage leads to unwilling and preventable unemployment.

Pratically speaking we need to have a minimum wage that is higher that social assistance payments.

No. We need to eliminate minimum wage.

[geoffrey]

Pratically speaking we need to have a minimum wage that is higher that social assistance payments.

No. We need to eliminate minimum wage.

And social assistance payments to some degree. River is looking at this the wrong way. If you can make more on social assistance than at a job, social assistance is too high, not the job too low.

[scribblet]

We canot do away with the minimum wage, it is necessary to protect workers, but raising it to $10.00 would likely result in employers cutting back on hours worked so workers wouldn't gain anything, either that or they would be laid off alltogether.

I'm not an advocate of raising welfare payments, but they are as low as they can go now, what might be a consideration is to raise the amount a welfare recipient can make while on welfare. If you live in Toronto you cannot live on minimum wage unless you live at home, it is not possible as housing and rents are out of sight.

What really needs to be done is to provide more skills training for the unemployed or underemployed, bring back trade schools and apprenticeship programs. The Ont. gov't touts its apprenticeship training, but nothing kicks in until the individual has been hired as an apprentice - not easy. The plumbers union for instance does its testing and screening once a year and only a few applicant make it, there has to be more emphasis on the trades and training. Not everyone is university material. There are schools and courses but they cost and of course one needs money to live on while attending, again single people not living at home can't afford it.

I would not be averse to welfare payments continuing while a recipient attends skills training or upgrading, as of now in Ontario, you cannot go to school (any type of school) and receive welfare. Unemployment is available for some but the retraining there was cut back a few years ago.

[Argus]

Argus,

IMO it's a myth that you'll get a higher quality person by paying more. I've tried throwing money at employees to get more stability in my work force and it doesn't work. I think it's a sign of the times that the younger generation has a work ethic that sucks. For the most part they want stuff but don't want to work for it.

Then if you pay more you get older workers. As an example, let me use two groups within the government I know. One is underclassified, which means the employees are doing more complex work which demands a higher level of skill than the agency recognizes. They are not being properly renumerated for what they do. The other, ironically, sitting next to the first group, is overclassified, getting paid at a higher level than their skills would warrant. The results are fairly predictable. The first group has nearly 100% annual turnover and has trouble getting new staff. The second group hasn't had anyone leave - except by dying - in ten years.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am not in favour of a new round of minimum wage increases. I think those jobs affected are not what I would classify as mainstream employment but instead sort of a fringe form of employment. If the NDP want to bark up a tree in the name of social justice then perhaps their arguement should have been to have employers cover off EI,CPP and healthcare deductions for employees. That would put a few hundred dollars a month into their pockets without a tax increase and the costs would be offset with correseponding deductions from the employer tax contribution to the feds. It would mean a reduction in revenue stream for the feds but oh well.

[crazymf]

Then if you pay more you get older workers.

I'll agree with that. And generally, older people are more stable and experienced.

Actually, the demographic that seems most suited to work at my establishment are women in their mid 20's with no kids.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My guess is that you are female. Either single or wanting to be single, strong willed, upwardly mobile and uncomprimising in your beliefs. You also appear to be inteligent and hard working. Not that I think that you would care but, three cheers for you, girl or not. Nations need hard working ambitious people, and you seem to fit that bill.

[crazymf]

My guess is that you are female. Either single or wanting to be single, strong willed, upwardly mobile and uncomprimising in your beliefs. You also appear to be inteligent and hard working. Not that I think that you would care but, three cheers for you, girl or not. Nations need hard working ambitious people, and you seem to fit that bill.

Are you talking to me?

That last bit reminds me of a funny poster I saw years ago. "Go to work every day. Millions on welfare depend on you."