May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by JayP

There's actually lots of evidence that transporting food long distances by rail can be more environmentally friendly than fossil-fuel-heated greenhouses transporting their food into cities by truck (which is 10 times less efficient than rail).

So, yes, thanks NDP.

But i have read that most produce is shipped by truck and only 10 percent by rail.

Anyway if you were ship fresh produce from south america by rail (which i believe is impossible because of the Darian gap, so it needs to be on a plane at some point) (the blueberries i just bought at safeway were a product of Peru) that would be less of a carbon foot print then shipping by truck from Taber or wherever this guys greenhouse is...I don't believe that

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Totally. Like I said, I'm not naive to the fact that there would likely be an adjustment period, but I think it will level out in the long run. That seems to be what's been shown in the various studies on the subject that have used real life examples. The only difference between those studies and what we have in Alberta is the rate at which the minimum wage is increasing.

You think it will level out. But doing this in an already fragile economy is insane. There will be layoffs which will add to an already higher than normal level of unemployment, even less disposable incomes, less business, more layoffs.

A bracketed minimum wage increase is more reasonable imo. Based on revenue or taxed income of a business to protect high revenue/low profit businesses. Ie: a Wal-Mart can absorb a minimum wage increase a lot better than Sue's Bakery. What that does for talent competition though is a whole other ball of wax.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Jim is a bad business owner because he has a fixed budget for labour? You can't be serious.

No, he's a bad business owner because he can't just make more money to adjust for a 50% increase in wages.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Such as?
On top of the increased labour costs he is facing higher taxes, higher utility costs and lower demand as the economy tanks. How big do you think Jim's profit margin was to be able to weather all those storms?

So now you're adding the other factors in. Like I said I completely agree that the NDP are stupid for bringing this minimum wage increase in while the economy is in the tank. I said that from the moment they said they were going to push on with the minimum wage increase despite the economic environment. I 100% agree that the minimum wage increase is coming at a terrible time as now the increased inflation will hurt a lot more than normally. I was arguing purely for Minimum Wage increases in an isolated scenario.

(If you're trying to relate this to Johnny Greenhouse, then you're forgetting that the greenhouses are trying to get exempt from the bare minimum of employment standards that Jims Hardware was already following. That's what I'm against.)

Originally Posted by Jacks

It's be picked up by big box stores that don't pay any higher of wages and a lot of them ship any profits out of the country. Who exactly wins there?

They pay the 50% higher wages?

Originally Posted by Jacks

Are you for real?

Yes. I don't believe owning a business is a right.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by username

Do you have a link/reference to these studies? I'm really curious because everything I was taught in university economics (albeit a long time ago) would suggest otherwise.

I posted a few in the previous minimum wage thread if you want to go digging in there. The best one I read was a compilation of a number of the major studies, which did a really good job of analyzing which methods were the most accurate for predicting the outcome. The general takeaway, if I remember correctly, was that increasing the minimum wage generally showed minor increases to employment and economic performance but they weren't statistically significant, and that there was a statistically significant reduction in youth employment but it wasn't drastic.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Except maybe this...
Youth unemployment rate in Alberta surges to nearly 13%
http://calgaryherald.com/business/lo...s-to-nearly-13

This article says that the youth unemployment rate is doing well in relation to other downturns in the provincial economy. It doesn't mention the minimum wage increase as a cause.

Honest question : How many sectors in Alberta are relying on minimum wage workers, where there is a real chance that if they were shuttered, the sector would move over seas? I was under the impression that the vast majority of impacted workers and businesses would be in industries that couldn't be shipped over seas by definition.

As for the bizarre Jim's Hardware situation. If Jim was such a bad businessman that the survival of his business relied on an extra $96 a day being paid to employees (I'm assuming 3 employees on rotating shifts over a 12 hour day/4 hour overlap) he would have been out of business the first time he ran into any hardship. Jim is an idiot.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Honest question : How many sectors in Alberta are relying on minimum wage workers, where there is a real chance that if they were shuttered, the sector would move over seas? I was under the impression that the vast majority of impacted workers and businesses would be in industries that couldn't be shipped over seas by definition.

Correct. The majority of minimum wage jobs are in retail and face-to-face customer service.

[Locke]

I just dealt with this. Why do people keep cycling back to the:

"Hes a crappy business owner!"

"Hes a bad business man!"

"His business model is flawed!!"

Do you think everyone that runs a small business is Mr. Peanut or Rich Uncle Pennybags the Monopoly Man?

Different businesses have to operate differently in order to be able to compete in different industry segments.

These industry segments have parameters that are set by both the Government and the market. The Government is local, while the market isnt necessarily.

So when the Government changes the parameters that have to be met here the businesses then have to adapt. Their competitors dont necessarily have to depending on their local legislation.

This causes some businesses to lose their ability to compete because you cannot legislate an increase in costs in an industry segment where all the factors, factors that are important to generation of revenue, do not also change.

This isnt 'bad business' or 'greedy business owners' or 'flawed business models' its a legislated inability to compete in certain industry segments due to senseless Government meddling.

And some of you think this is a good thing?

The almost $1M that this local business owner pumped into local labour is now gone. As is whatever taxes he and those employees paid on that money.

And all in the name of.........?

[MelBridgeman]

There are two types of people in this thread, those of have actually ran a business and those who haven't but may have read a book or two on "theories"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

You think it will level out. But doing this in an already fragile economy is insane. There will be layoffs which will add to an already higher than normal level of unemployment, even less disposable incomes, less business, more layoffs.

I agree with this. If you raise the minimum wage while employment levels are continuing to plummet, you're not going to see the increased demand because you've already lost a bunch of potential buyers.

A bracketed minimum wage increase is more reasonable imo. Based on revenue or taxed income of a business to protect high revenue/low profit businesses. Ie: a Wal-Mart can absorb a minimum wage increase a lot better than Sue's Bakery. What that does for talent competition though is a whole other ball of wax.

Surprised you'd advocate for something that looks like the government interfering in the free-market. I don't think I agree with it either because it's a reactive measure. If you actually want to level the playing field, then there needs to be some real substantive policies that deal with the use of what is essentially slave labour in underdeveloped countries.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

There are two types of people in this thread, those of have actually ran a business and those who haven't but may have read a book or two on "theories"

Yeah, only idiots try to get an education.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just dealt with this. Why do people keep cycling back to the:

"Hes a crappy business owner!"

"Hes a bad business man!"

"His business model is flawed!!"

Do you think everyone that runs a small business is Mr. Peanut or Rich Uncle Pennybags the Monopoly Man?

Different businesses have to operate differently in order to be able to compete in different industry segments.

These industry segments have parameters that are set by both the Government and the market. The Government is local, while the market isnt necessarily.

So when the Government changes the parameters that have to be met here the businesses then have to adapt. Their competitors dont necessarily have to depending on their local legislation.

This causes some businesses to lose their ability to compete because you cannot legislate an increase in costs in an industry segment where all the factors, factors that are important to generation of revenue, do not also change.

This isnt 'bad business' or 'greedy business owners' or 'flawed business models' its a legislated inability to compete in certain industry segments due to senseless Government meddling.

And some of you think this is a good thing?

The almost $1M that this local business owner pumped into local labour is now gone. As is whatever taxes he and those employees paid on that money.

And all in the name of.........?

One business owner might have lost his business what about all of the other Greenhouses? Has it just eliminated one poorly operated business while raising the quality of life for the employees of the rest of the industry?

Cause then I see that as major win.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just dealt with this. Why do people keep cycling back to the:

"Hes a crappy business owner!"

"Hes a bad business man!"

"His business model is flawed!!"

Because it is easy.

Just as easy as it is to use the term "living wage" and denigrate anybody who would dare stand in the way of such a nebulous threshold.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree with this. If you raise the minimum wage while employment levels are continuing to plummet, you're not going to see the increased demand because you've already lost a bunch of potential buyers.



Surprised you'd advocate for something that looks like the government interfering in the free-market. I don't think I agree with it either because it's a reactive measure. If you actually want to level the playing field, then there needs to be some real substantive policies that deal with the use of what is essentially slave labour in underdeveloped countries.

It's no more government interference than richer companies and individuals paying more taxes imo.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

There are two types of people in this thread, those of have actually ran a business and those who haven't but may have read a book or two on "theories"

Don't the majority of small businesses fail in less than 18 months?

I think it's not a stretch to say most small business owners are bad at it.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

There are two types of people in this thread, those of have actually ran a business and those who haven't but may have read a book or two on "theories"

I agree, and I've seen 'theories' on both sides of this argument. An even 'funner' game is trying to figure out which people have managed front line workers, and which people were immediately placed in a management position with no customer or front line contact.

It's actually surprisingly difficult to research this topic online, because there are such decisive political lines drawn, and so few unbiased media outlets. San Fransisco is two years ahead of Alberta in implementation of a similar plan, and I'm watching that with some interest.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just dealt with this. Why do people keep cycling back to the:

"Hes a crappy business owner!"

"Hes a bad business man!"

"His business model is flawed!!"

Do you think everyone that runs a small business is Mr. Peanut or Rich Uncle Pennybags the Monopoly Man?

Different businesses have to operate differently in order to be able to compete in different industry segments.

These industry segments have parameters that are set by both the Government and the market. The Government is local, while the market isnt necessarily.

So when the Government changes the parameters that have to be met here the businesses then have to adapt. Their competitors dont necessarily have to depending on their local legislation.

This causes some businesses to lose their ability to compete because you cannot legislate an increase in costs in an industry segment where all the factors, factors that are important to generation of revenue, do not also change.

This isnt 'bad business' or 'greedy business owners' or 'flawed business models' its a legislated inability to compete in certain industry segments due to senseless Government meddling.

And some of you think this is a good thing?

The almost $1M that this local business owner pumped into local labour is now gone. As is whatever taxes he and those employees paid on that money.

And all in the name of.........?

I think what people are saying is that circumstances can change unexpectedly and most successful businesses will leave themselves enough of a cushion to absorb the change. And this isn't a change that's going to affect all business owners in a manner that's going to put them out of business, and in some cases may give rise to new businesses, in which case we have a net neutral effect on the economy but a net positive effect on societal norms. Business owners don't have an inherent right to succeed at the expense of the greater good.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It's actually surprisingly difficult to research this topic online, because there are such decisive political lines drawn, and so few unbiased media outlets. San Fransisco is two years ahead of Alberta in implementation of a similar plan, and I'm watching that with some interest.

That plus no two locations/economies/societies are alike. San Fran is a city surrounded by a state. Alberta is a province surrounded by a country. There are just over a gillion things that would apply/not apply here/there.

Still shaking my head over directing Jim to work for minimum wage if he wants to have a successful business.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by polak

So now you're adding the other factors in. Like I said I completely agree that the NDP are stupid for bringing this minimum wage increase in while the economy is in the tank.

Other factors that are all caused by the NDP. They are stupid to bring in all of these policies when the economy is getting crushed.

Originally Posted by polak

Yes. I don't believe owning a business is a right.

Not a right but we shouldn't be making it harder for people to own a business.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's no more government interference than richer companies and individuals paying more taxes imo.

Yeah, I guess I just don't like it because Walmart's competitive advantage is its ability to exploit workers in other countries during the manufacturing process, and I don't see how your plan addresses that. Neither does the NDP's for that matter, but at least the NDP are setting parameters for what they feel is an acceptable level of compensation, and I personally think that's a good thing for the normative principles it promotes.