How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People More

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's the problem with most of your posts. You start with the presumption of what people need to be paid. That's not how businesses get rolling. You start with an idea, determine what it can sell for and what it costs to produce, and if you can make money on it, you take the risk and invest.

If you start with the presumption of what people need to be paid, you wind up with nothing. No business. Might as well have a directed economy.

As for Flash Walken I have and will continue to ignore him, at least iggy_oi states a position, and yes I attack it because I find the position offensive to the free market. Flash Walken doesn't even get that far however.

You're again making a lot of assumptions. I have no exact presumption of what anyone needs to be paid, however I believe there needs to some regulation to ensure there isn't an unfair balance. Directed economy? We already have a minimum wage, so I guess in your opinion we already have that right? Or do you only consider it to be that way if it gets to a level you disagree with?

Maybe you should do some research into how and why minimum wage came to be in existence. A quick summary would be this, a bunch of business owners used their leverage of being the only sources of income for people to pay as little as possible to their employees, this created a massive wealth gap between workers and business owners. Businesses were then able to dictate the quality of life for everyone because they controlled the income as well as the costs for the goods and services these employees used their wages to pay for. If a company decided to charge more, they didn't have to give a raise to even it out for their employees, this led to what we would consider slavery if it were seen today. So people fought back and eventually gained a mechanism to help prevent this from happening again. And back then people claimed all the same things that people claim today to argue against raising minimum wage, funny thing is that a lot of it ended up being a load of BS. Imagine that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you don't start by saying what someone needs to get paid then build a business plan from there. It has to come from market forces, otherwise it never works in the long term. Some form of minimum to help along certain parts of society, but the analysis has to come from a different direction.

The advocacy I've seen here suggests businesses should price their labour at a certain rate and then if that doesn't work, they shouldn't even have a business. That is completely backwards.

Businesses already have to account for what the minimum they have to pay their employees is, and businesses have managed to be succesful despite what you claim is road block long term.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you don't start by saying what someone needs to get paid then build a business plan from there. It has to come from market forces, otherwise it never works in the long term. Some form of minimum to help along certain parts of society, but the analysis has to come from a different direction.

The advocacy I've seen here suggests businesses should price their labour at a certain rate and then if that doesn't work, they shouldn't even have a business. That is completely backwards.

There isn't an in between. If a business can only hire someone at less than poverty wages that requires them to go on food stamps and collect other tax payer funded help, that job shouldn't exist. I don't know how that can be explained any other way, or, frankly, not agreed on.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

If a business can only hire someone at less than poverty wages that requires them to go on food stamps and collect other tax payer funded help, that job shouldn't exist. I don't know how that can be explained any other way, or, frankly, not agreed on.

Nice. People who aren't employable at anything below the poverty level don't deserve to have jobs.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

There isn't an in between. If a business can only hire someone at less than poverty wages that requires them to go on food stamps and collect other tax payer funded help, that job shouldn't exist. I don't know how that can be explained any other way, or, frankly, not agreed on.

Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada. No one has a problem with that. The problem is that you are confusing the minimum wage with a living wage. Once we get $15 an hour in place you will not have to worry about jobs existing any more. The federal liberals have even said as much and they won't be raising the fed minimum wage at all.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada. No one has a problem with that. The problem is that you are confusing the minimum wage with a living wage. Once we get $15 an hour in place you will not have to worry about jobs existing any more. The federal liberals have even said as much and they won't be raising the fed minimum wage at all.

What do you mean old minimum wage?

$10.20 an hour on January 1st 2015. StatCan has the poverty line at about $25,000 for populations in urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton.

$10.20/hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $21,216. It was not getting them over the cutoff, even with defining full-time as 40 hours a week.

Even today's minimum wage of $12.20 would be pretty much at the poverty line. And that's with 40 hours a week, which is far more than what is considered to be full-time.

I think an argument that $15/hour is overkill is perfectly fair, but it's not that big of overkill.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Nice. People who aren't employable at anything below the poverty level don't deserve to have jobs.

Yeah because that's exactly what he was saying.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada. No one has a problem with that. The problem is that you are confusing the minimum wage with a living wage. Once we get $15 an hour in place you will not have to worry about jobs existing any more. The federal liberals have even said as much and they won't be raising the fed minimum wage at all.

In your opinion what is the point of a minimum wage?

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess the best solution is that anyone that still has a residence with their parents isn't eligible for the minimum wage max increase. Also people in the bar industry.

That should cut out about 75% of the increases.

You can still increase those ones but not as much.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess the best solution is that anyone that still has a residence with their parents isn't eligible for the minimum wage max increase. Also people in the bar industry.

Not sure about the first provision, might be a reason why they are living at home, they could even be the breadwinner. But agreed with the second one, except I would include any server or maybe even occupation that accepts tips regularly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not sure about the first provision, might be a reason why they are living at home, they could even be the breadwinner. But agreed with the second one, except I would include any server or maybe even occupation that accepts tips regularly.

then put an age provision on the first one. Frankly some kid in high school flipping burgers, shouldn't need the minimum wage bump if he's living at home and not paying rent.

More complex to track sure.

But if this whole argument is about the working poor, then lets focus on the working poor and fix that.

The only issue would be that companies wouldn't hire older workers anymore. They'd look at part time students or students on summer break.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What do you mean old minimum wage?

$10.20 an hour on January 1st 2015. StatCan has the poverty line at about $25,000 for populations in urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton.

$10.20/hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $21,216. It was not getting them over the cutoff, even with defining full-time as 40 hours a week.

Even today's minimum wage of $12.20 would be pretty much at the poverty line. And that's with 40 hours a week, which is far more than what is considered to be full-time.

I think an argument that $15/hour is overkill is perfectly fair, but it's not that big of overkill.

Wow. Sorry to have completely blown your mind there. "Old minimum wage" means the wage just before the "new" minimum wage. So $11,20.

40 hrs a week is by no means way more than full time. Full time is 30-44 hours a week. And 50 weeks a year plus holiday pay. Basically 2000 hours a year plus holidays.

And the low income cut off is around $23,500. Not sure exactly but it's not 25k. If you want to have a different number for cities then maybe you need a different wage metric for rural vs urban.

Yeah, I'm not saying even our current minimum is too much. But $15 is. $15 is a living wage not a minimum wage.

In your opinion what is the point of a minimum wage?

I think the point is exactly what you think it is. And I think it does a fantastic job doing what it is supposed to do.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, right now the minimum wage hike will probably hurt younger employees.

No reason to hire some 16 year old with no experience when you can just grab any reliable older employee for $15-16 dollars.

But if you keep the minimum wage significantly lower for, let's say, 18 year olds and younger, the shift would seem to favour them. No reason to pay $15 for an employee when you can get the same service for $12.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

then put an age provision on the first one. Frankly some kid in high school flipping burgers, shouldn't need the minimum wage bump if he's living at home and not paying rent.

More complex to track sure.

But if this whole argument is about the working poor, then lets focus on the working poor and fix that.

The only issue would be that companies wouldn't hire older workers anymore. They'd look at part time students or students on summer break.

It's so hard to take you seriously when you offer up, as a solution, to base pay for identical work on age.

Cmon man. Get a grip.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Wow. Sorry to have completely blown your mind there. "Old minimum wage" means the wage just before the "new" minimum wage. So $11,20.

It was a question because we are talking about the $15 and no matter what value you used, you were wrong. But way to be an #######...and your point is still wrong. 11.20*52*40=$23,296...still below the poverty line.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

40 hrs a week is by no means way more than full time. Full time is 30-44 hours a week. And 50 weeks a year plus holiday pay. Basically 2000 hours a year plus holidays.

Obviously that meant minimum, and full-time has no actual definition. Full-time employment could mean 32 hours and no one would bat an eye at that. To say that full-time employment at minimum wage was over the poverty line was fundamentally wrong.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

And the low income cut off is around $23,500. Not sure exactly but it's not 25k. If you want to have a different number for cities then maybe you need a different wage metric for rural vs urban.

Fortunately we have that.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002.../tbl02-eng.htm

In 2014, $24,328 for Urban populations with 500,000. It's why I specified.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's so hard to take you seriously when you offer up, as a solution, to base pay for identical work on age.

Cmon man. Get a grip.

Uh....
https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english...de/minwage.php

Student minimum wage - This rate applies to students under the age of 18 who work 28 hours a week or less when school is in session, or work during a school break or summer holidays.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Uh....
https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english...de/minwage.php

A whopping 75 cents difference per hour. under very specific scenario.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

It's so hard to take you seriously when you offer up, as a solution, to base pay for identical work on age.

Cmon man. Get a grip.

Seriously if we're trying to help out the people that actually need help, then its a starting solution.

I still think that the best solution is to look at the vulnerable people that need the help and look at ways of boosting their earning potential instead of simply bumping the minimum wage and then bleating to the voters , "There you go problem solved baby".

At the end of the day, this half baked badly thought about program is probably going to end up taking those vulnerable people and shutting them out of the workforce and trapping them at the bottom of the ladder.

Lets find a way to properly make these minimum wage jobs what they should be, transitional, a first step on the ladder. Now how do we move them up that ladder from there.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It was a question because we are talking about the $15 and no matter what value you used, you were wrong. But way to be an #######...and your point is still wrong. 11.20*52*40=$23,296...still below the poverty line.

Obviously that meant minimum, and full-time has no actual definition. Full-time employment could mean 32 hours and no one would bat an eye at that. To say that full-time employment at minimum wage was over the poverty line was fundamentally wrong.

Actually since full time has no definition then we can use 44 hours a week and no one will bat an eyelash. Bingo. Full time employment at the old minimum wage gets you over...well over... the "poverty line" for urban areas. You could live like a king in Oyen. Again, sorry for freaking you out.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

A whopping 75 cents difference per hour. under very specific scenario.

Lol. I just find it weird that you "can't take CaptainCrunch seriously" when he proposes different minimum wage based on age.

When that's actually been the case in many areas around the world, including Canada's biggest province. In Ireland it's even more pronounced. Like 9 euros minimum wage for adults compared to 6 euros for those under 18.