So basically all of these business owners are starting business with the intention of running super-thin profit margins predicated on the minimum wage/labor regulations never changing?
Most businesses run on thin profit margins, they're just able to leverage that based on volume. Increases of a few percentage points throws everything off.
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.
Except that once the fresh food is off loaded at a major shipping yard it then has to be transported to warehouses, cross docked and shipped to grocery stores, this will not decrease any trucking. Currently 0 (zero) fresh produce is shipped to Alberta from the US by railroad. Perhaps once the coal quits coming across the border by rail or once a pipeline is built, there may be opprotunity for produce to be transported by rail.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
The Following User Says Thank You to Derek Sutton For This Useful Post:
Yes they are. That is why youth unemployment is double what it was, and businesses are starting to close down.
Here's a skill testing question for Polak. Let's see how he does.
Q:
Jim's hardware store has a fixed budget with $30/hr available to pay minimum wage employees, (Jim primarily hires teenagers with minimal living expenses to fill these roles). Jim currently employs three minimum wage workers at $10/hr. Due to increased minimum wages, Jim can now only afford two workers and must let one go.
For the worker let go, were they better off at $10/hr (40 hours per week), or $15/hr (0 hours per week)?
Please take your time to formulate a reasoned reply.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
It is weird that there are different tax rates for small business, yet everybody gets hit by 50% minimum wage hikes. Seems like the ones making all the money could "afford to give a little more".
Here's a skill testing question for Polak. Let's see how he does.
Q:
Jim's hardware store has a fixed budget with $30/hr available to pay minimum wage employees, (Jim primarily hires teenagers with minimal living expenses to fill these roles). Jim currently employs three minimum wage workers at $10/hr. Due to increased minimum wages, Jim can now only afford two workers and must let one go.
For the worker let go, were they better off at $10/hr (40 hours per week), or $15/hr (0 hours per week)?
Please take your time to formulate a reasoned reply.
Is Jim's budget not predicated on supply and demand?
Except that once the fresh food is off loaded at a major shipping yard it then has to be transported to warehouses, cross docked and shipped to grocery stores, this will not decrease any trucking. Currently 0 (zero) fresh produce is shipped to Alberta from the US by railroad. Perhaps once the coal quits coming across the border by rail or once a pipeline is built, there may be opprotunity for produce to be transported by rail.
Exactly, where is all this excess rail capacity coming from, are we going to start twinning all our railroads? If we had green lit a pipeline or two, this idea might hold at least a little merit.
In a vacuum no, but the basic argument is that a higher minimum wage is going to increase the amount of customers demanding his product, which in turn is going to necessitate him to hire another employee and keep up with the demand. I'm pretty sure most of the literature out on this subject indicates that after an initial adjustment period, that employment rates tend to stabilize, return, and sometimes raise to what they were prior to the minimum wage hike.
In a vacuum no, but the basic argument is that a higher minimum wage is going to increase the amount of customers demanding his product, which in turn is going to necessitate him to hire another employee and keep up with the demand. I'm pretty sure most of the literature out on this subject indicates that after an initial adjustment period, that employment rates tend to stabilize, return, and sometimes raise to what they were prior to the minimum wage hike.
Unless a worker is laid off to counter the raise, because the salary budget is set. Jim's Hardware isn't going to bleed until the economic experiment cycles through the system in the hope that the extra $5 an hour out there comes to his business.
On this scale, it's a loss for employment.
The problem with "the literature" is that it's theory. There's one place this has been implemented so far, and we're still not sure of the results.
Here's a skill testing question for Polak. Let's see how he does.
Q:
Jim's hardware store has a fixed budget with $30/hr available to pay minimum wage employees, (Jim primarily hires teenagers with minimal living expenses to fill these roles). Jim currently employs three minimum wage workers at $10/hr. Due to increased minimum wages, Jim can now only afford two workers and must let one go.
For the worker let go, were they better off at $10/hr (40 hours per week), or $15/hr (0 hours per week)?
Please take your time to formulate a reasoned reply.
Well you see, why is Jim budget fixed at $30 hr? Cause he needs to guarantee himself that profit margin? Jim should try adding some value to his business' offering so that people have a reason to buy more stuff from Jim instead of just saying well I guess I'll just cut staff. Owning a hardware store isn't a right. What about the fact that there is now 66% of people like the employees at Jims Hardware store that can afford to spend 50% more at places like Jims Hardware store?
A year ago, the unemployment rate for people aged 15-24 sat at 8.2 per cent.
In contrast, the national youth unemployment rate in November was 12.7 per cent, the lowest rate since 2008 — down from 13.2 per cent in November 2014.
Well which one is it? Was it at 8.2% a year ago, or was it at 13.2% in November 2014.
In a vacuum no, but the basic argument is that a higher minimum wage is going to increase the amount of customers demanding his product, which in turn is going to necessitate him to hire another employee and keep up with the demand. I'm pretty sure most of the literature out on this subject indicates that after an initial adjustment period, that employment rates tend to stabilize, return, and sometimes raise to what they were prior to the minimum wage hike.
Sorry?
How the hell does increasing his costs increase customer demand.
Jim has a hardware store. He sells hardware. He competes against Home Depot, Canadian Tire, Lowe's, Rona.
He doesn't have the purchasing power to not pass through increased costs to customers, therefore he can't compete and there is no normalization.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
Well you see, why is Jim budget fixed at $30 hr? Cause he needs to guarantee himself that profit margin? Jim should try adding some value to his business' offering so that people have a reason to buy more stuff from Jim instead of just saying well I guess I'll just cut staff. Owning a hardware store isn't a right. What about the fact that there is now 66% of people like the employees at Jims Hardware store that can afford to spend 50% more at places like Jims Hardware store?
Well you see, why is Jim budget fixed at $30 hr? Cause he needs to guarantee himself that profit margin? Jim should try adding some value to his business' offering so that people have a reason to buy more stuff from Jim instead of just saying well I guess I'll just cut staff. Owning a hardware store isn't a right. What about the fact that there is now 66% of people like the employees at Jims Hardware store that can afford to spend 50% more at places like Jims Hardware store?
Sorry Polak, you failed in your response by not even addressing the question posed.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
Well you see, why is Jim budget fixed at $30 hr? Cause he needs to guarantee himself that profit margin? Jim should try adding some value to his business' offering so that people have a reason to buy more stuff from Jim instead of just saying well I guess I'll just cut staff. Owning a hardware store isn't a right. What about the fact that there is now 66% of people like the employees at Jims Hardware store that can afford to spend 50% more at places like Jims Hardware store?
This is just....
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Actually the best course of action would be for the feds to start increasing the tariffs on produce that is farmed by illegal labor. I don't see how it's much different than the tarrifs on Chinese Tires or other products that are undercutting domestic production by selling at under cost.
So the local goods can sell for more thus the employer can afford to pay higher wages. But then of course everything costs more so the cost of living goes up and people demand higher wages. Then the government can raise trade tariffs so that we can charge more and be competitive .... but then the cost of living goes up.
Not to mention that higher cost of goods pretty much kills any exports we were hoping for. Also not to mention that we would need to pull out of NAFTA before we start taxing our trade partners and if we did they would just do the same to us which would totally kill our exports. Protectionism doesn't work.
Well you see, why is Jim budget fixed at $30 hr? Cause he needs to guarantee himself that profit margin? Jim should try adding some value to his business' offering so that people have a reason to buy more stuff from Jim instead of just saying well I guess I'll just cut staff. Owning a hardware store isn't a right.
Why would Jim bother with the risk involved in owning a business if his return comes in the form of a wage? Jim could go work for someone else if his expectation is earning minimum wage in place of one of his employees. That's just dumb.
