May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[zamler]

Originally Posted by polak

How I see conversations about work going with business owners like Jim.

"Oh cool, you own a hardware store? What makes it stand out versus a place like home depot?"

"Well, I pay my employees as little as possible"

Home Depot pays their employees as little as possible, or more accurately at a level where they feel gives them the best compromise. Just like every other competent business in existence.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yup you can do that, and its a logical way to proceed, if you can get by the NAFTA rules that are in place.

However, you put a tarriff on lets say food.

The Americans then retaliate by putting a tarriff on Steel products for example.

Then at the end of the day, all food prices have to rise, and peoples budgets get smaller including the minimum wage people.

I agree, very messy issue.

I don't think granting exemptions on labor standards, essentially using employees well-being and quality of life to subsidize the business, is the way of addressing it though. To each their own I guess.

[polak]

Originally Posted by zamler

Home Depot pays their employees as little as possible, or more accurately at a level where they feel gives them the best compromise. Just like every other competent business in existence.

Yes, but they also have found other ways to distinguish themselves from other hardware stores and that is why they're able to survive a minimum wage increase.

Jim has nothing else apparently. His entire business model and livelihood relies on paying as little as possible for labor.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

How I see conversations about work going with business owners like Jim.

"Oh cool, you own a hardware store? What makes it stand out versus a place like home depot?"

"Well, I pay my employees as little as possible"

Seriously?

What saves small business is they usually have to run on thinner profits because there's someone out there in their realm that has more purchasing power or other advantages.

They have to run on low over head, and skinny profits, so that they can sell a hammer for example that they buy for $10.00 and sell for $11.00 and home hardware buys a million at $9.00 and sells for 10.50.

If you look at that conversation, the line is more along the lines of

What makes you different.

I'm not home hardware, I'm locally owned and operated.

And hope that makes up the difference.

Basically when your dealing with a big box mover, they can literally buy market share just on purchasing power alone.

in the case of the Greenhouse, his Mexican Competition can buy the market based on their costs and cost control.

And the whole thing is if you boost minimum wage, you'll increase market share because those people will buy more doesn't really work, because "Jim" the hardware store owner has to increase his pricing to cover for his increased costs so the costumers buying power doesn't increase. And that costumer is probably still going to go to a big box mover because their pricing is still going to be less.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes, but they also have found other ways to distinguish themselves from other hardware stores and that is why they're able to survive a minimum wage increase.

Jim has nothing else apparently. His entire business model and livelihood relies on paying as little as possible for labor.

They survive it by being ####ing massive. Which is kind of the point of the whole conversation which somehow is just totally eluding you. Small business is hurt more by this.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well, we're talking about wage increases here and how they affect small business compared to large. Not a total restructuring of social justice and morality in business. There are a lot of things to solve with these big multinationals and trade agreements.

Let's start with Lexmark, who fired over 100 workers in Mexico this week because they wanted at $0.35 raise. This is what they get after complaining about harassment at work, unfair wages, and unsafe working conditions. Then, the government is telling them that striking was a self-interested, in appropriate response.

Also, it was found this week that shrimp sold in the US was being prepared by slaves in Thailand.

Sounds like much more than minimum wage adjustments are required in a lot of places.

Social issues and minimum standards should be just as important as multinationals and trade agreements.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Let's start with Lexmark, who fired over 100 workers in Mexico this week because they wanted at $0.35 raise. This is what they get after complaining about harassment at work, unfair wages, and unsafe working conditions. Then, the government is telling them that striking was a self-interested, in appropriate response.

Also, it was found this week that shrimp sold in the US was being prepared by slaves in Thailand.

Sounds like much more than minimum wage adjustments are required in a lot of places.

Social issues and minimum standards should be just as important as multinationals and trade agreements.

Ok. I agree.

[polak]

And so we're back to the idea that owning a small business is a god given right and that employees quality of life (not just Jims employees, but all employees that make minimum wage) should subsidize this right?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

I agree, very messy issue.

I don't think granting exemptions on labor standards, essentially using employees well-being and quality of life to subsidize the business, is the way of addressing it though. To each their own I guess.

I go back to the fact that I believe those workers are seasonal, the overtime and holiday pay and other stuff really shouldn't apply.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by polak

And so we're back to the idea that owning a small business is a god given right and that employees quality of life should subsidize this right?

Which absolutely no one has said. What has put you onto this god given right tangent? You're totally off the rails in this thread.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like and idealistic 'it'll all be okay, the Government will take care of me.'

You've taken an ideal, more money and benefits for less skilled, less valuable workers for social norms and placed that ideal above the reality of asking where this money is going to come from and what the consequences are going to be.

And the you've reconciled the prioritization of that ideal by expressing confidence that industry will adapt and normalize while ignoring the fact that it is attempting to do this with the Government fighting it tooth and nail.

More money for all, no matter the cost.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Who, but some person with too much disposable income, owns a motorhome anyway.

Me.

[puckedoff]

The thanks button is back!!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Eff him, yeah. He's a whiny ####### who built his business on minimal recompense.

Better building a business on minimal recompense that is actually exposed to the realities of the marketplace than one based on rent-seeking, government contracts, and enabling legislation.

[PsYcNeT]

Man this forum is so full of liberals.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

And so we're back to the idea that owning a small business is a god given right and that employees quality of life (not just Jims employees, but all employees that make minimum wage) should subsidize this right?

Owning a business is a right if you want to pursue it, and the first order of running a business is being allowed to function in an environment where you can make money at it.

Right now the crux of the argument is that the government is throwing body blows at the small business owners in terms of the minimum wage increase and the energy cost increases among other things.

In the case of the Greenhouse business, they are competing at an international level against competitors with a distinct competitive advantage.

I think that theirs this fantasy vision that these small business owners are sitting on piles of money laughing and twirling their mustaches while their workers slave away in chains.

For the most part, running a small business can go from your dream job to a nightmare in a hurry because you're not making a lot of profits, the shear volume of business pretty much dictates that.

Under a true pure capitalist system, the whole Greenhouse sector should die out as should small businesses competing against mega chains, and money should be invested in a different segment of business with a better chance of succeeding.

Canada really shouldn't be in mass manufacturing, we can't compete with the labor costs of developing nations, who can build things and ship them over seas far cheaper then we can manufacture it here.

Its one of the main, but not only reason, why Chinese freighters show up at ports filled with their goods, and return home basically empty.

Canada clearly shouldn't be in micro agriculture based on this story, and we've already seen a lot of IT support and development head over seas.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Certainly the Mickie D's self-serve terminals are about saving costs to a degree, but it's more about the fact they struggle to find and retain staff. You obviously don't have to recruit or train a machine, and a machine will be loyal to you forever (or until Skynet goes online).

Part of that is the result of the fact that nobody should actually be satisfied making minimum wage. Ultimately though, these kiosks both save money and eliminate the need for a not insignificant percentage of minimum wage workers. My purpose in posting it though was to note that, while sectors like front end retail cannot be outsourced to Asia, many (if not most) minimum wage jobs are very much replaceable. So the impacts on employment of a look before you leap raise to $15 more dangerous than Harry Lime was implying.

In the case of fast food, the stores have typically struggled to retain these employees even at $14+/hr due to the previously hot market for jobs. The slowing economy will ease that burden on such businesses for now as simple supply and demand takes its toll on new hires, but for a business like McDonalds, the decision here is pretty easy. If they can't hire enough employees at a rate that approaches Notley's dream minimum wage as it is, then eliminating the entry level worker and replacing two or three jobs with one machine is the logical step forward - irregardless of what the minimum wage actually is set at.

[Harry Lime]

Chippiness in this thread has gone up by 14 % in the last two pages. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to shut my doors until further notice. I could have posted a picture of a frolicking red panda to offset the chippiness, but my interest is based entirely upon things outside of my control.

I will attempt to procure some of these fantastic Thai slaves I've heard so much about, and reconvene at a later date.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Man this forum is so full of liberals.

Ewwwww

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Part of that is the result of the fact that nobody should actually be satisfied making minimum wage. Ultimately though, these kiosks both save money and eliminate the need for a not insignificant percentage of minimum wage workers. My purpose in posting it though was to note that, while sectors like front end retail cannot be outsourced to Asia, many (if not most) minimum wage jobs are very much replaceable. So the impacts on employment of a look before you leap raise to $15 more dangerous than Harry Lime was implying.

In the case of fast food, the stores have typically struggled to retain these employees even at $14+/hr due to the previously hot market for jobs. The slowing economy will ease that burden on such businesses for now as simple supply and demand takes its toll on new hires, but for a business like McDonalds, the decision here is pretty easy. If they can't hire enough employees at a rate that approaches Notley's dream minimum wage as it is, then eliminating the entry level worker and replacing two or three jobs with one machine is the logical step forward - irregardless of what the minimum wage actually is set at.

So with the elimination of minimum wage workers, and having a smaller staff size with employees probably making closer to the $15/hr minimum standard (if not that already), wouldn't the business be making money even with the wage increase? It's a classic case of automation; more of the revenue ratio is budgeted for automation, but they spend less doing business on the whole (at least in theory). Then we have a handful of minimum wage workers who now have to fill minimum wage gaps elsewhere.