May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[Looch City]

That's okay, oil will be at $120 by then.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

That's okay, oil will be at $120 by then.

So will the minimum wage.

Which was something I was asking when all this was starting. If you truly believed that jacking up the minimum wage wouldn't have any negative secondary effects (like they teach you in ECON 101) - why the heck aren't you picking a larger arbitrary number like $120/hour?

How can you be so callous to just stop at a $15/hr "living wage" when everybody can live like a king without any negative effects like higher unemployment?

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To borrow from the arguments Polak and Psycnet are making, get a better job.

Seems to me that the employee in this case is as ####ty at what they do as Jim is at owning a hardware store.

I guess that argument works for the folks that have been let go from the over paid positions in the oil and gas sector. Quit whining and find a job.......

Getting a better job isn't a valid argument, if it were as simple as that then nobody would be working those jobs. I find that arrogant folk are the ones opposed to the minimum wage increase, I can post numerous studies and facts that debunk the theory of unemployment rising and small business suffering but it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by chemgear

So will the minimum wage.

Which was something I was asking when all this was starting. If you truly believed that jacking up the minimum wage wouldn't have any negative secondary effects (like they teach you in ECON 101) - why the heck aren't you picking a larger arbitrary number like $120/hour?

How can you be so callous to just stop at a $15/hr "living wage" when everybody can live like a king without any negative effects like higher unemployment?

I believe the $15/hr figure comes from adjusting past minimum wages for inflation, not from out of thin air.

But yeah, continue with the condescension. It's apparent you have everything figured out.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

It's apparent you have everything figured out.

Aw, heck not at all. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand the viewpoint.

I still have the question, if indeed jacking up the minimum wage is not going to have negative effects or in fact, could have positive employment effects as our provincial minster says - why aren't we jacking it up higher and faster to help improve this downturn in Alberta? Wouldn't that make sense based on what the government believes?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Aw, heck not at all. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand the viewpoint.

I still have the question, if indeed jacking up the minimum wage is not going to have negative effects or in fact, could have positive employment effects as our provincial minster says - why aren't we jacking it up higher and faster to help improve this downturn in Alberta? Wouldn't that make sense based on what the government believes?

I think there's a wacky concept called "diminishing returns" that plays a part.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Aw, heck not at all. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand the viewpoint.

I still have the question, if indeed jacking up the minimum wage is not going to have negative effects or in fact, could have positive employment effects as our provincial minster says - why aren't we jacking it up higher and faster to help improve this downturn in Alberta? Wouldn't that make sense based on what the government believes?

As with anything, there is a point of diminishing returns. Some believe that number is higher than $15/hr, some believe it's lower, some believe the market should just take care of it (which is difficult when there exists the threat of cheaper labour outside of the market).

Personally, I'm not for minimum wage at all (the economist in me), but, especially with the aforementioned labour issue, you have to instead fund programs that help people with basic needs when they're down and out, or aren't making enough from the market to afford life.

So your choices are a minimum wage, or higher taxes, neither of which will make any of the same people happy. But you kind of have to pick one. So would you rather have businesses fronting the cost for keeping their employees above poverty, or the whole society fronting the cost of poverty

Personally, I'm for higher tax vs min wage, because the min wage is an arbitrary calculation and doesn't mean people necessarily spend the money on what they should (lack of financial acumen is a problem in poverty, obviously). Providing the services means they have no choice but to use them, thereby essentially using the money for what the minimum wage is intended to provide for them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I guess that argument works for the folks that have been let go from the over paid positions in the oil and gas sector. Quit whining and find a job.......

Getting a better job isn't a valid argument, if it were as simple as that then nobody would be working those jobs. I find that arrogant folk are the ones opposed to the minimum wage increase, I can post numerous studies and facts that debunk the theory of unemployment rising and small business suffering but it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

"Get a better job" is just as valid as "run your business better" is. And that was the point.

However, one simple fact is that not every task is worth a high wage. And doing such low value tasks for an arbitrary amount of time does not increase their values. The McOrder booths are a good example. Nobody deserves or should expect a so-called living wage for doing such a menial task that literally 99% of the people on this planet could do. And that is why those roles are being replaced with job-killing machines. The cost of such jobs exceeds their value.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MattyC

A
Personally, I'm for higher tax vs min wage, because the min wage is an arbitrary calculation and doesn't mean people necessarily spend the money on what they should (lack of financial acumen is a problem in poverty, obviously). Providing the services means they have no choice but to use them, thereby essentially using the money for what the minimum wage is intended to provide for them.

This also has the benefit of ensuring that the minimum wage earners who need a hand (those living independently) get it, instead of those minimum wage earners who don't (teens living at home).

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"Get a better job" is just as valid as "run your business better" is. And that was the point.

However, one simple fact is that not every task is worth a high wage. And doing such low value tasks for an arbitrary amount of time does not increase their values. The McOrder booths are a good example. Nobody deserves or should expect a so-called living wage for doing such a menial task that literally 99% of the people on this planet could do. And that is why those roles are being replaced with job-killing machines. The cost of such jobs exceeds their value.

Yet there seems to be a high demand for the products that these places offer. I highly doubt that jobs that are being replaced by machines are because the job exceeds the value, it is because a company sees another way to increase profits at the expense of customer service.

I don't agree with a company paying employees a non livable wage while the owner is making boatloads of money. Seems like we are going backwards rather than forwards. How has the Minimum wage increase negatively effected Minnesota?

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by polak

Simplified (rushed my other reply):

Jims business has fixed it's budget for labor at $30 hr. Instead of exploring other avenues to increase margin, he cuts staff. Cutting staff will lower the customer serivce at his business', most likely lowering sales even more. Why should we feel like he should get to underpay his employees to protect his profit margin?

Any business lost by Jim will be picked up by other hardware stores. Other hardware stores will need more people to handle the growing business. Everyone wins but Jim. Cause Jim is a ####ty business owner.

His labor wage is set at $30/ hr that so Jim has money to donate to a different charity every month, has money to sponsor a Novice hockey team every year and Pays the refigeration on a freezer in a prime retail location that the Elementary school sells cookie dough out of. His business is not poorly run, it is a communitty staple.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Yet there seems to be a high demand for the products that these places offer. I highly doubt that jobs that are being replaced by machines are because the job exceeds the value, it is because a company sees another way to increase profits at the expense of customer service.

Given we are talking about order takers at fast food restaurants, I would argue the computer screens offer no worse service, on average, than lowly trained menial staff does. And yes, it increases profits. The cost to install and maintain those machines is lower than the cost of such menial labour. That's why the labour is being replaced - it does not offer much value.

I don't agree with a company paying employees a non livable wage while the owner is making boatloads of money. Seems like we are going backwards rather than forwards. How has the Minimum wage increase negatively effected Minnesota?

You're assuming that every business paying a non-livable wage is making boatloads of money. This latest minimum wage debate began with a story of a small business owner who is being forced out by the government making his business unfeasible.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given we are talking about order takers at fast food restaurants, I would argue the computer screens offer no worse service, on average, than lowly trained menial staff does. And yes, it increases profits. The cost to install and maintain those machines is lower than the cost of such menial labour. That's why the labour is being replaced - it does not offer much value.



You're assuming that every business paying a non-livable wage is making boatloads of money. This latest minimum wage debate began with a story of a small business owner who is being forced out by the government making his business unfeasible.

So in your world we have zero need for "menial labor" as it can all be replaced by machines. I can imagine the uproar in the half empty office towers downtown when the caretakers are no longer and the bathrooms are cleaned by a machine.

Here is the difference between you and I, you think you are much better than the guy working st Tim Hortons or cleaning the toilet in your office tower, I thank them. I see the fact that they are working an 8 or 10 or 15 hour day trying to make ends meet, you see some older who doesn't deserve to get anything more.

The fact that you are even arguing the fact that minimum wage shouldn't be going up tells me enough about you that I wish you misfortune.

[monkeyman]

Where is Jims hardware store located? i want to go check it out.
Let's be realistic, In the real world if Jim can't afford to pay 3 workers he's likely to let one go and end up working even longer hours himself.
Home depot and other retailers will have to compete with online retailers operating out of Ontario, BC or Saskatchewan so they won't be able to increase their prices either so instead of hiring more people they're going to offer less customer service, shorter hours or operate with less stores. either way it amounts to less people working.

[jammies]

The "Jim's Hardware" argument - who would have guessed an entirely fictional scenario based on made-up numbers with no discernable relevance could be so polarizing?

Once you've decided there should be such a thing as a minimum wage, that wage should be set at a level that provides the greatest economic benefit to workers while still allowing well-run businesses to prosper. Is that level $15? Maybe not, but the idea that whatever the current level is, it must be better than a $15 level, "because capitalism", is not interesting or valid.

There are far too many factors, imo, to know for sure if the raise will have a positive or negative effect in the long term. It's one input into a chaotic equation that varies over time, expressing certainty one way or the other is likely to be forever pointless.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

So in your world we have zero need for "menial labor" as it can all be replaced by machines. I can imagine the uproar in the half empty office towers downtown when the caretakers are no longer and the bathrooms are cleaned by a machine.

Here is the difference between you and I, you think you are much better than the guy working st Tim Hortons or cleaning the toilet in your office tower, I thank them. I see the fact that they are working an 8 or 10 or 15 hour day trying to make ends meet, you see some older who doesn't deserve to get anything more.

The fact that you are even arguing the fact that minimum wage shouldn't be going up tells me enough about you that I wish you misfortune.

Well I don't think "I am better than them" but I do think my job is worth far more compensation. That doesn't make me an #######

[PeteMoss]

everyone here does realize that McDonalds/Home Depot and all of these other evil places pay minimum wage for about the 1st year of employment and people's salaries do increase as they work.

Very unlikely 'Jim's Hardware' is paying minimum wage for any employees for longer than a year unless they just want to cycle through employees like crazy.

No one is going out of business over something like this No business that was going to survive long term is going out of business over this. If you are going out of business over this you were operating a house of cards anyways.

[puckedoff]

Each change is drop in bucket. But as saying goes, eventually drop will overflow bucket.

[Amethyst]

If Jim's business can operate with only two staff, why is he hiring three, regardless of what the wage is?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

If Jim's business can operate with only two staff, why is he hiring three, regardless of what the wage is?

Cause Jim probably doesn't want to work 14 hour days.