May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[jammies]

Tim's Hardware owner Tim has 5 full-time employees that he pays minimum wage. Last year he made a $250,000 profit, however this year, due to having to pay his employees $15/hr instead of $10/hr, each employee is costing him an extra $10,000, so he will only make $200,000.

However, simple math works out that each employee got a 50% raise, and there are 5 of them, and Tim is making only 20% less, and there's but one of him. QED, it's a huge net win!

Woo! Tim is gonna put Jim right out of business, too! He's got the city of Make-Believia all sewn up!

[Ozy_Flame]

this thread has jumped the shark.

[Looch City]

#### it, abolish minimum wage. Everyone works on tips.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by jammies

Tim's Hardware owner Tim has 5 full-time employees that he pays minimum wage. Last year he made a $250,000 profit, however this year, due to having to pay his employees $15/hr instead of $10/hr, each employee is costing him an extra $10,000, so he will only make $200,000.

However, simple math works out that each employee got a 50% raise, and there are 5 of them, and Tim is making only 20% less, and there's but one of him. QED, it's a huge net win!

Woo! Tim is gonna put Jim right out of business, too! He's got the city of Make-Believia all sewn up!

QED nuthin'. Slim is trying to open his hardware store too but the numbers don't make sense. It took Tim a decade to turn his healthy profit. Slim won't be able to cover his labour costs in the time it takes him to develop his business. Ergo Slim has no happy, well paid $15/hr employees.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by 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?

It's truly exceeded my wildest hopes and dreams.

[Resolute 14]

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.

Are you people even capable of arguing in anything but strawmen? Where did I state that "we have zero need for 'menial labor'"? What I said is that not every task or job is worthy of a "living wage" - and that working an arbitrary number of hours at such a task does not make said task more valuable.

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.

Same thing I told psychnet - you aren't capable of thinking for me, so don't even try.

Something else to consider: I've worked those menial jobs. And I didn't deserve more than a menial paycheque when I had them. And I sure as hell did not expect society to subsidize me if I chose to stay in such jobs. I went to school, learned skills, and got a better job. Our social safety net should exist to protect people who are incapable of doing that. It should not be encouraging people who are otherwise able to move up to be satisfied as menial labour.

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.

I am not, in fact, arguing that minimum wage shouldn't be going up - though it is rather obvious that I think Notley's $15 pledge was shortsighted as promised, and even more so given the current economy.

What I am arguing is the nonsensical argument you made that simply working 40 hours at something justifies a "living wage".

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

this thread has jumped the shark.

This would have been relevant around June 1st. Now we can just have fun with it - everyone has the chance to make up narratives that exactly shadow their personal beliefs, and thus reinforce them, but with the added bonus of being ON THE INTERNET!!!!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Something else to consider: I've worked those menial jobs. And I didn't deserve more than a menial paycheque when I had them. And I sure as hell did not expect society to subsidize me if I chose to stay in such jobs. I went to school, learned skills, and got a better job. Our social safety net should exist to protect people who are incapable of doing that. It should not be encouraging people who are otherwise able to move up to be satisfied as menial labour.

I am not, in fact, arguing that minimum wage shouldn't be going up - though it is rather obvious that I think Notley's $15 pledge was shortsighted as promised, and even more so given the current economy.

What I am arguing is the nonsensical argument you made that simply working 40 hours at something justifies a "living wage".

So what about the people between these things? People more or less stuck in menial jobs because they can't afford to go to school; have to try and support their family so can't put themselves into debt and abandon what job(s) they do have to pursue something better; can't get better employment because they need a car or a phone or a computer for email, or some other type of thing they can't afford; can't work the hours for their new "better" job because they still need two and it conflicts with their other one; etc...

People can, and have, come out of these situations. It is insanely difficult, and gets increasingly more difficult the longer they stay in it it. It is usually not entirely to do with them or mistakes they made. If they are in the work force, working/giving the same amount of time as anyone else, it shouldn't really matter what they are doing, they should be able to support at least themselves, and have realistic avenues to pursue "something better".

Is this stuff satisfied by a minimum wage? No, it's not. I think it's the wrong way to go about it. But this sentiment that someone else's job or time is worth so little purely based on the type of work they're doing, that they shouldn't be able to live off of it, is way off IMO. And if we aren't willing to to push things in that direction, than we should be subsidizing the other side of it from the beginning, before the cycle described above begins; education, child care, housing, possibly even things like internet access, etc... would do wonders to combat this issue before it even starts.

And for the people worried about clerks and cashiers that are being replaced by machines, it's happening. It will continue to happen. We can either consider these people as obsolete, or allow them opportunities to explore different, more meaningful things. But those jobs ARE obsolete, and the people they replace have to do something. At that point it's not a matter of education or hard work, it's a matter of available "jobs". That number is shrinking rapidly.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

What I am arguing is the nonsensical argument you made that simply working 40 hours at something justifies a "living wage".

Is it nonsensical though? It can be a societal goal or not, but calling it "nonsensical" because you don't agree with it seems overly dismissive. Again, the issue is a little more complex than the (somewhat dubious) economic arguments against such policies - similar arguments were raised against having a minimum wage in the first place, and yet somehow the implementation of such didn't cause economic ruin and factory owners forced onto the streets.

As more and more marginal jobs become obsolete due to technology, we will have to deal with social unrest if solutions aren't found to bring the marginalized and under-employed into the mainstream and middle-class. Avoiding a dystopia of an underclass permanently on the dole and in conflict with the privileged will take more than just telling people that education and hard work is the solution - some people are not educable, and they can work as hard as is humanly possible and still never get beyond entry-level and menial work.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by jammies

Is it nonsensical though? It can be a societal goal or not, but calling it "nonsensical" because you don't agree with it seems overly dismissive. Again, the issue is a little more complex than the (somewhat dubious) economic arguments against such policies - similar arguments were raised against having a minimum wage in the first place, and yet somehow the implementation of such didn't cause economic ruin and factory owners forced onto the streets.

As more and more marginal jobs become obsolete due to technology, we will have to deal with social unrest if solutions aren't found to bring the marginalized and under-employed into the mainstream and middle-class. Avoiding a dystopia of an underclass permanently on the dole and in conflict with the privileged will take more than just telling people that education and hard work is the solution - some people are not educable, and they can work as hard as is humanly possible and still never get beyond entry-level and menial work.

Then you go to the oil patch...... Oh wait, thanks NDP

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So what about the people between these things? People more or less stuck in menial jobs because they can't afford to go to school; have to try and support their family so can't put themselves into debt and abandon what job(s) they do have to pursue something better; can't get better employment because they need a car or a phone or a computer for email, or some other type of thing they can't afford; can't work the hours for their new "better" job because they still need two and it conflicts with their other one; etc...

You are arguing examples of people who are not capable of improving, in this case due to external circumstance. As I said, our social safety net should be offering ways to help them move forward.

As to the rest of your post, technology has been replacing jobs for centuries. New jobs take their place. Just another reason why one should never be satisfied with low value "careers" - technology picks low hanging fruit.

Originally Posted by jammies

Is it nonsensical though? It can be a societal goal or not, but calling it "nonsensical" because you don't agree with it seems overly dismissive. Again, the issue is a little more complex than the (somewhat dubious) economic arguments against such policies - similar arguments were raised against having a minimum wage in the first place, and yet somehow the implementation of such didn't cause economic ruin and factory owners forced onto the streets.

As more and more marginal jobs become obsolete due to technology, we will have to deal with social unrest if solutions aren't found to bring the marginalized and under-employed into the mainstream and middle-class. Avoiding a dystopia of an underclass permanently on the dole and in conflict with the privileged will take more than just telling people that education and hard work is the solution - some people are not educable, and they can work as hard as is humanly possible and still never get beyond entry-level and menial work.

Yes, it is dismissive. And I won't apologize for that. Not every task has value. Arbitrarily dictating that doing said task for 40 hours warrants a living wage is nonsensical. The back half of your post is on point though. I hate repeating myself, but as I stated, the social safety net should exist for the people you mention who just can't advance. But for the rest, raising the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of technology making low value jobs obsolete. So while you have identified the problem, I don't believe that the solution offered is actually a solution.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Something else to consider: I've worked those menial jobs. And I didn't deserve more than a menial paycheque when I had them. And I sure as hell did not expect society to subsidize me if I chose to stay in such jobs. I went to school, learned skills, and got a better job. Our social safety net should exist to protect people who are incapable of doing that. It should not be encouraging people who are otherwise able to move up to be satisfied as menial labour.

Except then the social safety net is subsidizing businesses instead. If, and I don't think too many people would debate this, having food, shelter, and clothing, and a moderate level of psychological comfort are essential to be a minimally productive employee, then shouldn't the minimum wage reflect this? If someone is working 40 hours a week and still can't afford these things without government assistance, then government assistance is essentially subsidizing the actual costs of labour, and from an ethical standpoint becomes an exploitative arrangement.

EDIT: I should add that I don't know if the current minimum wage is sufficient in Alberta to provide all these things because I haven't lived there for 7 years, but I would suspect it isn't.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are arguing examples of people who are not capable of improving, in this case due to external circumstance. As I said, our social safety net should be offering ways to help them move forward.

As to the rest of your post, technology has been replacing jobs for centuries. New jobs take their place. Just another reason why one should never be satisfied with low value "careers" - technology picks low hanging fruit.

I very highly doubt anyone working within these conditions would consider themselves to be "satisfied", and if there are, they would be in the vast minority. Comments like that make it seem like the only obstacle to them leading a fulfilled and successful life, and having the opportunity to provide the same for children, is that they won't leave their job to pursue something better. Even for single people with good to great jobs this is a difficult transition. For people with families, it doesn't matter how affluent you are, that move is difficult. Now you're asking people who are consistently on the losing end of everything, coming home every week with less than the week before, owing the bank for this, a friend for that, a family member for this, wondering what excuse they are going to use this time, and who they are going to pay back and who they are going to short change, because they have to, to just pick up and make a better life for themselves. How are they supposed to do that as things exist now? As jobs they are qualified for disappear. Get better qualifications? How? Get better educated? How? Relieve their debt? How? Properly care for their kids? How?

I know you've acknowledged that the social safety net should be taking care of this, but what do you think that should mean? Everyone agrees there should be some sort of a safety net, but to what degree tends to be where political and socioeconomic lines are drawn. So what do you think should be provided by that safety net and how? I've acknowledged that the minimum wage is not the answer, but then the only other option is more tax, and an effort to expand the safety net while streamlining the current processes and I doubt that's in your cards either.

As for the dismissive nature of the low-end, fine. But don't be surprised or offended when the "left" is seemingly equally dismissive of the current O&G job market with the same sort of "too bad, so sad" attitude.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I very highly doubt anyone working within these conditions would consider themselves to be "satisfied", and if there are, they would be in the vast minority.

Today? No. But that's the point of what I am arguing. The argument being made is that people somehow deserve enough that they could be satisfied, regardless of the actual value of what they do. I am arguing that this is not a desirable outcome.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Today? No. But that's the point of what I am arguing. The argument being made is that people somehow deserve enough that they could be satisfied, regardless of the actual value of what they do. I am arguing that this is not a desirable outcome.

Is anyone actually making that argument?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Today? No. But that's the point of what I am arguing. The argument being made is that people somehow deserve enough that they could be satisfied, regardless of the actual value of what they do. I am arguing that this is not a desirable outcome.

Ok, fair enough. So what are your thoughts on how they can move away from that type of work in the current environment? What should we be supporting them with and how should it be funded?

[linecook]

Originally Posted by jammies

Tim's Hardware owner Tim has 5 full-time employees that he pays minimum wage. Last year he made a $250,000 profit, however this year, due to having to pay his employees $15/hr instead of $10/hr, each employee is costing him an extra $10,000, so he will only make $200,000.

However, simple math works out that each employee got a 50% raise, and there are 5 of them, and Tim is making only 20% less, and there's but one of him. QED, it's a huge net win!

Woo! Tim is gonna put Jim right out of business, too! He's got the city of Make-Believia all sewn up!

Tim will easily make up that 20% once Jim (his only competitor) closes his business and moves it to BC. Not good for the consumer as Tim now has a monopoly and can charge whatever he likes.

[puffnstuff]

How many minimum wage jobs are actually 40 hr per week? Are there numbers on this?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, it is dismissive. And I won't apologize for that. Not every task has value. Arbitrarily dictating that doing said task for 40 hours warrants a living wage is nonsensical.

The idea is to decree that every task that requires a human to do it *does* have value. It is a deliberate choice intended to give people dignity and have them feel they are contributing to society.

I also hate to repeat myself, but saying an idea is nonsensical because you don't agree with it is not enough. Ok, you don't think every task has value, but "value" is not completely objective, it is also subjective to a very large degree, else people would not spend millions on dabs of paint on canvas or their time and money watching men skate around whacking a rubber disc with sticks. Value can be created by consensus. Change the consensus, change the value.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The back half of your post is on point though. I hate repeating myself, but as I stated, the social safety net should exist for the people you mention who just can't advance. But for the rest, raising the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of technology making low value jobs obsolete. So while you have identified the problem, I don't believe that the solution offered is actually a solution.

Of course one change is not going to solve a huge, complex and evolving problem. I think it has a chance of mitigating the problem, though, and of being a small part of a general solution - there will come a day when this issue of the unskilled and semi-skilled being seen as superfluous to the economy will become critical. Anything done to even slightly lessen the impact of that coming change has to be contemplated.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by linecook

Tim will easily make up that 20% once Jim (his only competitor) closes his business and moves it to BC. Not good for the consumer as Tim now has a monopoly and can charge whatever he likes.

That just leaves the door open for immigrant Vadim, who works his wife, son, and two daughters at Vadim's Hardware, and pushes Tim into bankruptcy and his employees into the unemployment line.

Vadim not only has lower employee overhead (he pays his family in room and board) but buys cheap, crappy products from his cousin Khadim back in India, products that are cheaper than what you find at Home Hardware or Rona because they are poor quality, but good enough for the uninformed buyer. Thirty years from now, "Vadim's" is a brand on par with Walmart, and you cna no longer buy a decent bandsaw unless you go to a specialty import shop that sells outrageiously expensive German machines.

In short: Taking our jerbs! Our jeeeeeeeerrrrrrrbbbbbs!