Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Just to touch on this. Does anyone know how much the government gives individuals if they can't find a job or can't work for medical or other reasons? I have no idea, but I bet it's a lot less than 15.00/hr. maybe they should've started there if they truly wanted to help those who need it?

Ask those individuals on aish and ei if they feel the amount they are getting is enough. While it would help those in need, if you make it more profitable to be out of work than working minimum wage what do you think will happen?

[calgarygeologist]

The high end of EI pays just over the equivalent of $13/hour. I don't know what disability/AISH/other benefits pay.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I like this new cynical Locke.

Also, I demand a life of luxury and convenience, so I'm going to require more money to make ends meet. I'm setting my living wage at $10,000 per hour. I promise I'll be a good consumer once the government starts supplying me with the money.

AISH benefits are ~$18,000 a year Tax Free.

EI benefits are taxable.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

So when our NDP shoves a bunch of data at me about how well $15 an hour works in some places that aren't Alberta in 2016 it should be patently obvious they have literally no idea what they're talking about.

Notely has explicitly stated that absolutely no jobs will be lost due to the increases in minimum wage.

It's been mentioned before, but the whole "living wage" term is a feel good happy rhetoric trap. It let's people blindly scream the usual silliness without having to think about economics or logic.

"What?! You're against people getting a living wage?!?"
"Business deserve to die if you can't pay a living wage."
"####ty companies are making billions and billions but holding people as literal slaves."

It's the same blind crap as Trump or the Anti Vaccine guys with "Make America Great" or "Your Child, Your Choice".

If you truly believed that there were no repercussions or economic spill over effects of increasing the minimum wage substantially, how can you be so evil? You should be like Handsome B and jack it up to $10,000//hr. Hell, go to $1,000,000/hour. Every Albertan wouldn't just be living, they'd be the ones making billions and billions!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Notely has explicitly stated that absolutely no jobs will be lost due to the increases in minimum wage.

It's been mentioned before, but the whole "living wage" term is a feel good happy rhetoric trap. It let's people blindly scream the usual silliness without having to think about economics or logic.

"What?! You're against people getting a living wage?!?"
"Business deserve to die if you can't pay a living wage."
"####ty companies are making billions and billions but holding people as literal slaves."

It's the same blind crap as Trump or the Anti Vaccine guys with "Make America Great" or "Your Child, Your Choice".

If you truly believed that there were no repercussions or economic spill over effects of increasing the minimum wage substantially, how can you be so evil? You should be like Handsome B and jack it up to $10,000//hr. Hell, go to $1,000,000/hour. Every Albertan wouldn't just be living, they'd be the ones making billions and billions!

So are you opposed to minimum wage altogether?

[chemgear]

And to be fair, that's not at all to claim that a minimum wage is not needed. Or that the benchmark should remain stagnant or artificially low.

It's that it should not be artificially high either and without recognizing that there are repercussions to where the benchmark is applied. It seems in this matter, like so many others that our government pushes the agenda regardless.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So are you opposed to minimum wage altogether?

EDIT: I was typing this post as you were posting, I should have included it to be complete.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

And to be fair, that's not at all to claim that a minimum wage is not needed. Or that the benchmark should remain stagnant or artificially low.

It's that it should not be artificially high either and without recognizing that there are repercussions to where the benchmark is applied. It seems in this matter, like so many others that our government pushes the agenda regardless.

EDIT: I was tying this post as you posted the previous one, I should have included it to be complete.

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment that $15/hour is too high. What would you consider the minimum amount someone would need to make to live in Alberta?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment that $15/hour is too high. What would you consider the minimum amount someone would need to make to live in Alberta?

Why is raking leaves or flipping burgers worthy of a "living wage"?

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment that $15/hour is too high. What would you consider the minimum amount someone would need to make to live in Alberta?

Depends where you live in Alberta, how many dependents you have, etc.

If your single, debt free, and have no dependents you can live off around $6/hour in after tax pay.(That's around 1000 per month).

[KevanGuy]

Don't worry everyone, we're good!

Notley dismisses concerns minimum wage hike, carbon tax will hurt Alberta economy

http://www.660news.com/2016/09/27/no...berta-economy/

Premier Rachel Notley says she rejects the notion that a minimum-wage hike and carbon tax will hurt the provincial economy.

Opposition parties have lambasted the NDP government for charging ahead with those two policies at a time when the province’s economy is ailing.

But Notley told reporters Tuesday that she believes most Albertans support the government’s direction on those issues

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment that $15/hour is too high. What would you consider the minimum amount someone would need to make to live in Alberta?

It makes literally no difference at all what you think a reasonable living wage is in Alberta. If you end up harming the people you want to help then you've failed. Your question should be what is the minimum wage that will benefit low income earners the most? Not how much does it cost to live here?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assessment that $15/hour is too high. What would you consider the minimum amount someone would need to make to live in Alberta?

That's cool.

Indeed, how are you concluding that $15/hr (or insert XX/hr here) should be the benchmark? Do you think it should be even higher? Lower? What threshold of comfort or distribution of standard of living for the spectrum of 4 million people are you using as the cutoff? Because I think we can all agree that increasing the minimum wage 40+% whilst claiming that there will be no ill effects for some is pretty idiotic.

Some people will get that minimum and an incremental increase. Others will lose hours as a result and end up making less in total. Others will simply lose their jobs completely and get nothing at all. Minimum wage isn't something that everybody magically gets as a matter of course.

I'm not sitting here saying that $15.00 is too high by a $1.12. Or that $10.20/hr was too low or that I have a specific number that I'd lock on and say "Aha! That's it and nothing else"; that would be silly.

That is a matter that should be studied and measured as increases and decreases are made so that the ramifications can be seen and acted upon or retracted/adjusted. It is a benchmark that should be subject to changing economic conditions, costs of living and employment statistics. Not politically promised in a vastly different economic landscape and then rammed through regardless as a matter of blind rhetoric or NDP pride.

TLDR:

That said, I would suggest that increasing the minimum wage by nearly 50% in a less than a handful of years, in the midst of a harsh economic downturn, while unemployment is increasing without taking any time to measure the effect, AND claiming that absolutely no ill effects will result - is ludicrous.

[para transit fellow]

Maybe we should check if there actually a definition of living wage....

liv·ing wage (noun)

noun: living wage; plural noun: living wages

a wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.

[iggy_oi]

Let's try and look at a quick break down of how much it costs to live in Calgary. A 1 bdrm apartment would likely cost around $900/month in rent with utilities included(I could only find data on the 2bdrm average which was over $1300 so I'm guessing a little). Let's say you don't eat out and buy all of your food at the grocery store, even the most frugal shopper will be paying $50-$75/week so let's take the average of that and call it $250/month. And an adult bus pass costs $100/month. You would need a phone as well, I'm not sure what land lines cost but for the sake of argument let's say a person gets a cellphone because landlines are becoming somewhat obsolete and since you rely on public transit and need your minimum wage job, you better be able to call if you're going to be late if the bus broke down late, it would be about $50/month for a plan. So right there without any other expenses, you are paying $1300 in bills each month.

The poverty line in Canada is set at $23.5k. If you make that amount your monthly income after taxes is roughly $1645. Now you might say that $345 dollars is a lot of money to have extra for a person, but you would be ignoring the fact that a lot of people making minimum wage aren't supporting just one person.

Take a single mom for example, you've now gone from a 1 bdrm apartment to 2, how much money do you now have left over? You're either in the red, or very close to it. And while parents do get child tax credit cheques, they are nowhere near what the costs are for raising a child, not even close.

People might say "well that was her choice to have a kid" or "well she should have gone to school". The reality is sometimes life throws us challenges, many single mothers are raising their kid(s) on their own because they are a widow or they were in a good relationship which turned sour and the dad ended up being a deadbeat. They are working hard to provide for their children and would probably like to go to school and improve their earning potential, the thing is they are stuck because they can't possibly make enough.

Everyone says the same thing about a single person, they should just go to school. Now imagine all you can get is a minimum wage job and you are broke and desperately seeking to improve your situation. You only have $350 disposable income every month, but you have to work to have even that much. How easy is it to go to school and work full time while taking public transit? I get that it can be done but when you see the breakdowns it'd be very hard to argue that it isn't a steep uphill battle even for a single person. Not to mention, when you are done school you will have student loans to pay off, so you won't be all that much further ahead for likely 6-10 years from when you start.

All of this hasn't even addressed something that many people not working in minimum wage don't even take into account. What happens when you get sick? From cancer to the common cold one thing is consistent, being sick costs you money! Whether it's prescriptions drug coverage or sick days, these are benefits that the majority of minimum wage workers do NOT have. Lost time costs you money, this brings me to my next point, all of the earnings figures I've given above are based on a 40 hour work week, the reality is even if your are considered full time, 40 hours per week is not a guarantee, and most people working a minimum wage do not get that each week.

A $15/hour minimum wage won't make you rich, in fact after taxes a person working 40 hours per week at $15/hour only has an income of $2000/month. Now for a single person that gives them opportunity, but more importantly it gives them a legitimate choice as to whether or not they want to stay at minimum wage. For a single parent it might still not make for an easy road to improve things, but at least it would steer you away from the road that leads to things getting worse.

Now people may argue high school kids working fast food don't deserve that much pay, the reality is they work part time so they aren't going to out rich anyone, but more importantly, they spend the money they make and that is good for the economy. The other possibility is that a lot of the jobs they currently have wouldnt be available to them because someone older and more reliable or qualified may actually work that job because it would now make more financial sense as opposed to being a stay at home mom due to the costs of putting children in childcare.

Before minimum wage, employers could pay their workers whatever they wanted and as a result poverty was rampant. The whole point of a minimum wage is supposed be to keep people out of poverty, but unfortunately the current system is keeping them in it. There is no easy answer to fix this, even though there are many options. They could create laws to guarantee a minimum hours of work or they could create more social programs(which tax payers, including the poor, would need to cover) or they could have the people who, although not all, are currently contributing to the issue be made to address the issue. It doesn't matter which way they go, someone is going to be unhappy.

People say it makes things tough on small businesses, while that may be true, the reality is there will be more businesses able to stay profitable with a $15/hour minimum wage than there will be cases of people staying above the poverty line if the wage stays the same rather than be increased.

[Kjesse]

Having read iggy_oi's defence of minimum wage, I have now come to the conclusion we should triple minimum wage. $45 an hour, that will make it easier for all. Social justice matters, after all.

And if anyone can decipher his last paragraph, well, please do explain what he means.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Having read iggy_oi's defence of minimum wage, I have now come to the conclusion we should triple minimum wage. $45 an hour, that will make it easier for all. Social justice matters, after all.

And if anyone can decipher his last paragraph, well, please do explain what he means.

People are suffering more now than businesses will with a $15 minimum wage.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Having read iggy_oi's defence of minimum wage, I have now come to the conclusion we should triple minimum wage. $45 an hour, that will make it easier for all. Social justice matters, after all.

And if anyone can decipher his last paragraph, well, please do explain what he means.

#of people negatively impacted by current min. wage > # of people negatively impacted by min. wage increase to $15/hour

Would you be in favour of scrapping minimum wage altogether? Serious question

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

People say it makes things tough on small businesses, while that may be true, the reality is there will be more businesses able to stay profitable with a $15/hour minimum wage than there will be cases of people staying above the poverty line if the wage stays the same rather than be increased.

The reality is there will be job cuts and cuts to workers hours. Wages will go up but so will prices for goods and services. I'm not so sure they would be better off.

[Dion]

Maybe a solution can be found to sharpen the minimum wage tool. In the Netherlands, the minimum wage increases with the worker’s age. A 15-year-old must be paid a minimum of €2.89 an hour ($3.92, up to 36 hours a week). When the worker turns 16, it rises to €3.32. It notches higher by increments of about €0.50 to €1.50 an hour until it peaks at €9.63 for a 23-year-old worker.

As well, the minimum wage is set officially by month, week and day – not hour. As it works out, the hourly wage actually falls a bit for workers with more hours per week. For example, a 23-year-old part-time worker earns €9.63 per hour, but if they’re willing and able to work full-time (40 hours) the hourly wage drops to €8.66.

This allows employers to discriminate not only by age of worker, but also by the availability of the worker to put in more hours. A high-school student in his teens earns much less per hour than a young adult worker. But the employer also has an incentive to give more hours per week to the adult who is able and willing to work full-time.

It may seem like a bit of a complicated system. But if Canadians find value in establishing a minimum wage in the first place, then it makes sense to fine tune the program to maximize its usefulness.

Someone may argue that such a system allows employers to discriminate against people based on age. Isn’t that unconstitutional? Canada’s social programs already include a good deal of age-based discrimination (e.g., Old Age Security). It also allows governments to discriminate on other factors, such as the number and age of their children ( e.g., Canada Child Tax Benefit). So if we consider the minimum wage as an anti-poverty social policy, then age discrimination surely can’t be a hurdle.

There’s no getting around it: Urban poverty is a tragic and growing problem in Canada. While everyone likes the idea of adults supporting themselves and their children by working, it’s just not possible on minimum wage. An across-the-board minimum wage is the problem. Perhaps the Dutch example offers some sensible guidance for Canada.

Todd Hirsch is the Calgary-based chief economist of ATB Financial, and author of The Boiling Frog Dilemma: Saving Canada from Economic Decline.

http://www.toddhirsch.com/commentary...e-fine-tune-it

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why is raking leaves or flipping burgers worthy of a "living wage"?

Wow

That is certainly a revealing statement.