Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

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.

There will no doubt be an adjustment period, I will be the first to say the timing isn't the greatest, but frankly if we don't do this now then when will it get done? When there's another boom? When the wild rose or conservatives are in power? This issue has went unaddressed for a long time, it's always been a game of catch up in this province. It's also being implemented over time, so that will hopefully help ease the burden somewhat.

Goods and services may go up in price, but last time I checked they seem to go up even when the minimum wage is kept at the same rate. At the end of the day the market will dictate what people will pay for things, most smartly run businesses who are doing well won't risk losing business by raising their prices above what people will pay just so they can attempt to maintain the same profit.

The issue with hours being reduced already exists as well, if it becomes evident that the wage would be enough with a guarantee of minimum hours, maybe some labour laws can be changed to address this, or people can choose to unionize and address it in that manner. Looking at the current numbers, even a guarantee of hours would not help people enough at the current minimum wage.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

Why shouldn't it be? At the end of the day every job is essentially you providing a service. Do you feel that employers who pay minimum wage should only be entitled to make a certain amount in profits because the service they provide is easy to provide?

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why shouldn't it be? At the end of the day every job is essentially you providing a service. Do you feel that employers who pay minimum wage should only be entitled to make a certain amount in profits because the service they provide is easy to provide?

Yes. If it's easy to provide, lots of people will do it and the profit to be made will go down. The same thing applies to minimum wage workers.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There will no doubt be an adjustment period, I will be the first to say the timing isn't the greatest, but frankly if we don't do this now then when will it get done?

Never. It's a pipe dream of the lazy and the unskilled who've deluded themselves in to thinking they're worth something.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Yes. If it's easy to provide, lots of people will do it and the profit to be made will go down. The same thing applies to minimum wage workers.

I've worked with plenty of people that pull in 50-100k per year that work a whole hell of a lot less than than someone on 8 hr shift work at McDonalds (and have to include another job in there because their not being paid enough to live in the area the business is located).

Some work is easy, but hard to get there because of educational barriers. A child could do the job I was doing when I was working in investment banking. A computer program will replace that job within a few years. Is the only reason I could make a living wage at it because I spent 4 years getting schooling that didn't end up actually applying at all because all I needed to know how to do was fill out paperwork? None of it was difficult, all of it was crucial to the business though.

The people that worked in our mail room worked longer and harder than most anyone else in the office, yet they all needed two jobs to support families, because hey, they're just making sure all our important stuff gets to the right places, and all our $100's of millions of dollars of transactions every day get sent to the proper accounts. Was it difficult? No. Time consuming and stressful? Hell yes.

Meanwhile, my employer was "Canada's Best Employer!!". Great, enjoy your trips to Vienna and Italy top 30 people! Hey I see in our newsletter our company made $2.4 BILLION dollars this month, any chance some of that is going to "trickle down" to some of us lower level folks? No. Ok thanks, bye.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Yes. If it's easy to provide, lots of people will do it and the profit to be made will go down. The same thing applies to minimum wage workers.

Yeah you're right macdonalds and Walmart barely scrape by profit wise

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well...you basically used the word you were trying to define within its own definition while also not clearly defining absolutely anything, this makes you both wrong and an idiot.

But hey, I guess that makes you value for money!

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Wow

That is certainly a revealing statement.

Actually...you're right, that must be a nice change of pace.

It is very revealing. Ever done it? I actually operated my own lawn maintenance company for a while and its rough.

It requires: A truck, a lawnmower and weed-whacker, bags and time. Oh, and a willingness to work.

Because someone is going to offer to do more than you are and do it for less. Dont like it? Tough. The Government isnt about to step in and arbitrarily set the price of yard trimming.

But thats exactly what you hate right? Having to...you know...work for money? Its demeaning.

But its okay, now that Aunt Rachel and Uncle Justin are around you wont have to. Right?

Do you even understand what you're arguing for? You're saying that everyone should be able to live at a comfortable standard without earning it. That if you just 'put in the time' thats enough.

Do you still proudly revere that trophy you got from the Bowling Alley on your 11th birthday? Is it still on the mantle next to a loved ones' ashes?

A standard 'Living Wage' is like being given a car, an apartment and spending money because you managed to keep breathing this month but were out of your Government Allocated apartment for a minimum of 8 hours per day doing...whatever...as long as you were gone.

For the record, I agree with Resolute. I think minimum wage jobs should suck, they should pay the minimum, they should be opportunities to earn some money and transition yourself to something better. You should hate them. Because if you like them and 'this is fine' then I think thats a terrible message to be sending to anyone.

And overly compensating them reinforces the idea that 'this is fine.'

I think a country like ours should want to encourage its people to aspire to more than flipping burgers or mowing lawns.

If you love flipping burgers or mowing lawns then great! Own your own restaurant or own your own lawn-care business, dont just get paid enough by Government decree and call that 'good enough.'

Granted, the Government will tax you to death at the moment, but at least you can try!

And before you spout off about immigrants and the disadvantaged go through this thread and read my posts, I have unequivocally stated that we need to help these people. Immigrants and disadvantaged people are among the hardest working people I have ever met and I know and serve a good chunk of them.

But they're a small demographic that I have advocated strongly for helping specifically through targeted Social programs rather than my usual joke of:

Raising minimum wage is a hilariously Capitalist solution to an inherently Socialist problem. "Throw Someone Else's Money at it."

So why dont we do it? Because figuring out social programs that actually solve the problem that you say you care about is hard and spending other people's money is easy and generates Social Licenses and Political Capital. Things that really help...immigrants and the disadvantaged?

So you get the credit for caring about a problem and 'solving' it without ever having to actually do any work.

Sounds about right.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There will no doubt be an adjustment period, I will be the first to say the timing isn't the greatest, but frankly if we don't do this now then when will it get done? When there's another boom? When the wild rose or conservatives are in power? This issue has went unaddressed for a long time, it's always been a game of catch up in this province. It's also being implemented over time, so that will hopefully help ease the burden somewhat.

Goods and services may go up in price, but last time I checked they seem to go up even when the minimum wage is kept at the same rate. At the end of the day the market will dictate what people will pay for things, most smartly run businesses who are doing well won't risk losing business by raising their prices above what people will pay just so they can attempt to maintain the same profit.

The issue with hours being reduced already exists as well, if it becomes evident that the wage would be enough with a guarantee of minimum hours, maybe some labour laws can be changed to address this, or people can choose to unionize and address it in that manner. Looking at the current numbers, even a guarantee of hours would not help people enough at the current minimum wage.

We need to more than just a minimum wage hike to help people break away from that vicious cycle of poverty. Tax breaks or grants to help them get a trade or education would greatly help. Then there the lack of affordable housing.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I've worked with plenty of people that pull in 50-100k per year that work a whole hell of a lot less than than someone on 8 hr shift work at McDonalds (and have to include another job in there because their not being paid enough to live in the area the business is located).

Some work is easy, but hard to get there because of educational barriers. A child could do the job I was doing when I was working in investment banking. A computer program will replace that job within a few years. Is the only reason I could make a living wage at it because I spent 4 years getting schooling that didn't end up actually applying at all because all I needed to know how to do was fill out paperwork?

The people that worked in our mail room worked longer and harder than most anyone else in the office, yet they all needed two jobs to support families, because hey, they're just making sure all our important stuff gets to the right places, and all our $100's of millions of dollars of transactions every day get sent to the proper accounts. Was it difficult? No. Time consuming and stressful? Hell yes.

Meanwhile, my employer was "Canada's Best Employer!!". Great, enjoy your trips to Vienna and Italy top 30 people! Hey I see in our newsletter our company made $2.4 BILLION dollars this month, any chance some of that is going to "trickle down" to some of us lower level folks? No. Ok thanks, bye.

A) Intelligence has value. This is why smart lazy people get paid more to work less. The fact that you were allegedly required to have a degree is indicative of inefficient processes in place at that company rather than some type of discrimination against the uneducated.

B) The vast majority of minimum wage workers are students and young people, not people in the situation you discuss (also, most mailroom workers earn a significant premium over minimum wage so your example isn't really applicable).

C) Even those earning minimum wage should be able to get by with cash to spare assuming they live a frugal lifestyle (shared accommodation, preparing own meals, etc.). It's really only the kids that throw a wrench into things, although I'd argue that one should consider their ability to provide for offspring before making the decision to bring a child into the world.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yeah you're right macdonalds and Walmart barely scrape by profit wise

He's talking about the market for labour, not the market for goods and services.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zarley

He's talking about the market for labour, not the market for goods and services.

No, actually if you read his post again you'll see he makes the claim that lower paying jobs that are easy will be done by more people which will decrease profits as a result. He's essentially saying since working at Walmart is easy and there is a demand for the service more people will open up stores like that and the profits will shrink.

Edit: read it again, and can see what you mean. Still don't agree with the argument though. If there's a lot of one particular job, even if they're easy, there is a demand for those jobs because someone sees the potential to make money and needs people to help them make that money. If there is a demand because no one wants to do them because they don't pay enough, that in my opinion is an owner essentially taking advantage of the fact that their are desperate people who may not be able to find work elsewhere for various reasons and circumstances that may be out of their control and basically have no choice but to be the working poor.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Zarley

A) Intelligence has value. This is why smart lazy people get paid more to work less. The fact that you were allegedly required to have a degree is indicative of inefficient processes in place at that company rather than some type of discrimination against the uneducated.

I agree intelligence has value. Being able to speak knowledgeably about the products certainly helps, but a degree is not required to learn that information. A degree was not a job requirement, but it is obviously a leg up on those who don't have one (more of a path to higher levels if I had wanted to take those steps). I'm not talking about discrimination against uneducated, but there seems to be this notion that people who are in low-income jobs are not intelligent or hardworking people, and that is of course wrong. As noted, pretty much standard competence is all that is needed to do the job that I was doing, not much different than a minimum wage job.

B) The vast majority of minimum wage workers are students and young people, not people in the situation you discuss (also, most mailroom workers earn a significant premium over minimum wage so your example isn't really applicable).

I'm pretty sure your first line (vast majority) is incorrect. The vast majority of students have minimum wage jobs, that doesn't mean the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are held by students. Maybe the ones you see most often (likely fast food and service industry). But the janitors, night cleaners, window washers, security guards of the world certainly aren't mostly students.

If mailroom workers are paid a premium on top of minimum wage (which I would agree is the case) yet they still need two jobs to support a family, what does that say about minimum wage? When my parents were my age, being a bank teller would have you able to support a family. That's not the case anymore. Costs of living have inflated at a much faster rate than average wages. No one that works at one of the country's largest banks, and the supposed best employer in Canada, should have to work two jobs to support a family. It just shouldn't be the case. IMO, no one that works any job for the standard working week should need a second job just to support themselves. We may call them menial jobs, it's still most of these people's day being pissed away only so they can be more behind than they were when the day started. Whether I sit at a desk filling out account documents, or they stand at a till taking your food orders, it's work. And it's obviously valuable work because these large companies wouldn't employ them if they didn't have too.

C) Even those earning minimum wage should be able to get by with cash to spare assuming they live a frugal lifestyle (shared accommodation, preparing own meals, etc.). It's really only the kids that throw a wrench into things, although I'd argue that one should consider their ability to provide for offspring before making the decision to bring a child into the world.

I guess that depends on what you consider frugal. Personally I think having a phone and/or computer is a necessity within our current society. How many people are hiring you if you can't be reached on a cell phone? Or have your schedule emailed to you? Internet access is, IMO a necessity. Many minimum wage jobs are part of a corporate structure that only allows for online applications. Can you apply for an apartment, or rent any room, without a phone? References? These are the types of new costs that have inflated the cost of living over the wage inflation. Things that didn't exist before but are now fundamental to how our social structure works.

And I would agree with the point about children, that said, I get asked to step outside my "socialist utopian" mindset to deal with reality, so I ask the other side to do the same. Just like paying your workers as low as humanly possible is "good business" (which I personally disagree with), people wanting and needing children is "being of human biology". Not only that, accidents happen, and education in that area is still very lacking, especially for people from hard backgrounds.


All this said, I actually don't think the minimum wage thing works. I would rather see people at the very top end (and corporations) paying more back into the system (which they profit from greatly, and no, it's not all off the sweat of the brow of their big-time founders and CEOs. Anyone who thinks they build and maintain companies on their own is more delusional that I could ever be accused of), and using that to provide proper education and services to people while theyre young (like small children), so they weren't behind before they even start.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

No, actually if you read his post again you'll see he makes the claim that lower paying jobs that are easy will be done by more people which will decrease profits as a result. He's essentially saying since working at Walmart is easy and there is a demand for the service more people will open up stores like that and the profits will shrink.

I had to read it a few times, because I initially thought that too, but it seems to be referring to profits for the employee (ie, their wage). The availability of labor for those positions is high which drives their profit (wage) down.

It's still not an excuse for multi-billion dollar companies to have people on their payroll that can't live off what they're being paid. Business can't be amoral IMO.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you even understand what you're arguing for? You're saying that everyone should be able to live at a comfortable standard without earning it. That if you just 'put in the time' thats enough.

Do you still proudly revere that trophy you got from the Bowling Alley on your 11th birthday? Is it still on the mantle next to a loved ones' ashes?

A standard 'Living Wage' is like being given a car, an apartment and spending money because you managed to keep breathing this month but were out of your Government Allocated apartment for a minimum of 8 hours per day doing...whatever...as long as you were gone.

The whole going into work and providing a service that is in demand isn't earning it? Under the current minimum wage with the way EI is paid, if you are laid off from your "good" job, you are actually given incentive to not go work a minimum wage job if one is available because you collect more sitting at home.

For the record, I agree with Resolute. I think minimum wage jobs should suck, they should pay the minimum, they should be opportunities to earn some money and transition yourself to something better. You should hate them. Because if you like them and 'this is fine' then I think thats a terrible message to be sending to anyone.

And overly compensating them reinforces the idea that 'this is fine.'

I think a country like ours should want to encourage its people to aspire to more than flipping burgers or mowing lawns.

Some people don't have other options and who really gets to judge which jobs make what? I agree with your point about being given opportunities to earn and transition to something better, but under the current structure it is beind made more and more challenging. Sure the government could create some programs, but why cant businesses do their share as well? They are the ones currently profiting off that worker.

If you love flipping burgers or mowing lawns then great! Own your own restaurant or own your own lawn-care business, dont just get paid enough by Government decree and call that 'good enough.'

Granted, the Government will tax you to death at the moment, but at least you can try!

Again it is very challenging to do this when you are living in poverty, banks don't just hand you cheques to go out and start your own business when you're currently earning $11/hour working 28 hour a week. And I'm not sure why the taxes would be a concern, we are all paying extra now as is.

And before you spout off about immigrants and the disadvantaged go through this thread and read my posts, I have unequivocally stated that we need to help these people. Immigrants and disadvantaged people are among the hardest working people I have ever met and I know and serve a good chunk of them.

But they're a small demographic that I have advocated strongly for helping specifically through targeted Social programs rather than my usual joke of:

Raising minimum wage is a hilariously Capitalist solution to an inherently Socialist problem. "Throw Someone Else's Money at it."

So why dont we do it? Because figuring out social programs that actually solve the problem that you say you care about is hard and spending other people's money is easy and generates Social Licenses and Political Capital. Things that really help...immigrants and the disadvantaged?

So you get the credit for caring about a problem and 'solving' it without ever having to actually do any work.

Sounds about right.

You are advocating to help these people but you don't want to see a raise to minimum wage? They are a small demographic? Seriously? I know you to be a knowlegable individual but claiming immigrants are a small demographic period, let alone as it relates to minimum wage is frankly one of the most inaccurate claims a person could make. Again with the social programs, you have a problem with a carbon tax yet have no issue with a let's pay people so their employer doesn't have to tax? Is that a fair assessment of what your view is? Because that is what I'm reading.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You are advocating to help these people but you don't want to see a raise to minimum wage? They are a small demographic? Seriously? I know you to be a knowlegable individual but claiming immigrants are a small demographic period, let alone as it relates to minimum wage is frankly one of the most inaccurate claims a person could make. Again with the social programs, you have a problem with a carbon tax yet have no issue with a let's pay people so their employer doesn't have to tax? Is that a fair assessment of what your view is? Because that is what I'm reading.

Time for you to step up to the plate and start providing statistics. We've gone over this subject before on this forum, and I can't be arsed to look up the stats people posted at the time, but my recollections are:

• Only a small fraction of Albertans earn minimum wage.
  
• The vast majority of those people (something like 90 per cent) are under 29 years old and earn minimum wage only temporarily (3 years or less). And of course, the average 27 year old in Alberta still lives at home.

So the number of adults who rely on a minimum wage job to support themselves in their own place, or support kids, is very small. Small enough that they can be supported through targeted programs. I'd be onboard with a program to support anyone 30 or older or raising children with a supplement to minimum wage that brings it higher than $15.

You've made all kinds of assertions about how many people this affects and how most of them are adults, and many of them have kids. Prove it. Show your work.

In the meantime, you can get off your moral high-horse. Some jobs are transitional. They provide a little money and work experience for those new to the workforce. Make those jobs too costly and many will simply be eliminated. You create a system where those with good jobs are secure and well-paid, But those jobs are behind a moat, and it becomes much harder for new workers to reach them because the stepping-stones have been removed. Again, look at the numbers in countries that mandate high wages for unskilled labour. The result is chronically high unemployment, especially among the young and new immigrants.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Locke

(Cut for length)

So why dont we do it? Because figuring out social programs that actually solve the problem that you say you care about is hard and spending other people's money is easy and generates Social Licenses and Political Capital. Things that really help...immigrants and the disadvantaged?

So you get the credit for caring about a problem and 'solving' it without ever having to actually do any work.

Sounds about right.

If you want to work with folks (immigrant, disabled, unemployed and other low income) who are struggling to live on minimum wage you could come by for an interview.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why shouldn't it be? At the end of the day every job is essentially you providing a service. Do you feel that employers who pay minimum wage should only be entitled to make a certain amount in profits because the service they provide is easy to provide?

It is notable that you (and your cohorts) completely dodged the question. As you have every time I have brought it up.

I would agree that any job done is providing a service - to a customer, to an employer, or to both. But my point is that the mere existence of a service or task does not in and of itself make it worthy of a nebulous and undefined "living wage".

One of the primary drivers of compensation is the size of the labour market. In general, we set the value of labour based on the complexity of the job and how many people can do it. When you have a very low skill task that is trivially easy for any able bodied person to do, then you typically have an incredibly large pool of labour. There are exceptions - as we saw in 2007-08 when the local market was so hot that kids could command $13-14 an hour to work at McDonalds. As it was, several restaurants failed due to lack of staff because of how great the shortage of labour was at that point.


When push comes to shove, the "living wage" argument is just meaningless emotional rhetoric. You are on more solid ground in arguing the overall benefit to society of a minimum wage. That is an argument I can support. The question, however, is what level the wage should be set at. There is, in fact, a possibility that $15/hr could be that level. But the only arguments made in favour of that number so far have been arbitrary and emotional. That is not convincing to me. And when we have a story every week about a small business closing, and citing minimum wage increases as a contributing factor, one struggles to believe that what will ultimately be a 50% increase in a depressed economy was the right figure. Or are you and para transit fellow going to follow Notley's lead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine even as the house burns around you?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When push comes to shove, the "living wage" argument is just meaningless emotional rhetoric. You are on more solid ground in arguing the overall benefit to society of a minimum wage. That is an argument I can support. The question, however, is what level the wage should be set at. There is, in fact, a possibility that $15/hr could be that level. But the only arguments made in favour of that number so far have been arbitrary and emotional. That is not convincing to me. And when we have a story every week about a small business closing, and citing minimum wage increases as a contributing factor, one struggles to believe that what will ultimately be a 50% increase in a depressed economy was the right figure. Or are you and para transit fellow going to follow Notley's lead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine even as the house burns around you?

And as has been noted before, if your business must rely on exploiting workers at a ludicrously low wage to stay afloat, then your business model is garbage and deserves to fail.

There's some massive cognitive dissonance from the groups that decry the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, but think that "everyone deserves to have their business propped up on the backs of the poor" is A-OK.

[Ducay]

$15 won't be a living wage once the new labour costs get priced into goods & services.

Do people really think increasing the minimum wage just magically makes everyone richer with no impact? If it was, why wouldn't everyone be in support of it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

$15 won't be a living wage once the new labour costs get priced into goods & services.

Do people really think increasing the minimum wage just magically makes everyone richer with no impact? If it was, why wouldn't everyone be in support of it?

That's the biggest issue for me. Is that most of these minimum wage increases will directly impact the more commodities based goods, and also things like restaurants.

So their buying power isn't going to increase, it will be lucky to keep up.

On top of that it will probably tip people that are just above the poverty line into the lower tax bracket.

Throwing money at a problem without thought and then wiping your hands of it is such a government way of trying to solve problems.

But by seeing the business failures that we're seeing, and things like automation of low income jobs its becoming clear the government hasn't thought through the backlash that some of these people will receive a raise that will probably be devoured by the cost increases caused by their raise.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

And as has been noted before, if your business must rely on exploiting workers at a ludicrously low wage to stay afloat, then your business model is garbage and deserves to fail.

There's some massive cognitive dissonance from the groups that decry the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, but think that "everyone deserves to have their business propped up on the backs of the poor" is A-OK.

"Ludicrously low" is the same empty emotional rhetoric simply rephrased. It isn't "ludicrously low" simply because you say so. If the value of the task is "ludicrously low", why should it merit compensation greater than that value?


I can't say I am surprised, however, to see that you are sitting right beside Notley with your head in the sand.