Alberta Politics Thread

[CliffFletcher]

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.

So what happens when those businesses and those jobs disappear (or are automated) because they're simply not viable? A lot of Albertans don't seem to understand how bad a social problem chronically high unemployment is.

And once again, I will point out the clear and incontestable truth that the people hit hardest by mandating a living wage for all jobs are the young and immigrants.

Of course, I don't expect someone like PsYcNeT to care about that, as he isn't really in this fight to help the poor. If it means a lot more young people and immigrants are out of work altogether - whatevs. At least you got a shot in at those privileged people, right? And that's what matters.

[DiracSpike]

My friend (who's in his mid-20s) owns and operates a restaurant in Okotoks. He works everyday and is able to employ one hostess, one waitress, and one cook. He's terrified of what this hike will do to his business, because unlike what a lot of people think the margins for small town small business are razor thin. The restaurant is barely getting by as it is.

The cumulative effect of people like my friend going out of business is what the anti crowd here is against. Small business isn't lucrative but it is a big chunk of our economy, one that's already taken a pretty big hit. Is it fair that his 17 year old hostess, doing a job literally anyone can do, receives an artificially inflated wage and forces him to the close the doors of a restaurant he invested his life and savings in? One party has a lot more at stake here than the other.

No one ####ing cares about Walmart going out of business, it's a stupid example because it never will. If you wanna say my friend deserves to go under because of terrible business practices that's fine, but it would mean ceding the high ground moral position you all seem to love.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

The reason I feel they deserve a wage that keeps them out of poverty is because if they are making the effort to make a positive contribution to society, not just by providing a service but also by being a taxpayer and consumer who is making a positive contribution to the economy, then there should be some benefit to that. I also believe that people should have the opportunity to get out of that situation. We can come up with all the grants and education programs in the world but at the end of the day people will still need to be able to afford the bare necessities to live while trying to improve their earning potential.

Now would you please explain what formula you are using to decide which jobs deserve and don't deserve a wage that does not keep them in poverty? While keeping in that there are a lot of unskilled labour jobs out there that already pay more than $15/hour.

[puckedoff]

The jobs where a business owner is willing/able to pay more than $15/hour are the jobs that are worth $15/hour or more. That's the formula.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The reason I feel they deserve a wage that keeps them out of poverty is because if they are making the effort to make a positive contribution to society

Not all jobs provide a value to society. If someone is being paid below the poverty line, they're probably not contributing much.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The reason I feel they deserve a wage that keeps them out of poverty is because if they are making the effort to make a positive contribution to society, not just by providing a service but also by being a taxpayer and consumer who is making a positive contribution to the economy, then there should be some benefit to that. I also believe that people should have the opportunity to get out of that situation. We can come up with all the grants and education programs in the world but at the end of the day people will still need to be able to afford the bare necessities to live while trying to improve their earning potential.

Now would you please explain what formula you are using to decide which jobs deserve and don't deserve a wage that does not keep them in poverty? While keeping in that there are a lot of unskilled labour jobs out there that already pay more than $15/hour.

The rate at which firms are willing to pay them for their labour? That's it.

If you need a guy to haul bags of sand at a rig site in the middle of nowhere, then you are going to pay him more because not a lot of people have the discipline or desperation to take that job.

Whereas, if you want someone to stand in front of your suburban store to greet customers coming in, well, then you are going to pay them a lot less than $15/h.

It's really simple.

[peter12]

Also, social justice people, Walmart, and all the other big corps will survive hikes like this - most likely by automating significant chunks of their work force or off-loading labour costs on to their customers (see grocery self-checkout) or by hiring more people and giving their entire work force fewer hours. At least, that is what the evidence will look like.

The little guys. The backbones of the middle-class communities will get muscled out like that, and guess who is going to replace them? Either no one or another big corp.

Best case scenario is that turnover decreases. Good workers stay on, and bad workers don't get jobs period. That wouldn't be an awful outcome.

[Flash Walken]

Fine, no minimum wage increase as long as no one ever complains again about people preferring to live off the system than get a job.

We can all hold hands as automation destroys the Canadian economy while it is impossible to raise interest rates without starting an economic apocalypse.

I would rather pay people more and subsidize them less but I guess that makes me some kind of Marxist?

Raise your hands if you don't think the minimum wage should be increased. Now keep them raised if you also think Canadians are over leveraged with debt. Keep them up there if you think automation will make jobs more scarce in the future.

Now, for those with their hands still up, please explain to the rest of us how you expect the economy to grow?

[peter12]

Your points are sound, but the minimum wage isn't a panacea.

Interest rates must be raised, and they probably will be soon. US Fed has signaled that a hike will occur by end of year. BOJ has said that they are done with QE. The business cycle is headed into a downwards phase.

As for automation, I think that it is mainly hype, although it is clearly have some kind of impact that we haven't figured out quite yet.

Personally, based on what I have read, I think that most of the automation has already been done.

The real issue that we have to face is a greying demographic. That will have a profound impact on our economic productivity and ability to provide a social safety net.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"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?

Right, so emotional egoism doesn't play into opposition to the minimum wage hike. No way that anyone voicing protest doesn't care about the superficial "devaluation" of their own work. Nuh uh. Totally fact-based thinking across the board.

[AFireInside]

I feel like rents and the costs of goods and services will increase more than typical after minimum wages go up. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong but why wouldn't a big corporation like Walmart increase their prices here since people will have a little more money. Why won't landlords increase their rents when they have more applicants to choose from?

I didn't know why my initial thought is that prices will just quickly increase to offset the minimum wage hike..

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by peter12

Personally, based on what I have read, I think that most of the automation has already been done.

I couldn't disagree more. IMO, automation has barely gotten started.

While factories for hard substances (cars, toys, etc) have been automated for a long time already, that was always the easy part for automation. Harder problems were affordably automating the process of stocking and organizing shelves, manufacturing clothing, cooking gormet food and things like that. These are just now starting to be automated, and will likely really start becoming common over the next decade. Then there are all the really hard problems, like automating transportation, building construction, and things like that; this technology that will probably start to become mainstream in 10 years, and be dominant 10 years after that.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Not all jobs provide a value to society. If someone is being paid below the poverty line, they're probably not contributing much.

Some people are INCAPABLE of contributing much. Personally, I'd rather more of these people had a living wage in order to reduce poverty and thus, crime.

Not saying I agree with $15/hour, that's insane. There should two minimums, one for people 18 and under, and one for adults. Under 18 and you want the graduated rate? Prove you live on your own. Of course, this would have a slew of unintended consequences, but it is something we will have to deal with as a society eventually. As the world becomes more and more automated, unskilled jobs are going to disappear creating swathes of unemployable people. If our masters leave a situation like that brewing long enough, they will find themselves on the wrong end of a pointy stick.

It's really going to rustle people's jimmies once society has to start paying people to do NOTHING, just to keep our consumer based economy afloat. We are just at the tip of the iceberg here. There will need to be some creative solutions coming from our unimaginative and corrupt leaders.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Fine, no minimum wage increase as long as no one ever complains again about people preferring to live off the system than get a job?

This is the part you guys get wrong all the time. We can and should increase the minimum wage every year...but by much smaller increments. All of your socialist bliss research on minimum wage increases goes right out the window when you apply a 50% increase over basically two years.

Also the one you you can't argue with (unless you live in Quebec) is that a booming economy is best for both employers and employees. Alberta has had the highest average wage, the lowest number of minimum wage earners, the lowest poverty numbers for years. Minimum wage is only an issue now because we're trying to reinvent our wheel.

[Flash Walken]

I am not in a team, OMG, I am not "you guys". If you want to debate a point I am making feel free but don't assign positions to me that i am not making in order to tear apart a strawman.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The reason I feel they deserve a wage that keeps them out of poverty is because if they are making the effort to make a positive contribution to society, not just by providing a service but also by being a taxpayer and consumer who is making a positive contribution to the economy, then there should be some benefit to that. I also believe that people should have the opportunity to get out of that situation. We can come up with all the grants and education programs in the world but at the end of the day people will still need to be able to afford the bare necessities to live while trying to improve their earning potential.

So put simply, you want the employer to subsidize the individual's relative lack of contribution to society?

Now would you please explain what formula you are using to decide which jobs deserve and don't deserve a wage that does not keep them in poverty? While keeping in that there are a lot of unskilled labour jobs out there that already pay more than $15/hour.

As mentioned, the formula is already in wide use. The knowledge and skill required x the number of people capable and willing to do it. A shortage on either side of this will drive wages up. As I noted has occurred even with minimum value tasks when in a labour shortage.

[VladtheImpaler]

****, so stupid. If the McDonald's burger becomes too expensive (relative to a certain long-established price point that an economist can figure out for you based on historic prices/consumption rates), a certain number of people (the higher the price, the more people) will stop going to McD's and will BBQ their own burgers. Same with lawn cutting. Say I pay $40 for lawn maintenance. If the price goes up to $55 (or whatever, based on the aforementioned price/consumption ratios), I will get off my lazy ass and cut my own lawn. All those "living wage" earning burger artists and lawn jockeys will have no jobs now because a certain number of consumers will be priced out of the market. To see what happens then, look at France. Locke is right. Everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

[PsYcNeT]

Gotta keep standing on the neck of those in poverty to keep burgers cheap.

This is my stop
Got to get off
I may go pop
(Spoken)
Excuse me
Excuse me

I've got to be direct(la, la, la)
If I'm wrong please correct(la, la, la)
You're standing on my neck(la, la, la)
You're standing on my neck(la, la, la)
You're standing on my neck.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I feel like rents and the costs of goods and services will increase more than typical after minimum wages go up. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong but why wouldn't a big corporation like Walmart increase their prices here since people will have a little more money. Why won't landlords increase their rents when they have more applicants to choose from?

I didn't know why my initial thought is that prices will just quickly increase to offset the minimum wage hike..

Exactly, which leads to a couple of different points that I've made so many times its become ridiculous.

Just giving people extra cash that comes from the same source doesnt do anything, its just a re-distribution.

Companies will find ways to recoup those costs and this comes in the form of higher prices, fewer employees, fewer hours, etc.

'Minimum Wage' is an arbitrary number, its a concept designed to generate Political Capital () rather than actually fix any social problems.

And the argument of wanting to pay people more so they have a better quality of life is pretty much exactly whats gotten us here in the first place, its like washing your car in the rain, sure you're doing something so you feel good about it but you havent actually accomplished or solved anything.

Raising minimum wage 'looks good.' It'll generate votes. It accrues 'Political Capital.'

But it doesnt fix anything.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Locke is right. Everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

Found your new signature Locke.