Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So would it be in our best interest to lower minimum wage or get rid of it all together? Because it will reduce costs which will automatically lead to lower prices being passed on to consumers?

What would be in our best interest is to actually weigh the benefits and risks of such a drastic action - and yes, a 50% increase in just over two years is drastic - rather than to just do something for the hell of it because you're ideologically driven (and in the case of the NDO, know they are unlikely to get re-elected anyway).

Instead, all you do is say "raise wages and everyone is better off" while either hand-waving away or outright ignoring the risks and costs that numerous people have tried explaining to you.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The last sentence is where I strongly disagree. The point I made earlier about the 2008 recession south of the border really in my opinion debunks this myth that no matter what it will be bad. If you look at the timelines, the raise in minimum wage by the full 41% was finalized at the exact time when the economy began to rebound. If what you are saying were a fact this would not have happened. I hope people can at the very least acknowledge that.

There is no point to be made about the 2008 recovery. There was a net loss of jobs in '08 and '09. This whole debate is so easily summed up by "nobody really knows what will happen and anybody who says they do is just promoting an agenda". Guessing what will happen here and now is just fun sport. Interest rates have more to do with jobs than minimum wage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lt-job-growth/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

How many time do you whack your head on the door frame until you start ducking? 10, 20, 30 ? never?

Having 10, 20 or 30 people disagree with you should not convince you that you are wrong. Having 10, 20 or 30 people proove you wrong should. I think most people here are open to hearing my views and rationale even if they don't agree, same as I am to hear their's. It's clear most people here are mainly upset with the fact that the NDP are being ignorant in their assessment of the potential outcome, this same people tend to lean towards the thinking that this have a very damaging impact. I'm of the opinion that it will likely be a case of potential short term pain for long term gain. I do take exception however with the posters who refuse to acknowledge that this may not destroy the province as they are suggesting, as well as the posters who's best argument is "you're wrong"

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

There is no point to be made about the 2008 recovery. There was a net loss of jobs in '08 and '09. This whole debate is so easily summed up by "nobody really knows what will happen and anybody who says they do is just promoting an agenda". Guessing what will happen here and now is just fun sport. Interest rates have more to do with jobs than minimum wage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lt-job-growth/

Come on man, there is no point to be made? Yes there are many different variables at play, but when many people are claiming that raising the minimum wage can only possibly make things worse, the fact that it did not in that case is a very relevant point. I'm not saying it will for sure work out, just pointing out that it will not absolutely fail as some here would like to have you believe.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Come on man, there is no point to be made? Yes there are many different variables at play, but when many people are claiming that raising the minimum wage can only possibly make things worse, the fact that it did not in that case is a very relevant point. I'm not saying it will for sure work out, just pointing out that it will not absolutely fail as some here would like to have you believe.

You're saying that minimum wages increases in the US correlated with an economic recovery....

In fact the recovery from that recession began around the same time as the minimum wage increase was completed

That's not true. You're just torturing incorrect facts to make your point. The minimum wage increases started in '07 as a response to over heated and booming economic conditions. The US lost jobs in the years 2008 and 2009 the year the increases ended. The recovery didn't get going until 2012 along side quantitative easing. There hasn't been an increase in federal US minimum wage since 2009. So the actual recovery occurred without any wage increases. There are other arguments you could use to make your point but this one isn't it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You're saying that minimum wages increases in the US correlated with an economic recovery....



That's not true. You're just torturing incorrect facts to make your point. The minimum wage increases started in '07 as a response to over heated and booming economic conditions. The US lost jobs in the years 2008 and 2009 the year the increases ended. The recovery didn't get going until 2012 along side quantitative easing. There hasn't been an increase in federal US minimum wage since 2009. So the actual recovery occurred without any wage increases. There are other arguments you could use to make your point but this one isn't it.

The minimum wage increase was implemented between 2007-2009. By the end of 2009 unemployment rates had finally stopped increasing and jobs were being created, by 2010 more jobs were being created than there were job losses. My point has been that raising minimum wage will not guarantee a prolonging of the recession, that is not to say it will guarantee an end to the recession, just that historical evidence suggests the people who are unequivocally claiming it will only make things worse are not correct in their assertion.

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah so here's what happened in a vacuum...the economy was great. They raised minimum wage and the economy tanked. They left minimum wage the same for the next eight years and the economy improved.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah so here's what happened in a vacuum...the economy was great. They raised minimum wage and the economy tanked. They left minimum wage the same for the next eight years and the economy improved.

Are you really so stuck in your position that you will not even acknowledge the fact that a raise to the minimum wage depending on whatever variables were present at that time, can potentially not have a devestatingly negative overall effect? I mean the history kind of speaks for itself, regardless of whether or not you choose to admit it.

[Resolute 14]

No offence, iggy, but you really are not the one to be lecturing someone else about being so stuck in a position that acknowledging facts has become problematic.

[Bownesian]

I'm sure it won't change many of the more hardened minds, but I have a bit of anecdotal experience from my geoscience services business.

We are seasonally very busy and have a particular task that is fairly easy to teach, even to high school students. Traditionally we hired students for 4 months or so in our busy season. This particular task is something our $30+/hr permanent employees do very well and quite quickly, but can be done competently by new hires (younger employees like high school and university students).

In busier years past, we would hire a high school student at say $12/hr or a university student at $15/hr (choosing good workers and letting go of the weak/slow ones pretty quickly, and paying a premium above minimum wage to keep them coming back year after year). In their first years, new hires would cap out getting about a third to half as much work done on this particular task as our $30/hr permanent employees.

We (the company) were happy because three $12/hr employees (costing us $36/hr) got a bit more done than one $30/hr employee (who costs $45/hr on overtime); they (the students) were happy as they had the prestige of making above minimum wage and working in an office on a job that looked good on a resume; and our permanent employees were neutral because we weren't over-working them 3 months of the year and they had good work-life balance and a decent salary, but knew that they were missing out on overtime pay.

The problem is that this model falls apart when minimum wages are $15/hr. Now, we're competing with low-prestige, low-stress jobs, paying minimum wage to those high school students for them to do a third the work of a $30/hr employee and we start on paper at the break-even point where three $15/hr employees are doing 1/3 the work of a $45/hour overtime hour. When you factor in the extra cost in government remittances that the business has to pay (CPP and EI max out for the permanent employee, and so are an incremental cost for the student hire), and the fact that these students need supervision (which is a time cost of a high-value employee), it's now better for the business to force those overtime hours onto our permanent employees.

The effect of this $15/hr future is that the business is less happy (we were more profitable and from a management point of view, employee morale was higher the old way), the permanent employees are again neutral (less work-life balance, more cash in pocket), and a dozen or so students are not hired at all so they don't know it but they are missing out.

This is all to say that even in a thriving business, there is such a thing as low-value labour, there is a price point where that low-value labour makes business sense to hire and a price point where it no longer makes business sense to hire that labour.

[Coach]

Isn't the 1/3 the work the low-end of their productivity? You said 1/3-1/2.

And if you keep them at the minimum wage (which I can see your point about the prestige), even at that low productivity, you're breaking even between hiring seasonal students, or overworking your permanent workers. Why would you overwork your permanent workers when you're not saving or losing money by hiring more minimum wage students and giving your regular workers their regular hours? How come you weren't paying your temp-workers $15 before, if that's the break even point?

Let's say you pay them $16 to give you that extra boost in prestige, is that extra $3/hour you spend worth having permanent employees that aren't working overtime during these months? Can your business absorb that cost for those months and still make a healthy profit? Will you have a selection of better workers who wouldn't have come to work for you for $12, but will now for $16 so you are meeting that 1/2 or even better productivity? Have you posed this question to your permanent employees to see what they would rather do (work OT or have more time and deal w/ the students)? Not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious about the answers to these things.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No offence, iggy, but you really are not the one to be lecturing someone else about being so stuck in a position that acknowledging facts has become problematic.

None taken resolute. 1 question though, do you always preface an offensive insinuation with the statement no offence?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

None taken resolute. 1 question though, do you always preface an offensive insinuation with the statement no offence?

Nope. But, despite the fact that I think your position is crazy, I respect that you are commenting out of genuine belief. There are others on your side of the fence for whom I don't really care if offence is given or not.

[iggy_oi]

Bownesian, I'll admit to not being very familiar with the field of geoscience, but what exactly is keeping these people from getting any more productive than 1/3 of what a full time employee does? Why would you not just contract that work out for 4 months to a single more productive worker instead of potentially paying more for things like workers compensation insurance by employing 3 people.

[Bownesian]

@MattyC -

I don't mind answering questions.

1/3-1/2 productivity is where new hires settled at after a 4 month season of work (of which the first few weeks is training with zero productivity). The university students and longer tenured high school students (who also got near to $15/hr) were usually near the 1/2 level and the high school/beginning university students were closer to the 1/3 level.

Like I said, there are extra costs (including using a permanent employee's time and salary to check/supervise the work of these students as well as payroll remittances beyond their $/hr cost), so breaking even in terms of base salary isn't really breaking even.

Regarding the employees state of overwork, and consulting them, we have consulted and they are neutral over-all with some significant variance among the individuals. Some definitely want the extra cash but can understand why there is a business case for the old way, some are happier with more time with their families but will work more if the business needs them, so what management chooses is positive for some either way and has morale costs either way.

Regarding whether the business can absorb the cost and make a healthy profit, we could but we will not. The board, which I chair is legally beholden to our shareholders to maximize profits and grow the value of the business so instruct we (management) to do so. If we can do that by hiring cheap low-value labour we will, if it's better to over-work our high-value core employees, we will do that.

Also, $16 is $4 more than $12, not $3. These students will cost us a minimum 1/3 more than they did a couple years ago and won't produce any more than they did in the past.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Bownesian, I'll admit to not being very familiar with the field of geoscience, but what exactly is keeping these people from getting any more productive than 1/3 of what a full time employee does? Why would you not just contract that work out for 4 months to a single more productive worker instead of potentially paying more for things like workers compensation insurance by employing 3 people.

We're in a niche where there are no schools teaching what we do, so it takes a few years training to get people fully up to speed. Basically, there is no supply of the more productive worker you imagine.

The only way to get that supply is to hire full time employees and be (even more) over-staffed for 8 months of the year than we already are, which is bad for business costs and morale, or to train a student for 3 or 4 seasons as we used to do.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

We're in a niche where there are no schools teaching what we do, so it takes a few years training to get people fully up to speed. Basically, there is no supply of the more productive worker you imagine.

The only way to get that supply is to hire full time employees and be (even more) over-staffed for 8 months of the year than we already are, which is bad for business costs and morale, or to train a student for 3 or 4 seasons as we used to do.

With NDP polices, it is going to be a buyers market for these employers soon enough!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I don't mind answering questions.

1/3-1/2 productivity is where new hires settled at after a 4 month season of work (of which the first few weeks is training with zero productivity). The university students and longer tenured high school students (who also got near to $15/hr) were usually near the 1/2 level and the high school/beginning university students were closer to the 1/3 level.

Like I said, there are extra costs (including using a permanent employee's time and salary to check/supervise the work of these students as well as payroll remittances beyond their $/hr cost), so breaking even in terms of base salary isn't really breaking even.

Regarding the employees state of overwork, and consulting them, we have consulted and they are neutral over-all with some significant variance among the individuals. Some definitely want the extra cash but can understand why there is a business case for the old way, some are happier with more time with their families but will work more if the business needs them, so what management chooses is positive for some either way and has morale costs either way.

Thanks for the answers, these things all make sense.

Regarding whether the business can absorb the cost and make a healthy profit, we could but we will not. The board, which I chair is legally beholden to our shareholders to maximize profits and grow the value of the business so instruct we (management) to do so. If we can do that by hiring cheap low-value labour we will, if it's better to over-work our high-value core employees, we will do that.

I think this whole philosophy is where people like myself mainly differ from people like yourself. It reduces your employee to a unit of work, which they are in the eyes of the business. But theyre also people. I'm glad that you consult your employees about management decisions like this, but you're talking about either A) overworking people or B) underpaying people when you could meet a happy medium while taking minimal or even negligible hit to your business. Not judging the way you do business, as it's the way all do business, I just disagree with the personal philosophy of it.

Also, $16 is $4 more than $12, not $3. These students will cost us a minimum 1/3 more than they did a couple years ago and won't produce any more than they did in the past.

But your break even is $15 (as per your $45/hr OT). Even with those admitted added costs, does that bring the break even point down to $12? The training period and payroll stuff cuts 20% off their potential wages? Again this is assuming they work at minimum production. This is my issue with people using economic theories to prove their points, either way. Those theories you (and all businesses) preach assume businesses use this extra utility for labour, not profit. If your investment, profit, savings are consistent, the extra productivity (the $3 between $12 and $15) should be going to your labour.

When I was a student I worked part time at the bank I ended up with a full time position with after school ended. It was $12 to start. I eventually negotiated to $14. Both I thought were complete garbage, as I saw postings for DQ at $16, but I wanted the experience and the future value of a potential position. But if I could have done the same or similar job elsewhere for $16, I (and people like me) would have been flocking there, and thus, you get a pick of probably the most productive people, likely pushing their value beyond what you pay them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

With NDP polices, it is going to be a buyers market for these employers soon enough!

You mean when we're all weaving our own clothes and drawing water from the local well in poorly woven baskets? Lets LEAP people!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Nope. But, despite the fact that I think your position is crazy, I respect that you are commenting out of genuine belief. There are others on your side of the fence for whom I don't really care if offence is given or not.

I think your use of the word think instead of know is the most tolerance you've shown towards my position since we started debating this, and I honestly appreciate that. Our views may differ, though I believe both our positions are aimed at getting the same end result, an economy which is thriving rather than tanking.