How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People More

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Actually since full time has no definition then we can use 44 hours a week and no one will bat an eyelash. Bingo. Full time employment at the old minimum wage gets you over...well over... the "poverty line" for urban areas. You could live like a king in Oyen. Again, sorry for freaking you out.

It's fundamentally wrong to say that "Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada."

If you wanted to say that full-time employment at minimum wage can get you above the low income cut off in Canada if you worked for 44 plus hours. You would be right.

[jammies]

A graduated minimum wage is a great idea. If it was $10/16 years, 11/17, 12/18, 13/19, 14/20, and 15/21 it would drive youth employment and discourage adult underemployment. There are downsides with the effect on the poorly educated, but that is something that should be addressed with subsidized trades education and other such programs, not just sticking such people in menial jobs forever while paying them better.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Actually since full time has no definition then we can use 44 hours a week and no one will bat an eyelash. Bingo. Full time employment at the old minimum wage gets you over...well over... the "poverty line" for urban areas. You could live like a king in Oyen. Again, sorry for freaking you out.

A little educational reading for yourself.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/concept...abour-class03b

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A little educational reading for yourself.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/concept...abour-class03b

What new information are you trying to educate me with here?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What new information are you trying to educate me with here?

You stated that fulltime work is undefined. I could direct you to some links that explain how overtime is defined if you would also like clarification on why your logic behind using a 44 hour work week as an example is a little bit misguided.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You stated that fulltime work is undefined. I could direct you to some links that explain how overtime is defined if you would also like clarification on why your logic behind using a 44 hour work week as an example is a little bit misguided.

This is barely worth the effort....go back and re read a few posts. The other poster said full time was undefined and that 30 hours was a full time week. I was being crass and suggesting that if it is undefined then it could just as well be 44 hours...the over time cut off. I happened to use 40 hours in my own example which most people consider fulltime. Sheesh.

Here. I'll help you out....

And that's with 40 hours a week, which is far more than what is considered to be full-time.

and full-time has no actual definition. Full-time employment could mean 32 hours and no one would bat an eye at that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Reread your original sentence OMG!WTF! that got you to this point:

"Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada."

Do you still contend that's true? It can be. It's usually not. Unless you're living in a rural environment and/or working more than 40 hours a week, an employee making the old minimum wage would be below StatCan's LICO. There's far more people in urban areas making minimum wage and if you actually knew as much as you're trying to pretend, you'd realize that most minimum wage positions are not going to get the employee anywhere close to 44 hours a week.

It's pretty obvious you're focusing on the minute details and trying to bicker over really stupid things at this point instead of just admitting that your original assumption was not correct.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Reread your original sentence OMG!WTF! that got you to this point:

"Full time employment at our old minimum wage gets you above the low income cut off in Canada."

Do you still contend that's true? It can be. It's usually not. Unless you're living in a rural environment and/or working more than 40 hours a week, a minimum wage employee will be below StatCan's LICO.

It's pretty obvious you're focusing on the minute details and trying to bicker over really stupid things at this point instead of just admitting that your original assumption was not correct.

At 40 hours a week I was like three hundred bucks off and I'm the one focusing on minute details? My original point was responding to the claims everywhere by multiple posters saying minimum wage jobs automatically keep people below the poverty line. I was slightly off saying the old wage didn't get you above the low income cut off. But now that our new minimum wage gets everyone well above that cut off I fail to see why anyone still uses that as a metric. Oy vey.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

At 40 hours a week I was like three hundred bucks off and I'm the one focusing on minute details? My original point was responding to the claims everywhere by multiple posters saying minimum wage jobs automatically keep people below the poverty line. I was slightly off saying the old wage didn't get you above the low income cut off. But now that our new minimum wage gets everyone well above that cut off I fail to see why anyone still uses that as a metric. Oy vey.

You're the one bringing it up. Oh, they are only slightly below the poverty line. Great reasoning there. You don't see how that's a major problem?

And we're focusing on individuals. Want to talk about one-income families with multiple children?

You should be seeing it as a problem that full time employment at minimum wage is still keeping people below the poverty line. You were happy to proclaim that wasn't the case as part of your argument. Now that you've found out that to be false, at least in a lot of situations, should you not be concerned?

As for $15 dollars, I have stated it's overkill. But really a person working 40 hours a week is going to make $31,200 a year. It's not like they will be swimming in wealth.

I understand, I've argued, that $15 may be a hurdle for some businesses. But don't bring up the ####ing poverty line and act like minimum wage workers are doing just fine. You clearly don't know #### about them.

Here's a decent write-up on the living wage for Edmonton. For a family of four, two adults and two children (age 3 and 7) the living wage is calculated to be $17.36 for both adults. They use 35 hours per adult, so even if we bump it to 40 hours, that still gives us $15.20. For a single parent with a child, the living wage is over $19.
http://www.edmontonsocialplanning.ca...ving-wage/file
It breaks it down so you can read, you may not agree with all of it but it's pretty clear that the living wage for Edmonton is not anywhere close to the current $12.20 minimum wage.

[GGG]

Which is better economically?

Raise minimum wage regardless of life circumstance or target even more subsidy towards low income families. I don't know which would be more effective.

[Swarly]

Maybe two people who are working minimum wage jobs and have no hope of ever advancing should think a little harder before adding a 2nd or 3rd child into the mix.

but no, lets experiment with the whole economy rather than increase help for low income families on a case by case basis.

edit: boats are cheaper than children, I'm going to go lease a boat then ask for the government to increase my wage....

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Which is better economically?

Raise minimum wage regardless of life circumstance or target even more subsidy towards low income families. I don't know which would be more effective.

I would argue raising the minimum wage is the better option economically.

Maybe there is another option? Maybe the companies that can afford it, like Walmart, can be expected to pay for it while smaller businesses could have tax breaks or maybe some other form of subsidy for the owners.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Which is better economically?

Raise minimum wage regardless of life circumstance or target even more subsidy towards low income families. I don't know which would be more effective.

I'm more of a idealist in terms of targeting those that are in real need and being effective about it, so I would look at the second option and a combination of pay increases and some way of subsidizing training or education to increase their earning potential.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Maybe two people who are working minimum wage jobs and have no hope of ever advancing should think a little harder before adding a 2nd or 3rd child into the mix.

but no, lets experiment with the whole economy rather than increase help for low income families on a case by case basis.

edit: boats are cheaper than children, I'm going to go lease a boat then ask for the government to increase my wage....

Sometimes people have children while in a good financial situation and life happens. It's not like making an impulse purchase so that example is quite the reach.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Maybe two people who are working minimum wage jobs and have no hope of ever advancing should think a little harder before adding a 2nd or 3rd child into the mix.

Well first off, it's a nice thought that everyone is planning their life like that, but it's just not practically. Heck, even twins can throw a wrench into families actually planning, forgetting the thousands of unplanned or ill-planned pregnancies.

And it doesn't need to be multiple children. Even one has the potential to keep a family, especially a lone parent, below the poverty line. So, what no children for poor people? Despicable thought.

And who, arguably, suffers the most in a situation where the family income can't make ends meet? The children themselves. You can pull the "well sucks to be you, but should have planned better, enjoy poverty" card on the adults, but it's certainly not the children's fault and yet, even before the downturn, 1 in 5 children were below the poverty line in Calgary and Edmonton. It should be a troubling stat to anyone with even an ounce of compassion.

And finally, you want to talk about no hope of ever advancing. Well yeah, that's pretty much what being below the poverty line does for a lot of those below it. They can't afford extra education and advancement in their current job(s) is limited if not impossible given the minimum wage job and employee limitations. Giving them a living wage that factors in the cost (and time) to increase their education to break the cycle of poverty should not be some radical thought. But that living wage is not going to be $12.20 an hour, at 40 hours a week, you're looking at about $21,5000 a year after taxes. It's hard to ensure food and shelter at that point, forget education. If you have someone working 35 hours at one job and 20 hours at a second part-time job, they may be able to afford some form of extra education, but really don't have the time. This is true without children, throw a child or two in the mix and it becomes nearly impossible to break the cycle.

but no, lets experiment with the whole economy rather than increase help for low income families on a case by case basis.

The whole economy? In Alberta, about 18% of workers make below $15 dollars. In Edmonton, about 12% of people are below the poverty line. There's obviously going to be a huge correlation there.

CaptainCrunch already said it, but of the workers making $15 dollars or under and aren't in poverty, the vast majority are going to come from teenage kids living at home and servers getting tipped (and therefore essentially not making $15 dollars an hour). You don't really need to go by a case by case basis..it would get pretty close to filling out a form that asks you if you make less than $15 an hour and aren't supported by your parents or high income earner, and yet would have immense administration costs as anything would that deals with 12% of the population.

I think there needs to be a separation between the two arguments. One is "can businesses support the $15.00 minimum wage" or at least "how many jobs would be lost because of the $15.00 minimum wage." Those are perfectly fair questions that needed to be addressed and may not have been. Certainly it's affect on the economy is huge. For those reasons I've been suggesting that $15.00 may be overkill, but we'll see and there's not much evidence on way or the other. Some people will say it will be fine, others are saying there won't be jobs left like OMG!WTF!.

The second is "are people making under $15.00 an hour given a real living wage." That answer is no (for the vast majority). And yet I think posters here have been trying to act like that's the case. Suggesting you're perfectly fine if you make minimum wage. That's really not the case.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Maybe two people who are working minimum wage jobs and have no hope of ever advancing should think a little harder before adding a 2nd or 3rd child into the mix.

but no, lets experiment with the whole economy rather than increase help for low income families on a case by case basis.

edit: boats are cheaper than children, I'm going to go lease a boat then ask for the government to increase my wage....

You have choice

You can subsidize the parents of the kids and hope it allows them to raise good kids'

or

You can pay when their kids become criminals at a higher rate than average. Child Poverty increases the likelihood that those children become criminals, and reduces the chances of them pursuing more education.

So pay now or pay later.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The whole economy? In Alberta, about 18% of workers make below $15 dollars. In Edmonton, about 12% of people are below the poverty line. There's obviously going to be a huge correlation there.


I think there needs to be a separation between the two arguments. One is "can businesses support the $15.00 minimum wage" or at least "how many jobs would be lost because of the $15.00 minimum wage." Those are perfectly fair questions that needed to be addressed and may not have been. Certainly it's affect on the economy is huge. For those reasons I've been suggesting that $15.00 may be overkill, but we'll see and there's not much evidence on way or the other. Some people will say it will be fine, others are saying there won't be jobs left like OMG!WTF!.

The second is "are people making under $15.00 an hour given a real living wage." That answer is no (for the vast majority). And yet I think posters here have been trying to act like that's the case. Suggesting you're perfectly fine if you make minimum wage. That's really not the case.

I'm not the only one saying jobs will be lost. That would be your federal government. I'm not saying poor people are stupid and deserve to be poor. I'm saying the worst way to help low income earners is a "blunt instrument" like a $15 minimum wage. Just read what Justin says...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics...deau-1.3796315

Trudeau rejected the idea raising the federal minimum wage as part of his government's economic strategy.

"It's not just about putting a little more money in peoples' pockets, it's about making sure that they have the conditions to be able to succeed,"

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

You have choice

You can subsidize the parents of the kids and hope it allows them to raise good kids'

or

You can pay when their kids become criminals at a higher rate than average. Child Poverty increases the likelihood that those children become criminals, and reduces the chances of them pursuing more education.

So pay now or pay later.

True.

But have we entirely given up on the notion that people can and should defer children until they have a stable home life? Is it too idealistic to think that as a society we can reduce the number of women who have children very young, the number of children born to single mothers, and the number of men who abandon children? Or have we pretty much resigned ourselves to the fact that the poor have children younger, have more children, and are far less likely to marry or stay married than the middle class?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

True.

But have we entirely given up on the notion that people can and should defer children until they have a stable home life? Is it too idealistic to think that as a society we can reduce the number of women who have children very young, the number of children born to single mothers, and the number of men who abandon children? Or have we pretty much resigned ourselves to the fact that the poor have children younger, have more children, and are far less likely to marry or stay married than the middle class?

Well the solution to that is better access to education. The better educated women and men become the later they have children. The solution to better education is to reduce child poverty.

I think that it is too idealistic to think people will make a rational choice about children. Once we accept that people will make irrational choices we develop policies that will delvelop the factors that will influence people to make more rational choices.

Lowering the minimum wage or reducing child benefits will not help your idealistic scenario as it wasn't a rational decision to be poor in the first place.

So like drug policy harm reduction over moral punishment should be the goal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm not the only one saying jobs will be lost. That would be your federal government. I'm not saying poor people are stupid and deserve to be poor. I'm saying the worst way to help low income earners is a "blunt instrument" like a $15 minimum wage. Just read what Justin says...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics...deau-1.3796315

There's a difference between saying that the minimum wage change will cost jobs. That's fair and reasonable.

It's entirely different to say:

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF

Once we get $15 an hour in place you will not have to worry about jobs existing any more. The federal liberals have even said as much and they won't be raising the fed minimum wage at all.

As for Federal minimum wage increase. Of course. There's a huge difference between Alberta's economy and New Brunswick. As such, the living wages are entirely different. That's why there isn't a federal minimum wage. Even bringing that up misses the point. When the median income for a family of four is over 90,000 in Alberta (or at least was before the downturn), and not quote 60,000 in New Brunswick, things like housing cost significantly different.