Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Raising the minimum wage federally as well as provincially doesn't create the right environment for the most people to succeed.
|
Provide data for this. Especially as a proponent of the old minimum wage of $11.20.
Treating Canada as a whole and ignoring individual province situations doesn't make sense when talking about the economy and the poverty line.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...atchComparison
Take a look at some of the most important things for low income earner and the differences between Calgary and Charlottetown:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre-- Calgary 1,337.38 C$ --Charlottetown 683.33 C$
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre-- Calgary 1,054.02 C$ --Charlottetown 618.33 C$
Monthly Transit Pass (Regular Price)-- Calgary 99.00 C$ --Charlottetown 65.00 C$
Basic (Electricity, Heating, Water, Garbage) for 85m2 Apartment-- Calgary 168.96 C$ ---Charlottetown 154.48 C$
On just an apartment, transit pass and utilities it's going to cost a person in Calgary say 600 more a month than in Charlottetown. That's 7200 after tax difference a year. It's huge. It's why a $15 minimum wage in Prince Edward Island makes 0 sense. It's why it might in Alberta.
As for the economy. It's also different. Far more make minimum wage in Prince Edward Island.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-.../tbl02-eng.htm
In 2009, only 1.3% of Albertans were making minimum wage. Of course that's shot up since the increases. But Prince Edward Island had 5.2%. Newfoundland had 9.2%. Where an increase to $15 in Alberta affects 18% of Albertans, and maybe by a buck or two on average, it would affect far more percentage in those provinces and by more than a couple bucks.
Here's job loss data. There's so much conflicting reports that it's hard to say for certain any sort of number. It may be anywhere from a thousand teens losing their part-time job, which is a near non-factor to potentially over 50,000 if you take CFIB report numbers (which as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business many have criticized as being biased and disagree with their assessments). Still with 1,900,000 employees, that 50,000 job loss is 3% which may be considered worth it if now 97% of that 1,900,000 start to leave that poverty zone.