Alberta Politics Thread v2

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

But the specific issue we're pointing to, and a major problem with the coarse adjustment of the minimum wage increase is that teenagers aren't eating KD in a one bedroom dive. They're banking all their money and living at home. The most important thing to do for a young person is to get experience working, and with this rise we've seen employers come out and say they're less willing to hire young people. Then you start getting young people piling up on the unemployment line and unable to move up the rungs because they can't get started, all because a policy that was supposed to help them ended up doing the opposite by artificially increasing the cost of their unskilled labor. There's nothing wrong with working for $10/hour as a 17 year old living at home. Dont like making minimum wage? Good, you shouldn't, use that as a motivation to move up the ladder and show future employers who make more of an investment in you that you're worthy of that investment by your past job history.

We saw one employer at a Latte Sipper ice cream shop claim this. Most minimum wage earners aren’t teenagers. 7 of 10 are full time. None of these fit the profile. Your old story of how job markets work just isn’t the case. And if this lack of young people getting hired because their are no jobs is a real trend than having minimum wage job experience will no longer be a selector for getting next rung of jobs.

Not enough jobs for high schoo kids is not an issue that needs solving.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Why do you suppose that will work now when it hasn't for decades?

When did it not work? It worked for me.

The problem is that these old guys cant take a 20 buck an hour hit so they just power through and work overtime. Those jobs just dont even exist anymore and its created a massive generational skill gap.

My guess is they'll be filled with immigrants when the boomers retire.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by DJones

When did it not work? It worked for me.

The problem is that these old guys cant take a 20 buck an hour hit so they just power through and work overtime. Those jobs just dont even exist anymore and its created a massive generational skill gap.

My guess is they'll be filled with immigrants when the boomers retire.

It doesn't work now because the stats say it's so. I understand it worked for you and that's great but not everyone is obviously able to do it for various reasons. Mostly money. Lack of it.

[PepsiFree]

I get the appeal of a two-tiered minimum wage based on age, but I’m not sure if necessarily solves the problem. Maybe it does, I don’t know. Do most employers, having been able to grow their business, then pay the person the $15 once they reach age? Or do they think “hey, I’ve been able to grow my business using kids that I don’t have to pay as much, I’m going to keep doing that.”

Do you employ more people under 18, only to employ less over 18? Doesn’t that have the reverse effect? I don’t know if paying young people less because they need less creates the balance, it might just encourage people to hire more young people and phase them out once they become too expensive.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It doesn't work now because the stats say it's so. I understand it worked for you and that's great but not everyone is obviously able to do it for various reasons. Mostly money. Lack of it.

Which is why getting young people properly trained at a young age is so important. They have a support system and hopefully no kids.

But instead they're working retail or at McDonald's because those are the only jobs out there for unskilled employees.

Like I assume you have no problem with someone paying to go to school for 4 years. Even if it doesn't teach them anything marketable. Why cant they work for cheap for a year and gain a marketable job?

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Let's be honest with ourselves.

The moment a 2 tiered minimum wage system is implemented, many employers would replace adult workers with lower paid students.

How does that help the working poor?

Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I get the appeal of a two-tiered minimum wage based on age, but I’m not sure if necessarily solves the problem. Maybe it does, I don’t know. Do most employers, having been able to grow their business, then pay the person the $15 once they reach age? Or do they think “hey, I’ve been able to grow my business using kids that I don’t have to pay as much, I’m going to keep doing that.”

Do you employ more people under 18, only to employ less over 18? Doesn’t that have the reverse effect? I don’t know if paying young people less because they need less creates the balance, it might just encourage people to hire more young people and phase them out once they become too expensive.

The thing to remember is that we are talking about MINIMUM wages. Should there be a two tired system based on age, nothing is stopping an employer from paying deserving employees more. In my previous retail career it was not un common to pay those deserving of more, more money, no matter the age. A kid who shows up on time everytime and is eager to work hard, work late, learn new things and take pride in their work and their job has more value then any "adult" who has frequent car problems, is often sick or has sick kids and needs weekends off.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by GGG

We saw one employer at a Latte Sipper ice cream shop claim this. Most minimum wage earners aren’t teenagers. 7 of 10 are full time. None of these fit the profile. Your old story of how job markets work just isn’t the case. And if this lack of young people getting hired because their are no jobs is a real trend than having minimum wage job experience will no longer be a selector for getting next rung of jobs.

Not enough jobs for high schoo kids is not an issue that needs solving.

I'm kind of confused by your post. If lack of entry level jobs becomes a problem, as we've seen in Europe, then those fortunate enough to get those jobs will absolutely have a leg up for the next rung.

Maybe things have changed radically in the 5 years since I graduated University and got my big boy job but having previous work experience was critical to getting hired. People don't just waltz in to the 100k jobs that everyone desires without any previous experience, it's important to show that you can handle responsibility and working with others. Maybe you were saying something different idk but if you're arguing against that progression still being real and frankly necessary then I guess I just strongly disagree.

[DJones]

Minimum wages definitely help the rich. The young people that are given skill intensive jobs will be from networking, most likely from the parents.

Or they train the kids themselves. Either way they'll have skills that a normal person will never get the chance to get.

Then at 23, the real jobs are going to hire people with legit experience. Now they are two steps up and there's no practical way to catch up. Is that extra $10 an hour as a teenager going to mean anything if you are 5 years behind the curve?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm kind of confused by your post. If lack of entry level jobs becomes a problem, as we've seen in Europe, then those fortunate enough to get those jobs will absolutely have a leg up for the next rung.

Maybe things have changed radically in the 5 years since I graduated University and got my big boy job but having previous work experience was critical to getting hired. People don't just waltz in to the 100k jobs that everyone desires without any previous experience, it's important to show that you can handle responsibility and working with others. Maybe you were saying something different idk but if you're arguing against that progression still being real and frankly necessary then I guess I just strongly disagree.

I don’t have any links handy but in general upper and middle class youth employment is dropping because kids feel extra carricular work or volunteering in their field is better than working a crappy minimum wage job. There is little evidence that their are high school kids who want a job who can’t get one.

I think jobs related to your field post high school or during post secondary are of critical importance but those wouldn’t be affected by the youth minimum wage. I’m arguing that the minimum wage high school job no longer are relavent to your next job.

I’d also argue that a minimum wage job exists for every high school kid who wants one.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t have any links handy but in general upper and middle class youth employment is dropping because kids feel extra carricular work or volunteering in their field is better than working a crappy minimum wage job. There is little evidence that their are high school kids who want a job who can’t get one.

I think jobs related to your field post high school or during post secondary are of critical importance but those wouldn’t be affected by the youth minimum wage. I’m arguing that the minimum wage high school job no longer are relavent to your next job.

I’d also argue that a minimum wage job exists for every high school kid who wants one.

That's because minimum wage jobs have turned into menial labor. And ya, there's tons of those.

Volunteering in their chosen field is infinitely better for longterm success.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I get the appeal of a two-tiered minimum wage based on age, but I’m not sure if necessarily solves the problem. Maybe it does, I don’t know. Do most employers, having been able to grow their business, then pay the person the $15 once they reach age? Or do they think “hey, I’ve been able to grow my business using kids that I don’t have to pay as much, I’m going to keep doing that.”

Do you employ more people under 18, only to employ less over 18? Doesn’t that have the reverse effect? I don’t know if paying young people less because they need less creates the balance, it might just encourage people to hire more young people and phase them out once they become too expensive.

You don't have to wonder how it works, you can look at countries that do it:


https://www.europeanceo.com/finance/...age-in-europe/


Countries like The Netherlands, Belgium and the UK do it. I think it makes sense.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

They’re baaackk...



https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...2-4331916ab5ef

[GGG]

This is just good policy. Having a regulator be incentivized by being easy to pass leads to worse testing. This should be self funding with fees so will cost new drivers a little more given the absense of competition but should lead to better testing requirements.

Now just make retesting mandatory every 5 years with both a written and practical exam

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by DJones

That's because minimum wage jobs have turned into menial labor. And ya, there's tons of those.

Volunteering in their chosen field is infinitely better for longterm success.

you keep saying people should work for cheap or free to get experience and better job skills.

how is someone supposed to support themselves doing so?

not every teenager is living at home, supported bytheir parents.

I bet a lot of people here were like me, on their own at 18/19 and more worried about making rent than offering to work for cheap (or free)

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You don't have to wonder how it works, you can look at countries that do it:


https://www.europeanceo.com/finance/...age-in-europe/


Countries like The Netherlands, Belgium and the UK do it. I think it makes sense.

If Norway doesnt do it then it isnt worth doing.

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just good policy. Having a regulator be incentivized by being easy to pass leads to worse testing. This should be self funding with fees so will cost new drivers a little more given the absense of competition but should lead to better testing requirements.

Now just make retesting mandatory every 5 years with both a written and practical exam

Actually they're incentivized to fail so people have to pay to take the test over and over again.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

If Norway doesnt do it then it isnt worth doing.



Actually they're incentivized to fail so people have to pay to take the test over and over again.

NO because if you get a reputation for failing people you won’t have new clients.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you keep saying people should work for cheap or free to get experience and better job skills.

how is someone supposed to support themselves doing so?

not every teenager is living at home, supported bytheir parents.

I bet a lot of people here were like me, on their own at 18/19 and more worried about making rent than offering to work for cheap (or free)

Then work a menial labor job. I painted window sils for money. Hated every moment of it and didn't learn a thing but it paid well enough.

The chances of finding a decent paying job that teaches you something useful at 18 is damn near impossible. Red Seal apprentices are about it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

"Get a better paying job"

Gosh darn it DJones, you've done it! You've solved poverty!

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

"Get a better paying job"

Gosh darn it DJones, you've done it! You've solved poverty!

Well yes. Working at McDonald's should pay better than somewhere that is training you for a career.

Anything physical pays more than McDonald's. That's how it works. You can get a job doing physical labor easy. It just sucks and most people wont do it.

[iggy_oi]

Djones, in these low paying or work for free type jobs that your talking about that provide training for future better paying jobs, have you ever seen a person get injured while working those jobs?