Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on January 11, 2018, 06:25:42 am
-
https://www.milliondollarjourney.com/how-much-does-a-tim-hortons-franchise-make-cost.htm
Once you are set up, start bringing in TFWs from the Phillipines and you're off to the races.
This is where capital goes these days. I feel that it's a bit of a problem actually. Thoughts ?
-
https://www.milliondollarjourney.com/how-much-does-a-tim-hortons-franchise-make-cost.htm
Once you are set up, start bringing in TFWs from the Phillipines and you're off to the races.
This is where capital goes these days. I feel that it's a bit of a problem actually. Thoughts ?
What do you have a problem with exactly? You make an initial investment then have a virtually guaranteed cash cow.
The problem with temporary foreign workers working at Timmies is that it lowers wages for Canadians. If you have an Italian restaurant and you don't have any Italian born-and-raised chefs in the area, then ok I can understand bringing in a TFW. But if you have a job like working at Timmies that requires virtually no skill or education minus speaking english (or french), then there is ZERO need to bring in TFW because those skills are easily available in Canada literally EVERYWHERE, and if you can't find enough people responding to jobs ads at Timmies then you RAISE THE WAGES so you attract more candidates. Businesses want TFW in many cases so they can keep wages low. It's bullshit. Let the invisible hand of supply and demand work for Canadian workers, and maybe we wouldn't even need to raise the minimum wage because wages would increase on their own.
-
https://www.milliondollarjourney.com/how-much-does-a-tim-hortons-franchise-make-cost.htm
Once you are set up, start bringing in TFWs from the Phillipines and you're off to the races.
This is where capital goes these days. I feel that it's a bit of a problem actually. Thoughts ?
I've stated my position on TFWs numerous times. I'm completely opposed to TH or any other low-skilled service organization bringing in temporary foreign workers. Raise your wages and raise prices and you'll be good. If that means you'll have fewer customers (almost certainly) tough noogies.
That does NOT mean I in any way, shape or form support the Ontario Liberals' in their regulated increase of the minimum wage to absurd levels. It is, as one columnist put it, an attempt at outsourcing the cost of a public social justice agenda to small business, and more of that newfound Liberal/NDP delight in class warfare. It's also a farce since the Liberals don't give a **** about the poor but only in convincing the dumb to vote for them again by being 'generous' with other peoples money.
Incidentally, in various readings today I learned that the average profit for a Tim Horton's franchisee is about $289,000 a year, and also that the sudden abrupt increase in the minimum wage, in sick and vacation hours will cost each franchise, on average, about $248,000. And the Liberals call them bullies for trying to cut back on other things to make up for those added costs.
-
Ah well, I guess the cash cow didn't work out.
My problem is that we may be discouraging innovation and investments that would bring a greater general benefit in favour of having a donut shop on every corner.
-
For Sir John’s math to work, each Tims would have to be paying $42/hr in additional wages and benefits. The average Tims has 15-20 staff on every hour of every day? Not likely.
Either Sir John is making it up, or he’s believing Tims propaganda.
-
For Sir John’s math to work, each Tims would have to be paying $42/hr in additional wages and benefits. The average Tims has 15-20 staff on every hour of every day? Not likely.
Either Sir John is making it up, or he’s believing Tims propaganda.
Not getting involved in the math or anything, but every Horton's I know is open 24hrs/day and 15 staff at any given time doesn't seem too insane a figure. I haven't counted, of course.
-
Not getting involved in the math or anything, but every Horton's I know is open 24hrs/day and 15 staff at any given time doesn't seem too insane a figure. I haven't counted, of course.
Your math sucks. 15 staff? Maybe in the busiest Tims at peak times.
-
Your math sucks. 15 staff? Maybe in the busiest Tims at peak times.
Well, I did say I wasn't getting into the math, so I'm not sure what sucked. Maybe Alberta Horton's are busier than BC's. Maybe we need more Starbucks to compete.
If I go in one tomorrow I'll secretly count everyone.
-
Not getting involved in the math or anything, but every Horton's I know is open 24hrs/day and 15 staff at any given time doesn't seem too insane a figure. I haven't counted, of course.
From various searches:
Tim Hortons franchise profit margin: 15%-20%
Typical fast food labour costs: 25-30%
Increase in costs due to Wynne (wage+regulations): 28%
Increase in costs when $15/hour kicks in: 37%.
So worst case: labour costs increase to: 41% of revenues which reduces profit margin to 4%-9% before tax or a 55%-75% drop in profit.
I don't know about you but I would be rather annoyed if Wynne cut my wages by 75% simply because she wanted to buy some votes.
Also these are rough averages so I am sure some stores will now start losing money.
Bottom line: these kinds of large jumps will only harm the people that the politicians claim to want to help because they can force companies to pay more but they can't force companies to hire people.
-
Is the government obliged to ensure that the fast food business thrives or is it responsible for the economy overall ?
The macro economic situation doesn't seem to be addressed here, ie that many millions of dollars will go to the lowest earners and biggest spenders. Whatever THEY spend money on will see more revenues.
I am not taking sides on this issue, as I think it is a drastic experiment in reverse trickle-down, however the immaturity of the economic arguments (in general, not on here) means that a lot of questions aren't being considered.
Instead, I am seeing a lot of facebook posts about what people 'deserve', ie. 'greedy' franchise owners vs. 'undeserving' workers etc. etc. etc.
It's an economy, people.
-
Is the government obliged to ensure that the fast food business thrives or is it responsible for the economy overall ?
Government policies should not be deliberately killing jobs for the group of people who have the most difficulty finding jobs. I can accept the argument that minimum wages should rise with the rate of inflation because inflation ends up being a pay cut but 20% in 1 year is absurd. This is on top of the small business tax changes by the feds and the carbon tax so no one should be surprised if some business owners are in a F** Y** frame of mind.
-
Government policy also should not be propping up businesses that can't survive without cheap, government-arranged laborers.
If there aren't enough workers to support a Tim Horton's on every corner, then maybe there shouldn't be a Tim Horton's on every corner. If these franchises can't find workers at the wages they pay, maybe they should raise wages to attract workers. If they can't make a profit while paying people enough to work there, maybe they should raise prices accordingly. If that reduces consumer demand, then again maybe there shouldn't be a Tim Horton's on every corner.
-k
-
For Sir John’s math to work, each Tims would have to be paying $42/hr in additional wages and benefits. The average Tims has 15-20 staff on every hour of every day? Not likely.
Either Sir John is making it up, or he’s believing Tims propaganda.
The average Tims is open about 18 hrs, though some are 24hrs. And in addition to the increased pay the franchisees have to pay them more sick leave and give them more holidays as well as pay a larger employer contribution to such things as CPP, UI and others. The numbers were provided by the franchisee association, not me. No one has contradicted them, from either the government or the company, but evidently YOU have insider information I'm sure you'll be benefiting us all with so the conversation can embrace the truth. Let's have it.
-
Is the government obliged to ensure that the fast food business thrives or is it responsible for the economy overall ?
The macro economic situation doesn't seem to be addressed here, ie that many millions of dollars will go to the lowest earners and biggest spenders. Whatever THEY spend money on will see more revenues.
The economists say differently. Every one I've read quoted in various news media says that overall this is not going to help anyone as the employees with better wages will wind up paying higher prices for things anyway, simply because every single service industry they use will have to raise their prices, as will places like grocery and drug stores. In addition, tens of thousands will lose their jobs entirely and the move to find automated systems will be given another push. In terms of non-service industries, like manufacturing, obviously they will now be less competitive with imports and less competitive in trying to export to other countries with lower minimum wages.
Remember this will not only impact minimum wage earners. Min wage was $11.40, which means that in December, some employees with more skills were making $14, $15, $16hr. Do you think employers can keep paying them what is essentially now minimum wage? Hardly. They'll have to bump them up several dollars an hour too.
-
For Sir John’s math to work, each Tims would have to be paying $42/hr in additional wages and benefits. The average Tims has 15-20 staff on every hour of every day? Not likely.
Either Sir John is making it up, or he’s believing Tims propaganda.
And don't forget it's not every province that increased its min wage.
-
Not getting involved in the math or anything, but every Horton's I know is open 24hrs/day and 15 staff at any given time doesn't seem too insane a figure. I haven't counted, of course.
Depends where you live. Where I live, in the middle of the night there's maybe 2 people working. But then, our province's min wage didn't go up to $15 either.
-
The average Tims is open about 18 hrs, though some are 24hrs. And in addition to the increased pay the franchisees have to pay them more sick leave and give them more holidays as well as pay a larger employer contribution to such things as CPP, UI and others. The numbers were provided by the franchisee association, not me. No one has contradicted them, from either the government or the company, but evidently YOU have insider information I'm sure you'll be benefiting us all with so the conversation can embrace the truth. Let's have it.
You’re the one quoting numbers from an unknown source (your butt?) and then saying “no one proved these numbers were wrong”. ::)
-
Depends where you live. Where I live, in the middle of the night there's maybe 2 people working. But then, our province's min wage didn't go up to $15 either.
I've never been in one in the middle of the night, so fair enough, but during the day here in Alberta, I don't think 15 is out of the question.
I'm going to get arrested the next time I go for a dark roast 2 milk.
-
The macro economic situation doesn't seem to be addressed here, ie that many millions of dollars will go to the lowest earners and biggest spenders. Whatever THEY spend money on will see more revenues.
I'm sure none of that increased revenue will go towards buying coffee and Tim Bits. /s
-
Government policies should not be deliberately killing jobs for the group of people who have the most difficulty finding jobs.
There's no evidence that increasing minimum wage kills jobs.
There's numerous academic studies for you to peruse here: https://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
This article contextualizes your favourite Seattle job loss study: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/upshot/minimum-wage-and-job-loss-one-alarming-seattle-study-is-not-the-last-word.html
Even studies in other high income countries show the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment
Anyone still parroting the "minimum wage kills jobs" line is either uninformed or malicious.
-
The macro economic situation doesn't seem to be addressed here, ie that many millions of dollars will go to the lowest earners and biggest spenders. Whatever THEY spend money on will see more revenues.
This logic is nonsense. Minimum wages are not a 'tax on the rich'. They simply inflate the cost of employing people and encourage businesses to cut staff and benefits in order to maintain profitability. IOW - it is naive to assume that hikes in minimum wages will actually result in more aggregate income.
-
There's no evidence that increasing minimum wage kills jobs.
Just 100 years of economic theory.
Anyone who says a carbon tax reduces emissions cannot logically claim that increasing wage costs has no impact on jobs.
The rules of economics do not change simply because someone's political desires require the change.
The academic literature is mixed (which means there is evidences supporting my claim which you ignored).
Ideologically driven economists will obviously attack the Seattle study but that does not mean it conclusions were wrong.
More importantly, economic theory says that there will be impact so it requires extraordinary evidence to establish the opposite.
Studies that claim that it can't be measured are not extraordinary evidence because it could mean they are not measuring it properly.
-
You’re the one quoting numbers from an unknown source (your butt?) and then saying “no one proved these numbers were wrong”. ::)
Oh, I'm sorry. That's my silly self imagining that anyone interested in discussing a subject would first take at least some small bit of time to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter, perhaps read a newspaper or something. I continually overestimate people, though.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/retail-marketing/by-the-numbers-tim-hortons-franchisees-and-ontarios-minimum-wage-hike/wcm/0adbab69-cda1-4923-a9c0-05201bedc32d
-
There's no evidence that increasing minimum wage kills jobs.
I hate to continue to refer to Haidt, but it just happens that he speaks to a lot of fundamental social justice beliefs, which is why he keeps coming to mind.
He talks about how virtually everyone agrees without question on the fundamental economic element of price vs demand, that if you try to patiently explain to someone that increasing cost will decrease demand they'll roll their eyes and go "Well, duh! I'm not an idiot."
Except for the social justice types when you talk about wage hikes. There, somehow, this magically disappears! You can raise wages as much as you want to! It won't cost any jobs! All those economists who say otherwise, including the Bank of Canada, are just making figures up! You can even implement a drastic wage increase out of the blue for no good economic reason but just to gain votes, and it won't cost jobs!
-
Just 100 years of economic theory.
This is such a ridiculous argument, when I just gave you links to over a hundred different studies that say otherwise. I'm not sure you understand economic theory, since you and other neo-liberals never actually think about the macroeconomic implications of raised min wage.
-
This is such a ridiculous argument, when I just gave you links to over a hundred different studies that say otherwise. I'm not sure you understand economic theory, since you and other neo-liberals never actually think about the macroeconomic implications of raised min wage.
Evidently the Bank of Canada does not understand economic theory either, nor the TD bank. Perhaps you could give them a call and offer to deliver a lecture.
-
I hate to continue to refer to Haidt, but it just happens that he speaks to a lot of fundamental social justice beliefs, which is why he keeps coming to mind.
He talks about how virtually everyone agrees without question on the fundamental economic element of price vs demand, that if you try to patiently explain to someone that increasing cost will decrease demand they'll roll their eyes and go "Well, duh! I'm not an idiot."
Except for the social justice types when you talk about wage hikes. There, somehow, this magically disappears! You can raise wages as much as you want to! It won't cost any jobs! All those economists who say otherwise, including the Bank of Canada, are just making figures up! You can even implement a drastic wage increase out of the blue for no good economic reason but just to gain votes, and it won't cost jobs!
Supply and demand is not simple A then B. Prices have elasticity and there's myriad macroeconomic factors that go into things as well. It's not just a matter of wages go up, prices go up. This is a problem of having just enough knowledge to know something about economics, but not enough knowledge to account for all the other things.
-
Supply and demand is not simple A then B. Prices have elasticity and there's myriad macroeconomic factors that go into things as well. It's not just a matter of wages go up, prices go up. This is a problem of having just enough knowledge to know something about economics, but not enough knowledge to account for all the other things.
I'm well aware of price elasticity, thanks. I spent a lot of time desperately trying to keep my enormously heavy eyelids apart while reading some of the thickest and most boring economics books imaginable. However, most of the jobs for minimum wage people, especially for services like coffee shops, are highly elastic. It's not like paying the rent. You can choose not to have as many coffees or donuts if the price gets higher. You can choose not to go out to restaurants. You can dry clean less. And in terms of manufacturing, the requirement to race prices is definitely going to lower demand where it's in competition with lower wage manufacturers elsewhere in Canada, North America or the world.
-
This is such a ridiculous argument, when I just gave you links to over a hundred different studies that say otherwise.
Yes - and many - if not most of those studies argue the effect is not detectable which is a plausible outcome when minimum wage increases are small or it could mean the effects only apply to the particular circumstances in the study. That does not mean economic theory is wrong. Asserting that the economic theory is wrong takes more than a few studies to claim inconclusive effects.
In any case, you are misrepresenting the state of the literature. The literature is mixed on the topic so your assertion that "there is no evidence" is basically BS. If you were interested in discussing the topic honestly you would at least acknowledge that.
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.
So are you going to argue that the "Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Economics & Public Policy at the University of California" does not know what he is talking about?
-
His arguments were addressed in the links I provided. Go read them.
-
His arguments were addressed in the links I provided. Go read them.
There is nothing that addresses the argument in my link. What we have are two sources: one that claim the literature says "no effect" another says the literature says "job losses". I suspect both are simply ignoring studies that don't support their view which is why I say the literature is mixed. BTW: the link I provided reasonable explanations for why the studies you like are likely wrong so it is just silly for you to claim that you can ignore him because some other source says his arguments are wrong. There is real a debate and there is no point denying it. More importantly, only one side of the debate is proposing ideas that match what we know about economy theory. This means the other side needs some pretty overwhelming evidence before it can be taken seriously.
-
Oh, I'm sorry. That's my silly self imagining that anyone interested in discussing a subject would first take at least some small bit of time to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter, perhaps read a newspaper or something. I continually overestimate people, though.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/retail-marketing/by-the-numbers-tim-hortons-franchisees-and-ontarios-minimum-wage-hike/wcm/0adbab69-cda1-4923-a9c0-05201bedc32d
So you believe the propaganda....
Why can’t Tims raise prices by a dime to make up for it?
Tims serves 2 billion cups of coffee... lets say 500,000,000 in Ontario, just for the sake of argument. 10 cents per coffee = $50 million
That should cover it. Or, find efficiencies elsewhere like all well-run businesses.
-
Why can’t Tims raise prices by a dime to make up for it?
Because the holding corporation run by wall street types won't let them. The franchise owners are getting screwed by the government and the company who jointly left them with no choice but to cut service and benefits.
-
Ultimately this is Kathleen Wynne and her government's fault. There was no need to go from 11 dollars and change to $14 literally overnight. It's too much of a shock to businesses. Do it more gradually over say a 5 year period. Or stick it to $13 and see how that works out. Then to $14 and see how that goes economically in the province. Pulling a random # out of the air seems pretty nonsensical.
It went from 11 something to $14 this year because this is an election year in Ontario and Wynne is trying her best to buy votes, to hell if businesses start closing next year or have to cut staff, another 5 more years for voters to forget and buy their votes again.
-
Because the holding corporation run by wall street types won't let them. The franchise owners are getting screwed by the government and the company who jointly left them with no choice but to cut service and benefits.
They are getting screwed by the company. It's not like Tims is being discriminated against, all their competitors are facing the same cost increase.
-
It is, as one columnist put it, an attempt at outsourcing the cost of a public social justice agenda to small business, and more of that newfound Liberal/NDP delight in class warfare. It's also a farce since the Liberals don't give a **** about the poor but only in convincing the dumb to vote for them again by being 'generous' with other peoples money.
I'm more interested in the economics of this whole experiment. People bringing 'social justice agenda' into it is just a kind of ad hominem, and they just hate Wynne anyway.
-
1. The economists say differently. Every one I've read quoted in various news media says that overall this is not going to help anyone as the employees with better wages will wind up paying higher prices for things anyway, simply because every single service industry they use will have to raise their prices, as will places like grocery and drug stores.
2. In addition, tens of thousands will lose their jobs entirely and the move to find automated systems will be given another push. In terms of non-service industries, like manufacturing, obviously they will now be less competitive with imports and less competitive in trying to export to other countries with lower minimum wages.
1. Ok, good. Please post some - and if there are opposing views post those too so we can read them. Tim's raised coffee prices 10% earlier this year anyway, according to my dad, which is far above inflation. I don't see people factoring that into the equation.
And.... if they are getting a raise above inflation you are saying that wages and prices across the board will now rise at that level. I don't see how. If inflation rises to the same level then you will be right.
2. Manufacturing already competes with people who work at a fraction of the wage costs. Competitiveness is a concern, of course, but I am finding it hard to reconcile a situation where business is making more but the number of low-wage employees increases to today's levels. Again, we will see.
Remember this will not only impact minimum wage earners. Min wage was $11.40, which means that in December, some employees with more skills were making $14, $15, $16hr. Do you think employers can keep paying them what is essentially now minimum wage? Hardly. They'll have to bump them up several dollars an hour too.
Ok.
-
This logic is nonsense. Minimum wages are not a 'tax on the rich'. They simply inflate the cost of employing people and encourage businesses to cut staff and benefits in order to maintain profitability. IOW - it is naive to assume that hikes in minimum wages will actually result in more aggregate income.
They have to supply staff to operate their business. Tim's doesn't have people on hand standing around. If the business isn't viable, or doesn't provide ROI then yes it will close. I am not convinced that businesses that howl that they can't afford to operate are being honest. It's in their interest to say so, whether or not it's true.
There are extremes at each end of the curve: allowing large profits without legislating that money back into tax revenues, or otherwise into the economy through wages will result in a poorer consumer class but taxing and legislating business to the point where enterprise is not worthwhile is also prohibitive to a healthy economy.
There is a sweet zone in the middle, but I wouldn't rely on the business community to tell us where that is.
I am going to read cyber's links about the economics.
-
The academic literature is mixed (which means there is evidences supporting my claim which you ignored).
Ideologically driven economists will obviously attack the Seattle study but that does not mean it conclusions were wrong.
More importantly, economic theory says that there will be impact so it requires extraordinary evidence to establish the opposite.
Studies that claim that it can't be measured are not extraordinary evidence because it could mean they are not measuring it properly.
Yes - at least someone is finally saying that the economics is open to analysis.
There will be 'impact' of course. Should we believe the business owners themselves ?
btw I am on the watch for this one: Once anyone brings morality into it, you can tell they have no practical argument.
-
Oh, I'm sorry. That's my silly self imagining that anyone interested in discussing a subject would first take at least some small bit of time to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter, perhaps read a newspaper or something. I continually overestimate people, though.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/retail-marketing/by-the-numbers-tim-hortons-franchisees-and-ontarios-minimum-wage-hike/wcm/0adbab69-cda1-4923-a9c0-05201bedc32d
Yep, that's fair. I will read this too.
-
Found this:
(https://i.imgur.com/gM9vlJ4.png)
-
So far, the cites are lacking for me but I am leaning towards this being a radical impact.
If I understand correctly the Seattle case was a 3% increase, which is nothing like the 20% increase we're talking about.
Several of the cites come from studies that appear biased to me, such as left-wing think tanks and others like 'the Great White North Franchisee Association, a group representing about half of the country’s Tim Hortons franchisees.' I didn't pay these much attention.
I still have a few to go.
What is clear to me is that we are in a big, risky experiment. The Ontario Liberals will live or die on the results. For those of you predicting economic ruin, 10s of thousands of jobs lost I am sure we all hope that's wrong. But if it's very wrong you will have to review your assumptions about economics. I for one am inclined to think this change will have a negative impact but I am also considering that these wages will go back into the economy whereas increased profits will go into bank stocks or offshore to Brazil.
But I'm still reading....
-
Holly Sklar is listed on one of the articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Sklar
She seems like an opinionist....
-
JJ Bean raises wages in BC to match Ontario's hike. They also raise prices between one and three percent.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/jj-bean-coffee-wage-increase-hike-1.4486070
It will be interesting to see how this plays out for them I rarely go to coffee shops, but I would pay the extra to support JJ Bean. I wonder how many others feel the same.
-
His arguments were addressed in the links I provided. Go read them.
No, they actually aren't. The three cites you list all speak about the normal minimum wage increases we have had over the past twenty years, that is, very slight, very gradual, ten cents here, a quarter there. These are usually done as the existing minimum wage falls behind the times due to inflation to bring them back in line.
That is NOT the case with the huge minimum wage increases in Alberta and Ontario. Both were done out of ideological/political reasons, not because of inflation, and both were, comparatively speaking, enormous. You can't say that because studies of $0.20 minimum wage raises don't seem to result in much in the way of job loses an increase of $3.60 will be fine too.
-
JJ Bean raises wages in BC to match Ontario's hike. They also raise prices between one and three percent.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/jj-bean-coffee-wage-increase-hike-1.4486070
It will be interesting to see how this plays out for them I rarely go to coffee shops, but I would pay the extra to support JJ Bean. I wonder how many others feel the same.
The more you increase the price of coffee and donuts the fewer people will want coffee and donuts. That's a basic rule of economics.
-
What is clear to me is that we are in a big, risky experiment. The Ontario Liberals will live or die on the results.
Ah, but that's the beauty of it from a political standpoint. They get all the credit for increasing the minimum wage from grateful minimum wage earners, but the job losses will take a while. It's not like 100,000 people will lose their jobs immediately. The losses will be gradual and accumulative and take place largely AFTER the election.
This is similar to them cutting electricity wages by 25%. Everyone gets the benefit NOW. The bills for the extra loans needed to pay for that cut come in over the next twenty years.
I for one am inclined to think this change will have a negative impact but I am also considering that these wages will go back into the economy whereas increased profits will go into bank stocks or offshore to Brazil.
The case of Tim Hortons is unique in that the franchisees have been denied permission to raise prices. But everyone else is already raising their prices to make up for the increased cost of paying employees. There is no new money going into the economy. The money for the increased wages is coming from ordinary people who are buying coffee, going to restaurants, buying groceries, etc. All that stuff just got more expensive for everyone, including these minimum wage earners.
-
For those of you predicting economic ruin, 10s of thousands of jobs lost I am sure we all hope that's wrong.
The trouble is we can never know how many jobs were really lost because we can never know what jobs were never created because of the higher cost structures. McDonalds around here have gotten rid of their people taking orders and replaced them with a self serve kiosks. Maybe that was inevitable but you can't argue that the cost of labour was not a factor in McDonald's decision to eliminate those jobs.
The bigger issue is who loses out. The bottom tier of jobs is the entry point into the labour market and if you eliminate those jobs more people will have trouble getting into the workforce. And it is not just teens who lose out on that valuable 'first job' - it also seniors with limited pensions who really don't have the option of training for a new career.
My own thinking is increasing the minimum wage at or around the rate of inflation will have no impact because wages are staying constant. As soon as the increases are above that you are inviting disaster - but it will be very difficult to measure because there are always so many confounding factors (i.e. did those kiosks go in because of technological change or the minimum wage? Different economists can make different assumptions and bias the results in the way that suits them).
-
The case of Tim Hortons is unique in that the franchisees have been denied permission to raise prices. But everyone else is already raising their prices to make up for the increased cost of paying employees. There is no new money going into the economy. The money for the increased wages is coming from ordinary people who are buying coffee, going to restaurants, buying groceries, etc. All that stuff just got more expensive for everyone, including these minimum wage earners.
One group that gets screwed by minimum wage increases are workers who earn a bit more than minimum wage because their income stays the same yet prices go up. Since there are more of those people than minimum wage workers it makes no sense to argue that there could be a net increase in economic activity if prices are increased to pay workers more. The only way there could be a net increase in economic activity is if the higher labour costs spur increases in productivity that exceed the mandated wage increases. But increases in a labour productivity usually mean fewer workers working fewer hours.
-
The trouble is we can never know how many jobs were really lost because we can never know what jobs were never created because of the higher cost structures.
Such beliefs sort of make any kind of analysis of anything impossible though.
-
Such beliefs sort of make any kind of analysis of anything impossible though.
It is fact of life - not a belief. On top of that perception has a"reality bias" meaning people tend to accept the status quo don't perceive losses relative to some imaginary world to be real losses. This is why I prefer to argue from economic fundamentals rather than relying on subjective studies that to try to find evidence of job loss after the fact because such studies can never capture what 'might have been'.
-
Such beliefs sort of make any kind of analysis of anything impossible though.
Tim uses this tactic in every discussion where evidence proves him wrong. I’ve descrived at length his radical “skepticism” elsewhere, which is nothing more than intellectual nihilism.
-
I’ve descrived at length his radical “skepticism” elsewhere, which is nothing more than intellectual nihilism.
And why is it a problem to be honest about the flimsy foundations that our so-called knowledge is built on? You seem to think that you should be able settle any debate because some academics made a bunch of assumptions, analyzed some data and made some claims. That is often not enough when dealing with problems that cannot be studied in a lab. But instead of engaging with a discussion about the limitations of the studies you get snarky and throw around fun sounding labels like 'nihilist'.
-
And why is it a problem to be honest about the flimsy foundations that our so-called knowledge is built on?
Because you question his sacred truths. And that cannot be accepted.
-
This logic is nonsense. Minimum wages are not a 'tax on the rich'. They simply inflate the cost of employing people and encourage businesses to cut staff and benefits in order to maintain profitability. IOW - it is naive to assume that hikes in minimum wages will actually result in more aggregate income.
Why cut staff and benefits? Without crunching the numbers, I would guess that raising the price of a coffee by 5 or 10 cents should suffice.
$15/hr is not an outrageous amount in this country, businesses should price their goods and services accordingly to ensure that full-time workers are not living in poverty.
-
Ultimately this is Kathleen Wynne and her government's fault. There was no need to go from 11 dollars and change to $14 literally overnight. It's too much of a shock to businesses. Do it more gradually over say a 5 year period. Or stick it to $13 and see how that works out. Then to $14 and see how that goes economically in the province. Pulling a random # out of the air seems pretty nonsensical.
It went from 11 something to $14 this year because this is an election year in Ontario and Wynne is trying her best to buy votes, to hell if businesses start closing next year or have to cut staff, another 5 more years for voters to forget and buy their votes again.
With the way the price of food and housing keeps going up, I don't think it was too much of a stretch.
Having said that, I don't believe in province-wide minimum wages, I think they should be more local. There is no reason a person living in small town needs to make the same minimum wage as someone living in a big city.
Vancouver has a basic living wage of $20/hr, for example.
-
Why cut staff and benefits? Without crunching the numbers, I would guess that raising the price of a coffee by 5 or 10 cents should suffice.
The wall street types running the Tim Hortons chain apparently refused to allow price hikes nor did they reduce food costs or royalties. That left Tim's owners with the choice of shutting down or cutting payroll costs in whatever way they could.
-
The wall street types running the Tim Hornets chain apparently refused to allow price hikes nor did they reduce food costs or royalties. That left Tim's owners with the choice of shutting down or cutting payroll costs in whatever way they could.
Bullshit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tim-hortons-breakfast-sandwich-price-increase-minimum-wage-1.4483543
But of course they deny it to save face. Bad PR on their part.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tim-hortons-breakfast-sandwich-price-increase-minimum-wage-1.4483543
Yawn. Can you at least read the links before you post them? The article notes that these were previously scheduled price hikes on a small subset of the menu that would have happened even with no minimum wage hike. What the owners need is across the board price hikes which they are not allowed to do.
-
Yawn. Can you at least read the links before you posted them? The article notes that these were previously scheduled price hikes on a small subset of the menu that would have happened even with no minimum wage hike. What the owners need is across the board price hikes which they are not allowed to do.
As I said before, of course they'd try and save face by denying it. Obviously the bad PR got to them.
-
As I said before, of course they'd try and save face by denying it. Obviously the bad PR got to them.
Of course you have no evidence that what they are saying is not completely true. This is just crap your are making up because you want to blame the owners. The fact that the price hikes only affects a few items at a few locations is pretty good evidence that they are telling the truth on this point. Not that it makes a difference to someone with their heart set on a lynching.
-
Of course you have no evidence that what they are saying is not completely true.
And by that same logic, the reverse is true.
-
I mean, we have no way of knowing that $15 per hour isn't a perfect world.
-
And by that same logic, the reverse is true.
Read my post. I said:
The fact that the price hikes only affects a few items at a few locations is pretty good evidence that they are telling the truth on this point.
IOW - there is evidence the reverse is true.
-
Of course you have no evidence that what they are saying is not completely true. This is just crap your are making up because you want to blame the owners. The fact that the price hikes only affects a few items at a few locations is pretty good evidence that they are telling the truth on this point. Not that it makes a difference to someone with their heart set on a lynching.
Oh sure, it's just a coincidence that after public outrage about cutting employee benefits, they just HAPPEN to raise prices, which HAPPENS to be an alternative to cutting benefits.
I'm sure Timmy's doesn't have a mega team of PR personnel weighing the cost benefits of raising prices by a few pennies or appearing callous for mistreating workers.
Bad PR in this case would be worse than minimum wage increase. They made the right move the second time around.
-
I mean, we have no way of knowing that $15 per hour isn't a perfect world.
So you believe that it doesn't matter how much you raise prices, people will continue to buy in the same amount? Is that what you're saying? Price does not effect demand?
-
So you believe that it doesn't matter how much you raise prices, people will continue to buy in the same amount? Is that what you're saying? Price does not effect demand?
There's no way to know. I'm following Tim's logic here.
-
There's no way to know. I'm following Tim's logic here.
How so? Tims, the organization, does not want to raise prices for fear of losing sales. Its money comes directly off the top of sales at the franchises. Tims doesn't care if the franchisees' profits are cut in half as long as the money THEY get doesn't go down. That's why it won't let them increase prices to make up the added cost of employees.
-
Not Tim Horton's, TimG. We have no way to know anything.
-
Oh sure, it's just a coincidence that after public outrage about cutting employee benefits, they just HAPPEN to raise prices, which HAPPENS to be an alternative to cutting benefits.
What don't you understand about "affects only a small number of items at a few stores" you don't you understand? Obviously we can't know for sure but the evidence favors Tim's rather than the lynch mob.
-
Not Tim Horton's, TimG. We have no way to know anything.
Tim's logic has been straightforward economic theory. Bedrock economic theory, in fact. When you raise the cost of something you decrease demand unless the demand is inelastic. Ie, you don't have any choice but to buy it at whatever price. Every city in Canada is short of police as compared to pretty much all other western countries. Why? I think it's because we've let the costs of police get so high compared to others we simply can't afford as many as we should have. Now if cities will cut back on police why would companies not cut back on waiters and barristas?
-
Not Tim Horton's, TimG. We have no way to know anything.
Which, of course, completely misrepresents my POV. My position has always been that knowledged derived from statistical analysis is going to be suspect unless that knowledge can be confirmed with controlled experiments. This is impossible to do with many things where the scope for controlled experiments is limited to non-existent. People like cybercoma would rather see that any study done by a cybercoma approved academic must be accepted as gospel truth because they are "science" and "science" is never wrong.
-
Then where are we ?
- We know there is divergent economic opinion on such policies, but also that this action is more drastic than others
- We know that it's impossible to separate economic factors as we can with lab experiments.
I think that this *is* the experiment and we can see the result of it in a little while. Whether or not it's an irresponsibly risky step will come out. I find it odd that TimG cites economic orthodoxy but then says we can't know the impacts of this change. It seems like a convenient call to authority.
Impacts on unemployment rates should be a litmus test in the short term, no ?
-
Impacts on unemployment rates should be a litmus test in the short term, no ?
Well, I am sure there will still be arguments on both sides no matter what the data says because there are always confounding factors and researchers have a lot of flexibility in how they deal with confounding factors (read: tweak results to produce desired conclusion).
-
Of course you have no evidence that what they are saying is not completely true. This is just crap your are making up because you want to blame the owners.
Corporations have a long history of spinning the facts to make themselves look good, much like politicians. Certainly increase in employee wages across the board will result in higher costs to the company. But I don't think the solution is keeping people at poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to pick up (some of) the slack through subsidies provided by the government. JJ Bean seems to think it can offset the wage increases by raising it's prices 50 cents or less on product; somehow I doubt that 50 cents is going to make a lot of difference to the people who support these stores. That this particular Tim's franchise chose to cut back on the employees suggests to me that they wanted to do this already, and the wage increase was just an excuse they could use.
-
How much does raising the minimum wage have in a macroeconomic sense? I doubt the minimum-wage earner is a significant driver of things like inflation. I think the notion that this will just drive prices up for everybody is greatly over-rated. In places where minimum wages have risen, has any link to inflation ever been detected?
-k
-
Corporations have a long history of spinning the facts to make themselves look good, much like politicians. Certainly increase in employee wages across the board will result in higher costs to the company. But I don't think the solution is keeping people at poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to pick up (some of) the slack through subsidies provided by the government. JJ Bean seems to think it can offset the wage increases by raising it's prices 50 cents or less on product; somehow I doubt that 50 cents is going to make a lot of difference to the people who support these stores. That this particular Tim's franchise chose to cut back on the employees suggests to me that they wanted to do this already, and the wage increase was just an excuse they could use.
I know companies spin but the facts in this particular circumstance suggest the owners are being honest about not having control over the prices:
https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/01/12/some-tim-hortons-locations-raise-prices-amid-minimum-wage-controversy.html
Those franchisees and the GWNFA partly blame RBI, which controls pricing, for refusing to help franchisees stomach the $2.40 jump in minimum hourly wages by boosting what they can charge for food and beverages, among other requests.
The GWNFA source says franchisees want menu prices to go up by about 10 per cent across the board in Canada
IOW - the owners want prices to go up but the parent company won't let them.
-
How much does raising the minimum wage have in a macroeconomic sense? I doubt the minimum-wage earner is a significant driver of things like inflation. I think the notion that this will just drive prices up for everybody is greatly over-rated. In places where minimum wages have risen, has any link to inflation ever been detected?
Minimum wage affects almost all retail which affects a big portion of the CPI. Whether the effects will be measurable is an open question.
To all the people with the tiresome argument that we can raise the minimum wage because the rules of economics do not apply I have a question: why stop at 15$? Why not a 100$ minimum wage? Anyone who tries to answer that question honestly will be forced to concede that the rules of economics do apply and the only real argument is the negative consequences are not significant in some situations. But that leads to the question about what are the situations where the consequences small enough that we don't need to worry? Without knowing that we can't say that any given minimum wage hike will have minimal harm.
-
I think this opinion piece makes some good points:
1. TH wants us to believe they're just another nice Canadian, and not one of those nasty corporate entities, out to screw everyone and anyone to keep their bottom line.
2. This wasn't a surprise, they've had six months to prepare - so why couldn't they have come up with a better plan than screwing over employees?
If the TH franchises suffer because their head office is being a dick, then perhaps their head office will have to stop being a dick. Let's hope that happens.
And the link (thanks Kimmy). https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/01/09/timmies-warm-and-fuzzy-brand-identity-becomes-faded-and-torn.html
-
Minimum wage affects almost all retail which affects a big portion of the CPI. Whether the effects will be measurable is an open question.
The hypothetical "basket of goods" is comprised of:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
The salary of a minimum-wage cashier or sales-person is a negligibly small portion of most of these costs.
-k
-
I think this opinion piece makes some good points:
1. TH wants us to believe they're just another nice Canadian, and not one of those nasty corporate entities, out to screw everyone and anyone to keep their bottom line.
2. This wasn't a surprise, they've had six months to prepare - so why couldn't they have come up with a better plan than screwing over employees?
If the TH franchises suffer because their head office is being a dick, then perhaps their head office will have to stop being a dick. Let's hope that happens.
Was there supposed to be a link?
They haven't been a Canadian company for years... it's all just branding. They're wrapping themselves in Canadiana as a marketing strategy. Tim Horton's franchisees were among the most outrageous offenders when it came to exploiting the TFW program a few years back. They're not patriots, they're businessmen. Maybe they thought that people would be so gulled by their hype that they thought they could act like a bunch of pricks without anybody noticing.
-k
-
If the TH franchises suffer because their head office is being a dick, then perhaps their head office will have to stop being a dick. Let's hope that happens.
The battle between the franchisees and the parent is not new: http://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/tim-hortons-franchisees-sue-corporate-parent-for-850m-alleging-bullying-and-intimidation
Tim Hortons franchisees sue corporate parent for $850M, alleging bullying and intimidation
Filed on Friday, it marks the second class action lawsuit from unhappy Tim Hortons store owners this year against their corporate parent
When discussing TH management it is important distinguish between the holding company and the franchisee owners.
-
They're wrapping themselves in Canadiana as a marketing strategy.
One thing I would *love* to see coming out of this is the jingoistic tear-jerking all-Canadian marketing campaign dying... when the company is Brazillian controlled. Those campaign practically celebrate the bewilderment of the people they celebrate. I find it insulting to Canadians.
-
How much does raising the minimum wage have in a macroeconomic sense? I doubt the minimum-wage earner is a significant driver of things like inflation. I think the notion that this will just drive prices up for everybody is greatly over-rated. In places where minimum wages have risen, has any link to inflation ever been detected?
-k
The average profit margin for the restaurant and retail trade in Canada is just 3.4%. Your costs don't have to rise very high before you're forced to raise prices.
-
The average profit margin for the restaurant and retail trade in Canada is just 3.4%. Your costs don't have to rise very high before you're forced to raise prices.
There are a lot of factors in play on that assertion. Restaurants have been exploding lately. Some of them make more margins than others. Kimmy already published 'the basket'.
I think the key factors to look at in the next 6-12 months are unemployment and inflation.
-
(https://scontent.fybz2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26231255_1800104230034147_8953017092648188646_n.jpg?oh=99134fd8b1e6003148a5a5f6a9d3bd38&oe=5AEC71E5)
-
Dear employees. Much like the feudal lords with their serfs, we own you and therefore please follow the command of your betters and contact the government to say you are displeased with your higher wages.
Signed - the brilliant and entitled people who had the genius to own and operate a turnkey franchise. That is all.
-
I think the key factors to look at in the next 6-12 months are unemployment and inflation.
The effects are longer term. 6 month changes don't mean much. Most of the job loss will not come from specific people losing their jobs but from businesses that don't expand or don't start in the first place and from automation that replaces new workers. I realize that everyone would like some definitive data that would settle this argument once and for all but I don't think we will ever get that.
-
Signed - the brilliant and entitled people who had the genius to own and operate a turnkey franchise. That is all.
Of course you have zero information about the profit margins that this specific business operates on. You have no way to know if the wage gains push a profitable business into a loss. Yet you condemn a business owner for lashing out at the shameless political opportunist who decided on a whim to destroy the business that they had invested their life savings in.
No matter what one thinks of minimum wages 20% in one year is ridiculous move and can only hurt them people it claims to help.
-
Dear employees. Much like the feudal lords with their serfs, we own you and therefore please follow the command of your betters and contact the government to say you are displeased with your higher wages.
Signed - the brilliant and entitled people who had the genius to own and operate a turnkey franchise. That is all.
These people don't owe you a job, let alone a well-paid job. Why is it their responsibility that you don't have the skills to command higher wages? They should just willingly fork over a substantial portion of their profits to you? They can just close the place down and use their money on the stock market. They'd probably get a better return, in fact. If the wage increases cut too deeply into profits, then even if a place is profitable - a bit - they'll likely close. Why sacrifice a possible 8% profit margin somewhere else for a 1% profit margin now? I really don't know why anyone would own a restaurant, or for that matter, a grocery store, when the profit margins are so slim.
-
The effects are longer term. 6 month changes don't mean much. Most of the job loss will not come from specific people losing their jobs but from businesses that don't expand or don't start in the first place and from automation that replaces new workers. I realize that everyone would like some definitive data that would settle this argument once and for all but I don't think we will ever get that.
You said that before yes. I don't know how we're supposed to assess trade-offs. It seems to me that they should be able to assess impacts... somewhat.
-
Of course you have zero information about the profit margins that this specific business operates on. You have no way to know if the wage gains push a profitable business into a loss. Yet you condemn a business owner for lashing out at the shameless political opportunist who decided on a whim to destroy the business that they had invested their life savings in.
If these people didn't want class war, they should have consulted with their butler on how to sound more 'common' in their communication to the plebians.
No matter what one thinks of minimum wages 20% in one year is ridiculous move and can only hurt them people it claims to help.
I also thought the election of Trump was ridiculous but I did say 'wait and see'.
-
These people don't owe you a job, let alone a well-paid job. Why is it their responsibility that you don't have the skills to command higher wages? They should just willingly fork over a substantial portion of their profits to you?
Me ?
I don't work at Tim Horton's.
They can just close the place down and use their money on the stock market. They'd probably get a better return, in fact. If the wage increases cut too deeply into profits, then even if a place is profitable - a bit - they'll likely close. Why sacrifice a possible 8% profit margin somewhere else for a 1% profit margin now? I really don't know why anyone would own a restaurant, or for that matter, a grocery store, when the profit margins are so slim.
Let's count all the coffee shops that close down and we'll see how this experiment went.
-
Me ?
I don't work at Tim Horton's.
Not you personally, just "YOU", in the broader sense. Nobody owes "YOU" a job.
Let's count all the coffee shops that close down and we'll see how this experiment went.
I suspect the demand will drop as prices rise, but I have no idea how you'd count the number of coffee shops, or how many employees have been replaced by automation. I also don't know how easy it is to get out of franchise agreements quickly. I suspect it isn't easy.
-
If the impacts are as drastic as some (including me) suspect it might be, then it will be obvious.
-
If the impacts are as drastic as some (including me) suspect it might be, then it will be obvious.
Really? How many bars and taverns closed down after the smoking ban? These sorts of questions are not the sort government will ever study because the news can only be bad publicity. I've found a few articles suggesting many as 11,000 closed down in the UK in the years after the ban, but nothing much on Canada. The government is not going to publicize how many businesses went out of business due to their policies, and anyone else who does so and finds a lot of coffee shops went bust will likely be right of centre and thus dismissed as 'fake news' by the progressive set.
-
Really? How many bars and taverns closed down after the smoking ban? These sorts of questions are not the sort government will ever study because the news can only be bad publicity. I've found a few articles suggesting many as 11,000 closed down in the UK in the years after the ban, but nothing much on Canada. The government is not going to publicize how many businesses went out of business due to their policies, and anyone else who does so and finds a lot of coffee shops went bust will likely be right of centre and thus dismissed as 'fake news' by the progressive set.
The pub I have been walking over to since well before the smoking ban is doing as thriving a business as it ever did. The smokers are still there but they are happy to go outside for a puff as are the majority of people who don't smoke and don't want to be forced to suck up someone else's smoke. Most people don't smoke any more so it's simply a bit of majority rule.
-
If the impacts are as drastic as some (including me) suspect it might be, then it will be obvious.
In the short term, it will not show up in the number of people employed. It will show up in fewer hours for those currently employed because cutting hours is easier than cutting jobs. The paid break changes at TH that started this thread is a good example. What study will be able to capture all of subtle ways workers can find themselves with less disposable income even as their rate per hour increases?
My prediction is there will be competing studies that say opposite results in year or two and they will all depend on arguable assumptions. The Seattle experience is a template. A very reputable study with good methodology clearly says income when down but that did not stop cyber and his fellow travellers from dismissing the study (he even had the nerve to claim there is 'no evidence' that minimum wage hikes hurt employees despite the fact that the Seattle study is pretty good evidence). There is no reason to believe the same script will not play out again in Ontario.
-
Impacts on unemployment rates should be a litmus test in the short term, no ?
No. If jobs don’t seem to be impacted, businesses are still profitable and employment of minimum wage workers seems the same, or more, people like TimG say “well it would have been even better had the minimum wage not gone up”.
No evidence will convince them that theiy are incorrect about something that is in opposition to their ideology.
-
Come back to me when you have a peer reviewed like the numerous ones referenced in the links I posted. Your doom and gloom study is no better than an opinion column until it’s reviewed.
-
Come back to me when you have a peer reviewed like the numerous ones referenced in the links I posted. Your doom and gloom study is no better than an opinion column until it’s reviewed.
First, peer reviewed studies are just opinions that were accepted by peers who happen to agree with the opinions.
Second, here is a peer reviewed study that should be enough to debunk your "no evidence of negative effects" nonsense:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/neumark,salas,wascher-ilrr-14.pdf
The authors explore the ability of the new research designs to isolate reliable identifying
information, and they test the designs’ untested assumptions about the construction of better control groups.
Their analysis reveals problems with the new research designs. Moreover, using methods that let the data
identify the appropriate control groups, their results reaffirm the evidence of disemployment effects, with teen
employment elasticities near −0.15. This evidence, they conclude, still shows that minimum wages pose a
tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others.
-
(https://scontent.fybz2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26231255_1800104230034147_8953017092648188646_n.jpg?oh=99134fd8b1e6003148a5a5f6a9d3bd38&oe=5AEC71E5)
Are you allowed to do that here? I seem to remember you suspending me for that on the "other place".
-
No. If jobs don’t seem to be impacted, businesses are still profitable and employment of minimum wage workers seems the same, or more, people like TimG say “well it would have been even better had the minimum wage not gone up”.
That argument is valid even if it is not convenient for your ideology. I am not the one arguing that basic economic theory of supply and demand can be ignored when convenient. I notice none of the minimum wage advocates have bothered to answer my challenge: if $15 is good why don't we raise it to $100? Prove that your are not an ideologue by given me a coherent answer to that question. I suspect you will not because the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to bear.
-
Are you allowed to do that here? I seem to remember you suspending me for that on the "other place".
? For what ?
-
? For what ?
For posting a picture without any text or explanation.
It's okay, I forgave you a long time ago.
Of course, yours was a picture of text. Loophole.
-
For posting a picture without any text or explanation.
It's okay, I forgave you a long time ago.
Of course, yours was a picture of text. Loophole.
MH is not a mod here...
And if you can’t see the relevance of the note in the picture to the topic, then you have comprehension issues.
-
MH is not a mod here...
And if you can’t see the relevance of the note in the picture to the topic, then you have comprehension issues.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. It's a good job you're around to keep me focused.
-
Uh.... you KNOW that I don't have anything personal against posting pictures right ?
It's not like I see a painting on the wall and go 'Grrrrrr'.
I have some memory of the 'no images' rule at MLW but no memory of warning any individual about it...
-
Uh.... you KNOW that I don't have anything personal against posting pictures right ?
It's not like I see a painting on the wall and go 'Grrrrrr'.
I have some memory of the 'no images' rule at MLW but no memory of warning any individual about it...
Okay, serious posts only. No small talk. Got it!
BTW, you're needed on the "other site". You need to learn Klingon...
-
This:
"Are you allowed to do that here? I seem to remember you suspending me for that on the "other place"."
...isn't even 'dry humour'. This is vague and inscrutable. Somebody reading it thinks
'Is he serious ?'
'Is it a dig ?'
You would have to add something to signal "hey... I am joking here".
Next, this:
"BTW, you're needed on the "other site". You need to learn Klingon..."
The first sentence seems to be saying something about MLW. Then the second sentence.... don't get it...
-
This:
"Are you allowed to do that here? I seem to remember you suspending me for that on the "other place"."
...isn't even 'dry humour'. This is vague and inscrutable. Somebody reading it thinks
'Is he serious ?'
'Is it a dig ?'
You would have to add something to signal "hey... I am joking here".
Next, this:
"BTW, you're needed on the "other site". You need to learn Klingon..."
The first sentence seems to be saying something about MLW. Then the second sentence.... don't get it...
Could be I've been operating under some wild misapprehension about your identity. Please disregard.
-
Still inscrutable.
Just say what you are hinting at. I am not going to cry.
-
Ahhhhhh....
Ok, now I see. It's not a joke it's a riddle.
-
Still inscrutable.
Just say what you are hinting at. I am not going to cry.
I was crying. But I'm okay now.
-
What I find interesting is none of the 'minimum wage causes no harm' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is fine why not $100?
I think it is pretty obvious the reason is they don't answer is they don't want to acknowledge the basic premise that raising minimum wages does cause harm and the only thing we can really discuss is if there are situations where the harm caused is small enough that we can raise it despite the harms. For my part, I would agree that raising the wages when the economy is growing and the amount is at least comparable to the rate of inflation is likely fine. Any higher than that and you asking for trouble - especially when the next recession hits. There are likely other criteria such as the relationship between the median wage and the minimum wage which need to be considered as well.
Unfortunately, we can't get to a discussion about the evaluating the circumstances where a minimum wage hike is likely OK because the minimum wage advocates are too ideological to accept what should be an obvious point: "increasing minimum wages causes harm'.
-
The average profit margin for the restaurant and retail trade in Canada is just 3.4%. Your costs don't have to rise very high before you're forced to raise prices.
I posted the list of items in the "consumer goods basket" they use to calculate the rate of inflation. And the bulk of this stuff is completely unaffected by the minimum wage.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).
Housing, transportation, medical, education and communication are all completely unaffected by the minimum wage. (what about the gas station cashier? The cashier's share of the 123.9 cents per liter is so tiny it's not worth measuring. Most of the 123.9 cents per liter is going to the gasoline distributor or to the tax man. The station operator's share is tiny, and the cashier's portion of that is tinier still. Gas stations don't make much money from gas. They're desperately hoping you'll buy a $2 chocolate bar or a $4 bag of chips while you're stopped for gas, because that's where they actually make a decent margin.)
Food and clothing are two areas where the minimum wage might cause cost increases. Quite a few people work in a grocery store, and probably many of them are pretty close to the minimum wage. If I go down to my local grocery store and spend $100 on food, what portion goes to the food producers and distributors, what portion goes to the owner's non-labor expenses (rent, property tax, electricity, etc) and what portion actually goes to the workers? Hypothetically, if the workers' share is $5, and the owner raises the prices to pay for the increase in wages, then my $100 groceries will cost $101.40 next time. I can live with it.
As for apparel, I suspect it's a higher-margin industry and a less directly competitive industry. I think they'll have a lot more flexibility as to how to figure out how to defray the expense of higher wages.
As well, apparel is a much smaller chunk of a typical consumer's monthly spending, so any increases in costs are much less important to most consumers than changes in the price of food.
For the typical household, housing is the biggest expense by a fair margin, followed by food, communications, and transportation in some order. Of those, only food is one where a raise to minimum wage might be cause for concern. And I think the impact on your grocery tab is probably pretty modest.
These people don't owe you a job, let alone a well-paid job. Why is it their responsibility that you don't have the skills to command higher wages? They should just willingly fork over a substantial portion of their profits to you? They can just close the place down and use their money on the stock market.
Good. Let 'em. There's something fundamentally **** about an industry which is on the one hand always crying that it can't get enough workers but on the other hand always crying that it can't afford to raise wages to attract anybody to work there.
We don't need a **** Tim Horton's on every corner. Let these would-be franchise operators take their capital and do something more useful with it. Let the displaced workers go work at other establishments that are relying on TFWs to fill vacancies.
Has it occurred to you that getting people to work in crappy low-skill restaurant jobs might be one of the reasons our government is convinced that we have to increase immigration every year?
-k
-
I posted the list of items in the "consumer goods basket" they use to calculate the rate of inflation. And the bulk of this stuff is completely unaffected by the minimum wage.
Your premise that the expense of the paying minimum wages workers more is too small to affect the inflation rate is reasonable but will you accept the corollary that the boost to GDP from all those minimum wage workers spending their extra wages is also too small to be noticeable?
Another point to consider: the only reason the effect on inflation is small is because most of the labour intensive goods we buy come from places with much lower wages and that higher minimum wages will simply encourage the import of more goods from cheaper locales.
Good. Let 'em. There's something fundamentally **** about an industry which is on the one hand always crying that it can't get enough workers but on the other hand always crying that it can't afford to raise wages to attract anybody to work there.
I agree that TFWs for minimum wage retail jobs should be banned. If they need workers raise wages. It is interesting that most people think Henry Ford raised wages so 'his employees could buy his cars' but that is not true. Ford raised wages because he had to compete for labour and wanted to reduce employee turnover.
-
What I find interesting is none of the 'minimum wage causes no harm' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is fine why not $100?
What I find interesting is none of 'price increases hurt businesses' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is too much, why $11? Why not scrap minimum wage all together and let business owners find the cheapest labour and maximize profits as much as economically possible?
-
What I find interesting is none of the 'minimum wage causes no harm' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is fine why not $100?
I think it is pretty obvious the reason is they don't answer is they don't want to acknowledge the basic premise that raising minimum wages does cause harm and the only thing we can really discuss is if there are situations where the harm caused is small enough that we can raise it despite the harms. For my part, I would agree that raising the wages when the economy is growing and the amount is at least comparable to the rate of inflation is likely fine. Any higher than that and you asking for trouble - especially when the next recession hits. There are likely other criteria such as the relationship between the median wage and the minimum wage which need to be considered as well.
Unfortunately, we can't get to a discussion about the evaluating the circumstances where a minimum wage hike is likely OK because the minimum wage advocates are too ideological to accept what should be an obvious point: "increasing minimum wages causes harm'.
First of all, you only asked the questions 4 hours before.
I will respond in time.
-
What I find interesting is none of 'price increases hurt businesses' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is too much, why $11? Why not scrap minimum wage all together and let business owners find the cheapest labour and maximize profits as much as economically possible?
No one has asked that question so your response is kind of silly. To answer: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland all have no minimum wage but are not low wage hell. There is no academic justification for minimum wages when there are social support systems in place and immigration is kept under control. One of the problems in Canada is we are too quick to let people in when businesses scream labour shortages. While these cries are justified when it comes to some specialized skill sets they are more often a reflection of the fact that businesses are not willing to raise their wages to attract workers. Getting rid of the minimum wage *and* restricting immigration would send a clear messages to businesses that if they want people they have to pay a wage that attracts workers. This would lead to a more dynamic market that would benefit workers in the long run.
-
First of all, you only asked the questions 4 hours before.
You did not flag my post as "dumb" instead of providing a reasonable response.
-
I don't pay attention to those dumb flags.
-
No one has asked that question so your response is kind of silly. To answer: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland all have no minimum wage but are not low wage hell. There is no academic justification for minimum wages when there are social support systems in place and immigration is kept under control. One of the problems in Canada is we are too quick to let people in when businesses scream labour shortages. While these cries are justified when it comes to some specialized skill sets they are more often a reflection of the fact that businesses are not willing to raise their wages to attract workers. Getting rid of the minimum wage *and* restricting immigration would send a clear messages to businesses that if they want people they have to pay a wage that attracts workers. This would lead to a more dynamic market that would benefit workers in the long run.
Are you also going to advocate for Scandinavian social systems, since you're holding them up as an example? You think their wage laws are in isolation of everythign else?
-
What I find interesting is none of the 'minimum wage causes no harm' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is fine why not $100?
I think it is pretty obvious the reason is they don't answer is they don't want to acknowledge the basic premise that raising minimum wages does cause harm and the only thing we can really discuss is if there are situations where the harm caused is small enough that we can raise it despite the harms. For my part, I would agree that raising the wages when the economy is growing and the amount is at least comparable to the rate of inflation is likely fine. Any higher than that and you asking for trouble - especially when the next recession hits. There are likely other criteria such as the relationship between the median wage and the minimum wage which need to be considered as well.
Unfortunately, we can't get to a discussion about the evaluating the circumstances where a minimum wage hike is likely OK because the minimum wage advocates are too ideological to accept what should be an obvious point: "increasing minimum wages causes harm'.
I think everybody understands that the money doesn't come out of thin air and that it has to come from somewhere. Maybe it's from the pockets of the business operator, or maybe it's from the pockets of the customers, or maybe some of both.
What's the yardstick for "harm" though? Is "harm" the point where the employer decides not to hire an additional staff member? Is it the point at which the employer decides his margins have become too thin and decides to just close the business?
I avoid Tim's and McDonald's and the like as much as possible, but my observation has been that they're already using the bare minimum number of employees. I don't think the notion of hiring additional crew ever crosses their mind. It's not like there's a lot of fat that they can trim that hasn't already been trimmed. As for their margins, I think that while some franchises might be teetering on the brink, many are probably doing quite well. There must be some reason why people keep opening more of these wretched things. If the change in minimum wage pushes some of the less profitable franchises over the brink... is that really such a bad thing?
Your premise that the expense of the paying minimum wages workers more is too small to affect the inflation rate is reasonable but will you accept the corollary that the boost to GDP from all those minimum wage workers spending their extra wages is also too small to be noticeable?
Not necessarily. I agree with the premise that no new wealth is being created. Raising the minimum wage is, essentially, a redistribution of existing wealth-- the raise doesn't come from thin air, it comes from the pockets of the franchise operator and/or customers who pay higher prices.
But putting more money in the pockets of people who have the highest propensity to spend isn't a bad economic move. It's economic stimulus. It's a staple of typical conservative economic thought, actually. If the franchise operator has that $10 a day, most of that money is probably going into some kind of investment strategy. If the employee has that money, it's getting spent. The working poor spend everything they earn just to meet their daily needs. The raise they're getting is going straight back into the economy.
Another point to consider: the only reason the effect on inflation is small is because most of the labour intensive goods we buy come from places with much lower wages and that higher minimum wages will simply encourage the import of more goods from cheaper locales.
So? Are there any minimum-wage manufacturing jobs left here to save?
I agree that TFWs for minimum wage retail jobs should be banned. If they need workers raise wages. It is interesting that most people think Henry Ford raised wages so 'his employees could buy his cars' but that is not true. Ford raised wages because he had to compete for labour and wanted to reduce employee turnover.
I hear "free market" people complaining that the government shouldn't meddle in the labor market by setting a minimum wage, but I never hear "free market" people complaining that the government is already meddling in the labor market by pursuing policies that put a downward pressure on wages. We get these lobby groups like Restaurants Canada continually pleading to the government for help because "we can't find enough workers", but that statement should always be appended with "...at the wages we're willing to pay."
-k
-
The pub I have been walking over to since well before the smoking ban is doing as thriving a business as it ever did. The smokers are still there but they are happy to go outside for a puff as are the majority of people who don't smoke and don't want to be forced to suck up someone else's smoke. Most people don't smoke any more so it's simply a bit of majority rule.
I don't smoke. I have never smoked. But I'm not going to fall for that bullshit about 'they're happy to go outside for a puff". Bars and taverns HAVE closed down. One of the ones near where I used to work used to be crowded as hell, but lost a lot of customers after the ban. It tried to make up for it by putting in a nice patio but then the government shut those down too. I'm not sure if it's still open. It was like a ghost town the last time I was there a couple of years back.
-
I posted the list of items in the "consumer goods basket" they use to calculate the rate of inflation. And the bulk of this stuff is completely unaffected by the minimum wage.
You're simply wrong. The cost of employment is a major factor in everything. It's why so much manufacturing has been moved to Mexico or China or low wage states in the US. It's why call centres have moved to India. You can suggest the impact won't be high, but it doesn't have to be to impact jobs. There are over 18 million people employed in Canada. If employers cut back by one half of one percent that's still 90,000 jobs lost. Minimum wage rises of this level don't just impact those who make minimum wages. As I pointed out earlier all the people who used to make 3 bucks over minimum wage because they were more skilled are now going to have to have big pay increases. And so on up the ladder. If the kid behind the cashier was making 11.40 and their supervisor was making 14, well, you can't leave the supervisor at 14, now can you?
Good. Let 'em. There's something fundamentally **** about an industry which is on the one hand always crying that it can't get enough workers but on the other hand always crying that it can't afford to raise wages to attract anybody to work there.
You may recall I expressed those exact sentiments about the need to bring in TFWs to work at fast food restaurants when that was under discussion. TFWs, and, for that matter, much of immigration, seems to be purpose designed by government to thwart the market and keep wages low for low skilled workers. I'm all for halting this and letting wages for shitty jobs rise as the supply of workers for those jobs falls. And if that means fewer fast food restaurants I'm okay with that.
But drastically increasing the minimum wage doesn't just impact fast food restaurants. It impacts virtually everything. And unlike the natural rise or fall of wages due to demand for those workers, this is entirely artificial and driven by political expediency.
-
Are you also going to advocate for Scandinavian social systems, since you're holding them up as an example? You think their wage laws are in isolation of everythign else?
The Scandinavian countries are finding themselves hard-pressed to maintain those social systems and are having to cut back - largely because they let in too many people with low skills.
-
What I find interesting is none of 'price increases hurt businesses' advocates are willing to answer my question: If $15 is too much, why $11? Why not scrap minimum wage all together and let business owners find the cheapest labour and maximize profits as much as economically possible?
I wouldn't mind trying it, as long as we scrap immigration and TFWs. The market will determine at what price people are willing to take jobs, especially unpleasant ones. Employers were already having trouble finding employees at $11.40. They'd have a damn sight harder time finding them at $10 or $9.
-
The Scandinavian countries are finding themselves hard-pressed to maintain those social systems and are having to cut back - largely because they let in too many people with low skills.
Citation
-
Not necessarily. I agree with the premise that no new wealth is being created. Raising the minimum wage is, essentially, a redistribution of existing wealth-- the raise doesn't come from thin air, it comes from the pockets of the franchise operator and/or customers who pay higher prices.
But where is the fairness in that? Why should government be in the business of redistributing wealth in the first place? Why should we be taking money away from people who, through their own efforts, have succeeded economically, and giving it to people who, through their own lack of efforts, have not? Note, I am not talking about people with disabilities for which I wholeheartedly agree society owes a standard of care. I am also not talking about letting people starve or die in the streets. That's not what this raise is about.
Joe studies hard, gets great grades, borrows money, gets into university, works his ass off, gets a good job.
Paul goes out back and smokes weed with his pals, drops out of school, does more drugs, plays video games, gets a job at Tim Hortons.
Is it really so unfair that Joe makes more money than Paul? And again, note, I realize this is a cliche, and that all circumstances are not like that, but it also is true in many cases. People's lack of economic success is often attributable to poor choices made earlier in life and poor choices made now. How many of those poor people are busily working on college courses through correspondence or the internet in hopes of improving their skill set, vs how many are playing video games and watching TV every evening?
I hear "free market" people complaining that the government shouldn't meddle in the labor market by setting a minimum wage, but I never hear "free market" people complaining that the government is already meddling in the labor market by pursuing policies that put a downward pressure on wages.
Meh, if you've been reading my posts over the years you've certainly seen me complaining about that. And pretty strongly.
-
Citation
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/06/economist-explains-20
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/680867/Benefits-earned-Danish-government-plan-migrants-pay-before-receive-EU
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702071050418342-norwegians-minority-migration/
http://oecdinsights.org/2016/05/03/the-nordic-welfare-model-and-the-refugee-crisis-buffer-or-weakness/
-
Thanks (although leaving out Sputnik would probably have strengthened your case).
-
But where is the fairness in that? Why should government be in the business of redistributing wealth in the first place?
Yes, that's what it comes down to and that's a values argument not an economic one.
If you want government to get out of redistributing wealth, then you are probably ready for a libertarian society.
Of course, government puts a great deal of focus on doing things that help business too, so to be fair we should just stop enforcing patents, copyrights, helping out with private contracts....
Government sets up the rules of the economic game so that they help people, and yes that includes redistributing wealth, progressive taxation and so on. That system works.
-
I think it is pretty obvious the reason is they don't answer is they don't want to acknowledge the basic premise that raising minimum wages does cause harm and the only thing we can really discuss is if there are situations where the harm caused is small enough that we can raise it despite the harms.
Unfortunately, we can't get to a discussion about the evaluating the circumstances where a minimum wage hike is likely OK because the minimum wage advocates are too ideological to accept what should be an obvious point: "increasing minimum wages causes harm'.
If you use the term 'harm' you are taking a moral stance rather than talking about trade-offs costs/benefits etc.
You can say truthfully that pollution legislation causes economic harm, but there is a payoff also.
And ideological people say "this is bad but you can't measure the result to confirm that, so just accept that it is".
------
But - gasp - what will happen if the sky doesn't fall ? If the extra money goes back into spending instead of wherever the profits would go, ie. Brazil or a franchise owner's offshore account.
-
Yes, that's what it comes down to and that's a values argument not an economic one.
If you want government to get out of redistributing wealth, then you are probably ready for a libertarian society.
I am not wholy supportive of any ideology. Certain aspects of Libertarian thinking certainly appeal to me, but I do believe in a more humane government which works together for the greater good - within limits.
Of course, government puts a great deal of focus on doing things that help business too, so to be fair we should just stop enforcing patents, copyrights, helping out with private contracts....
Poor argument. Such things are necessary for the functioning of an economy and encouraging innovation and creativity. You would have done better to address all the government subsidies - most of which, in my opinion, should be cut.
Government sets up the rules of the economic game so that they help people, and yes that includes redistributing wealth, progressive taxation and so on. That system works.
As I pointed out in another argument, any virtue taken to extremes becomes a vice (Aristotle) and while I completely agree we do not want a society in which people are starving or freezing or dying of curable diseases due to poverty, I disagree that we need to take money from other people in order that they have cell phones, big screen TVs and and gameboys. Taxation is, after all, at heart, forced thievery, in a way. You are forcing people to give up money they worked hard for (in most cases), and I think giving it to others who didn't is fundamentally unjust.
-
You're simply wrong. The cost of employment is a major factor in everything. It's why so much manufacturing has been moved to Mexico or China or low wage states in the US. It's why call centres have moved to India. You can suggest the impact won't be high, but it doesn't have to be to impact jobs. There are over 18 million people employed in Canada. If employers cut back by one half of one percent that's still 90,000 jobs lost. Minimum wage rises of this level don't just impact those who make minimum wages. As I pointed out earlier all the people who used to make 3 bucks over minimum wage because they were more skilled are now going to have to have big pay increases. And so on up the ladder. If the kid behind the cashier was making 11.40 and their supervisor was making 14, well, you can't leave the supervisor at 14, now can you?
If you go through my comments above, I think you'll notice that most of the money the typical Canadian spends in a month is not impacted by minimum wage. Your rent doesn't change. Your medical costs, insurance costs, your transportation costs, your banking costs, your internet and phone and cable fees, your electricity bill. None of this stuff changes. Food, and to some degree clothing, will become more expensive. To a degree that might be rather modest in my estimation.
If your grocery bill goes up by a few percent, that's survivable. The people most impacted will be the ones getting a raise.
If your $2.50 drive-through coffee costs $2.75, who cares? A drive through coffee is a luxury, and if your luxuries become unaffordable you know what to do.
You may recall I expressed those exact sentiments about the need to bring in TFWs to work at fast food restaurants when that was under discussion. TFWs, and, for that matter, much of immigration, seems to be purpose designed by government to thwart the market and keep wages low for low skilled workers. I'm all for halting this and letting wages for shitty jobs rise as the supply of workers for those jobs falls. And if that means fewer fast food restaurants I'm okay with that.
I know you've said as much many times. You're pretty much the only conservative willing to say so, to the best of my knowledge. Whether it be politicians or pundits or message board commentators, I always see self-styled conservatives grumbling about governments meddling with wages, but never (aside from yourself) hear them complain about governments tilting the labor market in favor of employers.
But drastically increasing the minimum wage doesn't just impact fast food restaurants. It impacts virtually everything. And unlike the natural rise or fall of wages due to demand for those workers, this is entirely artificial and driven by political expediency.
If one level of government is tilting the labor market in favor of employers, why shouldn't another level of government try to counter the effect on behalf of its citizens? Ideally neither would be going on, of course. But wages for the working poor have been stagnant for ages while everything else becomes more expensive.
-k
-
A drive through coffee is a luxury
-k
It really says something when getting a coffee before work is considered a luxury by people.
-
If you go through my comments above, I think you'll notice that most of the money the typical Canadian spends in a month is not impacted by minimum wage. Your rent doesn't change. Your medical costs, insurance costs, your transportation costs, your banking costs, your internet and phone and cable fees, your electricity bill. None of this stuff changes. Food, and to some degree clothing, will become more expensive. To a degree that might be rather modest in my estimation.
By a normal minimum wage hike, you're largely right. This isn't normal. twenty percent is huge, and it will push all the wages up of those above them on the earnings scale. Your landlord has to pay people in the office, maintenance people, etc. Your insurance company has to pay clerks and janitors. Gas stations have to pay clerks, as do bus companies - though the latter being largely government controlled already pay much higher than normal wages. Banks will have to raise wages for clerks, tellers (average entry salary $14.38) and cleaners and security, and all those other companies like internet and cable also have a sizable number of low earning workers - those whose jobs haven't been shipped to India. Every company which sells you stuff also buys stuff, a lot of it, for its daily operations, and that stuff will become more expensive to buy because it will become more expensive to produce, ship and stock. We're not talking huge increases but like I said, a tiny percentage makes a big difference on a macro scale.
If one level of government is tilting the labor market in favor of employers, why shouldn't another level of government try to counter the effect on behalf of its citizens? Ideally neither would be going on, of course. But wages for the working poor have been stagnant for ages while everything else becomes more expensive.
As you say, ideally neither should be doing it. This institutionalizes an unnaturally high wage, though, because it will be impossible for a future government to lower it, despite what happens economically, and will resort in more jobs going offshore to lower wage countries. It's also a big gamble, given taxes on businesses are falling down south while we keep finding ways to make business less profitable up here. I expect manufacturing to take a major hit from this in Ontario, as it's just one more thing on the scale, along with high energy prices, the new carbon tax scheme, and a horrible anti-business regulatory environment. The oil industry is booming down south - but not in Canada, because we can't find a way to get the oil out of the country.
You can take the position that one stupid government policy will help offset another level of government's stupid policy, and you're partially correct, but I certainly can't see myself failing to oppose stupid government policies regardless.
-
I am not wholy supportive of any ideology. Certain aspects of Libertarian thinking certainly appeal to me, but I do believe in a more humane government which works together for the greater good - within limits.
Ok.
Poor argument. Such things are necessary for the functioning of an economy and encouraging innovation and creativity. You would have done better to address all the government subsidies - most of which, in my opinion, should be cut.
Why can't companies pay to enforce their own copyrights and laws ? Why do I have to pay for a cyber crimes unit ?
As I pointed out in another argument, any virtue taken to extremes becomes a vice (Aristotle) and while I completely agree we do not want a society in which people are starving or freezing or dying of curable diseases due to poverty, I disagree that we need to take money from other people in order that they have cell phones, big screen TVs and and gameboys. Taxation is, after all, at heart, forced thievery, in a way. You are forcing people to give up money they worked hard for (in most cases), and I think giving it to others who didn't is fundamentally unjust.
Ok, well we might be [scarily] closer in ideology than I suspected. 'Cell phones' 'Big screen TVs' and 'Gameboys' are barely luxuries anymore. Smartphones are almost a necessity. Big screen TVs cost about 1/5 of a months rent these days, and I think Gameboys are from the 90s so you can get them at Goodwill.
Your fatal flaw is you want the system to reward virtue and it won't due that. It will reward merit and ability, and it will prevent the dumbest and hapless from falling into complete ruin... for the most part.
-
Why can't companies pay to enforce their own copyrights and laws ? Why do I have to pay for a cyber crimes unit ?
Can't say I really care. Whatever we pay for it, likely to encourage smaller companies to start up here (the big ones can take care of themselves) is vastly eclipsed by what we pay in corporate welfare.
Ok, well we might be [scarily] closer in ideology than I suspected. 'Cell phones' 'Big screen TVs' and 'Gameboys' are barely luxuries anymore. Smartphones are almost a necessity. Big screen TVs cost about 1/5 of a months rent these days, and I think Gameboys are from the 90s so you can get them at Goodwill.
You understand the point. This raise is not because the government made any sort of case that people were starving and homeless, but just so they could have a better lifestyle. But to get that better lifestyle they have to take if off other people, making their lifestyle worse. I don't see the fairness in that. If people want a better lifestyle let them work to get it. I would certainly not be opposed to the government making it easier for people to take courses that improve their skillset/marketability.
Your fatal flaw is you want the system to reward virtue and it won't due that. It will reward merit and ability, and it will prevent the dumbest and hapless from falling into complete ruin... for the most part.
The system does reward virtue to a certain extent, if by 'virtue' you mean working harder to get ahead, taking courses, increasing your skillset. It also rewards merit and ability. But it also rewards mediocrity and does its best to cushion failure and make it easier to just do what you've been doing, whether that's being a cashier at Walmart or a barrista at Time Hortons. And it shouldn't.
This raise is also Toronto-centric. It will produce an income of about $2250 a month before taxes for someone making minimum wage. That's a pretty decent salary in rural areas away from the big cities where rents are really low. It means a couple of barristas living together have about $4000 per month to get by on. I don't think that'll be very hard.
-
Can't say I really care.
You care about the government and the economy though. You asked why the government should be involved in wealth distribution ? The answer is somewhere between "it works" and "we like it". We could easily have the government run the economic game so that a few people at the very top do very well, but that type of country doesn't have the same economic essence that we have had.
You understand the point. This raise is not because the government made any sort of case that people were starving and homeless, but just so they could have a better lifestyle. But to get that better lifestyle they have to take if off other people, making their lifestyle worse. I don't see the fairness in that. If people want a better lifestyle let them work to get it. I would certainly not be opposed to the government making it easier for people to take courses that improve their skillset/marketability.
Hmmm.... how you frame this question is everything. These people are at the lowest point in the economic ladder so 'better lifestyle' sounds pejorative. Maybe that means being able to save some money for retirement ? Maybe it means being able to afford to move if you're evicted after living in rent control for 10 years ?
Not even the class war people are complaining about the franchise owners getting their profits for a 'better lifestyle'. As I have stated they are not as likely to be spending those profits in the local economy, and a good portion are going off to Brazil. Probably better for both sides of the argument to just talk about money and not the implicit morality of how each side would spend the money.
The system does reward virtue to a certain extent, if by 'virtue' you mean working harder to get ahead, taking courses, increasing your skillset. It also rewards merit and ability. But it also rewards mediocrity and does its best to cushion failure and make it easier to just do what you've been doing, whether that's being a cashier at Walmart or a barrista at Time Hortons. And it shouldn't.
Sure, but as time goes on it becomes much more difficult to make a decent living without some kind of connection or special skill. As such, it requires more virtue to just get by for a lot of good people. People who make minimum wage still work, at least.
This raise is also Toronto-centric. It will produce an income of about $2250 a month before taxes for someone making minimum wage. That's a pretty decent salary in rural areas away from the big cities where rents are really low. It means a couple of barristas living together have about $4000 per month to get by on. I don't think that'll be very hard.
Baristas in many cases will get tips too, so you're looking at even more. I agree that this is Toronto-centric and that the big pinãta has to burst, when places 1 hour away cost 1/2 as much to live.
I have an idea to start a work-from home business that will pay people $20/hr to help with software development. If you live in Elliot Lake and have high speed access you can take a job away from a Toronto person who makes $35/hr or more. Ask me how !
-
You care about the government and the economy though. You asked why the government should be involved in wealth distribution ? The answer is somewhere between "it works" and "we like it".
Who says it works? It works for the ones who get the money and against those who give up their money. It also works to discourage innovation and self-responsibility.
Hmmm.... how you frame this question is everything. These people are at the lowest point in the economic ladder so 'better lifestyle' sounds pejorative.
Well SOMEONE has to be at the lowest point in the economic ladder. And these, for the most part, are kids and those who deserve to be there due to bad choices they've made or just being **** by the fickle finger of fate. Again, I'm all for helping them improve their skillset. I'm not for just giving them more of my money so I'm poorer and they're richer.
Not even the class war people are complaining about the franchise owners getting their profits for a 'better lifestyle'. As I have stated they are not as likely to be spending those profits in the local economy, and a good portion are going off to Brazil.
There's little evidence of this. Where does it come from anyway? Brazil is where the corporation that owns Tim Hortons comes from but they skim off the top of sales, without regard to profits. The owners live in Canada. I used my substantial income to buy a car a couple of months ago, and a new house a couple of years ago, and a condo for my brother a year before that. I buy lots of things with it. I don't send any money to Brazil.
Sure, but as time goes on it becomes much more difficult to make a decent living without some kind of connection or special skill.
Well not any more. The new minimum wage is enough for a single person to afford a decent apartment and to pay for his car and to have all the usual middle class stuff now, while still doing a lot of partying and playing video games and not worrying about the future,.
I have an idea to start a work-from home business that will pay people $20/hr to help with software development. If you live in Elliot Lake and have high speed access you can take a job away from a Toronto person who makes $35/hr or more. Ask me how !
Ask me how you think you're going to get talented software developers for $20hr when the barrista at Timmy's is getting $15 + tips.
-
Who says it works? It works for the ones who get the money and against those who give up their money. It also works to discourage innovation and self-responsibility.
Who says the economy works ? I guess the 90+% of voters who continually go to the polls and vote for a similar flavour of neo-liberal economic parties ?
I mean - do you see Marxism, or flat taxes, or libertarianism coming up.... ever ?
Well SOMEONE has to be at the lowest point in the economic ladder.
Right. But my point is your continuous spiking of economic discussions with morality - in this case by saying more money to the poorest earners funds 'lifestyle improvements' rather than necessities.
And these, for the most part, are kids and those who deserve to be there due to bad choices they've made or just being **** by the fickle finger of fate. Again, I'm all for helping them improve their skillset. I'm not for just giving them more of my money so I'm poorer and they're richer.
Oh, Christ. "Deserve"... here we go again. So people who win the lottery 'deserve' it, as well as those f***d by fate as you say.
It is to laugh...
There's little evidence of this. Where does it come from anyway? Brazil is where the corporation that owns Tim Hortons comes from but they skim off the top of sales, without regard to profits. The owners live in Canada. I used my substantial income to buy a car a couple of months ago, and a new house a couple of years ago, and a condo for my brother a year before that. I buy lots of things with it. I don't send any money to Brazil.
How did you enter into it ? I don't see what you have to do with anything. Corporate money and money for people who have millions does not go back into the economy at the same rate that it does for low income earners.
How much money does Brazil get if a minimum wage earner gets a raise? I retract 'a good portion' as I don't know the numbers but it still means less.
Well not any more. The new minimum wage is enough for a single person to afford a decent apartment and to pay for his car and to have all the usual middle class stuff now, while still doing a lot of partying and playing video games and not worrying about the future,.
In Toronto ?
Also - they can save for their future now. Isn't that a big complaint, that the growing class of minimum wage earners gets things paid for them by corporations and higher earners ? You can set up your economy to decide how many people will earn what... economic policy...
Ask me how you think you're going to get talented software developers for $20hr when the barrista at Timmy's is getting $15 + tips.
You will not get 'talented software developers' for $20/hr. Only naive simpletons who don't know their worth will take that.
-
Who says the economy works ? I guess the 90+% of voters who continually go to the polls and vote for a similar flavour of neo-liberal economic parties ?
I think you somewhat overestimate how many liberal voters there are. Remember the point I've been making for some time. The lower 50% of voters are responsible for paying just 4% of taxes. That figure came from a few years back. It's likely lower now. If you're not paying taxes. If instead, someone else has to pay them for you, so you can get all these neat government services, are you gonna complain about that? Not very likely! You'll continue thinking this is great and vote for parties that offer even more goodies. Which is what happened last election. So with 50% of the vote guaranteed to go to liberal wealth-redistribution parties how many more votes do they need to get from actual taxpayers to win? Given a sizeable chunk of those actual taxpayers are unionized public servants, they'll probably get most of those votes simply because public servants know who butters their bread.
I mean - do you see Marxism, or flat taxes, or libertarianism coming up.... ever ?
I think by now most people outside of university campuses realize that Marxism is just going to make everyone poor. And flat taxes and libertarianism is not going to reward the people above I just mentioned.
Right. But my point is your continuous spiking of economic discussions with morality - in this case by saying more money to the poorest earners funds 'lifestyle improvements' rather than necessities.
Does reality offend you? I don't consider a better cable package, a nicer apartment and a bigger TV to be necessities.
Oh, Christ. "Deserve"... here we go again. So people who win the lottery 'deserve' it, as well as those f***d by fate as you say.
In a capitalist system you are rewarded for working hard, for improving yourself so that you are worth more as an employee. The corollary is you aren't rewarded for being lazy and not trying. And once again this seems to outrage you for some reason. I'm not imputing a morality to 'deserve' but simple reality.
How did you enter into it ? I don't see what you have to do with anything. Corporate money and money for people who have millions does not go back into the economy at the same rate that it does for low income earners.
The people who will fund this increase are not corporate billionaires. You are. I am. Everyone who buys coffee, groceries, gets their hair cut, goes to the dry cleaner or a movie or the dollar store or the bank. We're going to fund it. The corporate billionaires will be fine.
Also - they can save for their future now. Isn't that a big complaint, that the growing class of minimum wage earners gets things paid for them by corporations and higher earners ?
But their savings come at the expense of your savings, and mine and my sisters and the guy up the street. It's making the lives of poorer people better at the expense of less poor people because the less poor people, well, they have more money so we have to take some away and give it to these people who have less. And whether you admit it or not the underlying motive for most of those who support it is 100% based on their sense of morality and fairness. Some of them just try to make up economic justifications for their moral decision.
You will not get 'talented software developers' for $20/hr. Only naive simpletons who don't know their worth will take that.
Or illegals, or perhaps TFWs. $20hr is a huge sum for a third world resident. $15hr is not a huge sum for a Canadian, but if you lack much ambition and you're lazy, well hey, you can live fine on that, even in most cities.
-
I think you somewhat overestimate how many liberal voters there are.
I'm talking about the basic economic system that is supported by all 3 major parties here.
Remember the point I've been making for some time. The lower 50% of voters are responsible for paying just 4% of taxes. That figure came from a few years back. It's likely lower now. If you're not paying taxes. If instead, someone else has to pay them for you, so you can get all these neat government services, are you gonna complain about that? Not very likely!
Actually, you just *might* because the other side of it is that you make the lowest wage they can legally pay you. When is the last time you heard this exchange:
Poor Sop #1: I wish I be makin' a MILLION dollars a year !
Poor Sop #2: Whoa, boyo - you'd be payin' half of that to the government don't ya know !
Poor Sop #3: Yeah, you'se right. I'm glad to be makin $30K per year because I get my quality healthcare paid for.
You'll continue thinking this is great and vote for parties that offer even more goodies.
All parties support wealth distribution, and if you read MY opinion on this I never said it was 'great'. I am cautious about this and have deemed it an experiment, that's all.
Does reality offend you?
Sorry I think you have confused yourself with a Turkish girl just there.... Morality and Science (or in this case economics) are different things, with different languages and methods of assessment
It's extra income. You casting aspersions on what it's spent on is useless moralizing. I doubt they can afford to spend the cash on coke and hookers as the rich capitalist is but that's not a basis for discussion of the economic merits.
In a capitalist system you are rewarded for working hard, for improving yourself so that you are worth more as an employee. The corollary is you aren't rewarded for being lazy and not trying. And once again this seems to outrage you for some reason. I'm not imputing a morality to 'deserve' but simple reality.
Outrage ? Hardly. I just think that a moral argument makes no sense. Rewarding merit and work is what makes the system work, and what makes pure socialism fail - however you can argue for the system without using words like 'deserve'.
The people who will fund this increase are not corporate billionaires. You are. I am. Everyone who buys coffee, groceries, gets their hair cut, goes to the dry cleaner or a movie or the dollar store or the bank. We're going to fund it. The corporate billionaires will be fine.
They will be fine but less fine than if this hadn't happened. The consortium will take a hit, if the owners do. But it doesn't matter to me anyway. If it works overall, then it works.
Or illegals, or perhaps TFWs. $20hr is a huge sum for a third world resident. $15hr is not a huge sum for a Canadian, but if you lack much ambition and you're lazy, well hey, you can live fine on that, even in most cities.
Yeah, I can't get behind the disparaging of people. You pulled yourself up from a low wage and so your point of view is completely understandable. I made a low wage while in high school, and immediately started making decent money in computer by the time I was 19 so I have a different outlook. Sorry.
-
I'm talking about the basic economic system that is supported by all 3 major parties here.
Yeah, but the question is just how much income redistribution. How much is justified?
Actually, you just *might* because the other side of it is that you make the lowest wage they can legally pay you. When is the last time you heard this exchange:
Poor Sop #1: I wish I be makin' a MILLION dollars a year !
Poor Sop #2: Whoa, boyo - you'd be payin' half of that to the government don't ya know !
Poor Sop #3: Yeah, you'se right. I'm glad to be makin $30K per year because I get my quality healthcare paid for.
You miss the point.
I'm not saying people are glad they only make $20k-$30k. I'm saying that if they have a choice about voting for a party which is going to redistribute someone else's income to them, or one which says no, we ain't gonna do that so much, they'll choose the first party. Why not? It's human nature.
Sorry I think you have confused yourself with a Turkish girl just there.... Morality and Science (or in this case economics) are different things, with different languages and methods of assessment
This program has zip to do with economics. It is a political project designed to get votes for the Liberal government. And the people who don't benefit yet support it aren't doing so for economic reasons but for moral reasons. "Oh, those poor people deserve a 'living wage'! And those filthy rich bastards have too much money anyway!
Anyway, no skin off my nose. I mean, I won't be paying it, heh heh."
It's extra income. You casting aspersions on what it's spent on is useless moralizing.
You can't, as much as you want to, divorce the moral aspects of this. This is done for political reasons and supported for moral reasons. I'm not casting aspersions or moralizing. I'm pointing out that redistributing money for the purpose of ensuring no one starves or freezes to death in the dark is different from redistributing income as part of a Marxist income redistribution program.
Which is what this is.
Yeah, I can't get behind the disparaging of people.
Yeah, well I have never had a problem judging people, good or bad. I know how easy it is to just go along as you've been going along, and doing a crappy job for years just because, well, it's what you know, and it's become what you're comfortable in, as long as it pays enough to continue your present lifestyle. And it's easy to say ah, no one will hire me anyway or what's the point in trying to upgrade my skills or apply for that job. I've seen it many, many, many times. And when you got that crummy job in the first place (we're not talking about kids) largely because you didn't finish high school, because you don't have a hell of a lot of get-up-and-go, well, you ain't going nowhere fast without a lot of incentive.
You think this provides any incentive? I think it provides a disincentive.
-
Yeah, but the question is just how much income redistribution. How much is justified?
Yep. Agreed. And this is admittedly pretty extreme - almost an NDP action. So even though I am trying to focus on the economic numbers and macro flows, there is a clear (and many, even on the left, would say cynical) political motive.
You miss the point.
I'm not saying people are glad they only make $20k-$30k. I'm saying that if they have a choice about voting for a party which is going to redistribute someone else's income to them, or one which says no, we ain't gonna do that so much, they'll choose the first party. Why not? It's human nature.
Except.... they don't. Look south of the border and explain to me how poor whites vote for a party that cuts healthcare, and enforces right-to-work laws. This wasn't the case in the mid-20th century either.
This program has zip to do with economics. It is a political project designed to get votes for the Liberal government. And the people who don't benefit yet support it aren't doing so for economic reasons but for moral reasons. "Oh, those poor people deserve a 'living wage'! And those filthy rich bastards have too much money anyway!
Can't disagree there, but everything you are saying is obvious. I find the economic numbers angle interesting, if there's anything to be said there. But - interestingly - there doesn't seem to be much more for us to say after all.
Anyway, no skin off my nose. I mean, I won't be paying it, heh heh."
You have, I think, brought yourself up from lower wage into higher one. People like me, born into the upper middle class, and living in it their entire careers see tax-paying as the cost of good citizenship. Neither view is right or wrong, nor moral, nor immoral. I have been in the highest tax bracket since I was in my mid-twenties I think.
You can't, as much as you want to, divorce the moral aspects of this. This is done for political reasons and supported for moral reasons. I'm not casting aspersions or moralizing. I'm pointing out that redistributing money for the purpose of ensuring no one starves or freezes to death in the dark is different from redistributing income as part of a Marxist income redistribution program.
Fine. Have your morals, but don't try to get me to buy into them. I was brought up as a very liberal Christian, and that's in my DNA. The system works because two alternating moral systems create positive tension to make it work: charity on the one side, hard work on the other.
I am just saying that there is no point in people discussing morality and trying to shame others on here. It's like liberals screaming racism at conservatives for policies they rightly see as racist. Whatever the point may be, it won't go anywhere.
Yeah, well I have never had a problem judging people, good or bad. I know how easy it is to just go along as you've been going along, and doing a crappy job for years just because, well, it's what you know, and it's become what you're comfortable in, as long as it pays enough to continue your present lifestyle. And it's easy to say ah, no one will hire me anyway or what's the point in trying to upgrade my skills or apply for that job. I've seen it many, many, many times. And when you got that crummy job in the first place (we're not talking about kids) largely because you didn't finish high school, because you don't have a hell of a lot of get-up-and-go, well, you ain't going nowhere fast without a lot of incentive.
You think this provides any incentive? I think it provides a disincentive.
The minimum wage isn't an incentive.
You don't have a problem judging people, but you don't like people calling you racist for your position on immigration policies right ? That's the problem: there is nothing to be discussed if you're going to cast moral aspersions on things where there is a subjective element. I don't know how to put it clearly, but I hope you know what I mean.
Discussion about morality goes nowhere.
-
Except.... they don't. Look south of the border and explain to me how poor whites vote for a party that cuts healthcare, and enforces right-to-work laws. This wasn't the case in the mid-20th century either.
The people down south are simply taken in by masses of advertising and PR work done by unrestrained money. And admittedly by the fact that the Democrats are so easy to dislike if you're not a progressive committed to identity politics. Look at how the big money has convinced people that government health care is a socialist plot which will mean they'll wait in line for hours and hours for anything, and be allowed to die if some government bureaucrat says so.
Can't disagree there, but everything you are saying is obvious. I find the economic numbers angle interesting, if there's anything to be said there. But - interestingly - there doesn't seem to be much more for us to say after all.
Because you seem to be convinced this will take money away from corporate billionaires. I am convinced it won't cost them a dime. It will take money away from mostly middle class consumers of services. Most of the small businesses involved have already raised prices and cut back hours.
You have, I think, brought yourself up from lower wage into higher one. People like me, born into the upper middle class, and living in it their entire careers see tax-paying as the cost of good citizenship. Neither view is right or wrong, nor moral, nor immoral. I have been in the highest tax bracket since I was in my mid-twenties I think.
It is admittedly a different mindset when you've never had to worry about money. When you look at university, for example, and see who takes the 'soft' courses in things like womens studies, journalism, political science, psychology and the like, that's not people who came from where I came from. That's people who came from where you came from. People who come from where I came from take courses which have a more certain economic payoff. Business, software engineering, etc. So maybe since you'e never had to worry about money you don't really care much that this will take money from you and give it to someone else. I, on the other hand, despite a seven figure investment portfolio and a top end income (which could trail off at any time without warning) worry about my future. Like the proverbial squirrel, I stock away food for the winter.
Fine. Have your morals, but don't try to get me to buy into them.
To me, the arguments in favour of this are almost entirely driven by morals, and yet you keep accusing me of infusing my position with morality.
I am just saying that there is no point in people discussing morality and trying to shame others on here. It's like liberals screaming racism at conservatives for policies they rightly see as racist. Whatever the point may be, it won't go anywhere.
And again, virtually ALL of the arguments in favour of this move have been moral, and all of the condemnation of those who disagree have been moral shaming. So I frankly find your position laughable.
The minimum wage isn't an incentive.
Nope. It's a disincentive. And the bigger it is the more of a disincentive it is.
You don't have a problem judging people, but you don't like people calling you racist for your position on immigration policies right ?
I see. So your position is that if I judge others poorly, for, say, wanting to execute any woman who doesn't wear a niquab, then I have to accept that all judgement are equally valid? It's all or nothing?
That's the problem: there is nothing to be discussed if you're going to cast moral aspersions on things where there is a subjective element. I don't know how to put it clearly, but I hope you know what I mean.
Discussion about morality goes nowhere.
And yet, that is all you seem to want to talk about. My position on this issue has never been about morality. I don't know if you're trying to troll here or what.
-
It is admittedly a different mindset when you've never had to worry about money. When you look at university, for example, and see who takes the 'soft' courses in things like womens studies, journalism, political science, psychology and the like, that's not people who came from where I came from. That's people who came from where you came from.
Bosh. You are constructing some kind of moralistic axiom between being lazy and taking arts courses at university. I got into the most difficult computer program in the country. My cohorts went into business schools, science and pre-law (which is also arts)
People who come from where I came from take courses which have a more certain economic payoff. Business, software engineering, etc. So maybe since you'e never had to worry about money you don't really care much that this will take money from you and give it to someone else.
This legislation will have almost no impact on me, but that doesn't mean I don't care.
To me, the arguments in favour of this are almost entirely driven by morals, and yet you keep accusing me of infusing my position with morality.
Yes, because economic decisions are made with a view of macro impacts not of punishing or rewarding people.
And again, virtually ALL of the arguments in favour of this move have been moral, and all of the condemnation of those who disagree have been moral shaming. So I frankly find your position laughable.
Well, you are laughing at me for moral positions that I have not taken. That's confusing, and likely related to how you group people in your mind. Not my problem.
I see. So your position is that if I judge others poorly, for, say, wanting to execute any woman who doesn't wear a niquab, then I have to accept that all judgement are equally valid? It's all or nothing?
How is that a discussion of economics ?
-
Bosh. You are constructing some kind of moralistic axiom between being lazy and taking arts courses at university. I got into the most difficult computer program in the country. My cohorts went into business schools, science and pre-law (which is also arts)
You are again resorting to moral arguments. You need to stop that since your morality really should not be the focus of discussion.
You are also being utterly illogical by pretending that socioeconomic upbringing does not impact course selection. You recently posted a paper showing how universities have become basically job factories whereby young people go to get their papers stamped so they can make more money. Are you going to try to pretend that people raised without any economic cares are not going to be more prone to taking courses without as much regard to likely economic payoff?
This legislation will have almost no impact on me, but that doesn't mean I don't care.
That's just arrogance. It will have almost no impact on me either. Both of us make lots of money. It WILL have a negative impact on lower economic earners, however, who will find things getting more expensive. This will transfer money from them to minimum wage earners, just as it transfers it from you and me. But we have a sufficiently high income we'll barely notice.
Yes, because economic decisions are made with a view of macro impacts not of punishing or rewarding people.
Which economic decision? This raise is not based on economics and you know it.
Well, you are laughing at me for moral positions that I have not taken.
Ditto.
How is that a discussion of economics ?
You brought it up. You tell me.
-
You are again resorting to moral arguments. You need to stop that since your morality really should not be the focus of discussion.
You are also being utterly illogical by pretending that socioeconomic upbringing does not impact course selection. You recently posted a paper showing how universities have become basically job factories whereby young people go to get their papers stamped so they can make more money. Are you going to try to pretend that people raised without any economic cares are not going to be more prone to taking courses without as much regard to likely economic payoff?
You are the one who tried to say that people who "don't worry about money" take soft courses, ie. they want some kind of easy ticket.
Yes, the universities are seen as a ticket to middle-class life but that is not how things will turn out for these people. And the assessment of why people go to university/college doesn't cast aspersions on their course choices, how much they work and so on. Those are your assumptions. If I am wrong then ok, let's move on.
That's just arrogance. It will have almost no impact on me either. Both of us make lots of money. It WILL have a negative impact on lower economic earners, however, who will find things getting more expensive. This will transfer money from them to minimum wage earners, just as it transfers it from you and me. But we have a sufficiently high income we'll barely notice.
Arrogance ? It sounds like you and I are in the same boat and have the same take on it, so....
Which economic decision? This raise is not based on economics and you know it.
Ok, we are talking past each other.
Yes, I concur that this is being submitted for political reasons, cloaked in a high moral cause. I don't think there is much point in us discussing that angle in depth other than tagging it as being done for political reasons cloaked in high moral cause.
Also I want to point out that the best argument against such changes, politically, is to say that they will not work.
-
You are the one who tried to say that people who "don't worry about money" take soft courses, ie. they want some kind of easy ticket.
No, my point was that if you grow up never worrying about money you tend to presume money will always be there and worrying about it is not part of your mindset. Thus when you look to a career there is more of a tendency to go for what you like and are interested in without really worrying too much about the money. If you grow up poor then financial insecurity is part of who you are and your course selection will be much more affected by that.
Arrogance ? It sounds like you and I are in the same boat and have the same take on it, so....
Yes, but your attitude seems to be that since it won't cause you any notice it's not really a problem, and good on those poor fellows for making more now. My attitude is that I feel an injustice is being done to those people who worked hard to get where they are, even if that's not nearly where I am, and a noticeable amount of money is going to be siphoned away by this scheme. In addition to being unjust it's also bad economic theory.
Yes, I concur that this is being submitted for political reasons, cloaked in a high moral cause. I don't think there is much point in us discussing that angle in depth other than tagging it as being done for political reasons cloaked in high moral cause.
Also I want to point out that the best argument against such changes, politically, is to say that they will not work.
I've already pointed out that the beneficiaries (along with everyone else) will now face higher prices which will take much of that increase away. However as politics, I believe it WILL work. The poor and those who are related to them will be quite happy at the 'generosity' of the Wynne government, and a lot of mushy minded people will also feel, without putting much thought into it, that this is right because people "deserve a living wage".
-
No, my point was that if you grow up never worrying about money you tend to presume money will always be there and worrying about it is not part of your mindset. Thus when you look to a career there is more of a tendency to go for what you like and are interested in without really worrying too much about the money. If you grow up poor then financial insecurity is part of who you are and your course selection will be much more affected by that.
I don't think there is any basis for your guess on that. Everybody I knew wanted to get a well-paying career.
You have disdain for women's studies, and that seems to be where this is coming from.
Yes, but your attitude seems to be that since it won't cause you any notice it's not really a problem, and good on those poor fellows for making more now.
You are pre-disposed to make your own opinion into what my attitude is. Here is my EXACT quote from above:
"This legislation will have almost no impact on me, but that doesn't mean I don't care."
My attitude is that I feel an injustice is being done to those people who worked hard to get where they are, even if that's not nearly where I am, and a noticeable amount of money is going to be siphoned away by this scheme. In addition to being unjust it's also bad economic theory.
Yes, I am not denying you a moral position but I don't see the point of trying to discuss morality if people just feel differently about it. I want to hear about the economic theory part.
I've already pointed out that the beneficiaries (along with everyone else) will now face higher prices which will take much of that increase away. However as politics, I believe it WILL work. The poor and those who are related to them will be quite happy at the 'generosity' of the Wynne government, and a lot of mushy minded people will also feel, without putting much thought into it, that this is right because people "deserve a living wage".
"take much of that increase away" ? They are getting a 20% increase ! You expect >10% inflation ? Wow.
If it doesn't crash the economy, and more people benefit then we will be seeing much, much more of this kind of thing.
-
"take much of that increase away" ? They are getting a 20% increase ! You expect >10% inflation ? Wow.
If it doesn't crash the economy, and more people benefit then we will be seeing much, much more of this kind of thing.
Some will disappear in the form of higher prices. Some will disappear in fewer hours, and fewer jobs (on a macro scale) and in employers doing a lot more third party, temp hiring and outsourcing so they don't have to pay any benefits at all. This will help push up inflation. The Liberals' carbon tax will push it up more. Combined, it will make foreign manufactured goods cheaper by comparison, which will cost still more jobs.
-
Some will disappear in the form of higher prices. Some will disappear in fewer hours, and fewer jobs (on a macro scale) and in employers doing a lot more third party, temp hiring and outsourcing so they don't have to pay any benefits at all.
Ok, that makes more sense and I am inclined to believe it too.
-
Mind you, in the previous 8 years the minimum wage had gone up a grand total of $1.15 so maybe some catch up was due.
-
Seems like they were keeping up with inflation at that rate.
-
Mind you, in the previous 8 years the minimum wage had gone up a grand total of $1.15 so maybe some catch up was due.
BOC inflation since 2007: 17.35% so a 'catch up' raise would be $1.70 or another $0.55 over what they already got. No one would have complained if that was the increase (other than the normal grumbling from the usual quarters). The problem is the increase far outstrips inflation and the government naively thinks this will have no impact on jobs or wages for the people affected.
-
The problem is the increase far outstrips inflation and the government naively thinks this will have no impact on jobs or wages for the people affected.
Strange that you call this belief 'naive' but also decline to weigh in on being able to quantify the impacts.
-
Strange that you call this belief 'naive' but also decline to weigh in on being able to quantify the impacts.
You can't measure "what would have been" but that does not mean basic economic theory is wrong. As I said before: basic economic theory is well understood and has been shown to be right in many circumstances. If minimum wage advocates want to argue that basic economic theory does not apply they need to provide compelling evidence. Simply being unable to measure any effect in a complex economy with multiple confounding factors is not compelling evidence. Minimum wage advocates are a lot like creationists rejecting evolution. As with evolution we have a sound theory which is not perfect but reliable enough. Like creationists, minimum wage advocates argue the theory does not apply because it can't be proven to be be correct in all situations. This is unreasonable.
-
You can't measure "what would have been" but that does not mean basic economic theory is wrong. As I said before: basic economic theory is well understood and has been shown to be right in many circumstances. If minimum wage advocates want to argue that basic economic theory does not apply they need to provide compelling evidence.
Right, but there is some room for disagreement even between economists.
Are you saying that economists think the minimum wage is a bad idea, in consensus ?
-
Right, but there is some room for disagreement even between economists. Are you saying that economists think the minimum wage is a bad idea, in consensus?
The weight of the evidence is on the side of minimum wages having adverse impacts.
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.
The media and a small number left wing advocate economists have given us a false picture of the state of the literature.
-
I have never thought about it, so I will have a look.
-
Don't forget, though, that even if you and I see advantages in removing minimum wages, installing trade deals, and flat taxes....it is still a political economy.
-
Seems like they were keeping up with inflation at that rate.
Not really because for five of those years there was no increase.
-
Not really because for five of those years there was no increase.
Overall it comes out to .15 per year which is pretty close to inflation.
-
Overall it comes out to .15 per year which is pretty close to inflation.
WTF? I did the math with the BOC calculator above. Didn't you read it?
Inflation over a 10 year period is ~$1.39 from a base of $8.
The rate PRIOR to the increase already was greater than inflation!
An increase to $15 is 5x what be expected given inflation alone.
Can we please dispense with this nonsense? The increase cannot be justified as 'inflation adjustments'.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-minimum-wage-to-rise-to-10-25-1.902092
-
I think we had a miscommunication.
I was referring to wilbur's question of raises prior to this year, not the large increase we're discussing currently. He seems to think previous changes didn't keep up with inflation while I submitted that they pretty much did.
-
Tim is still running wth these outright lies about the affect of minimum wage.
I’m sure all of these economists with PhDs from the Canadian Economics Association know what the “weight of the evidence” is. They all argue for the min wage increase and say it’s negative effects are minimal compared to the benefits.
https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/gindart/2017-07-04%20-%20Minimum%20wage%20hike%20won.pdf
It takes 30 seconds of searching to see that the doom and gloom coming from big business cheerleaders like Tim has not come to pass anywhere that has already experienced these increases. More money for the lowest wage employees means more consumer spending which encourages job growth. That’s been the pattern. It’s literally the opposite of the hysterical fears of the anti-labour propagandists like Tim.
-
Yesterday I noticed the Tim Hortons near me raised prices slightly on some muffins and donuts.
-
Yesterday I noticed the Tim Hortons near me raised prices slightly on some muffins and donuts.
As they've done every 6 months for last 8 years.
-
Overall it comes out to .15 per year which is pretty close to inflation.
A raise every five years isn’t keeping up with inflation, it’s catching up to inflation. Big difference.
-
A raise every five years isn’t keeping up with inflation, it’s catching up to inflation. Big difference.
They have been getting minimum wage increases faster than inflation for the last 10 years. If there is a gap that is so inflation can catch up to the wage gains.
-
Does someone need a primer on compound interest?
-
Does someone need a primer on compound interest?
I used the BOC inflation calculator. Are you saying the BOC can't calculate inflation properly?
-
Tim is still running wth these outright lies about the affect of minimum wage.
Quoting the opinion of a economic at the University of California is not a lie. I even quoted the part where he explains why the the studies showing no effect are not that credible.
I’m sure all of these economists with PhDs from the Canadian Economics Association know what the “weight of the evidence” is. They all argue for the min wage increase and say it’s negative effects are minimal compared to the benefits.
Then why not raise it $100/hour? Oh right. Because that would be bad. The trouble with these assertions are made based on relatively modest increases in the past - not the absurd increase being pushed though now. Any economist who quickly declares that such an unprecedented increase will have minimal negative effects is basing their claim on ideology - not data.
More money for the lowest wage employees means more consumer spending which encourages job growth.
Assertions which are obviously nonsense. Any economist who makes such a claim must believe in perpetual motion machines because the idea that increasing wages can lead to more job growth in a global economy where goods and services can be imported from lower wage regions is simply absurd.
-
I used the BOC inflation calculator. Are you saying the BOC can't calculate inflation properly?
I'm saying you don't seem to understand the difference in total income between someone who receives yearly 1.5% increases and someone who receives no increases for four years and then a 5% increase in the fifth year.
-
Quoting the opinion of a economic at the University of California is not a lie.
A economist at a university in California, versus a letter from 40 economists, two of whom were presidents of the economics association here in Canada, who say literally the weight of the evidence is exactly the opposite as you're claiming.
-
More money for the lowest wage employees means more consumer spending which encourages job growth. That’s been the pattern. It’s literally the opposite of the hysterical fears of the anti-labour propagandists like Tim.
This is not a minimum wage hike so can't be compared to any other minimum wage hikes. This is a wholesale income readjustment done for political reasons. And as I've already said this isn't a case of money being taken from the rich and given to the poor. It's money being taken from the poor, lower middle class, and middle class, and a bit from the rich, to give to the poor. That money coming from ordinary people, for the most part, was already in the economy, being spent on car payments and mortgages and dental work for the kids. It's not new money.
-
I'm saying you don't seem to understand the difference in total income between someone who receives yearly 1.5% increases and someone who receives no increases for four years and then a 5% increase in the fifth year.
I am saying that after 5 years of 1.5% inflation the wage that one would expect to receive based on inflation is 7.7%. That should be the end of the calculation need to do a sanity check on the current raises. Now you seem to think that people should get more than inflation to "compensate" wages lost in the past but you can't calculate any such number unless you set other parameters such as period of time which the catch up should occur. i.e. 5 years from now they should have made the same as if they had gotten 1.5% per for 10 years. I have not done the math but I doubt it would change much. More importantly, the last increases were way above inflation too so you would need to take that into account too. Cherry picking a 5 year interval without looking at where the base was at the start is not reasonable.
-
A economist at a university in California, versus a letter from 40 economists, two of whom were presidents of the economics association here in Canada, who say literally the weight of the evidence is exactly the opposite as you're claiming.
But the economist in question undertook a metastudy of all available previous studies. The left leaning economists who signed that letter just gave their own opinion - without studies. The person quoted in the story, Lars Ogden, is from the Broadbent Institute. The only other one named, Craig Riddell, is associated with the Institute for Public Policy, established by Pierre Trudeau. Both are notably Left leaning institutions.
-
A economist at a university in California, versus a letter from 40 economists, two of whom were presidents of the economics association here in Canada, who say literally the weight of the evidence is exactly the opposite as you're claiming.
40 politically motivated economists writing an open letter is not a survey of the profession or any valid representation of the state of the literature. All it says is there are 40 economists in Canada who happen to be ideologically left wing and some of them have senior posts. There are 15,000 economists in Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/i-want-to-be-an-economist-what-will-my-salary-be/article19808798/. 40 is nothing.
-
I am saying that after 5 years of 1.5% inflation the wage that one would expect to receive based on inflation is 7.7%. That should be the end of the calculation need to do a sanity check on the current raises. Now you seem to think that people should get more than inflation to "compensate" wages lost in the past but you can't calculate any such number unless you set other parameters such as period of time which the catch up should occur. i.e. 5 years from now they should have made the same as if they had gotten 1.5% per for 10 years. I have not done the math but I doubt it would change much. More importantly, the last increases were way above inflation too so you would need to take that into account too. Cherry picking a 5 year interval without looking at where the base was at the start is not reasonable.
I'll do the math for you.
Lets say someone was making $20,000 a year and gets 1.5% increases every year for 5 years. 1st year=$20,000, 2nd year = $20,320.30, 3rd year = 20,625.10, 4th year = 20,934.48, 5th year = $21,248.50. Total income = $103,128.38
Someone making $20,000 who gets no increases for the first four years and 5% on the fifth. First four years $80,000. Fifth year $21,000. Total income $101,000 plus this person is making $248 less in the fifth year than the person who had yearly increases. This is money that will never be recovered unless people are given occasional raises that exceed the inflation rate over the time they never received raises.
I can only assume that you believe people on minimum wage are over paid.
-
The weight of the evidence is on the side of minimum wages having adverse impacts.
The media and a small number left wing advocate economists have given us a false picture of the state of the literature.
The trouble with these assertions are made based on relatively modest increases in the past - not the absurd increase being pushed though now. Any economist who quickly declares that such an unprecedented increase will have minimal negative effects is basing their claim on ideology - not data.
40 politically motivated economists
we've seen your pattern many times in the past - throw down a study and declare it as prevailing... and the bonus kicker, declare alternative study/findings as nothing more than the results from, as you say, "left wing advocates... claims based on ideology... politically motivated". As it stands, the author of your linked reference is acknowledged in the field study of minimum wages versus employment and is a prolific author in that regard... but... he himself has recently written to concede the debate is ongoing, that there is no consensus. Amazingly in his position/writings he doesn't declare his opponents as, "ideological driven, politically motivated, lefty advocates" - go figure, hey!
on edit to add: these "absurd" increases you label... when skimming the thread I might have missed an actual statement on what the proposed increases were/are; these increases:
- Ontario’s general minimum wage from $11.60 per hour to:
$14 per hour on January 1, 2018
$15 per hour on January 1, 2019
- Liquor servers will see an increase from $10.10 per hour to:
$12.20 per hour on January 1, 2018
$13.05 per hour on January 1, 2019
- Students under the age of 18, who work part time during the school year (up to 28hrs/week) and on school breaks, will see an increase from $10.90 per hour to:
$13.15 per hour on January 1, 2018
$14.10 per hour on January 1, 2019
-
Someone making $20,000 who gets no increases for the first four years and 5% on the fifth. First four years $80,000. Fifth year $21,000. Total income $101,000 plus this person is making $248 less in the fifth year than the person who had yearly increases. This is money that will never be recovered unless people are given occasional raises that exceed the inflation rate over the time they never received raises.
The equivalent to 1.5% is 7.7% - not 5%. So if they got 7.7% they would be making exactly the same as they would have if they got annual raises. Making up for the $2,128.38 differential requires that you set a period in the future where this different should be made up. Let's say 5 years works out to $425/year or an additional 2% which brings the raise up to 9.7%. $15 is a 30% increase which vastly outstrips anything that would be justified based on 'catching up to inflation'.
As for what people "deserve" to be paid. We live in a free market society where prices are set by supply and demand. The only time people don't
"deserve" what they are paid is when the government interferes. They tried to create society where everyone got paid what they "deserved" in the USSR. It is not work out so well.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1cPhHYw.png) --- https://voxeu.org/article/minimum-wage-increases-and-earnings-low-wage-jobs
relative to 2009, a 2013-2016 analysis in 18 U.S. states that have raised their minimum wages... among workers in the low-wage leisure and hospitality industry as compared to U.S. states with no minimum wage increase => no discernible impact on employment levels or hours worked
-
The equivalent to 1.5% is 7.7% - not 5%. So if they got 7.7% they would be making exactly the same as they would have if they got annual raises. Making up for the $2,128.38 differential requires that you set a period in the future where this different should be made up. Let's say 5 years works out to $425/year or an additional 2% which brings the raise up to 9.7%. $15 is a 30% increase which vastly outstrips anything that would be justified based on 'catching up to inflation'.
So how long till the next raise? That's the problem with not indexing the minimum wage and doing things ad hock, you keep having these debates.
As for what people "deserve" to be paid. We live in a free market society where prices are set by supply and demand. The only time people don't
"deserve" what they are paid is when the government interferes. They tried to create society where everyone got paid what they "deserved" in the USSR. It is not work out so well.
A minimum wage is not Marxism, a maximum wage might be. So you do think people on minimum wage are over paid.
-
Seattle’s minimum wage experience 2015-2016 --- http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-2015-16.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/DBQ35Ym.png)
-
I just want yummy donuts.
-
Here's a neat debate: where should we peg the minimum wage? Where it was before in Ontario was typically at just above the poverty line threshold (which is based on average cost of living for good etc I believe), which was around $20k a year (for a single person) last time I checked. $15 an hour raises minimum wage to 30k a year.
If you're going to make a minimum wage at all, you can't just pull a random # out of your butt that "sounds good", it should be based on some kind of logical metric.
-
If you're going to make a minimum wage at all, you can't just pull a random # out of your butt that "sounds good", it should be based on some kind of logical metric.
I agree, then index it and forget it.
-
If you're going to make a minimum wage at all, you can't just pull a random # out of your butt that "sounds good", it should be based on some kind of logical metric.
The metric being used is "what will get me votes".
-
I agree, then index it and forget it.
Exactly.
Honestly you can go out and find 500 left-leaning economists right now of the Paul Krugman/Joseph Stiglitz ilk to support most left-leaning economic policies, and you can find 500 right-leaning economists of the Milton Friedman school or whatnot who will say the exact opposite. And vice versa.
It often comes down to what people think is "fair" and how the pie should be divided up, who the winners and losers should be.
-
It often comes down to what people think is "fair" and how the pie should be divided up, who the winners and losers should be.
The bigger issue is people can't agree on who the winners and losers are nevermind discuss how things should be divided.
That said, I also agree that any minimum wage should be automatically indexed like the CPP and other government benefits. This gives businesses predictability without giving them stealth wage cuts with inflation.
-
The metric being used is "what will get me votes".
Which, for we liberals, means having to deal with fear-mongering and hate-mongering politicians playing on peoples' worst fears to cause harm to brown people and make political careers.
Welcome to the world. Sorry you have to pay 10 cents more for coffee. oops I moralized me bad
-
Which, for we liberals, means having to deal with fear-mongering and hate-mongering politicians playing on peoples' worst fears to cause harm to brown people and make political careers.
Welcome to the world. Sorry you have to pay 10 cents more for coffee. oops I moralized me bad
Which politician is praying on people's fears causing them to harm brown people? Or have you jumped over to American politics again?
-
Don't know what this has to do with brown people although you can tell a lot about the demographics of a neighbourhood by who the servers are in Tims and other fast food joints.
-
Which politician is praying on people's fears causing them to harm brown people? Or have you jumped over to American politics again?
Lots of them. Harper, Leitch, come to mind.
-
Don't know what this has to do with brown people although you can tell a lot about the demographics of a neighbourhood by who the servers are in Tims and other fast food joints.
People get pissed off because the Liberals buy votes by preying on the flaws of the electorate but if others that favour your morality do it, then the principle becomes "they are giving the people what they want".
Morality is fine but what is the principle. That is my point, beyond any general slagging I am making against Leitch, Harper et al.
-
Lots of them. Harper, Leitch, come to mind.
Name a single time Harper, who I am no fan of, preyed on people's fears of brown people or caused them to attack brown people. The same goes for Leitch I want citations. Statements and results. Lots of them? Bullshit. This sounds more like demonizing of conservatives. and that's particularly hypocritical given you just posted something about how sad it is that political discourse has been fractured - though again you blamed the right for that.
-
How about denigrating immigrants, removing healthcare for refugee claimants, and generally feeding irrational fears wherever it was politically expedient ?
You can claim that Liberals play to peoples' emotions but if you don't acknowledge that fear is the Conservatives' ace in the hole, you are a partisan hack and utterly uninteresting.
-
Which, for we liberals, means having to deal with fear-mongering and hate-mongering politicians playing on peoples' worst fears to cause harm to brown people and make political careers.
Welcome to the world. Sorry you have to pay 10 cents more for coffee. oops I moralized me bad
I'm sorry but whether you agree with the $15 min wage or not, Wynne implemented it so quickly to make sure most of it was in effect in time for election year 2018. She's making business owners buy votes for her. It was implemented too soon, too quickly. It should have been brought in more gradually.
A family member recently needed a Drive Clean test, and we noticed that everyone now gets one free Drive Clean courtesy of the Wynne government! Shamelessly trying to buy our votes again with own own money. ::)
-
How about denigrating immigrants, removing healthcare for refugee claimants, and generally feeding irrational fears wherever it was politically expedient ?
Are you living on some other planetr? Harper denigrating immigrants? Harper fought for the immigrant vote as much as anyone else, and raised immigration numbers in an election year. That didn't mean he didn't also play to the concern conservatives have with the unwieldy cost of bringing in the wrong kind of immigrant, and the court-ordered catering to economic migrants who claim immigrant status. Irrational fears? The guy wound up in a closet when a crazed Muslim was involved in a gunman outside the room he was in. I'd hardly call that irrational. You simply regard any concerns about immigration, culture and violence as unjustified and irrational because you're a globalist leftist and see no need of borders.
You can claim that Liberals play to peoples' emotions but if you don't acknowledge that fear is the Conservatives' ace in the hole, you are a partisan hack and utterly uninteresting.
Can you go ahead and bemoan the state of intolerant and insulting political discourse once again? It sounds so... noble.
-
1. You simply regard any concerns about immigration, culture and violence as unjustified and irrational because you're a globalist leftist and see no need of borders.
2. Can you go ahead and bemoan the state of intolerant and insulting political discourse once again? It sounds so... noble.
1. Hyperbolic misstatement of my views.
2. Point taken. I get pissed off when you are (sometimes) on the verge of giving objective analysis, then lapse into reading from the wrinkled and discarded political pamphlets of the Harper conservatives. I imagine it's how you feel about Waldo when he provides cites, however still only posts things that support Liberals.
Unlike you and Waldo I am independent of party politics, and therefore superior in all ways. :)
-
1. Hyperbolic misstatement of my views.
You have said a number of times you are a globalist, if not in so many words. If I'm wrong please let me know.
2. Point taken. I get pissed off when you are (sometimes) on the verge of giving objective analysis, then lapse into reading from the wrinkled and discarded political pamphlets of the Harper conservatives. I imagine it's how you feel about Waldo when he provides cites, however still only posts things that support Liberals.
Waldo does not provide cites. you are hardly objective in terms of opinions and beliefs so shouldn't expect others to be.
-
You have said a number of times you are a globalist, if not in so many words. If I'm wrong please let me know.
I could take 'globalist' but this is still wrong:
"You simply regard any concerns about immigration, culture and violence as unjustified and irrational because you're a globalist leftist and see no need of borders."
So adorable how you try to provoke me.
Waldo does not provide cites. Waldo is a braying ass troll. And you **** me off in some ways too. But you are hardly objective in terms of opinions and beliefs so shouldn't expect others to be.
I am more objective than you since I can provide a list of issues I have with liberals and you are just taking your first baby steps in saying you're not a conservative. Grow little butterfly.
-
I could take 'globalist' but this is still wrong:
"You simply regard any concerns about immigration, culture and violence as unjustified and irrational because you're a globalist leftist and see no need of borders."
So adorable how you try to provoke me.
I am more objective than you since I can provide a list of issues I have with liberals and you are just taking your first baby steps in saying you're not a conservative. Grow little butterfly.
It's so adorable how you try to provoke me. I'm guessing most of your list of issues with liberals is probably because they're not far enough to the Left on those issues.
And I have been criticizing the Conservatives for years. I criticized them when they were the Progressive Conservatives, too. Most of that criticisms is because they're not acting very conservative.
-
It's so adorable how you try to provoke me.
And how you copy me.
I'm guessing most of your list of issues with liberals is probably because they're not far enough to the Left on those issues.
Yeah, you never read my posts.
-
And how you copy me.
Yeah, you never read my posts.
Maybe consider the possibility you aren't the world's best communicator.
-
Maybe consider the possibility you aren't the world's best communicator.
Actually, yeah that IS a good point. I would put myself (and you, and most on here for that matter) among the top strat in terms of ability to express thoughts in writing. In fact, I would probably hire most of you just based on THAT. But I digress...
If I haven't said it, or have not said it enough...
"I'm guessing most of your list of issues with liberals is probably because they're not far enough to the Left on those issues."
I'm socially very liberal, however I was brought up very religiously Christian which is the source of my morality. So, devout Catholic upbringing with my parents giving special note to offer tolerance and forgiveness to other religions, especially Jews (the treatment of whom which was a source of shame to Catholics in the 1960s) and races and even gays/Lesbians.
Economically, I happen to believe that you need to spend money to save money. So social programs need to be justifiable, but also need humanity. This is a tricky balance which requires also a balance of power and fruitful discussion. But I work in business so I hate inefficiency and waste.
-
Shockingly, it seems that the ones footing the bill for the increase in minimum wages in Ontario are NOT those filthy rich people in their top hats and tailcoats smoking their cigars. Nope. It's you and me.
Restaurant prices across Canada rose 3.7 per cent in January from a year earlier, a far faster pace than December's 2.9 per cent. The overall move higher in food prices, of 2.3 per cent, was the fastest pace since April, 2016.
In Ontario alone, Statistics Canada said, restaurant meals climbed 4.9 per cent, and child care and housekeeping services almost 10 per cent. That, the agency said, coincided with "a legislated minimum wage increase."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/inflation-ontario-restaurants-minimum-wage-hike/article38085293/
-
So it's another kind of tariff then ?
Wherein we charge the consumer more because it creates local jobs ?
-
So it's another kind of tariff then ?
Wherein we charge the consumer more because it creates local jobs ?
Only if you really believe the laws of supply and demand don't apply when you think it politically convenient. Raising the cost of workers increases prices and reduces employment in some unknown proportion. So your so-called 'tax for local jobs' would do the opposite by making it more economic to import services and goods from areas with lower wages.
-
Only if you really believe the laws of supply and demand don't apply when you think it politically convenient. Raising the cost of workers increases prices and reduces employment in some unknown proportion. So your so-called 'tax for local jobs' would do the opposite by making it more economic to import services and goods from areas with lower wages.
Obviously company's are going to shop for goods for the best prices but what are you going to do for employees, bus them back and forth to your Tim Horton's?
-
Only if you really believe the laws of supply and demand don't apply when you think it politically convenient. Raising the cost of workers increases prices and reduces employment in some unknown proportion. So your so-called 'tax for local jobs' would do the opposite by making it more economic to import services and goods from areas with lower wages.
I was being sarcastic. Tariffs don't work either - that's my point. Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me.
-
So your so-called 'tax for local jobs' would do the opposite by making it more economic to import services and goods from areas with lower wages.
How far are people really going to drive to save 20 cents on a drive-through coffee?
-k
-
How far are people really going to drive to save 20 cents on a drive-through coffee?
How far do people go to save 2 cents/litre on gas? That said, a lot of retail businesses do face serious competition from online outlets. Higher prices in the local stores due to minimum wages will push a lot more sales to online outlets and hasten the end of the local shopping option. Some may see this as a good thing but it does mean fewer jobs for the people that are supposedly helped by higher minimum wages.
-
How far do people go to save 2 cents/litre on gas? That said, a lot of retail businesses do face serious competition from online outlets. Higher prices in the local stores due to minimum wages will push a lot more sales to online outlets and hasten the end of the local shopping option. Some may see this as a good thing but it does mean fewer jobs for the people that are supposedly helped by higher minimum wages.
Online shopping is simply another result of advances in technology that will require adjustment. You used to have to go buy a newspaper, now you just switch on your laptop and there's the news. People aren't running presses as much now but they are putting that news on the net for you. And how do you online shop for a honey glazed and a double double?
-
Do people still want to go to stores ? /new topic I guess.
-
Do people still want to go to stores ? /new topic I guess.
Clearly.
-
How far do people go to save 2 cents/litre on gas?
It depends how bad at math they are.
That said, a lot of retail businesses do face serious competition from online outlets.
SirJohn's article was specific to restaurant costs, and I assure you that the Tim Horton's drive-through has nothing to fear from Amazon.
Higher prices in the local stores due to minimum wages will push a lot more sales to online outlets and hasten the end of the local shopping option. Some may see this as a good thing but it does mean fewer jobs for the people that are supposedly helped by higher minimum wages.
Brick-and-mortar retailers have been under pressure for many years. Each time Wal-Mart opens a mega-store in an area, lots of smaller retailers disappear. It's not like this is a new trend. North America has lots of abandoned shopping malls, and that started happening before online shopping became a big factor. The arrival of Amazon and so-on signal new worries for retailers, but I have a hunch that the ones who've survived Wal-Mart will survive Amazon as well.
There are some goods that are ideal for online purposes. For others, not so much. You can't tell how comfortable a shoe is by looking at a picture.
Change is the only constant. When the motor-car arrived we didn't say "we have to stop this or all these blacksmiths will be out of work!"
-k
-
The Tim Horton's brand name has taken a hit. In an annual survey about which brands Canadians like and respect the most, Tim Horton's fell from #4 last year to #50 this year.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4124961/tim-hortons-brand-reputation-survey/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014
“It’s always multi-faceted and can’t point to one thing in totality,” Aivalis said. “But I do think the whole debacle about how the franchise handled the minimum wage had an impact.”
He said Tim Hortons is held to a higher expectation to the public because of its “Canadian image.”
“The company has a Canadian identity, and we’re proud, if it’s about cold winters and hockey,” Aivalis said. Because of this, Canadians may think Tim Hortons employees should be treated well.
“It creates a disappointment with the brand,” he added. “I think a lot of Canadians think fair pay is what Canada is about and Tim Hortons is not providing that.”
Wrapping themselves in the flag and talking themselves up as a Canadian tradition may bring customers, but it may also bring Tim Horton's a level of scrutiny that its competitors don't face.
-k
-
Like other fast food chains didn't do anything in the face of a 30% hike in the minimum wage. ::)
It's weird how polarizing Tim Hortons is. The coffee isn't the best, but it's amongst the cheapest, they're food is decent for cafe, bakery style food. And, in Suburban and Rural Ontario anyway, there a Tim Hortons everywhere.
I actually stopped going to Tim's in the morning because it's ALWAYS packed. So it's still pretty popular.
I think it speaks to this Canadian tradition of tearing down the most popular things about us.
The #1 coffee in Canada now is actually McDonalds. McDonalds is demonized for every other aspect of their business model. But they have good coffee.
-
Like other fast food chains didn't do anything in the face of a 30% hike in the minimum wage. ::)
According to stats canada inflation soared in the first two months of the year, especially in areas driven by wage increases in the minimum wage. Groceries, restaurants, child care and home cleaning all saw big bumps in costs. The biggest was in the restaurant sector.
The problem with Tim Hortons was it was bought by a conglomerate named Restaurant Brands which is run by a pair of investment firms, principally a Brazilian company called 3G Capital. They're pretty cutthroat, and they quickly realized the franchise agreements let them screw people over easily. So that's what they've been doing. Since they get a percentage of the gross, right off the top, it doesn't matter to them what profits the franchises get or don't get. So they ordered the franchises not to raise prices. They care about sales, you see, not profits, because their money comes from the gross, not the net.
-
The only reason to have a double double is if the coffee is crap.
-
The problem with Tim Hortons was it was bought by a conglomerate named Restaurant Brands which is run by a pair of investment firms, principally a Brazilian company called 3G Capital. They're pretty cutthroat, and they quickly realized the franchise agreements let them screw people over easily. So that's what they've been doing. Since they get a percentage of the gross, right off the top, it doesn't matter to them what profits the franchises get or don't get. So they ordered the franchises not to raise prices. They care about sales, you see, not profits, because their money comes from the gross, not the net.
Franchise fees on gross sales is pretty standard, otherwise think of all the creative ways franchisees can reduce their net income and not pay royalty fees. Often it's a percentage, but sometimes a flat fee so I don't know what you mean that they 'caught on that they could screw people over'.
Also, there is the cost/benefit to keep in mind. A small price hike may lose a bit of customers but given the clientele, does it necessarily translate to less royalty given that as % of sales, the higher the gross sales, the higher their own royalties.
They may be cut-throat but not for the reasons you listed.
-
Franchise fees on gross sales is pretty standard
I wonder how fees work when the franchise is just a part of the business, for example a gas station with a Tim Horton's counter. Might be an interesting way to make more profit, Tim's to get the people in but only serve coffee/donuts and have my other snack counter to serve something more substantial (sandwiches, soup, etc.).
-
I wonder how fees work when the franchise is just a part of the business, for example a gas station with a Tim Horton's counter. Might be an interesting way to make more profit, Tim's to get the people in but only serve coffee/donuts and have my other snack counter to serve something more substantial (sandwiches, soup, etc.).
That's the idea behind all the post-offices in shoppers drug marts. Apparently they don't make much money for it but the amount of people who go in to use the post office and end up impulse shopping makes up for it.
I'm not sure about Timmy's and gas stations (I think it's Esso only?), but I'm guessing it's similar. Timmy's probably runs independently and is offered a discount rent (if any rent at all) and it's a win win for both.
Timmy's keeps costs low, no bathrooms to wash; and the gas station has a product differentiation strategy.
ETA - in other words, for the gas station it's not about selling snacks, it's about getting customers to their gas station to buy gas instead of the one across the street.
-
ETA - in other words, for the gas station it's not about selling snacks, it's about getting customers to their gas station to buy gas instead of the one across the street.
I thought gas stations were all about the extra's these days as the margin on gas was fairly low (~5-6% average, low during price war and possibly negative for some credit card sales). We no longer have the days of the service station with a small office/retail that gave away maps and maybe sold you a pack of gum, with that dirty toilet on the back with an outside door that you would really have to be desperate to use. I have heard that while the gas sales account for over 70% of the revenue, they represent less than 30% of the profits. The margin on the bag of chips, loaf of bread, or quart of milk are very high.
-
I thought gas stations were all about the extra's these days as the margin on gas was fairly low (~5-6% average, low during price war and possibly negative for some credit card sales). We no longer have the days of the service station with a small office/retail that gave away maps and maybe sold you a pack of gum, with that dirty toilet on the back with an outside door that you would really have to be desperate to use. I have heard that while the gas sales account for over 70% of the revenue, they represent less than 30% of the profits. The margin on the bag of chips, loaf of bread, or quart of milk are very high.
That would be interesting to know more about, do you remember where you read it?
I just googled to see what I found and not digging very deep I came across this:
Jason Parent, vice-president of consulting for Kent, says the average margin on gasoline has risen to eight or nine cents per litre in the past two years from the 20-year norm of four to six cents, leaving more profits at the pump for the owners.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2017/05/16/national-gas-station-count-growing-again-thanks-to-stronger-profit-margins.html
I bet the margins on chips and pop is way higher but I'm guessing cigarettes and lotto tickets make up a bigger portion of that 70% (profit). That's where Timmy's also helps.