[andyt]

Reasonable minimum wage increases would pay for themselves...

That clearer?

[Bruce_the_vii]

No.

[andyt]

Oh, well. Maybe you can explain what part you don't understand.

[bootlegga]

Well, in fairness to tone of this thread, I've heard that poverty does cost society more than helping the homeless and very low income.

I went to a meeting of local non-profits and the head of Alberta's United Way noted that it costs Albertans about $100,000 per homeless person per year (time spent in jail, health care crises, court costs, etc), whereas feeding, housing and clothing them would only cost about $50,000.

I am willing to help people on the bottom rungs of society, I am just against giving people handouts and free money. For most people, anything given is not truly respected, while that which is earned generally is treated with respect.

[Bruce_the_vii]

andyt andyt:

I think they would pay for themselves because they shift the cost to business rather than govt.

Shift costs? Why? They work cheaper so that is an advantage to industry canada but shift costs?

andyt andyt:

And people who earn more and pay more taxes have more sense of buyin with the govt, as well as making less demands on govt services.

The better off make less demands on government? How does this make the poor less subsidized?

[andyt]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

andyt andyt:

I think they would pay for themselves because they shift the cost to business rather than govt.

Shift costs? Why? They work cheaper so that is an advantage to industry canada but shift costs?

andyt andyt:

And people who earn more and pay more taxes have more sense of buyin with the govt, as well as making less demands on govt services.

The better off make less demands on government? How does this make the poor less subsidized?

Raising the min wage (which is what we were talking about) shifts costs to business that are now absorbed by govt. Seems obvious to me.

We're talking about raising incomes of the poor. That means they pay more taxes. And they become ineligible for some govt programs that target the poor, since they won't poor no mo. Seems obvious to me.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, in fairness to tone of this thread, I've heard that poverty does cost society more than helping the homeless and very low income.

I went to a meeting of local non-profits and the head of Alberta's United Way noted that it costs Albertans about $100,000 per homeless person per year (time spent in jail, health care crises, court costs, etc), whereas feeding, housing and clothing them would only cost about $50,000.

I am willing to help people on the bottom rungs of society, I am just against giving people handouts and free money. For most people, anything given is not truly respected, while that which is earned generally is treated with respect.

In Calgary, business seems to have learned that homelessness cost society a lot of money and seems to be stepping up to provide housing. Same, maybe to a lesser degree in Vancouver.

I don't want to give people free money - it just creates dependency. I want to give those people who can work sufficient pay for a decent life - ie at the Low Income Cutoff level. People who can't work could still do something or other to get their government support, whether that's sheltered workshops or what have you. Tho that of course costs more than just giving them a pittance and forgetting about them.

But there's a lot more to it. Better access to training and support. Affordable housing. Drug/alcohol treatment. Mental health care. etc.

[Bruce_the_vii]

andyt andyt:

Reasonable minimum wage increases would pay for themselves...

That clearer?

It's early in the morning, I've had my coffee and I'm going to post.

There are three ways minimum wage increases pay for themselves.

(1)Say you give a legislated $1.50 minimum wage increase. Taxes are at the bottom are a net 30% so immediately 50 cents goes back to the the governments.

(2)In addition if you look at the raise as an increase in family income you'll find money comes back to you through a close family member earning more. As low wages are pervasive many families have someone earning a low wage.

(3)If you legislate a $1.50 raise at the bottom some of the worst businesses will not survive - they will go bankrupt. This is actually a benefit because there are too many businesses doing the same thing at the bottom and some are not providing goods and services that are particularly important. So what happens is you net down size the low wage sector - which is very highly subsidized.

In our society immigration is maintained at a constant level "for long term growth" which produces a little unemployment and suppresses the de facto minimum wage. This is pretty mean to the worst off workers. You can add this to their legislated minimum wage increase as a matter of fairness.

In our society the low wage sector is large and over a period of years probably most families have someone that has to work minimum wage for a while. So long term the process or returning the minimum wage increase to family income affects rather most families.

What your left with is a legislated wage increase inflates less than a tenth of a percent nationally. It cost maybe a billion. People without jobs in the regions would be encouraged to move to the cities, single Moms on welfare would have the option of going back to work and better off people that left the labour force would go back to work. This getting people back in the labour force might raise $1 billion in taxes. You are left with better jobs which is a social advantage. So these are pretty clear arguements.

That and the people that are slaving at $9 get a better wage.

So minimum wage is not really a bogey man.

[herbie]

Work in retail. The number of people who ask if you have financing plans or layaways for $99 items is a pretty good indicator of the business you're losing because of poverty.
Did a 'experiment' with computer mice. Half the delivery came in plain white boxes, half in fancier clear plastic retail packs. Marked the flashy ones at ONE DOLLAR more.
The ones for a dollar less outsold those 36 to 1.
We sell 50 CDRs for $20. But we open a pack and let people buy them one at a time for a dollar. The sales revenue from singles matches the sales of the stacks.

[Bruce_the_vii]

herbie herbie:

Work in retail. The number of people who ask if you have financing plans or layaways for $99 items is a pretty good indicator of the business you're losing because of poverty.
Did a 'experiment' with computer mice. Half the delivery came in plain white boxes, half in fancier clear plastic retail packs. Marked the flashy ones at ONE DOLLAR more.
The ones for a dollar less outsold those 36 to 1.
We sell 50 CDRs for $20. But we open a pack and let people buy them one at a time for a dollar. The sales revenue from singles matches the sales of the stacks.

I believe it.

[OnTheIce]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

andyt andyt:

Reasonable minimum wage increases would pay for themselves...

That clearer?

It's early in the morning, I've had my coffee and I'm going to post.

There are three ways minimum wage increases pay for themselves.

(1)Say you give a legislated $1.50 minimum wage increase. Taxes are at the bottom are a net 30% so immediately 50 cents goes back to the the governments.

(2)In addition if you look at the raise as an increase in family income you'll find money comes back to you through a close family member earning more. As low wages are pervasive many families have someone earning a low wage.

(3)If you legislate a $1.50 raise at the bottom some of the worst businesses will not survive - they will go bankrupt. This is actually a benefit because there are too many businesses doing the same thing at the bottom and some are not providing goods and services that are particularly important. So what happens is you net down size the low wage sector - which is very highly subsidized.

In our society immigration is maintained at a constant level "for long term growth" which produces a little unemployment and suppresses the de facto minimum wage. This is pretty mean to the worst off workers. You can add this to their legislated minimum wage increase as a matter of fairness.

In our society the low wage sector is large and over a period of years probably most families have someone that has to work minimum wage for a while. So long term the process or returning the minimum wage increase to family income affects rather most families.

What your left with is a legislated wage increase inflates less than a tenth of a percent nationally. It cost maybe a billion. People without jobs in the regions would be encouraged to move to the cities, single Moms on welfare would have the option of going back to work and better off people that left the labour force would go back to work. This getting people back in the labour force might raise $1 billion in taxes. You are left with better jobs which is a social advantage. So these are pretty clear arguements.

That and the people that are slaving at $9 get a better wage.

So minimum wage is not really a bogey man.

To add to that great post, despite what Andy thinks, giving someone an extra $1-$1.50 more an hour won't remove them from the ranks of poverty.

[BartSimpson]

All I saw in the original post was

$1:

It's not fair

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Raising the min wage (which is what we were talking about) shifts costs to business that are now absorbed by govt. Seems obvious to me.

Jesus, Andy. Government costs are already absorbed by businesses!

You propose to shift a government program onto the shoulders of business owners while leaving their tax burdens the same?

So while you want a window-licking sidewalk sweeper to make a 'living wage' it doesn't bother you a whit if his employer goes out of business so long as you can feel good about yourself by being generous with someone else's money.

Oh, but wait. Once the business starts to go under because of your ill-conceived wage laws you'll raise taxes on wage earners so you can subsidize the business owners.

[Bruce_the_vii]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

It's early in the morning, I've had my coffee and I'm going to post.

There are three ways minimum wage increases pay for themselves.

(1)Say you give a legislated $1.50 minimum wage increase. Taxes are at the bottom are a net 30% so immediately 50 cents goes back to the the governments.

(2)In addition if you look at the raise as an increase in family income you'll find money comes back to you through a close family member earning more. As low wages are pervasive many families have someone earning a low wage.

(3)If you legislate a $1.50 raise at the bottom some of the worst businesses will not survive - they will go bankrupt. This is actually a benefit because there are too many businesses doing the same thing at the bottom and some are not providing goods and services that are particularly important. So what happens is you net down size the low wage sector - which is very highly subsidized.

In our society immigration is maintained at a constant level "for long term growth" which produces a little unemployment and suppresses the de facto minimum wage. This is pretty mean to the worst off workers. You can add this to their legislated minimum wage increase as a matter of fairness.

In our society the low wage sector is large and over a period of years probably most families have someone that has to work minimum wage for a while. So long term the process or returning the minimum wage increase to family income affects rather most families.

What your left with is a legislated wage increase inflates less than a tenth of a percent nationally. It cost maybe a billion. People without jobs in the regions would be encouraged to move to the cities, single Moms on welfare would have the option of going back to work and better off people that left the labour force would go back to work. This getting people back in the labour force might raise $1 billion in taxes. You are left with better jobs which is a social advantage. So these are pretty clear arguements.

That and the people that are slaving at $9 get a better wage.

So minimum wage is not really a bogey man.

To add to that great post, despite what Andy thinks, giving someone an extra $1-$1.50 more an hour won't remove them from the ranks of poverty.

At the bottom, if your single or something, the $1.50 will take the pressure off. I work with some single divorced women and they got their $2 raise and now they can afford, say, that prescription the need. It would just reduce poverty a little.

[Bruce_the_vii]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So while you want a window-licking sidewalk sweeper to make a 'living wage' it doesn't bother you a whit if his employer goes out of business so long as you can feel good about yourself by being generous with someone else's money.

Oh, but wait. Once the business starts to go under because of your ill-conceived wage laws you'll raise taxes on wage earners so you can subsidize the business owners.

Actually forcing businesses to go bankrupt is an option. At the bottom small businesses pay low wages and get a subsidy because their employees don't pay much tax. In the cities of Canada these business only exist because immigration increase the labour force. Actually downsizing the small business sector is an option.