[Proculation]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

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.

You totally flunked economics, didn't you?

http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/canadi ... conomy.htm

http://sbinfocanada.about.com/gi/o.htm? ... 2304e.html

Seems that small businesses created 37% of new Canadian jobs in the past few years and those businesses represent 23% of your economic output.

But yeah, go ahead and bankrupt them and put 48% of your private sector workforce on unemployment. That's freaking brilliant.

It's easy when you create a straw man. He's talking about the businesses that can't cut it paying a reasonable wage. Even in your scheme of no min wage, (but with no illegal immigration) there would be businesses that aren't viable paying a wage that actually allows them to hire people. Does it really make sense to subsidize small business by giving govt supports to workers that aren't paid enough to live on by their employers?

Just cut all subsidies, that will do the trick. For every dollar given in subsidy, it costs 1.81$ to the government in the long run. Not really useful.

[cougar]

Proculation Proculation:

Know economics a lot, eh ?

No. I find those logical.

If polticians could provide their rational for what they are doing maybe I could by into it. But at this point I have to go with what I think.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

It's easy when you create a straw man. He's talking about the businesses that can't cut it paying a reasonable wage.

Ah, masturbating to the thoughts of your ever-increasing minimum wage again? Don't you know that causes blindness?

andyt andyt:

Even in your scheme of no min wage, (but with no illegal immigration) there would be businesses that aren't viable paying a wage that actually allows them to hire people.

Then those businesses will go out of business all on their own. So what?

andyt andyt:

Does it really make sense to subsidize small business by giving govt supports to workers that aren't paid enough to live on by their employers?

Nope. Nor does it make sense to do the opposite and that is to use the force of government to force businesses to provide welfare support to unproductive people who vote Liberal and NDP.

[Bruce_the_vii]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nope. Nor does it make sense to do the opposite and that is to use the force of government to force businesses to provide welfare support to unproductive people who vote Liberal and NDP.

This idea of yours that minimum wage people are unproductive, that working a forty hour week isn't work, is mean spirited. It's part of the attitude that keeps the Conservatives down, as people don't trust them - trust their supporters. This is an age old story, and workers have advocated solidarity against this sort of attitude against them. I work with a couple of divorced women that earn low wages and they work,sleep, work. Canada is about progress, has been for a long time, and minimum wage jobs are not popular.

[bootlegga]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

This idea of yours that minimum wage people are unproductive, that working a forty hour week isn't work, is mean spirited. It's part of the attitude that keeps the Conservatives down, as people don't trust them - trust their supporters. This is an age old story, and workers have advocated solidarity against this sort of attitude against them. I work with a couple of divorced women that earn low wages and they work,sleep, work. Canada is about progress, has been for a long time, and minimum wage jobs are not popular.

I don't think it's mean spirited at all - it's a reflection of the fact that most people who work in minimum wage jobs only use it as a stepping stone to something better (youth) or as a supplement to their retirement (seniors).

Even those who do stay in industries that utilize minimum wage (retail, food service, etc) generally develop enough skills and/or experience to move up out of minimum wage and into a management role where they no longer earn minimum wage.

I actually know a handful of people who got jobs in the food service industry in high school and are still working there today. Do you think any of them is still flipping burgers or working the drive through for $8/hour after working there for 15 years? Hell no, they are all managers/asst managers making a decent salary (between $40k and $70k per year). One even owns an Arby's franchise!

The simple fact is that very few people get a job at McDonalds, The Gap or Earl's and says "This is going to be my lifelong career" without ever moving beyond minimum wage.

Minimum wage is an illusion - give someone an extra 50 cents and hour and tell them it will suddenly make their life better, but it hardly does. Sure, they can afford another beer or two, or maybe buy fresh OJ instead of frozen, but it never amounts to the sudden uplifting of the poor its advocates say it will. Instead, inflation eats away a chunk of their 50 cent raise and their employer decides to cut back on new hires, making his existing staff work harder.

I'd far prefer to give someone grants to get training/education - be it beauty school, a trade or a degree - than a simple increase in minimum wages. Of course that comes out of the government's pocket instead of a consumers, so the way to fix that might be to offer incentives for companies to offer extra training to their staff.

Like I've said many times before, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life."

[andyt]

You'll always have jobs that are at the bottom of the economic ladder. Despite your assertion, a large proportion of low wage workers are adults trying to raise a family on that income. We can't train every one for better jobs if there aren't enough better jobs for everyone.

And you can sneer at 50 cents, doubt if a min wage worker would. As I've said, tie the min wage to the low income cutoff - that way min wage workers receive enough to live a modest life and get increases based on inflation.

Increasing the min wage has also been shown to push up wages within 1/4 of that min wage, so it pushes up all the low wage workers a bit. And, people who earn more pay more taxes and draw less on some govt benefits. Saves the govt money, transfers that cost to business, where it belongs.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I've seen a study that said half the people making low wages are still making low wages 10 years later. The 2007 figure is 23% of Canadian workers are making $12 an hour or more. The average wage is pretty good, $20, but the bottom isn't doing so well. So I focus on the bottom rather than productivity at the average wage, which is what economists like to talk about.

[BartSimpson]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I've seen a study that said half the people making low wages are still making low wages 10 years later.

I've seen a study that shows that less than 1% of prospective professional athletes ever actually make a living at it. To which I say, so what?

If in the course of ten years an otherwise able bodied and able minded person is still serving coffee at the front counter of Timmie's then that's their problem and not mine. Jacking up the minimum wage as a means of compelling businesses to subsidize losers is not the answer to dealing with losers.

By the way, I did not say that minimum wage workers are unproductive. Some of them work their tails off. Some of those people are so productive that they get raises all on their own and they go from serving coffee at Timmie's to managing the place and then, perhaps, even owning it.

What I take exception to is Andy's impotent argument (that he continues to argue despite it being defeated on numerous threads) that the way to deal with poverty is to raise the minimum wage.

If raising the minimum wage it the way to address poverty then why only raise it a paltry few cents? Why not make it $100 an hour and put an end to poverty altogether? Why, if everyone made at least $100 an hour we'd all be rich, right? It won't have any adverse effect on the economy, right?

The minimum wage is a regressive, anti-business proposition that discriminates against unskilled workers whose abilities are worth less than minimum wage. All it does is create a permanent underclass of the unemployable who will forever be dependent on government for their sustenance and who will forever vote for whatever idiot is willing to steal money from the productive members of society in order to buy votes from the unproductive members of society.

[Bruce_the_vii]

On the other hand the de facto minimum wage at the bottom in Canadian cities would be higher if there was no immigration and the tendency of immigration to produce a little then a lot of unemployment. So actually the de facto minimum wage is a product of central planning the economy with immigration from Ottawa. It's mean, and people are catching on.

[BartSimpson]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

On the other hand the de facto minimum wage at the bottom in Canadian cities would be higher if there was no immigration

Hello? Do you see what you just wrote?

You're observing the fact that the market in some places sets higher wages for workers without any input whatsoever from the social engineers in some government agency.

The minimum wage is irrelevant in these cases.

Conversely, you need to also accept that in other markets the minimum wages has the opposite effect of legislating low paying entry-level jobs out of existence.

And that, my friend, is what is truly mean spirited.

[Bruce_the_vii]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

On the other hand the de facto minimum wage at the bottom in Canadian cities would be higher if there was no immigration

Hello? Do you see what you just wrote?

You're observing the fact that the market in some places sets higher wages for workers without any input whatsoever from the social engineers in some government agency.

The minimum wage is irrelevant in these cases.

Conversely, you need to also accept that in other markets the minimum wages has the opposite effect of legislating low paying entry-level jobs out of existence.

And that, my friend, is what is truly mean spirited.

I focus on the cities where the de facto minimum wage is social engineered by Ottawa with the immigration department already. In the regions you wouldn't want a high minimum wage because it would cost rare jobs. So you are right in a sense. Note, though, that economists in the West tend to drop out immigration. There are studies that immigration cost jobs without mentioning that the problem is labour shortages so the nation immigrates. Focusing on cities makes a difference.

[herbie]

$1:

Like I've said many times before, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life."

And I had a sign in my print shop:
"Give a man a twenty dollar bill and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to make a twenty dollar bill and he'll be fed for 7 to 15 years with time off for good behaviour."

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

$1:

Like I've said many times before, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life."

And I had a sign in my print shop:
"Give a man a twenty dollar bill and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to make a twenty dollar bill and he'll be fed for 7 to 15 years with time off for good behaviour."

[cougar]

andyt andyt:

You'll always have jobs that are at the bottom of the economic ladder. Despite your assertion, a large proportion of low wage workers are adults trying to raise a family on that income. We can't train every one for better jobs if there aren't enough better jobs for everyone.

Very well said!

andyt andyt:

If in the course of ten years an otherwise able bodied and able minded person is still serving coffee at the front counter of Timmie's then that's their problem and not mine.

It is their problem but they may have no choice. Let's face it, low end jobs are much more than the middle /upper level jobs. Not everyone can move on up, unless there is huge growth with more good jobs created. Then someone else (like an immigrant or refugee) who has no choice will have to do the bloody job.

[andyt]

cougar cougar:

andyt andyt:

If in the course of ten years an otherwise able bodied and able minded person is still serving coffee at the front counter of Timmie's then that's their problem and not mine.

It is their problem but they may have no choice. Let's face it, low end jobs are much more than the middle /upper level jobs. Not everyone can move on up, unless there is huge growth with more good jobs created. Then someone else (like an immigrant or refugee) who has no choice will have to do the bloody job.

I did not write that. If you check back, you'll probably find that Boots wrote that - certainly sounds like him.