Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[Wesley Mouch]

It depends on who you are. When they raised the minimum wage in Seattle, large chains were able to absorb the economic impact pretty well, raised prices a bit and only laid off a small percentage of their workforce. The small, independent businesses got rid of, IIRC, roughly 30% of their workforce. They don't have the margins or volumes to take the hit.

Those of you who haven't run a small business may not understand that each and every regulatory mandate comes with an administrative burden. Every time you ask for regulation, just remember that mom and pop get buried in paperwork -- while WalMart happily adds one more duty to somebody in a vast accounting department.

So if you are eager to see the small, independent stores wiped out and replaced with Meijer's and Wal-Marts, the minimum wage is a great thing. There will still be independent stores, but they will be high-end retailers and restaurants with higher margins.

I'll be Seattle has an active advocacy group against chain stores. Maybe they should both do a Jets and Sharks thing someone on Pike Street and determine if small stores are more important than wage regulation.

[abraham]

I have not read the whole thread only wanted to say that 15 an hour is about where I think it should be. The more people that make more money the better off everyone is. Things that drive up wages are a good thing.

[Canadian Visitor]

Has something changed? This topic is perhaps the finest example of entrenched opinions in search of a single-study that supports their opinion. That seems unchanged.

Actually, a year ago you were quoting a study you thought showed job losses in Seattle, which I showed to be highly suspect.

That was one key argument you made against raising the minimum wage, and its something you have most certainly not given up on, see below.

I don't think there's any dispute that MW increases are a very small factor in job creation / destruction.

The argument against MW isn't about massive job destruction [[although that's likely true)

Seattle and NYC in particular are the worst possible examples, as their vibrancy is at least a couple orders of magnitude more relevant than MW changes.

So wait, if minimum wage appears to be a public good and cause no tangible harm in highly successful places, nowhere else can try it, because they aren't as successful? Your argument appears to be degrading in quality here.

Is the best that can be said for MW increases that it doesn't destroy a huge number of jobs?

No, it is not the the best that can be said, it is one thing than can be said. It also very clearly reduces absolute poverty and relative income inequality. it also reduces churn for businesses which is expensive.

The argument against MW isn't about massive job destruction [[although that's likely true), but is about the 'bottom rung removal'. And the usual retort from MW proponents is that the loss of jobs for the low-skilled is 'worth it' to raise living standards.

Except that there is no evidence to support that it does this for 'over 18s'.

It does reduce teen employment at the margins, which is a good thing, because teens should be studying in school, not going to work at a fast food place for 20 hours. Raise the wage of the single parent such than the money brought in by 15 hours of work by their child is no longer required, and the kid can focus on graduating HS and going on to post-secondary, instead of feeding the family [[if the family is low-income, or having unneeded pocket-change if they aren't).

Funny that progressives swoon over raising the MW -- which was born as a tactic to keep blacks out of white jobs. I suspect its still doing a good job of that.

Profoundly untrue on all counts.

Minimum wage laws originated in New Zealand in 1896. Australia was the second adopter, followed by the UK by about 1912.

The US didn't even adopt a Federal minimum wage until 1938 under FDR.

The first State-level was in Mass. and only applied to women and children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...e_minimum_wage

Facts! Please do not post unsupported positions with no quality citations, except they are merely arbitrary personal preferences and offered as such.

Also black unemployment has declined in NY State while the minimum wage has gone up.

Likewise in California

https://www.epi.org/publication/stat...oyment-2018q1/

Data by race was not available for Washington, Oregon or Conn.

The only exception I could see on the list was DC.

Note I was looking at States where the minimum wage has risen significantly in recent years.

[abraham]

Canadian Visitor is kicking all your ass's and then some. I could and still cant understand why another human being would not want someone to make more money. Just so you can say you make that much more? I dont make minimum wage. I could not exist if I did. Although I would love to see minimum wage go up as high as is sensible. While I am not studied enough to know what that figure is I still cant understand why anyone other than maybe some tight wad business owner who only cares about themselves would not want people to make more money[[you know they spend more then right? We know trickle down does not work right? Give trickle up a try, I bet it works). Bottom line is you get what you pay for. Want crap? Pay crap. Want a shitty country, pay folks a shitty wage. Its all to simple but the greedy ones are always there.

[Jimaz]

Heh. It's ironic that common sense is so uncommon.

[abraham]

Yea, I've been on both ends. Years ago when I was laid off for a long time I took a job outside my trade that I was more than qualified for. We were building a steel mill. I took the job without discussing pay rate cuz my mom works at the company and I use to as well when I was in my teens. She told me she doubted they would give me anything less than $20/hr. So I went with it. They were in awe saying "finally we have someone with a brain around here" then I got my check. $12/hr. Bye bye the guy you finally found with a brain, and at $12 good luck finding another one. I would not have been there if I had known ahead of time. Made $50 less that week than my unemployment paid plus I had to pay for gas to get there. I guess my point to the burger flipper remarks who say why pay better if they cant get your order right. Guess what. The skill that comes in at $15 or $20/hr vs min. wage is way different. I'm pretty sure if you pay $20/hr your not going to have a problem with your order. Why race to the bottom. When I owned and ran my construction business I never would consider paying someone less than $20/hr. I want quality and paying crap dont get you there. Not to mention I would feel like a huge turd offering someone less than that for a good days work.

[Richard]

All it does is remove the small business owner out of the picture,large corporations as the last man standing can pass the costs on to the consumer or employ technology to lower the labor costs.

Simple little test,every time you buy something,double the cost in your mind and then ask yourself if you would be willing to pay that.

The likes of amazon and wal mart are proven theories that the consumer is not willing to pay the added costs in favor of the cheapest product advailable.

So what are you really doing? Raise the wage,the costs rise to compensate so all that is really happening is the ability to say,I make $20 per hour flipping burgers.

Proably easier then obtaining a higher skill set,but it does not change a standard of living,it just removes the opportunities for future burger flippers because they have less establishments to choose from.

It also changes the pay scale up the line,I may take a chance hiring somebody that is supposed to have a skill set that is industry standard at $20 per hour but at $40 per hour you better have a verifiable 4 mile long list of verifiable references and years of experience to back it up.

So the fresh out of high school or college stuck in the usual catch 22 is now going to be stuck in a catch 55.

Power goes out,shut the doors,most cashiers cannot make change without the machine telling them how,the whole concept of this is what I have to offer as an employee in order to show you that I would be an asset to your company if hired,has gone out the window.

Now it is,I am here,yawn,I demand this amount of money before we can even talk about if I am worth that or not.

Even calling it a livable wage is a joke,most city’s that have implemented it are lucky if $100,000 a year is considered a livable wage,you are not going to buy a house or even begin to afford to live in those cities on $20 per hour,it all becomes relative,but it sounds good... hey look we fought hard for you and now you are making a livable wage,not really but.

I am thinking is Bezos is making 50 billion I aught to be making at least 50 million stuffing boxes.

Here Disney raised the minimum wage to $15 to look good in the press,30 days later they upped the entrance price from $100 to $135 per person,which kinda takes the whole low income children’s chance of seeing the rat out of the picture,pretty soon only the well to do children will be able to visit,the rest are stuck with green eggs and ham.

[Canadian Visitor]

All it does is remove the small business owner out of the picture,large corporations as the last man standing can pass the costs on to the consumer or employ technology to lower the labor costs.

Simple little test,every time you buy something,double the cost in your mind and then ask yourself if you would be willing to pay that.

The likes of amazon and wal mart are proven theories that the consumer is not willing to pay the added costs in favor of the cheapest product advailable.

So what are you really doing? Raise the wage,the costs rise to compensate so all that is really happening is the ability to say,I make $20 per hour flipping burgers.

Proably easier then obtaining a higher skill set,but it does not change a standard of living,it just removes the opportunities for future burger flippers because they have less establishments to choose from.

It also changes the pay scale up the line,I may take a chance hiring somebody that is supposed to have a skill set that is industry standard at $20 per hour but at $40 per hour you better have a verifiable 4 mile long list of verifiable references and years of experience to back it up.

So the fresh out of high school or college stuck in the usual catch 22 is now going to be stuck in a catch 55.

Power goes out,shut the doors,most cashiers cannot make change without the machine telling them how,the whole concept of this is what I have to offer as an employee in order to show you that I would be an asset to your company if hired,has gone out the window.

Now it is,I am here,yawn,I demand this amount of money before we can even talk about if I am worth that or not.

Even calling it a livable wage is a joke,most city’s that have implemented it are lucky if $100,000 a year is considered a livable wage,you are not going to buy a house or even begin to afford to live in those cities on $20 per hour,it all becomes relative,but it sounds good... hey look we fought hard for you and now you are making a livable wage,not really but.

I am thinking is Bezos is making 50 billion I aught to be making at least 50 million stuffing boxes.

Here Disney raised the minimum wage to $15 to look good in the press,30 days later they upped the entrance price from $100 to $135 per person,which kinda takes the whole low income children’s chance of seeing the rat out of the picture,pretty soon only the well to do children will be able to visit,the rest are stuck with green eggs and ham.

There is nothing about this post that constitutes a useful discussion point.

No jurisdiction had doubled the minimum wage in a year or even in two or three.

No jurisdiction has pegged the minimum wage to a high-earner's income.

Your assertions on what occurs in the market are simply outright wrong, as I have established with multiple citations, over multiple posts over more than a year of this thread.

In point of fact, raising the minimum wage affects small business owners LESS than large corporate entities.

No small business owner was beating Walmart or national dollar store chain on price.

That doesn't change w/the minimum wage rising.

In truth, more small business owners pay an above minimum rate to begin with than do large retailers of the chain variety.

Pushing up the cost of the big chains is not seriously damaging to them.

However, any shift in consumer preference that is likely to occur from the low-cost provider in market going a bit higher, is likely to be to 'trade up' in purchase, which favours the small business owner on average.

[Richard]

There is nothing about this post that constitutes a useful discussion point.

No jurisdiction had doubled the minimum wage in a year or even in two or three.

No jurisdiction has pegged the minimum wage to a high-earner's income.

Your assertions on what occurs in the market are simply outright wrong, as I have established with multiple citations, over multiple posts over more than a year of this thread.

In point of fact, raising the minimum wage affects small business owners LESS than large corporate entities.

Nice,you have been posting links for over a year that support your liberal economics and not looking at the cause and effect.

I could post lots of links that are contrary to what ever you post but the bottom line is the lack of understanding how labor effects the cost of doing business.

Unless you have actually owned a business and employed people you are just parroting what you are told with little understanding,that is the problem with being book smart verses the real world.

You are taking transitional low pay jobs and trying to create a full time career out of them,in essence keeping people down,then saying,here’s a loaf of bread to ease the pain,instead of really trying to lift them up by teaching them an actual skill.

Cortez's first job was as a waitress,she supported the $15 increase and after it was implemented the company with two locations closed their doors,35 jobs permanently removed from the workforce,no longer an option.

It does not matter how many reports that you post,the impact on labor costs provided many examples.

It is posted here many times,the auto factory jobs were reduced by automation,did the manufactures do that because they like shiny toys or was it to reduce labor costs?

Mc Donald’s replaces 5 front counter workers with 4 kiosks,why?

Before your time but full service gas stations switched to self serve,why?

BMW,Mercedes,Toyota etc. did not set up shop in the south because they wanted a tan.

When the Casinos closed in Jersey because the union demanded a wage higher then the casinos could pay,they shut the doors,15,000 jobs gone forever.

For you to actually say that labor costs effect a small business less then large Corporations is a fact,is wrong.

Removing the small businesses from the picture is going to leave the likes of Amazon’s and wal Marta as the only alternative that has already been proven.

With the economy going good the impact maybe negligible,but when the next recession hits the impact will be felt.

The business fixed costs are exactly that,the labor is one of the only flexible variables.

[Canadian Visitor]

I could post lots of links that are contrary to what ever you post but the bottom line is the lack of understanding how labor effects the cost of doing business.

No you could not.

Not a single credible one, in point of fact.

Unless you have actually owned a business and employed people you are just parroting what you are told with little understanding,that is the problem with being book smart verses the real world.

Unlike a former strip club manager, I have real experience in a real job w/real money at play.

Not a few thousand or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, but a good deal more, as an owner.

As a consultant, I've been well compensated by business worth more still.

They don't hire people like you. They hire people like me.

Because they like making a profit!

You are taking transitional low pay jobs and trying to create a full time career out of them,in essence keeping people down,then saying,here’s a loaf of bread to ease the pain,instead of really trying to lift them up by teaching them an actual skill.

Absolutely untrue. As an employer I have never hired anyone at less than $20 per hour, going back 20 years. [[over $30 per hour in today's money) .

That was true for entry-level positions. But I certainly afforded training and advancement opportunities, including paying for my staff to take courses, not just the cost of the courses, but paying them hourly rates to take them too!

It does not matter how many reports that you post,the impact on labor costs provided many examples.

That makes no sense. What you just said was it doesn't matter what the facts are, or the evidence says, if you choose to believe otherwise.

Not sorry to tell ya, it just ain't so.

It is posted here many times,the auto factory jobs were reduced by automation,did the manufactures do that because they like shiny toys or was it to reduce labor costs?

Of course it was to reduce labour costs. Which is a good thing!

Its called productivity!

Its been the story of economic growth for two centuries. Unemployment has never risen structurally as a result.

Mc Donald’s replaces 5 front counter workers with 4 kiosks,why?

I can answer this one very factually. To hire more people! No, Not kidding... I know for a fact McDonalds w/kiosks on average, have greater employment today than they did 5 years ago.

[[the saved space resulted in room for more kitchen equipment, which allowed for all-day breakfast, which has boosted sales)

For you to actually say that labor costs effect a small business less then large Corporations is a fact,is wrong.

You have zero credibility. You have zero citations. My logic is impeccable and I'm invested in more businesses than you have worked for, owned or managed in your lifetime.

Hush!

[Richard]

No you could not.

Not a single credible one, in point of fact.



Unlike a former strip club manager, I have real experience in a real job w/real money at play.

Not a few thousand or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, but a good deal more, as an owner.

As a consultant, I've been well compensated by business worth more still.

They don't hire people like you. They hire people like me.

Because they like making a profit!



Absolutely untrue. As an employer I have never hired anyone at less than $20 per hour, going back 20 years. [[over $30 per hour in today's money) .

That was true for entry-level positions. But I certainly afforded training and advancement opportunities, including paying for my staff to take courses, not just the cost of the courses, but paying them hourly rates to take them too!



That makes no sense. What you just said was it doesn't matter what the facts are, or the evidence says, if you choose to believe otherwise.

Not sorry to tell ya, it just ain't so.



Of course it was to reduce labour costs. Which is a good thing!

Its called productivity!

Its been the story of economic growth for two centuries. Unemployment has never risen structurally as a result.



I can answer this one very factually. To hire more people! No, Not kidding... I know for a fact McDonalds w/kiosks on average, have greater employment today than they did 5 years ago.

[[the saved space resulted in room for more kitchen equipment, which allowed for all-day breakfast, which has boosted sales)



You have zero credibility. You have zero citations. My logic is impeccable and I'm invested in more businesses than you have worked for, owned or managed in your lifetime.

Hush!

Canada must be putting out some killer weed with all of the extra chemicals.

I really love the part where Mc Donald’s kiosks save kitchen space,granted they may be different up there but here you order out in the lobby and not in the kitchen.

No logic necessary.

You do realize most of the links that you are providing are opinions that people are paid to publish.

How come you only want to see one short term side of things and are afraid of the big picture ?


When you were an employer 20 years ago were you employing unskilled service workers at $20 per hour? That is not even a valid response,or maybe you are a nice guy.

That could be how you consult,you tell business owners to double the employees salaries and that will magically increase profits,but then again you could be consulting on the benefits of one ply verses two ply.

But seriously,either you are so far up the economics ladder that you really do not understand how the rest of the world is or you just do not understand.

What do you view as a better option,pick one.

Pay 5 workers $15 per hour.
Pay 8 workers $9 per hour.

When you do the jump from $9 to $15 the costs of goods and services also increases.So you are increasing wages while lowering employment options but the increase in wages does not offset the increased costs.

All you have done is eliminated 3 jobs.

In one of the links that you provided or I read somewhere one of your leaders said “ The economy is going great in Canada right now,it is time to spread the wealth and raise the minimum to $15 per hour”.

Fine because the economy is going great,but when the next downswing happens,as it always does,nobody is going to except lowering wages in order for businesses to survive,they will cut costs and that will be labor first.

So we will leave it at that and revisit when the next downturn happens,then compare notes again.

[Wesley Mouch]

All it does is remove the small business owner out of the picture,large corporations as the last man standing can pass the costs on to the consumer or employ technology to lower the labor costs.
...snip...
Here Disney raised the minimum wage to $15 to look good in the press,30 days later they upped the entrance price from $100 to $135 per person,which kinda takes the whole low income children’s chance of seeing the rat out of the picture,pretty soon only the well to do children will be able to visit,the rest are stuck with green eggs and ham.

There is an idea in the mind of those in favor of MW increases that the additional wages paid will come 'out of profits' -- which the greedy corporate overlords/ladys/xidis won't miss because they are the 1%.

Having watched greedy corporate beasts up close, just want to let you know that profits are never reduced by increases in costs. Either other costs are reduced, or prices are increased. Investors [[or owners) created the business with an necessary revenue structure to fund their payments. The union pension fund needs its revenue to pay pensions.

Sure, the McDonalds in Seattle may hold the price line because they can tolerate smaller profits in Seattle vs. Tacoma -- but overall increases in labor costs mean increases in prices --or-- reductions in other costs. The business that reduces its profit dies.

[Canadian Visitor]

There is an idea in the mind of those in favor of MW increases that the additional wages paid will come 'out of profits' -- which the greedy corporate overlords/ladys/xidis won't miss because they are the 1%.

As a proponent of a fair, and reasonable minimum wage, I have never once suggested that it will come out of profit in the medium term.

In point of fact, I have suggested that it will, in many cases, result in investments in productivity [[cost reduction) and in modest price increases.

Insulting your opponent in a discussion by implying they don't know what they are talking about is fine, if the evidence supports that. Here, it most certainly does not.

***

The facts remain the same, done properly, a minimum wage increase results in a greater return to the worker than the increase in the cost of goods in the community at large.

This occurs because many goods and services are in no way dependent on the minimum wage in their price setting. Real Estate being among the most important of these.

The cost of rising wages at the low end is born by all customers.

Where a selective increase in costs of say 5% in the cost of a subset of goods that might represent 40% of household spend equals an adverse hit of 2% to every 'average' customer; yet produces a 35% wage increase to the lowest earner, that is entirely justified and beneficial to the economy.

[Oddz313]

Canadian Visitor is kicking all your ass's and then some. I could and still cant understand why another human being would not want someone to make more money. Just so you can say you make that much more? I dont make minimum wage. I could not exist if I did. Although I would love to see minimum wage go up as high as is sensible. While I am not studied enough to know what that figure is I still cant understand why anyone other than maybe some tight wad business owner who only cares about themselves would not want people to make more money[[you know they spend more then right? We know trickle down does not work right? Give trickle up a try, I bet it works). Bottom line is you get what you pay for. Want crap? Pay crap. Want a shitty country, pay folks a shitty wage. Its all to simple but the greedy ones are always there.

And he is doing it without having to make up stories or use a bunch of anecdotal evidence. That is the problem with debating conservatives, they lie and use anecdotal evidence constantly. Everyone knows places with low wages are great.

[abraham]

All it does is remove the small business owner out of the picture,large corporations as the last man standing can pass the costs on to the consumer or employ technology to lower the labor costs.

Simple little test,every time you buy something,double the cost in your mind and then ask yourself if you would be willing to pay that.

The likes of amazon and wal mart are proven theories that the consumer is not willing to pay the added costs in favor of the cheapest product advailable.

So what are you really doing? Raise the wage,the costs rise to compensate so all that is really happening is the ability to say,I make $20 per hour flipping burgers.

Proably easier then obtaining a higher skill set,but it does not change a standard of living,it just removes the opportunities for future burger flippers because they have less establishments to choose from.

It also changes the pay scale up the line,I may take a chance hiring somebody that is supposed to have a skill set that is industry standard at $20 per hour but at $40 per hour you better have a verifiable 4 mile long list of verifiable references and years of experience to back it up.

So the fresh out of high school or college stuck in the usual catch 22 is now going to be stuck in a catch 55.

Power goes out,shut the doors,most cashiers cannot make change without the machine telling them how,the whole concept of this is what I have to offer as an employee in order to show you that I would be an asset to your company if hired,has gone out the window.

Now it is,I am here,yawn,I demand this amount of money before we can even talk about if I am worth that or not.

Even calling it a livable wage is a joke,most city’s that have implemented it are lucky if $100,000 a year is considered a livable wage,you are not going to buy a house or even begin to afford to live in those cities on $20 per hour,it all becomes relative,but it sounds good... hey look we fought hard for you and now you are making a livable wage,not really but.

I am thinking is Bezos is making 50 billion I aught to be making at least 50 million stuffing boxes.

Here Disney raised the minimum wage to $15 to look good in the press,30 days later they upped the entrance price from $100 to $135 per person,which kinda takes the whole low income children’s chance of seeing the rat out of the picture,pretty soon only the well to do children will be able to visit,the rest are stuck with green eggs and ham.

I read through your first two paragraphs and after the utter garbage of these opinions I could not read further. End of small business. I have a small business. I would not consider paying minimum wage. I dont want that, I like to pay well. Small business is not going anywhere. You probably said the same thing when they wanted to pay the lowest paid people 4.25 an hour back in the day. Guess what? Small business is still around and always will be. In fact if the folks working for minimum wage could afford the product they produce the same small business would be doing even better. More buyers. Duh! Edit: Then I read your last 3 paragraphs. You are either super bitter or just dumb. My guess is like the other 80 percent of human population, you are just dumb.

[abraham]

There is an idea in the mind of those in favor of MW increases that the additional wages paid will come 'out of profits' -- which the greedy corporate overlords/ladys/xidis won't miss because they are the 1%.

I really dont think that idea exists. Not that I have heard of. It comes out of overhead. Profit is added up after your workers are paid. Again, why do you not want these people to make more money? Why do you even care. I make and pay way more than min. wage but I still want the low guy to make more money. If you are not taking home $500 a week or more no one should work there. No one. Let them pay more or let them go work for someone else. I bet they wont want min. wage. If you are making money by paying min. wage[[even if its $15/hr) shame on you. Why do the least expected of oneself. Step up. Lets drive wages up not race to the bottom.

[Wesley Mouch]

I read through your first two paragraphs and after the utter garbage of these opinions I could not read further. End of small business. I have a small business. I would not consider paying minimum wage. I dont want that, I like to pay well.

Bravo. Walk the talk.

Small business is not going anywhere. You probably said the same thing when they wanted to pay the lowest paid people 4.25 an hour back in the day. Guess what? Small business is still around and always will be.

Yes. Yet MW increases are more difficult for a small firm.

In fact if the folks working for minimum wage could afford the product they produce the same small business would be doing even better. More buyers. Duh!

Congraulations. You have found a perpetual motion machine. Just start it rolling, and it charges its own batteries produces more energy than it uses.

MW does not create money. It solely redistributes it. That you surely would agree with.

Does MW put more money in the hands of some workers. Of course it does. Does MW thus increase revenues for some businesses [[because the worker has more cash). Well, certainly in some cases. The local bodega might sell more submarine sandwiches. Is the increase sufficient to cover their increased costs? More doubtful. But in some cases. If the bodega serves a lot of MW workers, then this is more true. If they employ a lot of MW workers, its less true. But there is no doubt an effect that is sometimes positive.

Certainly positive is the McDonalds where Microsoft workers buy Big Macs made by MW workers. Money flows from rich to poor.

Certainly negative is the Lotto, where money flows from MW workers to government employees and corporate welfare -- with little return to the community.

Henry Ford had a point. I suspect, however, that his folksy aphorism might have been motivated by more sinister goals, such as increasing the costs to his competitors, increasing employee retention, and enabling more purchases on credit [[curious if Ford Credit came into existence around the same time).

The difference between Ford and MW is that Ford voluntarily increased his wages. He had reasons for doing so, and he was able to, we presume, capture market share or otherwise line his pockets by a smart move that made sense for Ford at that time. It wasn't an 'one size fits all' decision made by do-gooder perpetual motion believers.

Look at it this way. Ford is still with us, so the move worked for him. We don't know if there were 20 other smaller firms that died because their business couldn't handle the increase. Ford gained market share. And life got harder for Packard. More 7-11s. Fewer bodegas. Life is good for Ford. Smart move.

...snip ad hominem attack...

[Canadian Visitor]

Congraulations. You have found a perpetual motion machine. Just start it rolling, and it charges its own batteries produces more energy than it uses.

MW does not create money. It solely redistributes it. That you surely would agree with.

Actually that isn't necessarily true.

If one studies economics and considers what read GDP per capita growth is.......

Let me note, if 'money can't appear'....there is no real growth.

But I digress.........

****

Wesley I came on here and respected you because you took a civil tone and seemed to be willing to have a thoughtful exchange of views.

But I have disproved every argument on this subject you have ever put up with real facts, real citations, peer-reviewed studies, verifiable data and logic and still you conceded nothing, and go on your merry way w/the same views you started with that simply aren't true.

I find that very problematic and not terribly respectable.

To use a somewhat misogynist turn of phrase.........you really need to learn to lose like a man.

Change your mind, admit your beat, shake my hand [[virtually) and move on.

[Richard]

It’s kinda like an engineer they can design and make look good anything on paper that you desire,until it comes time to actually build it in the real world.

Studies are just that,estimating,guessing,predicting etc. a far cry from actual real world events,in the states anyways most of the places that have instituted the $15 minimum have given until 2023 to comply.

So one side is based on,we think this will happen according to our studies but with no actual long term multi economy cycles to actually provide facts on.

Then there is the small business owner who knows every penny spent daily and knows what costs are as fact.

Then there are the large corporations that can either automate or cut staff with little impact and dreams of the day when all the small businesses fold,so they have no competitors and in time raise prices in order to make up for the losses,because then you really have no choice but to pay.

It is not the wage level that needs to be raised on starter jobs,it is the level of education of those workers so they can move up to more advanced positions and actually be lifted up,that is doing something.

As it is blatantly clear with Venezuela,all these programs work until there is a dip in the economy then it all falls apart.

You would figure that if a low wage worker,stuck in that rut would be better off for the economy as a whole if they had a skill where they could afford to buy a house,car,have children etc.

$15 per hour in New York City or Toronto or other big cities only gives people a few more dollars to put into the economy,it does not lift them up socially.

[Wesley Mouch]

Actually that isn't necessarily true.

If one studies economics and considers what read GDP per capita growth is.......

Let me note, if 'money can't appear'....there is no real growth.

You are right here. Money actually can appear. Economic growth is real, and increased productivity does create [[indirectly) create money. The US gov't prints more to satisfy demand, if you will.

Reducing jobs for the least skilled and giving them to more skilled workers probably does have some increase productivity. It is odd that you are shilling for the advantaged, skilled worker, and I am shilling for the less skilled market entrants who need help. Those kind of inversions always make me chuckle.

But I digress.........

Me too. Makes life interesting.

Wesley I came on here and respected you because you took a civil tone and seemed to be willing to have a thoughtful exchange of views.

Thank you.

But I have disproved every argument on this subject you have ever put up with real facts, real citations, peer-reviewed studies, verifiable data and logic and still you conceded nothing, and go on your merry way w/the same views you started with that simply aren't true.

I find that very problematic and not terribly respectable.

To use a somewhat misogynist turn of phrase.........you really need to learn to lose like a man.

Change your mind, admit your beat, shake my hand [[virtually) and move on.

To say that MW+ is 'settled economics' still isn't obvious to me, in spite of your continued insistence.

Your statement of 'mission accomplished' w.r.t. Mouch is a bit too 'Bush' for me. There is no doubt that many people truly believe that MW+ is good policy. I think they are sincere, but wrong. There's also no doubt that a very great number of economists, the majority from what I read, who think MW+ may have some positive effects for some people/markets, but comes with an indisputable loss of jobs for the least skilled.

I don't think we completely disagree on the facts [[such that they are). But we have different values, it seems. You are focus on the benefits to the perhaps 1/3 of MW workers who rely on those wages [[ignoring the 2/3 who aren't what most would call poor -- retired, children of middle-class, etc.) I focus on the costs to the least skilled workers.

You are willing to allow some job losses to the disadvantaged in the search of better conditions and economics for a large segment of MW workers. I believe such job losses are a mistake, and that MW is the wrong tool.

Back to your point... I do not believe this is 'settled economics' at all. It may seem that way from the political world, but in the world of economics it is far from settled.

I think as places like NYC are implementing mandates for restaurant workers and such there will be many more opportunities to see what's happening in the real world. [[And of course there will be many more opportunities for people to read their desired results into the truth.)