Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[Bham1982]

Hang on. How does minimum wage increase but never have an effect on consumer goods prices?

I never claimed there was zero effect. Everything affects inflation to some extent. That isn't an argument for putting workers in borderline servitude, third-world style.

As mentioned before, you can’t mandate a minimum wage without the market reacting accordingly otherwise, why stop at $15? Why not $100/hr?

Because that would be stupid? Obviously there's a huge difference between offering a minimum livable wage appropriate to a civilized first world nation and essentially outlawing the private sector by mandating absurd compensation.

[Wesley Mouch]

I never claimed there was zero effect. Everything affects inflation to some extent. That isn't an argument for putting workers in borderline servitude, third-world style.

In the US...

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

77% are white [[Pew),

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?

Because that would be stupid? Obviously there's a huge difference between offering a minimum livable wage appropriate to a civilized first world nation and essentially outlawing the private sector by mandating absurd compensation.

Sure. But reducto ad absurdum is a valuable tool. Maybe $100 is rhetorically dramatic, but what about $18.00? Or $22.00? Is there a point where rising MW starts to harm the unskilled, who have few advantages but their willingness [[in some cases) to work for less than someone with more skills and experience? How do expect the unskilled to get experience, when we encourage the hiring of more skilled workers over unskilled? Does this not perpetuate the poverty we wish to reduce?

B'Ham, what's the magic number? OK, not $100. Is $15.00 indexed to inflation enough to prevent the slide into 'servitude'?

[SammyS]

I never claimed there was zero effect. Everything affects inflation to some extent. That isn't an argument for putting workers in borderline servitude, third-world style.

To the true definition of Inflation [[credit expansion and velocity), raising minimum wage is actually deflationary since it’s likely to cause divestment from the private sector. Retail inflation [[price increases) are the result of either:
1. increased credit expansion [[not the case today) or
2. government price fixing. Think about all the Governent Sponsored Entiprises [[GSE) that skew Prices [[Medical, Education, Insurance etc).

Because that would be stupid? Obviously there's a huge difference between offering a minimum livable wage appropriate to a civilized first world nation and essentially outlawing the private sector by mandating absurd compensation.

Who gets to decide?

[SammyS]

In the US...

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

77% are white [[Pew),

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?


Sure. But reducto ad absurdum is a valuable tool. Maybe $100 is rhetorically dramatic, but what about $18.00? Or $22.00? Is there a point where rising MW starts to harm the unskilled, who have few advantages but their willingness [[in some cases) to work for less than someone with more skills and experience? How do expect the unskilled to get experience, when we encourage the hiring of more skilled workers over unskilled? Does this not perpetuate the poverty we wish to reduce?

B'Ham, what's the magic number? OK, not $100. Is $15.00 indexed to inflation enough to prevent the slide into 'servitude'?

Well put. Here’s a decent argument about how capitalism actually lifts living standards if allowed to operate freely.

https://youtu.be/g38HcOL1Ooo

[Canadian Visitor]

In the US...

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

77% are white [[Pew),

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?


Sure. But reducto ad absurdum is a valuable tool. Maybe $100 is rhetorically dramatic, but what about $18.00? Or $22.00? Is there a point where rising MW starts to harm the unskilled, who have few advantages but their willingness [[in some cases) to work for less than someone with more skills and experience? How do expect the unskilled to get experience, when we encourage the hiring of more skilled workers over unskilled? Does this not perpetuate the poverty we wish to reduce?

B'Ham, what's the magic number? OK, not $100. Is $15.00 indexed to inflation enough to prevent the slide into 'servitude'?

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that higher minimum wages [[within reason) have little or none of the negative affects you assert, you still won't believe reason!

Australia's minimum wage is over $14USD per hour [[18.29AUD

Shockingly, unemployment is not higher, youth unemployment is not materially higher, poverty is lower.

Want other examples? I've listed many before, and I can go on and on and on.

Everywhere in the world that tries this, it works.

The notion that if you raise the minimum wage responsibly you're going to promote vast inflation [[not true); High unemployment [[not true) or lower social mobility [[not true) have all been completely and utterly debunked.

You say you care about reducing poverty but you steadfastly stare clear evidence in the face that raising minimum wage is one part of how to reduce poverty and you swear you saw nothing at all, because you simply don't wish to believe it.

Its deeply frustrating.

***

Of course, as Bham pointed out there are intrinsic limits [[which vary over time by the way).

But I have illustrated in the past the fast food example where the cost of labour is only 11% of the cost of your combo [[yes, I'm sure). That the inflationary impact of a 25% pay raise for the typical fast food worker, if 100% of the cost of that raise were passed through is under 3%; and even if there some marginal knock-on affects from suppliers you'd be under 5% if there were no gain in productivity at all.

Meaning, the lift on an $8USD fast food order maxes out at .40c

Yes, you say, but there will be mass unemployment.....first off there will only be reduced low-skill labour IF the price point tips for productivity investment, and if the business can find no other use for said labour.

Let me stick w/the fast food example. A certain well-known fast food brand has rolled out self-order kiosks in locations across the Greater Toronto Area. At one location with which I am very familiar, this rollout [[which preceded the recent minimum wage move), has resulted in.......MORE jobs, in the same square footage.


Turns out the selling space occupied by new kiosks is smaller than the old cash register foot print.

That change allowed expanded food offerings, plus higher customer throughput, which in turn has resulted in greater sales, and higher employment [[net 7 FTE).

Ahem.

Evidence.

Now, beyond that, you question whether this benefit will offer undue benefit to well-off teens.

First off, if they EARN their money I don't see why it matters that their parents are well off.

I also see it a conflict of arguments that you argue on the one side that this will displace marginal employees and then argue that they will still be working but don't need the money.

Regardless, here's what will shock you, IF teens who don't need the money, just a bit of work experience, or some pocket change suddenly get more per hour.......they happily work less, leaving those hours for those who DO NEED them.

This is the real world experience.

To the extent, over time, that productivity does displace some low-skill labour [[which it surely will, minimum wage or no), one must again examine Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan or even the US over time, to see what experience has brought us? As past productivity improvements occurred what happened?

Mostly the answer is horizontal displacement. By which we mean that there was no net increase in unemployment for any demographic. There was a sideways shift of some from one type of low-skill labour to another, and/or a higher proportion of workers gaining skill to do higher-skill jobs.

See Ontario where post-secondary attainment levels in the current generation exceed 75%

Which, it should be noted, soaks up some of that labour supply you were worried about, as more young people defer full-time employment to a later age to pursue education.

****

As to limits, of course there are limits.

The marginal impact of the earlier mentioned hike was very low, even at its highest. [[worth noting is that many fast food providers in Canada have thus far not raised prices since the minimum wage hike, instead absorbing the cost, and with very little affect on employment or profit).

But clearly, if you made the hike 50% or 100% you could begin to make it quite disruptive.

What's the answer? Review the evidence. Consider past experience, weigh the impact on inflation, retail sales, tax revenues, and employment levels.

Upon carefully considered review, pick a number that has a net positive impact with a reasonable risk profile.

The idea, that your version of life would lift more people out of poverty [[no labour standards, let people work for .50c per hour w/no vacation, no benefits, no sick days, and no pension) is utter nonsense. Nowhere in the world has this resulted in lower poverty levels including in the United States.

Not once, Not ever.

Of course a free[[er) market can be beneficial, but no market is truly free. Trade is regulated, stock markets are regulated, taxes do exist all have biases of one kind or another.

The choice is not between some 'utopian' version of a free market that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist and communism.

The choice is between responsible capitalism that benefits every segment of the population in something resembling a reasonable way and unreasonable capitalism that benefits only a narrow segment of the population.

This is done through some mixture of consumer protections, employment standards, unions, and redistribution of wealth by the state.

The higher the employment standards, the less one needs of the latter.

***

Oh....and

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

[[not by choice for many)

77% are white [[Pew),

[[what poor white people don't matter?)

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

[[so couples can be poor, and its ok if teens need to work to help their parents pay the bills?)

Try arguments that are persuasive and include useful information.

[SammyS]

^^
You do realize how expensive it is to live in Australia, right? Here are a few examples:

-Restaurant/fast food, fuel, pharmacy, cars, entertainment etc are about 2x.
-Groceries are slightly higher than here.
-Alcohol 2-3x
-Cigerettes 3-4x
-Services are about 2-3x.
-Housing? About 3-5x. [[Average house in Melbourne is ~AUD$1M or ~USD$770k)

In addition to the cost of living, taxes are also higher in most places outside US

From my experience and in my current situation, US is by far the best place to live, absolutely. No way could I afford my current lifestyle in Australia or any major city in Canada or Europe for that matter, without at least doubling my salary.

Now if I were a student, unemployed, invalid or retired without a nest egg, then Australia, Europe and Canada may be preferred choices of places to live. For now, US is my home.

[Canadian Visitor]

^^
You do realize how expensive it is to live in Australia, right? Here are a few examples:

-Restaurant/fast food, fuel, pharmacy, cars, entertainment etc are about 2x.
-Groceries are slightly higher than here.
-Alcohol 2-3x
-Cigerettes 3-4x
-Services are about 2-3x.
-Housing? About 3-5x. [[Average house in Melbourne is ~AUD$1M or ~USD$770k)

In addition to the cost of living, taxes are also higher in most places outside US

From my experience and in my current situation, US is by far the best place to live, absolutely. No way could I afford my current lifestyle in Australia or any major city in Canada or Europe for that matter, without at least doubling my salary.

Now if I were a student, unemployed, invalid or retired without a nest egg, then Australia, Europe and Canada may be preferred choices of places to live. For now, US is my home.

I don't recall trying to get you to move, nor did I recall this discussion being about the base cost of living.

But in so far as we wish to make it about the latter, how about we ask you not to use Detroit as the U.S. comparator.

Detroit is anomalously cheap for a major city, particularly in respect of housing. For the majority of the population the difference in cigarette prices are not material.

The questions of cost are housing, food, utilities and transportation.

The rest is entirely discretionary.

Let's note that I didn't say healthcare, though in most of the developed world there is no cost in terms of a salary deduction or out-of-pocket expenses.

Comparing Chicago as a middle-of-the-road US comparator to Melbourne we get this:

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...=Chicago%2C+IL

That reflects a fairly close cost structure when most prices are balanced out.

Note the same comparison Chicago vs Toronto, shows Chicago as the more expensive. [[not true if buying a home mind you)

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...=Chicago%2C+IL

The notion that a higher minimum wage [[within reason) is a key driver of core costs is so much drivel.

Also, for modestly higher taxes on balance, mostly sales taxes, you do get back a higher degree of security. Yes, you too can emulate this security by putting away a lot of $$$.

But should something happen to you, impairing your ability to work for any length of time, you are much more up the creek.

In most other [[developed) countries there is a greater measure of security providing a standard of living you will not fall below.

But I digress. Your last minute tangent is a diversion from the core argument.

[Bham1982]

In the US...

64% of minimum wage workers are part time [[Pew),

77% are white [[Pew),

81% are NOT the sole earner in the family [[NYT)

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?

Minimum wage earners aren't "wealthy white kids". I have no idea where you get that idea from the above stats. Kids in wealthy families don't generally work, obviously. They're focused on school and activities. Very few kids in places like Bloomfield-Birmingham are working.

And minimum wage laws almost always distinguish between working adults and children, so it's irrelevant. The drive for higher minimums is for working adults only.

Minimum wage earners are most concentrated in rural areas, BTW, which happen to be mostly white.

B'Ham, what's the magic number? OK, not $100. Is $15.00 indexed to inflation enough to prevent the slide into 'servitude'?

I think it's a reasonable number for higher cost states. There is no "magic number", obviously, but a general consensus has emerged around that range.

[Wesley Mouch]

Minimum wage earners aren't "wealthy white kids". I have no idea where you get that idea from the above stats. Kids in wealthy families don't generally work, obviously. They're focused on school and activities. Very few kids in places like Bloomfield-Birmingham are working.

1 in 8 MW workers live in a household with > $100,000 income [[NYTimes 2014):

One in eight lives in a high-income household. About 12 percent of those who would gain from an increase to $10.10 live in households with incomes above $100,000. This group highlights the fact that the minimum wage is not nearly as well targeted toward poverty reduction as the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy whose receipt, unlike the minimum wage, is predicated on family income.

And minimum wage laws almost always distinguish between working adults and children, so it's irrelevant. The drive for higher minimums is for working adults only.

I did not mean to suggest minors as much as rich, young adults. MW is a miserably blunt tool for poverty reduction -- unless you don't mind 12% of your increases going to those who don't need it.

Minimum wage earners are most concentrated in rural areas, BTW, which happen to be mostly white.

I only added white for dramatic effect. Race isn't important here. There we'd agree.

White youth was a proxy for people who don't need the MW increase. I have spent a lot of time employing MW workers. The increase will be great for some, but for a great many others it will harm them. Make it harder for youth to get their first job. Harder for those with disadvantages from getting a foothold.

But that's the point, after all. This is mostly a ploy by unions to drive wages up. And we all know union's care little for the poor -- unless playing on guilt helps them run wages up. And wages must rise if the union's percentage take is to rise.

You're new to town, and want to offer your labor to help a small business -- to make a few bucks and show your worth. Good luck with that. The labor market isn't open to you anymore. Casual labor is gone. Regulation of every moment of employment is upon us -- and with it control by bureaucrats, unions, and the advantaged. The disadvantaged mostly need us to 'get the hell out of my way', as my friend John would say.

I think it's a reasonable number for higher cost states. There is no "magic number", obviously, but a general consensus has emerged around that range.

So glad that you got it under control. I'm sure you and the Bureau of Wages can make sure the number is appropriate.

[Canadian Visitor]

MW is a miserably blunt tool for poverty reduction -- unless you don't mind 12% of your increases going to those who don't need it.

This is so completely illogical as to be indefensible as a statement.

Any business that hit 88% uptake by its target demographic would be thrilled.

Any government program that reached those who needed it 88% of time would be ecstatic.

If you only miss 12% of the time your batting average is .880

**

Let me add here, that what you are saying is, in effect, that you would agree with paying those who 'need it' a greater wage, but if you only deserve it @$@# you.

That again makes no sense.

But that's the point, after all. This is mostly a ploy by unions to drive wages up. And we all know union's care little for the poor -- unless playing on guilt helps them run wages up. And wages must rise if the union's percentage take is to rise.

You and I could very much disagree on this statement for which you have very little evidence, in point of fact, having presented none.

However, for one moment, let me concede the point and ask 'So????'

Why would it matter who sponsors a good idea? If it turns out pedophiles are against murder, will you seek to legalize it?

What if Democrats opposed murder? :O Now I know you will want de-regulated non-consensual violence.

Stay away from such tropes.

Evidence-based policy. Science-based policy.

Period, Full-stop.

***

To sum up, you didn't address my arguments at all, because you know you can't.

You know that the evidence the world over shows a fair minimum wage, maximum work hours, minimum age of employment, safe-workplace laws etc. raise the standard of living for everyone, and reduce poverty.

Study upon study, objective data again and again.

Stop.

Concede.

[ABetterDetroit]

To a financial conservative like myself, every single point that Canadian Visitor has made in this discussion is 100% accurate. It has just been a excellent read. My hat is off to you CV.

The financial cost of poverty as it exists in America is far higher than another couple hundred a week to the lowest wage workers. It would be peanuts in comparison.

When arguing with a majority of people who are vehemently opposed to raising the minimum wage it always boils down to 2 things.

1) They want to exploit their own labor force they employ and want the rest of us to pick up the tab for their exploitation.

or

2) They have big issues with their own social standing and somehow think that the lowest possible wages that a human being can work for somehow makes the wage they have achieved all that much greater and a high personal accomplishment. The less someone else makes the better they feel about themselves. More often than not this group will inject race into the discussion showing their true feelings on that subject.

[Canadian Visitor]

To a financial conservative like myself, every single point that Canadian Visitor has made in this discussion is 100% accurate. It has just been a excellent read. My hat is off to you CV.

Thank you. I appreciate your saying so.

[SammyS]

Thank you. I appreciate your saying so.

Yes, I agree. You've made some damn good points.

[aj3647]

Is giving a lot of wealthy white kids a raise the best way to eliminate third-world servitude?

No Wesley, "rich" white kids are most certainly NOT the ones working those minimum-wage jobs. And there was nothing in the statistics you cited that even remotely suggested that.

Are many of those part-time jobs filled by working-class and middle-class white teens? Sure. But then again, that an increase in the minimum wage might also benefit some middle-class families is certainly not an argument against it. The money those kids make still lessens the financial burden on their families.

There are arguments to be made against the minimum wage. That it benefits "rich" kids is not one of them.

[Wesley Mouch]

No Wesley, "rich" white kids are most certainly NOT the ones working those minimum-wage jobs. And there was nothing in the statistics you cited that even remotely suggested that.

Are many of those part-time jobs filled by working-class and middle-class white teens? Sure. But then again, that an increase in the minimum wage might also benefit some middle-class families is certainly not an argument against it. The money those kids make still lessens the financial burden on their families.

There are arguments to be made against the minimum wage. That it benefits "rich" kids is not one of them.

My dramatic rhetoric harms my argument. OK. I would have been better to have kept calmer. To have stayed a little more grounded.

I do not, however, concede the point.

Race didn't need to be mentioned. But that the MW disproportionately benefits those who don't need help is nonetheless true.

America's conservative paper of record say in "Who Earns the MW":

One in eight lives in a high-income household. About 12 percent of those who would gain from an increase to $10.10 live in households with incomes above $100,000. This group highlights the fact that the minimum wage is not nearly as well targeted toward poverty reduction as the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy whose receipt, unlike the minimum wage, is predicated on family income.Still, a minimum-wage increase does much more to help low- and moderate-income households than any other groups. Households that make less than $20,000 receive 5 percent of the nation’s total earnings, for instance — but would receive 26 percent of the benefit from the proposed minimum-wage increase.

2014 NYT

I'm quite in favor of the EITC, because it works better.

[Canadian Visitor]

America's conservative paper of record say in "Who Earns the MW":

As already pointed out [[sigh), that statistic only establishes than seven out of eight people [[or 88%) of people who earn the minimum wage do NOT live in a household with a high income earner.

This does nothing to support your argument or impugn the value of a higher minimum wage at all.

I'm quite in favor of the EITC, because it works better.

Swell, so, any portion of the credit that is actually refundable is a subsidy, by the state, of a business whose model would not function if their worker didn't receive market-distorting state support.

Did you say you were conservative?

Oh...

And

Childless workers that have incomes below about $14,340 can receive a modest EITC credit. A maximum of $487.

That's for a whole year mind you.

Or equivalent to $9.36 per week or .23c per hour.

So let's come back to fiscal prudence by government shall we....

If we agreed that no one in Michigan can afford to earn less than $13USD x 40 hours to get by, for the sake of argument.

That's $27,040 per year. [[gross).

To close the gap between the current Michigan Minimum Wage...of 9.25 per hour which would get you $19,240 per year @ 40 hours per week. You require a subsidy of $7,800 USD per year.

According to this article in Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#50342c0e61f8

An expansion of the EITC to provide up to $3,000 to low-income childless earners would cost 1.4 Trillion over 10 years or roughly 140B per year.

Assuming we can agree to my earlier number, you need to multiply that cost by 2.6 to achieve the same benefit as a $13USD minimum wage.

Meaning, you just added 364B PER YEAR to the deficit in order to subsidize business.

That is profoundly un-conservative. Its not particularly capitalist. Moreover it doesn't strike me as a more effective solution by any reasonable measure than raising the minimum wage.

[Wesley Mouch]

CV... I think we agree that poverty is a problem. Where we disagree is on solution.

Although there are other solutions to the problems of poverty, putting cash into pockets of those in need is a reasonable method.

So how do we get that cash there. Regardless of how we do it, and regardless of your hyperbolic math, that money needs to come out of the pockets of others -- as a social cost. I'm OK with that [[mostly). We no longer live in a world where the poor and disadvantaged can exist without cash. So all solutions on the table need cash. Any cash spent on this, whether by businesses [[MW) or government subsidy [[EIC) comes out of our collective profits -- either by higher prices for our needs, or in higher taxes to pay subsidies. So your math is meaningless. There's a cost -- and if you put $100 in a deserving pocket, it costs us $100.

My argument against MW is that its a really bad policy, with lots of unintended consequences. Sure, it puts money in some pockets. But it takes from others. It takes jobs from the least skilled, and gives them to the more advantaged. For that alone, it should be abolished.

...[[12% waste by increasing wages of high-income families) does nothing to support your argument or impugn the value of a higher minimum wage at all.

12% is a lot of waste to me -- should be directed to people in need.

Did you say you were conservative?

Never. Not once. I do vote conservative because the progressive option is a proven failure at helping people. But no, I'm not a conservative.

...
That is profoundly un-conservative. Its not particularly capitalist. Moreover it doesn't strike me as a more effective solution by any reasonable measure than raising the minimum wage.

An EIC is more effective, because it doesn't price an inexperience, unskilled, or unproven worker out of a job.

MW discourages employers from hiring just the people who need jobs by pricing semi-skilled, experienced labor the same as a new market entrant.

Better to eliminate MW, get those with no experience working.

Or you can believe that the only problem with the MW is that it isn't high enough. Sure. That'll help inner city kids get their first jobs. Sure.

[Canadian Visitor]

Any cash spent on this, whether by businesses [[MW) or government subsidy [[EIC) comes out of our collective profits -- either by higher prices for our needs, or in higher taxes to pay subsidies. So your math is meaningless. There's a cost -- and if you put $100 in a deserving pocket, it costs us $100.

This is not accurate.

If done via taxes, everyone pays, including those businesses who already pay a fair wage to their workers, who now have to pay twice, once for their own staff and to subsidize a competitor who pays less. That's absurd and unfair.

If you remove SNAP, EITC and other government subsidy programs that serve employed people, and ask someone to survive on $8 per hour, they end up homeless or starving to death. Either way, the work force disappears quickly.

Why should society subsidize an unsustainable private enterprise? That makes no sense.

***

PS. My math is not hyperbolic, it is accurate.

**

My argument against MW is that its a really bad policy, with lots of unintended consequences. Sure, it puts money in some pockets. But it takes from others. It takes jobs from the least skilled, and gives them to the more advantaged. For that alone, it should be abolished.

You repeat this endlessly like a mantra. I have asked repeatedly for EVIDENCE.

I have, unlike you, posted evidence, repeatedly, showing this is NOT the case. You have NO evidence to suggest otherwise.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

12% is a lot of waste to me -- should be directed to people in need.

I have refuted this as well, its simply a non-sense statement.

MW discourages employers from hiring just the people who need jobs by pricing semi-skilled, experienced labor the same as a new market entrant.

This is NOT true. I have cited real-world evidence repeatedly to show otherwise. You boldly stare facts in the face and then ignore them because they don't fit your pre-concieved talking point.

***

The country w/the lowest labour standards and minimum wages in the developed world is the United States.

The country w/the greatest rate of poverty, the most income inequality and among the lowest social mobility is the United States.

Not a coincidence.

As Bham earlier pointed out [[who ever thought I'd quote him... LOL) The Cities in the U.S. which impose higher standards have GREATER social mobility than the U.S. average.

FACTS, evidence-based policy.

[Canadian Visitor]

Time to revisit this thread.

Since I last posted, Ontario has a new government, which froze the minimum wage at $14CAD

Today, The Toronto Star published a column discussing this and indicting the government for freezing the minimum.

In the course of said column, several US examples were given, including NYC at $15USD per hour [[roughly $20CAD) and Seattle which has just gone to $16USD [[21.25CAD) as their minimum wages with little or adverse impact on the economy or employment.

Also noted was that despite apocalyptic baffle gab from big business, not only did Ontario not lose any jobs in the year following the increase to $14CAD, it actually gained over 77,000 jobs.

Article here: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pol...es-of-sin.html

Also of note since last discussing this topic is that minimum wage hikes were indeed on the verge of passing via ballot initiative in Michigan; such that the legislature preempted and passed them instead.

I must confess I did not see the sneaky, duplicitous move by lame duck Republicans to repudiate their own law and the desire of the electorate.....

Sigh.

[masterblaster]

Time to revisit this thread.

Since I last posted, Ontario has a new government, which froze the minimum wage at $14CAD

Today, The Toronto Star published a column discussing this and indicting the government for freezing the minimum.

In the course of said column, several US examples were given, including NYC at $15USD per hour [[roughly $20CAD) and Seattle which has just gone to $16USD [[21.25CAD) as their minimum wages with little or adverse impact on the economy or employment.

Also noted was that despite apocalyptic baffle gab from big business, not only did Ontario not lose any jobs in the year following the increase to $14CAD, it actually gained over 77,000 jobs.

Article here: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pol...es-of-sin.html

Also of note since last discussing this topic is that minimum wage hikes were indeed on the verge of passing via ballot initiative in Michigan; such that the legislature preempted and passed them instead.

I must confess I did not see the sneaky, duplicitous move by lame duck Republicans to repudiate their own law and the desire of the electorate.....

Sigh.

Maybe Canada would have gained 150,000 jobs if the minimum wage was $10 an hour.

Perhaps the price of everything, from goods to services, has increased due to the increased minimum wage. I worked at Jimmy John's in the mid-2000's in Dearborn Heights. The day AFTER a minimum wage increase went into effect, the owner of that Jimmy Johns raised the price of all the sandwiches by 50 cents.

Just kind of playing devil's advocate.

[Richard]

^ the government dictating to capitalism creates socialism.

The wage by me went up to $15 per hour at Mc Donald’s,all they did was eliminate half of the staff and replace them with kiosks,and raised the prices.

So now 4 out of 5 are seeking employment.

I guess one just needs to ask,where is John Galt?

[night-timer]

^ the government dictating to capitalism creates socialism.

The wage by me went up to $15 per hour at Mc Donald’s,all they did was eliminate half of the staff and replace them with kiosks,and raised the prices.

So now 4 out of 5 are seeking employment.

I guess one just needs to ask,where is John Galt?

Companies and employers don't want staff - it's just another cost involved in running a business and they will eradicate or minimize the costs if they can. Don't expect anyone to support you. Looking broadly at the whole overall issue, raising or lowering wages for people on 'the bottom rung' is hardly any key issue to healthy nations or economies.

BTW, I live in Australia [[some of you don't know me personally) but I have worked in Detroit [[I'll be back in July 2019) and I retain links to the place.

Yes, Australia is phenomenally expensive now - phenomenally - but you guys in Detroit have the possibility of cheap housing and real estate investment options.

[[Buy-up whatever you can in Brush Park, anywhere along Woodward Avenue [[up to Grand Boulevard), Corktown, Woodbridge, New Center, anywhere along Michigan Avenue, or anywhere along Jefferson alongside the Detroit River... you can thank me later.)

Your city is quite special - despite the cliche'd bad reputation - and, one day, you will enjoy an enviable [[good) reputation from hipsters who only wish they "moved there earlier!" [[We even have those people here in Australia.)

[Wesley Mouch]

Time to revisit this thread.

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.

Today, The Toronto Star published a column discussing this and indicting the government for freezing the minimum.

In the course of said column, several US examples were given, including NYC at $15USD per hour [[roughly $20CAD) and Seattle which has just gone to $16USD [[21.25CAD) as their minimum wages with little or adverse impact on the economy or employment.

Also noted was that despite apocalyptic baffle gab from big business, not only did Ontario not lose any jobs in the year following the increase to $14CAD, it actually gained over 77,000 jobs.

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

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.

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

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.

...snip politics...

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.

[Pat001]

How can some of these fast food workers demand $15 per hr, when they can't even get your food order correct?? I'm all for everyone getting a raise, but I've had this happen to me time and time again.

For $15/hour, I would expect them to show up for work every day, on time, straight and sober. If I had to pay $15 per hour for unskilled labor, I would hire only senior citizens.

[JBMcB]

Perhaps the price of everything, from goods to services, has increased due to the increased minimum wage.

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.

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.