Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[BankruptcyGuy]

Restaurants in NYC and SF now have $15 minimum wage. Those are the premiere restaurant cities in North America. NYC is probably the dining capitol of the planet.

You really, honestly think that people are all going to New Jersey and Oakland to eat out? LOL. We're talking like an extra dollar or two on your bill.

And do you actually know any long-term restaurateurs? I do. They're wealthy. If you own a successful restaurant you can live anywhere in Metro Detroit. If you own a couple you're likely rich. Many pay dishwashers and the like off-the-books, well below minimum wage. I wouldn't be crying for the owners.

The margins for most restaurants are very, very tight. So when you mandate a rise in wages, this happens, inevitably:

http://sfist.com/2017/01/24/at_least...aurants_ha.php

The people who used to work at those restaurants are not pleased with the results of the latest experiment in wage controls. I would humbly suggest that if wage growth is the goal, then perhaps a government mandate isn't the best way to get there.

The other idea that seems to make no sense at all is why minimum wage would not vary across region and city. San Francisco is a very expensive place to live. This article calculates the cost of living at 62% above the national average.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-e...7-difference-6

Math tells me that $15 in SF would then be $9.25 in an average city.

According to bankrate, which is oddly what the US government site directs you to, if someone makes $150,000 in San Francisco, the equivalent income in Detroit is $81,037. Apples to apples, then, would put that $15/hr wage in SF at $8.31/hr, less than our state minimum wage of $8.90/hr. One would think the difference might be even more stark when you include just Detroit rather than the whole metro area.

[Bham1982]

The people who used to work at those restaurants are not pleased with the results of the latest experiment in wage controls.

I find it very hard to believe that the restaurant employees of NYC and SF are upset at getting substantial pay raises. If that's the case they are welcome to donate their excess earnings.

Math tells me that $15 in SF would then be $9.25 in an average city.

That's fake math. $1 in Detroit is $1 in SF. It's the same currency, within the same political framework, in a country where basically everything costs the same except housing.

I think these "cost of living calculators" were invented to make people in places like Flint and Topeka and Youngstown feel better about themselves. You aren't "richer" if you live in an area with crap housing values, which is all these calculators are figuring.

They compare the median price of a four bedroom/2 garage suburban house across jurisdictions, so obviously the richest places look poorest and the poorest places look richest. Manhattan and Beverly Hills are basically the poorest places, because either that housing typology doesn't exist, or if it does, it's insanely expensive. Mississippi and Kansas are rich because you can get a big house for nothing.

People living in high cost markets don't pay a higher proportion of income to housing. They adjust their housing preference to fit local reality. Manhattan and SF residents actually pay a lower proportion of income to housing than Detroit residents, not because their rent is cheaper, but because their unit size is smaller and they go without things like parking and land.

[oladub]

There are reasons for some conservatives to support higher minimum wages:

Higher minimum wages accelerate automation. Automation reduces costs, increases productivity, and eventually, in theory, some of the productivity increases are reflected in lower prices and a general higher standard of living.

Higher minimum wages put families in higher income brackets that will take some people off of government assistance. That means fewer bureaucrats and administrators of government services and lower taxes.

Higher minimum wages reduce the incentive to cheat by hiring lower paid illegal aliens. What would be the advantage of hiring illegal aliens if employers have to pay them as much? Fewer jobs available for illegal aliens would mean fewer are incentivized to come here.

That said, there should be a lower minimum pay rate for students so they won't be squeezed out of the job market and have to line up for larger student loan packages. Also, increased tariffs would be a good idea to offset jobs slipping out of the country attracted by lower foreign wages.

[BankruptcyGuy]

That's fake math. $1 in Detroit is $1 in SF. It's the same currency, within the same political framework, in a country where basically everything costs the same except housing.

I think these "cost of living calculators" were invented to make people in places like Flint and Topeka and Youngstown feel better about themselves. You aren't "richer" if you live in an area with crap housing values, which is all these calculators are figuring.

They compare the median price of a four bedroom/2 garage suburban house across jurisdictions, so obviously the richest places look poorest and the poorest places look richest. Manhattan and Beverly Hills are basically the poorest places, because either that housing typology doesn't exist, or if it does, it's insanely expensive. Mississippi and Kansas are rich because you can get a big house for nothing.

People living in high cost markets don't pay a higher proportion of income to housing. They adjust their housing preference to fit local reality. Manhattan and SF residents actually pay a lower proportion of income to housing than Detroit residents, not because their rent is cheaper, but because their unit size is smaller and they go without things like parking and land.

You're entitled to your opinion. But if you click through the article, the author goes through several items that are more expensive in SF:

Housing
Food
Gas

The methodology behind the calculators is much broader than just housing.

And your comment on changing habits in various locations has a bottom limit, and that limit is almost always reached in this analysis, because we are talking about the poorest people. What can you rent for $450/month in San Francisco? Nothing, no matter how small. Since the price of much of Detroit's housing stock is well, well below that bottom limit in places like NYC and SF, I think the concept of changing habits fails the test you set out.

Now, those people could chose to LIVE somewhere else, but that wasn't the comparison.

[emu steve]

Let me reply to Bham1982 on housing costs. I'll use the D.C. area as an example.

Without getting into a discussion of median rental costs, etc.

In the D.C. metro area there is no such thing as 'cheap housing'. Period. Not tiny apartments. Not cheap rentals in crime ridden areas, etc.

People in the D.C. pay a very high percentage of their income to housing. Quite frankly in areas I would not want to live.

This is a case of 'supply and demand.' There simply is not enough housing to meet the needs and that forces housing prices up. We see this in rentals. We see it in houses for sale. Condo apartments.

[Bham1982]

You're entitled to your opinion. But if you click through the article, the author goes through several items that are more expensive in SF:

Housing
Food
Gas

Housing is the primary household expense. Gas, like housing, isn't comparable across jurisdictions. What does it matter what gas costs in Manhattan when 80% of households don't have cars, and those that do drive them 1/5 as much as in Michigan?

As with housing, people adapt to variability in transportation expenses. Europeans don't go bankrupt paying for gas, they drive small diesel cars.

Food costs are the same everywhere. I have lived in very high cost and low cost markets and Target/Walmart and the like have the same costs nationwide, excepting Hawaii. Manhattan and Mississippi have the same milk and egg prices.

Re. housing, is Birmingham poorer than Flint? A four bedroom with two car attached garage, costs, minimum; $1 million+ in prime parts of Birmingham. Such homes barely exist, unless newer construction.

The exact same home costs 100k or less [[probably a lot less) in Flint. So should I be considered richer if I moved to Flint, or is it more reasonable to consider that it's silly to tie cost of living to a singular housing typology?

The COL calculators also don't account for changes in property values. High value jurisdictions have high returns. That's why they're high value in the first place. A $2 million Manhattan condo has far better long-term appreciation than a 150k Sterling Heights split-level. So why should someone be considered "richer" if they put their money in a poor-performing asset? It's like claiming someone is "richer" if they put their life savings in Sears over Amazon.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Housing is the primary household expense. Gas, like housing, isn't comparable across jurisdictions. What does it matter what gas costs in Manhattan when 80% of households don't have cars, and those that do drive them 1/5 as much as in Michigan?

As with housing, people adapt to variability in transportation expenses. Europeans don't go bankrupt paying for gas, they drive small diesel cars.

Food costs are the same everywhere. I have lived in very high cost and low cost markets and Target/Walmart and the like have the same costs nationwide, excepting Hawaii. Manhattan and Mississippi have the same milk and egg prices.

Re. housing, is Birmingham poorer than Flint? A four bedroom with two car attached garage, costs, minimum; $1 million+ in prime parts of Birmingham. Such homes barely exist, unless newer construction.

The exact same home costs 100k or less [[probably a lot less) in Flint. So should I be considered richer if I moved to Flint, or is it more reasonable to consider that it's silly to tie cost of living to a singular housing typology?

The COL calculators also don't account for changes in property values. High value jurisdictions have high returns. That's why they're high value in the first place. A $2 million Manhattan condo has far better long-term appreciation than a 150k Sterling Heights split-level. So why should someone be considered "richer" if they put their money in a poor-performing asset? It's like claiming someone is "richer" if they put their life savings in Sears over Amazon.

I think you are confusing wealth with income. I agree that long-term appreciation of real estate is greater in wealthy areas, but so what? A person making a low wage can't afford to purchase in the wealthy location. You could certainly argue that the long-term cost in wealthy areas is less because they get property appreciation, but a) that's not applicable to the question of low-wage workers and how much it costs to live--those benefits will go to landlords, and b) 2008 kind of disproved the theory that property values always go up.

The professionals who come with the metrics measure:

Food [[at home and away)
Housing
Energy [[gas and utilities)
Vehicles
Apparel
Medical expenses

Here are the charts, and a link to the statistical methodology, if you are interested.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/...ex_detroit.htm

https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/new...nfrancisco.htm

Food, for example, is a 222 index [[1984=100) in Detroit, and a 267 in SF, or 20% higher in cost.

Housing is 209 in Detroit, 319 in SF, 52% higher.

And again, that's data that is broader than the particular cities. If you did a city limits comparison, it would be even a wider gap.

The point is that $15 in SF doesn't get you very far. Even if you believe that a higher minimum wage is necessary to protect workers, etc. [[I don't, but the argument is there), it does not necessarily follow that the minimum wage in SF and NYC should be the same as it is here.

[Canadian Visitor]

I think you are confusing wealth with income. I agree that long-term appreciation of real estate is greater in wealthy areas, but so what? A person making a low wage can't afford to purchase in the wealthy location. You could certainly argue that the long-term cost in wealthy areas is less because they get property appreciation, but a) that's not applicable to the question of low-wage workers and how much it costs to live--those benefits will go to landlords, and b) 2008 kind of disproved the theory that property values always go up.

The professionals who come with the metrics measure:

Food [[at home and away)
Housing
Energy [[gas and utilities)
Vehicles
Apparel
Medical expenses

Here are the charts, and a link to the statistical methodology, if you are interested.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/...ex_detroit.htm

https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/new...nfrancisco.htm

Food, for example, is a 222 index [[1984=100) in Detroit, and a 267 in SF, or 20% higher in cost.

Housing is 209 in Detroit, 319 in SF, 52% higher.

And again, that's data that is broader than the particular cities. If you did a city limits comparison, it would be even a wider gap.

The point is that $15 in SF doesn't get you very far. Even if you believe that a higher minimum wage is necessary to protect workers, etc. [[I don't, but the argument is there), it does not necessarily follow that the minimum wage in SF and NYC should be the same as it is here.

May i suggest that in cases where cost of living is tangibly higher when all things are considered, that itself surely justifies a higher entry-point wage....

While I don't have any issue, intrinsically, with varied minimum wages that take cost of living into account; I do see it as problematic.

The challenge is where one draws the line/lines where such wages would change, and by what amount.

A plethora of different wages would be a logistical nuisance to business [[imagine a diff. wage requirement in Dearborn, Detroit and Highland Park etc.

But also a material difference surely would shift some businesses in border areas. On which side of the border will the fast food location go, if the wage differs by $3 per hour?

I think one can surmise an answer.

Yet, I don't think its unreasonable to point out, that in Ontario, the aggregate cost of living is noticeably cheaper in Windsor, than in Toronto, most of all in housing, but not exclusively.

What borders would be reasonable? In Toronto, the golden horseshoe? [[roughly just east of Toronto to Niagara Falls hugging the lake)

If there were a variation in Detroit, would one draw a definitive line following Wayne County? Or Oakland or Macomb?

Its a challenging balance to strike.

[Bigdd]

May i suggest that in cases where cost of living is tangibly higher when all things are considered, that itself surely justifies a higher entry-point wage....

Free market takes care of that automatically. In higher wage markets,.. employers HAVE to pay more,.. or they can't get good people to work for them.

In poorer markets they can pay less. They can also often charge less for their service,.. so it works out.

If you try to force too-high a min wage for a given area,.. the business is forced to either automate, raise prices, replace the current employees with fewer but more highly skilled ones,.. move, or go out of business. You can't simply pay 1/2 again more in total payroll unless you can get extra money for the same goods or services from your customers.

And remember,.. on top of the gross wages,. there's also 6.2% matching FICA tax, Unemployment Comp, Worker's Comp, the cost of supervision, the cost of training, payroll costs, etc. A $15 an hour worker may well cost $20 - $23 an hour to the employer. The employee has to be able to produce more value to the employer than whatever that number is,.. or they cannot be employed.

While I don't have any issue, intrinsically, with varied minimum wages that take cost of living into account; I do see it as problematic.

The challenge is where one draws the line/lines where such wages would change, and by what amount.

A plethora of different wages would be a logistical nuisance to business [[imagine a diff. wage requirement in Dearborn, Detroit and Highland Park etc.

I think business can handle it. They do right now. One employee might be worth $11 an hour,.. and another $25 an hour. The manager makes those judgements.

What a minimum wages does is lock out those with low skills. That young guy that has no skills [[yet),.. and is applying for his first or second job is unlikely to ever get a job,.. because he's only worth $5 an hour [[at this point in his life). But the government won't allow anyone to hire him unless they pay $10 or $15 or whatever. So he's imprisoned in the welfare system for life.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

We do not have slavery. We have not had it since 1865. People have no economic value. Appropriately, humans are not to be bought and sold. Our work has value: what someone else is willing to pay us for goods and services we provide. When you create a situation where someone is mandated to be paid more for their work than some is willing to pay for it, they will ultimately not have work. The wage rules, mandates & work rules that this thread is referring to will lead to fewer overall jobs. Many fewer in the long run. This is doubly problematic:

First, the low wage jobs will not exist at all. Rather than being victimized at $7 or $8 an hour, workers will be empowered with human dignity to the tune of $0 an hour.

Second, the opportunities that workers would have had for raises & promotions, or new jobs altogether based upon success in the bottom rung job have been eliminated.

When I was in NYC, the state of NY passed a "spread of hours" law that said if the beginning of an hourly employee's work day and the end of that work day were 10 or more hours apart, the employee would be paid for an additional hour. The result is, since the 11th hour became twice the labor cost for an employer [[I was managing 2 restaurants in NYC at the time), no one's work day was allowed to approach 10 hours. Even when the employees wanted it. I had cooks who worked 4 10+hour days a week so they could be home 3 days a week with their kids enabling their wives to work those days. The employees had their hours reduced and desired schedules changed. The idea of "helping" the worker cost them earned money. Same thing with overtime laws. Employers who need additional hours worked strive to not let their staff do it, even when the employee wants the hours [[and money). So the insistence on over pricing labor reduces an employee's ability to get the work.

Leftist policies are so very destructive to the people they are purportedly trying to help. Venezuela enabled lots and lots of "pro-worker" laws under Chavez and Maduro. Wealth redistribution, government control of industry, etc. Now the government literally shoots the citizens in the streets when they riot for lack of food.

The government is not capable of guaranteeing anyone's success. But it can assure widespread failure.

[Canadian Visitor]

We do not have slavery. We have not had it since 1865. People have no economic value. Appropriately, humans are not to be bought and sold. Our work has value: what someone else is willing to pay us for goods and services we provide. When you create a situation where someone is mandated to be paid more for their work than some is willing to pay for it, they will ultimately not have work. The wage rules, mandates & work rules that this thread is referring to will lead to fewer overall jobs. Many fewer in the long run. This is doubly problematic:

First, the low wage jobs will not exist at all. Rather than being victimized at $7 or $8 an hour, workers will be empowered with human dignity to the tune of $0 an hour.

Second, the opportunities that workers would have had for raises & promotions, or new jobs altogether based upon success in the bottom rung job have been eliminated.

When I was in NYC, the state of NY passed a "spread of hours" law that said if the beginning of an hourly employee's work day and the end of that work day were 10 or more hours apart, the employee would be paid for an additional hour. The result is, since the 11th hour became twice the labor cost for an employer [[I was managing 2 restaurants in NYC at the time), no one's work day was allowed to approach 10 hours. Even when the employees wanted it. I had cooks who worked 4 10+hour days a week so they could be home 3 days a week with their kids enabling their wives to work those days. The employees had their hours reduced and desired schedules changed. The idea of "helping" the worker cost them earned money. Same thing with overtime laws. Employers who need additional hours worked strive to not let their staff do it, even when the employee wants the hours [[and money). So the insistence on over pricing labor reduces an employee's ability to get the work.

Leftist policies are so very destructive to the people they are purportedly trying to help. Venezuela enabled lots and lots of "pro-worker" laws under Chavez and Maduro. Wealth redistribution, government control of industry, etc. Now the government literally shoots the citizens in the streets when they riot for lack of food.

The government is not capable of guaranteeing anyone's success. But it can assure widespread failure.

There are bits and pieces in your argument where I could nod my head in agreement; but more I take with which I take issue.

First, can we please leave the example of Venezuela out. Aside from being a developing country, there are host of things wrong there that are not particularly linked to labour policy.

The mandates that you so despise exist in Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Belgium, parts of Canada, New Zealand, Finland, etc etc.

Shocking these nations have not had their economies collapse, nor do they have mass unemployment or youth unemployment.

There are still a number of lower-skill and/or manual labour jobs and entry level positions.

Yes, some will vanish due to productivity investment.

Though others will appear.

Some of this made up for through larger vacation mandates. [[ie. you may get more per hour out of your staff, to a point, but if you have to give everyone of them an extra week of vacation, then you need an extra body to replace that missing labour).

Exact situations will vary by sector, but there are no robots serving patrons in the diner/bistro yet, let alone the fine dining establishment.

If the law requires you to pay more to the dishwasher, you will.

You will then mix and match some combination of price hikes, productivity investments, eating a tiny bit of margin, or some other measure to make it work.

If you can't, your business will be replaced by someone who can.

I'm being overly simplistic, I realize, but that is the nature of high-level policy arguments.

Regardless, the real-world experience suggests that mandating more vacation or higher entry level wages does not cause economic implosion or a welfare trap.

A welfare trap is when your given say $1,000 a month to survive, but told that if you get work, you'll lose .50c of your benefit for every dollar earned, before taxes are deducted, and that your rent in government housing will rise due to your increased income. This is particularly acute if you can only make $9 per hour.

There's no way that works.

Because even if you got 40 hours per week, you'd be in trouble.

Raise that wage to $15 per hour; and suddenly your residual income climbs fast enough to make it a good choice to go get a job.

****

While I favour OT rules, I think your 10-hour + an hour example is a good one, of a well-intended rule gone bad.

I'm assuming the intent was to provide a paid meal break to someone working such a long day.

I would argue, if that's the desired objective, you either can either impose the full break on any sized shift [[incentivizing longer shifts); OR you could add the paid break time incrementally, ie. 15m for every 2 hours of work, so that at no point is it worthwhile to schedule around it.

[Jason]

Other countries have higher minimum wages. When you make the apples to apples adjustments using PPP, most European countries $10-11 [[Sweden has a weird system, but in it a 20 year old unskilled restaurant worker has a min wage of $13.75). And while minimum wage workers are eligible for some amount of welfare here, it doesn't make up for universal healthcare, lower transportation costs, and public housing, that they would be getting in those other countries. If we'd like to consider those countries to be our peers, then considering those differences, $15 an hour seems reasonably comparable.

And those countries have no shortages of profitable restaurants.

[Bham1982]

Northern Europe, with some of the highest minimum wages on earth, has lower unemployment and higher workforce participation than the U.S.

Some countries, like Denmark, have a massive worker shortage.

They also have some of the best welfare benefits on earth, while our welfare benefits are crap, yet it's in the U.S. where we have this "welfare dependency" boogeyman.

For some reason, a huge number of Americans think 1. Europe is in economic collapse and 2. Europe is being overrun by Muslim terrorists. I bet the overwhelmingly majority of these people have never been to Europe and couldn't find Denmark on a map.

[DetBill]

The one bright side for us in Detroit is that, as Windsor's restaurants [[and to a lesser extent bars) decline and close in the coming years, Detroit will be an oasis of choices for our friendly Ontarian neighbors. And BOY OH BOY will American restaurants be cheaper!

There is really alot of variables for that. At the present exchange rate of 35 to 40 percent extra to buy a US DOLLAR I know all of my Canadian family and friends have little interest in eating in the US anymore, except for a occasional outing. Presently the restaurants there do not cost much more than comparables here. Was just out in Erie Street in Windsor, great Italian food, and the cost for two was almost identical with equal dollars, but with using an American dollar, it was much cheaper than going for good Italian here, even considering tunnel fares. Many dont like dealing with US Customs anymore either. I dont think you will see a constant rush of Canadians coming to Detroit to eat nor will most of their restaurants close, just a few. They like patronizing their own, a 15 to 20 percent increase, wont scare them, and at present with the crazy US Dollar, it doesnt make sense for them to eat here constantly. You have to remember health care in Canada costs a fraction of what we pay, and education is materially less. Taxes are marginally higher as is sales tax but they basically deal with it. Most economic studies show they actually pay less overall once considering average health and education costs. I pay taxes in both countries, the rate overall is surprisingly similar adjusting for currency value.

[Wesley Mouch]

...The government is not capable of guaranteeing anyone's success. But it can assure widespread failure.

If you believe that a minimum wage is helpful to the poor [[which I do not), it seems indexing to the cost of local needs like food and shelter would be pretty important. I'm not sure, Bham, how it makes any sense to fund someone, but no do it well -- or adjusted to local conditions.

That said, MW is a miserable mistake that harms to the poor.

[Canadian Visitor]

That said, MW is a miserable mistake that harms to the poor.

I simply fail to understand someone making such an emphatic statement when I see a complete absence of evidence to substantiate it.

I don't believe that any concrete examples exist, and certainly I can point to many countries, states/provinces and cities where I would argue the evidence shows demonstrably different.

Even anecdotally it doesn't make sense. How could someone earning $10 per hour be better off than someone earning $15? Don't tell me fewer hours when evidence simply doesn't support that.

[Canadian Visitor]

Just thought I'd leave this here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/minim...on-jobs-2016-5

[emu steve]

Just a couple thoughts:

1). The Federal min. wage needs to be increased responsibly. Obama's $10.10 in N number of years [[I forget) seems about right.

2). Certain states need to honestly and fairly adjust their min. wage higher.

3). Other than D.C. which economically looks more like a city, than a 'state', the problem is intra-state, e.g., trying to equate say L.A. with a rural county 150 miles east in the California desert. I see no reason why a county or group of counties can't raise their min. wage.

4). One can make the point at least circumstantial, if not more, the lower and lower middle classes lost ground as unions lost ground and min. wage have stagnated over the last few decades. This is the economic strata MOST hurt. It isn't accountants, IT pros, engineers, doctors, dentists, etc. who have higher incomes, better benefits, and invest in stocks. Somehow the so called 'working class' group doesn't see that a raise in the min. wage benefits them. I simply can't believe someone making $13 / hour identifies with a senior manager at a rich American corporation.

5). Do NOT expect anything good on this front from Congress. There is so much CORPORATE money given to political campaigns that the relationship is almost like legalized prostitution. No sex, but Congress [[congressmen) knows what corporations wants and corporations know what Congress [[congressmen) wants. The model is still the same: quid pro quo. Also, most congressmen own a lot of financial assets like stocks and whatever Wall Street wants, they want... They have tremendous self interest in doing whatever corporate America wants, regardless of whether it is good for most Americans. And those Trump voters who got Medicaid [[expansion) in Kentucky are not sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks which have appreciated since Trump won the election.

[Wesley Mouch]

I simply fail to understand someone making such an emphatic statement when I see a complete absence of evidence to substantiate it.

I don't believe that any concrete examples exist, and certainly I can point to many countries, states/provinces and cities where I would argue the evidence shows demonstrably different.

To me, its 100% the opposite. I guess we all like the studies that support our politics.

I only read the headlines, but the Economist clearly sees a downside to MW. I just read the headlines.

Even anecdotally it doesn't make sense. How could someone earning $10 per hour be better off than someone earning $15? Don't tell me fewer hours when evidence simply doesn't support that.

You assume the beneficiary is the same worker. Not true. There are others, especially the poor, who just won't get hired. Why do you think Unions support MW? Hint. Its not for the money. Its to eliminate low-wage competition. But low-wage competition is the first rung on the ladder. MW hikes remove the chance for the less-skilled to ever get those skills.

Yes, the full-time worker may benefit by the increase.

But the kid trying to get their first job may not get that job. It'll go to someone more skilled. To them, MW increase means unemployment.

The worst thing is that the MW costs a lot, but is such a poor tool for aleviating poverty. Roughly half the increase goes to people who don't need it. You can argue the percentage, but there are a lot of minimum wage workers who are children of the rich, or retirees, or 'pin money' workers.

MW stinks for the truly poor.

[Canadian Visitor]

To me, its 100% the opposite. I guess we all like the studies that support our politics.

I only read the headlines, but the Economist clearly sees a downside to MW. I just read the headlines.



You assume the beneficiary is the same worker. Not true. There are others, especially the poor, who just won't get hired. Why do you think Unions support MW? Hint. Its not for the money. Its to eliminate low-wage competition. But low-wage competition is the first rung on the ladder. MW hikes remove the chance for the less-skilled to ever get those skills.

Yes, the full-time worker may benefit by the increase.

But the kid trying to get their first job may not get that job. It'll go to someone more skilled. To them, MW increase means unemployment.

The worst thing is that the MW costs a lot, but is such a poor tool for aleviating poverty. Roughly half the increase goes to people who don't need it. You can argue the percentage, but there are a lot of minimum wage workers who are children of the rich, or retirees, or 'pin money' workers.

MW stinks for the truly poor.

Again, with the greatest of respect, this drives me nuts.

So I clicked on the link you provided.

The top article being on the Brit. Min. wage

From said article:

Yet British-economy watchers have been surprised time and again: since the minimum wage was introduced by a Labour government in 1999, increases have not caused joblessness to rise by much. As the chart suggests, low-paid workers have benefited. Even those earning above the minimum have enjoyed better pay.

.....

From the same article:

.....Not many seem to have responded by laying off their workers. West Somerset’s unemployment rate is just 3%. The job centre looks deserted.


*******

Further Articles suggest that impacts on employment, barring very steep rises in the minimum wage are marginal at best, and yes, mostly impact those under 18, particularly for in-school year jobs. This is not a bad thing in my view as it encourages young people to stay in school.

*****

There is no magic bullet when it comes to poverty, not the minimum wage, nor any other policy or program solves every problem. If one were to say intensive investments in primary/secondary education help, one would surely be right. YET, these too help the middle class and even some rich folks.

Affordable college helps, but any broad based affordability [[tuition reduction or student loans etc) would tend to also help more than just the neediest)Means-testing, however doesn't just introduce the issue of stigma, its also complex and expensive to administer. Cheaper tuition for everyone is easy math with a high degree of transparency. It also produces the Added Benefit of being mildly assistive those those who are paying for it. This is an important principle for universal programs in that its hard to must support for excellent, affordable education if those who have to support the program though taxes/tuition don't also get to benefit.Back to the core issue; I don't see broad-based reductions in employment associated with a minimum wage or a higher minimum wage anywhere.

Nor do I see a material correlation between a higher minimum age and a net reduction in employment for lower-skill adults.

I do see a modest reduction in teenage employment and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

As a rule of thumb, if your teenager is working after school and Saturdays at a fast food outlet, they are not doing their homework well and excelling at school.

Let them be a camp counselor in the summer; during the school year their job is to get good grades.

[Richard]

Again, with the greatest of respect,

Nor do I see a material correlation between a higher minimum age and a net reduction in employment for lower-skill adults.

I do see a modest reduction in teenage employment and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

As a rule of thumb, if your teenager is working after school and Saturdays at a fast food outlet, they are not doing their homework well and excelling at school.

Let them be a camp counselor in the summer; during the school year their job is to get good grades.

I hear you,I think the womenfolk should stay at home and tend to the chores also.

Lots of youngsters out there benefiting from a part time job and doing well in school,it's been like that for generations and It also gives a life lesson on finances and what it is like to be a responsible employee.Not to mention some even contribute to the household in makeing ends meet.

You guys like your links,here is one that was aired 1 year after implementing minimum wage over a period of years.

2016

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/01/472716...nimum-wage-law

A couple of points would be.

They are helping people buy food and just the basic necessities of life, but I'd say that they are skeptical. They're worried that prices are going to go up and the income that they receive is going to be offset by higher prices. A lot of them are receiving benefits in the form of housing vouchers or SNAP benefits. And the value of these benefits declines as your income goes up, so some of them are telling us that they're not really sure that these higher wages are going to lead to a better quality of life for them just because of these potentially offsetting impacts.

Or this,

And spreading those profits and that wealth around, it's a lot easier in a town like Seattle, where there is some wealth to spread. And it might not work so well in a place that is uniformly higher poverty, doesn't have as many of these tech sector jobs or other types of high-income employment to make it all work. So that is one thing that I can tell you. We are going to be paying close attention. One thing that we have heard from employers is that the minimum wage is working just fine for them now, but that's not necessarily going to hold the next time a recession comes along.


So who exactly does the raise help or harm?

In theory you are not helping the lower income by raising the minimum,it is just shifting the benefits burden over to the private sector or encouraging more to stay at home because if they except the higher minimum wage they lose benefits greater then the $15 per hour.

[O3H]

We eventually ALL pay for those 16, 17, 18 year olds with 2 kids and absentee fathers. Pay upfront with $15 an hour menial skill labor, or pay via "" programs"" for the ignorant, uneducated, idiots existing by the millions in every major city of the USA.

We ask for a drivers license and insurance - - But demand NOTHING to bring a child into the world. Thats ass backwards folks. Until we really penalize this behavior, we are all financially screwed, and kids suffer daily

[canuck]

We eventually ALL pay for those 16, 17, 18 year olds with 2 kids and absentee fathers. Pay upfront with $15 an hour menial skill labor, or pay via "" programs"" for the ignorant, uneducated, idiots existing by the millions in every major city of the USA.

We ask for a drivers license and insurance - - But demand NOTHING to bring a child into the world. Thats ass backwards folks. Until we really penalize this behavior, we are all financially screwed, and kids suffer daily

I'm more worried by the crappy unfood that these overpaid idiotic teen inpregnators are filling your cardboard plates and tankards
with. All these wise guys at the top of the corporate food chain only have your best interests at heart, rest assured. It's the underbelly you have to worry about, not the manucured hand that engineered a diploma in
hamburgerology. Demographics, much?

[Wesley Mouch]

Again, with the greatest of respect, this drives me nuts.

So I clicked on the link you provided.

The top article being on the Brit. Min. wage

From said article:

Yet British-economy watchers have been surprised time and again: since the minimum wage was introduced by a Labour government in 1999, increases have not caused joblessness to rise by much. As the chart suggests, low-paid workers have benefited. Even those earning above the minimum have enjoyed better pay.

So the negative effects aren't much. If Trump's program wasn't going to harm the poor 'much', would that be good?

The sentence preceeding the above:

"The worry is that unemployment would rise as low-skilled jobs would become untenable. Indeed, that seems to have happened recently in America [[see article)."

If you read the 'article' referenced:

"then the new paper supports what sceptics have said all along: that higher minimum wages, by threatening the viability of some firms, dent employment opportunities for the low-skilled. That should be food for thought."

We can both find quotations to support our existing POV.

.....
Further Articles suggest that impacts on employment, barring very steep rises in the minimum wage are marginal at best, and yes, mostly impact those under 18, particularly for in-school year jobs. This is not a bad thing in my view as it encourages young people to stay in school.

Job losses for youth is not a good feature.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to poverty, not the minimum wage, nor any other policy or program solves every problem. If one were to say intensive investments in primary/secondary education help, one would surely be right. YET, these too help the middle class and even some rich folks.

So just keep adding more programs. Just 'invest'. No.

...I don't see broad-based reductions in employment associated with a minimum wage or a higher minimum wage anywhere.

Nor do I see a material correlation between a higher minimum age and a net reduction in employment for lower-skill adults.

I do see a modest reduction in teenage employment and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Your modest reduction is someone's job loss.

Let them be a camp counselor in the summer; during the school year their job is to get good grades.

So glad you have the answer for them. There's nothing stopping anyone from being a camp counselor right now. Do you really have to destroy their job.

Fewer jobs for teens is a feature? We all want to justify our positions -- but at some point we ignore common sense.

It makes no sense to have a MW when the result is youth unemployment. Fewer jobs for urban kids is not a good thing.

Sorry to be driving you nuts. That MW kills jobs is pretty much accepted right and left. The left is OK with some job loss, seeing benefit in wages. The right sees job losses as bad, and doesn't believe the benefits.

Most of the debate today is over how many jobs being lost is acceptable for the benefit of more wages for others.

[Canadian Visitor]

So the negative effects aren't much. If Trump's program wasn't going to harm the poor 'much', would that be good?

The sentence preceeding the above:

"The worry is that unemployment would rise as low-skilled jobs would become untenable. Indeed, that seems to have happened recently in America [[see article)."

If you read the 'article' referenced:

"then the new paper supports what sceptics have said all along: that higher minimum wages, by threatening the viability of some firms, dent employment opportunities for the low-skilled. That should be food for thought."

We can both find quotations to support our existing POV.


Job losses for youth is not a good feature.


So just keep adding more programs. Just 'invest'. No.


Your modest reduction is someone's job loss.


So glad you have the answer for them. There's nothing stopping anyone from being a camp counselor right now. Do you really have to destroy their job.

Fewer jobs for teens is a feature? We all want to justify our positions -- but at some point we ignore common sense.

It makes no sense to have a MW when the result is youth unemployment. Fewer jobs for urban kids is not a good thing.

Sorry to be driving you nuts. That MW kills jobs is pretty much accepted right and left. The left is OK with some job loss, seeing benefit in wages. The right sees job losses as bad, and doesn't believe the benefits.

Most of the debate today is over how many jobs being lost is acceptable for the benefit of more wages for others.

So, first off, I re-read the article in question to see if I missed anything.

In fact, I did not.

There is nothing in the article indicating statistical support for higher unemployment after a minimum wage hike.

The article did notice a slight uptick in business failure. But since unemployment didn't go the wrong way, one can reasonable infer any failed businesses were replaced by new or expanding ones.

*******

Back to my specific thesis from the previous post.

Your position seems to be employment of everyone at all costs, irrespective of whether that employment is beneficial to the employee or society/the economy.

I would imagine you wish to reverse policies banning child labour too. You know many families used to survive on the income generated by their 12-year olds!



There is no tenable argument that a family should be surving on the income of their 15,16 or 17 year old child. There is no argument [[that can be taken seriously) that that is desirable in any way, or that the pittance earned for their unskilled labour is a useful trade for their high school education.

There is no demonstrable effect on lower-skill adult labour on net-net basis.

Only on the labour of 'minors' who should be focussed on their studies.

Not only is that better for them, but its better for society by replacing unskilled labour with skilled labour. Boosting productivity and thus consumer spending power over time.