Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[313WX]

The guy's going to be 79 in 2020, let him be. Let's hope we can vote for somebody under the age of ancient in 2020 - and this coming from an alte kaker like me.

I don't disagree. Lets just hope someone who's a principled and outspoken as Bernie [[I.E. Nina Turner) steps up to the plate by 2020.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
And BTW, who's the least popular politician? Not Trump? I thought he was the super-soak-sponge for all things evil politically? Is it Nancy Pelosi??

Do tell. Our collective obsession with popularity ratings is the best proof that we have being idiots. The only the worse that popularity ratings is least-popular ratings.

That said, do tell us who's the least popular? Irrelevant dirt is fun.

[Bham1982]

If Bernie were to run for president again in 2020, I think he'd win [[if for no other reason, because of the Electoral College). Bear in mind, the same states Hillary lost in the general election [[Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, etc.) are the states Bernie won in the primary.

Those states are almost all open-ballot. Bernie did much worse in closed-ballot states. He didn't perform particularly well among registered Dems.

So it's very dangerous to assume that Bernie would have outperformed someone like Clinton in MI, as many of his primary voters were just Republicans or Independents who wanted to harm Hillary.

And he'll be almost 80 in 2020. I would be very surprised if he ran.

[313WX]

Those states are almost all open-ballot. Bernie did much worse in closed-ballot states. He didn't perform particularly well among registered Dems.

True. And that brings up another important point about the sheer stupidity of closed primaries and how they completely lock independent voters [[who strongly supported Bernie Sanders) out of the election process.

BTW, even in several closed-primary blue states such as Massachusetts, Bernie came very close to defeating Hillary.

So it's very dangerous to assume that Bernie would have outperformed someone like Clinton in MI, as many of his primary voters were just Republicans or Independents who wanted to harm Hillary.

The one county that flipped Michigan red in the past election overwhelmingly voted for Bernie in the primary, and has voted blue since [[Bill) Clinton's first election.

I should also mention, in Milwaukee and Detroit, 85,000 and 192,000 fewer voters respectively came out to vote at all in the 2016 election. If anything, it wasn't that Trump won these states, but rather Hillary and the Democrats lost them.

People in the states that matter for presidential elections are ready for a populist. This is the reason Obama [[who ran a populist campaign) beat Hillary in 2008. Unfortunately, Trump was the only choice [[albeit a faux one) that they had in the past election.

[O3H]

As the USA shifts to a service economy, instead of a manufacturing,
shouldn't the wages shift as well ?

[night-timer]

With the greatest of respect I don't think global evidence exists for this view.

Australia has had a living wage for decades, most of Northern Europe does as well, albeit often through collective agreements, but in societies where unionization is close to universal.

Minimum wage in Australia for a bar tender is currently $17.75 AUD per hour. That's the equivalent of $17.70 CAD or $13.55 USD with no tips, because few countries rely on tipping to pay wait staff like the US does.

Staff may get tips, but it would only amount to a few dollars a night.

Most unskilled or semi-skilled jobs in Australia would be of a similar minimum wage - around $13 to $15 USD per hour, but taxes are much higher. Figure on spending $30 USD for a packet of smokes, $20 USD for a six-pack of beer, or $6 USD for a local [[non-imported) beer in a bar.

On the upside, medicine, healthcare and public housing are hugely subsidised by government, as are university fees.

Rents and house prices are also well above what one would pay in Detroit. The median house price in Sydney, Australia, reached $1m AUD [[$762,645 USD) in 2015.

[Wesley Mouch]

True. And that brings up another important point about the sheer stupidity of closed primaries and how they completely lock independent voters [[who strongly supported Bernie Sanders) out of the election process.

BTW, even in several closed-primary blue states such as Massachusetts, Bernie came very close to defeating Hillary.

Closed primaries make sense. They're not stupid at all, unless you assume that the purpose of the party is to advance your political cause -- not to reflect the thoughts of the faithful.

Sanders doesn't self-identify as a Democrat. That he's even allowed to run for nomination by the Democratic Party is 'stupid'.

The purpose of parties to make citizens work hard to bring their ideas to the front. You shouldn't get rewarded for being the flavor of the month.

Frankly, direct elections of any sort are dangerous to democracy. Its how you end up with both Trump and Sanders as leading candidates. Neither would have made it through a 1950s nomination process. And you suggest opening more loopholes to qualification is smart?

In a democracy, the biggest threat is 'capture'. Corporate cronyism of the kind the Koch Brothers fight is one. Direct election of a populist du jour is another. A third is capture by special interest such as trade unions. Regardless of your position on unions [[and you know mine), there's great danger where they can buy their way into office by electing people who will scratch their backs when in office. Yet another is bureaucratic capture. You may hate Trump's policies, but he should be able to get the machine to do his bidding. And we should expect that same for President Warren or President Sanders, G0d help us.

[313WX]

Closed primaries make sense. They're not stupid at all, unless you assume that the purpose of the party is to advance your political cause -- not to reflect the thoughts of the faithful.

A system that only rewards party loyalty and not policy / political views is the exact reason we have candidates like Sanders and Trump, and the exact reason Hillary lost twice.

As the corporate tool Joy-Ann Reid frequently says about the guy who caucuses with Democrats on progressive legislation 95% of the time, "But he's not a real Democrat!!!" Yet, the DINO Senator from West Virginia who frequently caucuses with the Republican Party apparently is "a real Democrat."

[Bham1982]

A system that only rewards party loyalty and not policy / political views is the exact reason we have candidates like Sanders and Trump, and the exact reason Hillary lost twice.

But the winning candidate had no policy/political views. Trump won based on just making up stuff, and claiming whatever he thought would resonate best among the dumbest Americans.

Everyone knows Trump was a lifelong Democrat who was pro-free trade, pro-immigrant and the like, until he ran for President, when he magically became a populist.

Trump won because he fooled the dumbest Americans. He's a lifelong scam artist, and just pulled his biggest scam.

And many mainstream, "normal" Republicans held their nose and voted for him, assuming he would act more Presidential once assuming office. Bad assumption. They're the ones who will end this nightmare administration.

Trump is no Republican, and Republicans will eventually turn against him. His cult will never abandon him, ever.

[313WX]

But the winning candidate had no policy/political views. Trump won based on just making up stuff, and claiming whatever he thought would resonate best among the dumbest Americans.

Trump did have some policy views. He campaigned against free trade [[as a progressive myself, I give him credit for formally killing the TPP) and illegal immigration.

Also, he portrayed himself as someone who's "anti-establishment" because he had no political experience in Washington, largely self-funded his campaign and and wasn't beholden to any particular party.

Yes, you and I both know he bullshitted everyone. In fact, I think most of his voters knew he was bullshitting. But at the very least, many of them were so desperate for change that they decided taking on chance on Trump "destroying the system" with his incompetence instead of having to deal with 4 more years of Obama and having an even worse Trump come along in 2020.

But that gets back to my point that many Trump voters would have been happy to vote for Sanders [[who embodied a lot of the positive Trump attributes without the negative attributes) had he won the nomination, especially those here in Macomb County.

Everyone knows Trump was a lifelong Democrat who was pro-free trade, pro-immigrant and the like, until he ran for President, when he magically became a populist.

Funny you say that, because the Democratic Party of LBJ and FDR [[The New Deal Coalition) was actually against free trade, against illegal immigration and in favor of controlled legal immigration because of the negative effects a drastic increase in the labor supply would have on the American working class [[the Democrats' core base).

Since Bill Clinton came along with his Third-Way triangulation [[in which basically the Democrats embraced fiscally conservative policies like the Republicans), the party has been wiped out at every level of government.

A fun fact: Thanks to the protectionism that the New Deal Coalition lobbied for, did you know that the largest employers of African Americans in 1970 were GM, Ford and Chrysler? Guess who is the largest employer now [[hint: it's the largest brick-and-mortar retailer in the world known for its prolific worker abuse)?

And many mainstream, "normal" Republicans held their nose and voted for him, assuming he would act more Presidential once assuming office. Bad assumption. They're the ones who will end this nightmare administration.

Trump is no Republican, and Republicans will eventually turn against him. His cult will never abandon him, ever.

There's some truth to that, but what are the Democrats doing in response?

If they're not chasing this Russia boogeyman, blocking the implementation of Single-Payer healthcare in certain states or shoving meaningless platitudes down people's throats, they're demonizing folks such as Bernie Sanders, Tulsa Gabbard and Nina Turner who are actually advocating for the progressive policies they should have in their platform.

Even if Trump destroys the Republican party with his incompetence, the Democrats can't expect to beat something with nothing. As 2016 proves, people must have a reason to vote for them, and simply saying "We're Not Trump!!!" will not be enough.

[Wesley Mouch]

A system that only rewards party loyalty and not policy / political views is the exact reason we have candidates like Sanders and Trump, and the exact reason Hillary lost twice....

Neither Trump nor Sanders were candidates of their party. How can you suggest the 'system ... rewards party loyalty'. Neither of them listens to or is even liked by their party.

Trump is really a conservative Democrat. Sanders isn't a Democrat. He was only a Democrat long enough to qualify.

The 'system' didn't want either of those two.

The 'system' wanted Rubio, Bush, Clinton, or Biden.

[313WX]

Neither Trump nor Sanders were candidates of their party. How can you suggest the 'system ... rewards party loyalty'. Neither of them listens to or is even liked by their party.

In case you forgot, Sanders lost for the very [[IMO silly) reason you're defending.

As far as Trump, Republicans at least aren't nearly as corrupt as the Democratic Party in that the Superdelegates they have don't have nearly as much sway in deciding who's the nominee [[which was the case with Clinton).

[canuck]

Neither Trump nor Sanders were candidates of their party. How can you suggest the 'system ... rewards party loyalty'. Neither of them listens to or is even liked by their party.

Trump is really a conservative Democrat. Sanders isn't a Democrat. He was only a Democrat long enough to qualify.

The 'system' didn't want either of those two.

The 'system' wanted Rubio, Bush, Clinton, or Biden.

Of course. They want predictibility. They saw Trump as an independent, an outsider they never saw coming. They only rallied around him when the statistical evidence of his power over the masses reduced the Cruzes and Rubios and poor Jeb Bush to fertilizer mulch. Anyone who thinks a Presidential or Prime ministerial candidate is a free radical totally unattached to Universal rules is deluded. There are so many occult players and backers behind the scenes who choose a winning horse when it is as close as humanly possible to the Finish line. In that, they are not that remote from many average voters.

[Canadian Visitor]

I think we're wandering away from the essential policy question[[s) at the centre of this thread [[minimum wage and other labour standards).

Its not that its unimportant to discuss 'the messenger' or motivations; but I think, I hope, we all aspire to make good policy based on a common understanding of 'facts'.

We can, of course, differ in our policy objectives, but beyond saying as much, that's really outside the scope of a serious policy discussion.

****

Notwithstanding the above, I'll indulge Mr. Mouch on his California question awhile back.

Not residing in such state..... and while a student of American politics as the cursory level, I'll first note that state-level politics in Cali is not my forte, I offer the following.

California has indeed moved the needle in the direction of what one might call 'Liberal' or politics by global standards, from where it started.

That last part is key, the once Regan Republican bastion was not always a Liberal panacea by US standards, indeed, I would argue the critical mass change is quite recent.

So it would be unreasonable to assume California would become Sweden in a day.

I would add, that the entire US political system is set up to make change very difficult outside of ballot initiatives.

As a comparative note all your states, so far as I know, have bi-cameral legislatures [[house and senate) on top of a Governor who may also veto.

That makes getting anything passed extremely challenging.

By way of contrast, no Canadian province has more than one legislature, and the executive and the legislature are mixed [[no separate veto). Passing bills and budgets is therefore much simpler in Canada and in much of the world; and change, of whatever sort, is easier to achieve.

[313WX]

And he'll be almost 80 in 2020. I would be very surprised if he ran.

Oh please!

In case you didn't know, Bernie has an 82 year old brother in England who's still very active in politics. Furthermore, Trump [[who has also expressed intentions to run for re-election) will only be 4 years younger than Bernie.

If they can do it, Bernie can do it as well provided he's still in his right mind and relatively good health.

[Bham1982]

Oh please!

In case you didn't know, Bernie has an 82 year old brother in England who's still very active in politics. Furthermore, Trump [[who has also expressed intentions to run for re-election) will only be 4 years younger than Bernie.

If they can do it, Bernie can do it as well provided he's still in his right mind and relatively good health.

Trump, besides being a lying, racist, idiot, is about 20 years too old to be President. If you compare his statements now to 20 years ago it's pretty clear he's losing it. He can barely put together a coherent sentence. He can't walk any distance without a scooter or golf cart.

I have no problem with Bernie running if he's 100, for that matter. I just don't think an 80-yo Bernie will be running, especially when he doesn't have a party backing him.

[313WX]

Trump, besides being a lying, racist, idiot, is about 20 years too old to be President. If you compare his statements now to 20 years ago it's pretty clear he's losing it. He can barely put together a coherent sentence. He can't walk any distance without a scooter or golf cart.

I have no problem with Bernie running if he's 100, for that matter. I just don't think an 80-yo Bernie will be running, especially when he doesn't have a party backing him.

2020 is a long ways out and Bernie continues to put himself out in the public spotlight [[which is what people who have ambitious long-term goals tend to do), so I'm merely stating never say never.

As far as Trump, no disagreement from me about his mental health [[although to be fair, everyone knew he was an asshole ever since he became well-known back in the 1970s, that hasn't changed). I'm merely stating his age alone wasn't a deterrent, just as it wasn't a deterrent for Hillary who's only 2 years younger than him.

[Wesley Mouch]

Leaving the kind CA discussion aside for the moment...

I think we're wandering away from the essential policy question[[s) at the centre of this thread [[minimum wage and other labour standards).

Let's recap the state of the Minimum Wage debate, shall we?

Progressive city Seattle passed a series of large-%age Minimum Wage increase, over a few years. They wisely hired progressive University of Washington to contract a study to watch results.

Let's repeat this. Progressives hired progressives to produce a study.

RESULT: First hike, not much impact. Second hike [[to $13) a drop of $125/month for low-wage workers. Third hike [[to $15) comes soon.

Denial ensues.

Progressive Vox has a great article that says: "But the University of Washington study differs from previous studies in a significant way: It takes advantage of a much richer source of data".

from Vox:

This finding will continue to be debated in the coming months, but for now, despite its flaws, it is still one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence yet for the view that minimum wage policies hurt workers at the bottom of the economy. This, of course, was long the prevailing view among economists until empirical research in the 1990s showed that minimum wage hikes didn’t seem to have much of a measurable effect on employment — or even if some jobs disappeared, workers still benefited overall.

Deny if you wish. But if you care about the poor, read the Vox article.

[313WX]

Leaving the kind CA discussion aside for the moment...

Let's recap the state of the Minimum Wage debate, shall we?

Progressive city Seattle passed a series of large-%age Minimum Wage increase, over a few years. They wisely hired progressive University of Washington to contract a study to watch results.

Let's repeat this. Progressives hired progressives to produce a study.

RESULT: First hike, not much impact. Second hike [[to $13) a drop of $125/month for low-wage workers. Third hike [[to $15) comes soon.

Denial ensues.

Progressive Vox has a great article that says: "But the University of Washington study differs from previous studies in a significant way: It takes advantage of a much richer source of data".

from Vox:

Deny if you wish. But if you care about the poor, read the Vox article.

The Washington Post does a good job of explaining the flaws with that "study" [[the biggest being that it excludes large employers), and why it should be taken with a grain of salt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...29eca#comments

[O3H]

Perhaps the use of those Handicapped/Impaired workers will rise ?
Get a tax break to use those that WANT to work, get some income, live an independent lifestyle away from group homes, family members, etc.
Many of these people are awesome, attentive, hard workers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-...b_9292912.html

Businesses that embrace disability inclusion have found there
is a positive correlation between their profitability,
employee morale and engagement.
These businesses report lower turnover, better safety records,
innovation and higher productivity among their employees with disabilities.
For customer-facing companies, there is the side benefit of customer loyalty
from America’s largest minority group, numbering 56.7 million Americans..

[Wesley Mouch]

The Washington Post does a good job of explaining the flaws with that "study" [[the biggest being that it excludes large employers), and why it should be taken with a grain of salt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...29eca#comments

I have read their assessment. And certainly no study should be taken as the 'last word'. The headline was 'New Study Casts Doubt on Whether a $15 Minimum Wage Really Helps Workers'.

You have two choices here.

1) Full steam ahead. MW is great for the poor because of my side has proven it with selected past studies, or,

2) Consider the impact of this study, commissioned by a City strongly in favor, supervised by a major university, that uses new, detailed data that wasn't available before.

From the WaPo article:

"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

MIT is not a conservative think-tank.

They look at the first increase to $11, and found no significant job losses.

Then they looked at the increase to $13, and found measurable losses to a large cohort.

I expect there will be a third phase on impact of the current increase to $15.

The lead paragraph from WaPo:

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

You can focus on imperfections that align with your views, or you can listen to your own tribe's study saying things might not be so good for low-income workers under the push to $15.

This isn't the final word. But its getting harder to consider the 1994 Card/Krueger study of 'no losses' as the final word either.

[archfan]

I have read their assessment. And certainly no study should be taken as the 'last word'. The headline was 'New Study Casts Doubt on Whether a $15 Minimum Wage Really Helps Workers'.

You have two choices here.

1) Full steam ahead. MW is great for the poor because of my side has proven it with selected past studies, or,

2) Consider the impact of this study, commissioned by a City strongly in favor, supervised by a major university, that uses new, detailed data that wasn't available before.
...

3) Continue with the rise to $15 and measure the results. Invite others in to measure as well. Try to separate facts from beliefs.

[Wesley Mouch]

3) Continue with the rise to $15 and measure the results. Invite others in to measure as well. Try to separate facts from beliefs.

There's little doubt that the rise to $15 will continue. So we'll get to see the results.

Do you think we can agree on the results? Seattle asked for this impartial study. And when they got results they didn't like, they went to UC Berkely to get the results they wanted. We all get to pick who we believe.

[Canadian Visitor]

There's little doubt that the rise to $15 will continue. So we'll get to see the results.

Do you think we can agree on the results? Seattle asked for this impartial study. And when they got results they didn't like, they went to UC Berkely to get the results they wanted. We all get to pick who we believe.

We could all agree to jump off a high cliff w/no soft landing at the bottom, but I don't think it would be wise.

I do think the study you cite has a few problems w/it.

The large employer one is a tremendous omission, one that baffles me as that by definition will skew the results; both because of the number of jobs literally taken out, but also because many large employers [[retail) are minimum wage employers.

They also make for fascinating control group as they would continue to have stores outside the effected area.

***

Beyond that point, and in fairness these can be issues for all studies of this broad type, irrespective of the conclusions they draw.

- The timeline is very short. I would expect the full-impact to be 18 months to 3 years after a minimum wage hike.

My presumptions [[admittedly unproven) would be the following;

That business, for the most part won't make employment level adjustments in direct response to a wage change until sometime after the wage has changed, and then there is a lag time, assuming that change is the result of automation [[order equipment, install equipment, train staff on equipment).

That any upward impact on retail sales or services purchased from higher wages also lags, as many purchases require savings. You can finally afford a new couch but you're making $80 per week extra, that means if you save 100% you can get the couch after 10 weeks, for a new car, maybe its a year.

Further, if a business fails due to wage hikes, as with any other factor, I expect another business will expand or be created to fill that void in the market, but with a lag time.

While business that succeed, including through productivity gains, will ultimately hire more, as their success generates sales.

All of that is relative supposition, but I would expect fair judgement to evaluate these things is at the minimum 18 months after an increase.

***

Also, the methodology used for 'average earnings' of low income workers causes me some concern.

Is this entirely a reflection of data for the exact same workers, in the exact same jobs?

If a worker has hours reduced at one employer, but boosted at another, in a higher-wage classification, how is that accounted for?

I'm not suggested this wasn't rigorous, but it strikes me as problematic.

[Canadian Visitor]

Worthwhile comparison might be Alberta, Canada

Roughly 4,000,000 people, mostly concentrated in 2 larger urban centres, Edmonton and Calgary.

Alberta is just beginning to come out of a disastrous downtown due to oil-price crash a couple of years back. Its unemployment rate peaked at about 9% in November of last year. After being closer to 5% 3 years earlier.

The government of AB has been steadily moving the minimum wage towards $15.

This past October, it was increased to $12.20Cdn

Unemployment has since fallen to 7.4%

I'm not aware of a study looking specifically at low-income earnings in AB post MW-hike.

But its worth noting, retail sales and car sales are both up materially.

http://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/

The AB gov't does, however, list a few other MW studies. [[I haven't read them yet)

https://www.alberta.ca/min-wage-research.aspx