Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ontario is bumping up its minimum wage to $15 (Canadian) per hour. It is doing it rapidly, from $11 over the next couple of years. It has also planned many other mandatory benefits for employees, from increased vacation time to mandatory equal pay for seasonal and temporary workers.

We are likely to wind up where our premier says we will: With all Ontario workers earning a decent wage, and with more mandatory vacation time and other perks. Great news for them. What she isn't saying is that a lot of businesses won't survive this sudden increase, a lot of low end workers will be laid off, and a lot of those making just over $15 per hour will find the prices of everything going up so employers can pay wages. Automation will also be encouraged further (though it will happen anyway). You can't find a McDonald's here anymore that doesn't have more than one cashier alongside rows of automated cashiers, and Tim Horton's has said they will be following suit.

So my question to my premier, if I had her attention, would be: What will the government do to support those who are laid off and otherwise adversely damaged by this? She has no planned tax hike on the rich or on Bay Street speculation as Bernie Sanders always talks about. She has no planned tax cut for the low wage earners. She appears to be shifting a social problem (cost of living) onto employers and motivating employers to pull out, leaving the problem actually unaddressed.

And also, what will she do to keep manufacturer's in the province? Ontario used to be a have province and became a have-not province under here predecessor (from the same party). Alberta (a have province) has increased its minimum wage to $15, and can afford to because of the oil industry. Alberta industry was able to absorb the hike in minimum wage for that reason. How is Ontario supposed to do it?

I see this driving the gap between rich and poor faster, and bumping up unemployment, and I would like to see the Liberal Party, or maybe the NDP putting a plan out on how to deal with that. I am myself for Universal Basic Income instead of minimum wage, but I don't see anybody politician proposing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're describing exactly why I don't support increasing the minimum wage.

I don't think it's time yet for a universal basic income but I would like to see the government supplement low wage work--something along the lines of our earned income tax credit but larger.

 

[LordKiran]

You're describing exactly why I don't support increasing the minimum wage.

I don't think it's time yet for a universal basic income but I would like to see the government supplement low wage work--something along the lines of our earned income tax credit but larger.

My boyfriend is on disability. He gets roughly 600-ish from the government every month, 550 of that used to go right to rent. I dont think taxes are the problem.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're describing exactly why I don't support increasing the minimum wage.

I don't think it's time yet for a universal basic income but I would like to see the government supplement low wage work--something along the lines of our earned income tax credit but larger.

Job guarantee.

A buffer stock of employed, productive people as opposed to a buffer stock of unemployed unproductive people, which is what we have now.

 

[LordKiran]

You're describing exactly why I don't support increasing the minimum wage.

I don't think it's time yet for a universal basic income but I would like to see the government supplement low wage work--something along the lines of our earned income tax credit but larger.

Job guarantee.

A buffer stock of employed, productive people as opposed to a buffer stock of unemployed unproductive people, which is what we have now.

If they aren't guaranteed enough hours to cover living expenses then there's not much point.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Job guarantee.

A buffer stock of employed, productive people as opposed to a buffer stock of unemployed unproductive people, which is what we have now.

If they aren't guaranteed enough hours to cover living expenses then there's not much point.

True. So guarantee them 35 hrs/wk.

 

[Elixir]

Ontario is bumping up its minimum wage to $15 (Canadian) per hour.

Meh - what's that ... a little over $11 in real money?


>>>----------------------------running away------------->>>

 

[LordKiran]

If they aren't guaranteed enough hours to cover living expenses then there's not much point.

True. So guarantee them 35 hrs/wk.

And a guaranteed rate proportionate to your number of dependents. 10-12 minimum.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's been my observation that a person needs to earn a minimum of $25 and hour at a full time job to support a spouse and two kids in a modest home. This with wearing everything out.
I prefer a minimum wage and hours worked scaled to a person's age so that by time they were say 28, they would be making this $25 minimum and have to be guaranteed 40 hours of work per week.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Minimum wage is a mirage. It doesn't increase the standard of living of the poor. It helps some of them while creating more of them. It is an attempt to shift the burden of the poor away from us all (through government) and onto employers, who will run from it, and therefore not address it at all. Without government safeguards for the poor, what does Wynne expect will happen?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Minimum wage is a mirage. It doesn't increase the standard of living of the poor. It helps some of them while creating more of them. It is an attempt to shift the burden of the poor away from us all (through government) and onto employers, who will run from it, and therefore not address it at all. Without government safeguards for the poor, what does Wynne expect will happen?

That's cool and all, but do you have any data to back up your assertions?

 

[DBT]

Minimum wage is higher in Australia without having significantly higher or lower levels of unemployment than any other comparable economy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're describing exactly why I don't support increasing the minimum wage.

I don't think it's time yet for a universal basic income but I would like to see the government supplement low wage work--something along the lines of our earned income tax credit but larger.

They already do supplement low wage work via housing support, heating support, food support, health care support. And that still isn't enough!

How about instead of corporations getting all of this subsidization for their employees from the taxpayer, the corporations pay their workers a wage that no longer requires all these taxpayer supplied subsidies.

I know, I know, costs will go up (and baby Jesus will be bawling). But we are already paying more in taxes because of this, to subsidize corporation pay to their employees!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Minimum wage is a mirage. It doesn't increase the standard of living of the poor. It helps some of them while creating more of them. It is an attempt to shift the burden of the poor away from us all (through government) and onto employers, who will run from it, and therefore not address it at all.

Attempt to shift the burden on the employers? You mean the companies that are under paying their employees so much that their employees would be on the street or living in apartments sharing the rent with 4 families? Why in the heck should my tax dollars be subsidizing the housing of someone because their employer is short changing them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Minimum wage is a mirage. It doesn't increase the standard of living of the poor. It helps some of them while creating more of them. It is an attempt to shift the burden of the poor away from us all (through government) and onto employers, who will run from it, and therefore not address it at all.

Attempt to shift the burden on the employers? You mean the companies that are under paying their employees so much that their employees would be on the street or living in apartments sharing the rent with 4 families? Why in the heck should my tax dollars be subsidizing the housing of someone because their employer is short changing them?

Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them? Why should the employer be responsible for the living standards of the employee?

And even if you think they should, so you really believe that employers will pay more than needed for the work, rather than automate, relocate or find other ways to reduce labour need?

Would you leave people to starve and live 4 families in an apartment when they don't?

 

[LordKiran]

Attempt to shift the burden on the employers? You mean the companies that are under paying their employees so much that their employees would be on the street or living in apartments sharing the rent with 4 families? Why in the heck should my tax dollars be subsidizing the housing of someone because their employer is short changing them?

Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them? Why should the employer be responsible for the living standards of the employee? [1]

And even if you think they should, so you really believe that employers will pay more than needed for the work, rather than automate, relocate or find other ways to reduce labour need? [2]

Would you leave people to starve and live 4 families in an apartment when they don't? [3]

1. Because the foundation of capitalist ideology is that the relationship between capital and labor is reciprocal and mutually beneficial.

2. They already do this, so moot point. I'd also like to shore up this statement from a predicted counter-point by further adding that automating labor is almost always cheaper and more efficient than paying someone to do the same job.

3. Wanna try this again? Maybe form a coherent sentence this time.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Attempt to shift the burden on the employers? You mean the companies that are under paying their employees so much that their employees would be on the street or living in apartments sharing the rent with 4 families? Why in the heck should my tax dollars be subsidizing the housing of someone because their employer is short changing them?

Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them?

Because the labor is worth a lot more to the employees than it is to the employer. Those employees are people, and the United States of America describes itself as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Which means that in a disagreement between a corporation and a worker over the value of that worker's labor, the worker should be in a much stronger bargaining position.

It is unethical to compromise the financial security of a person to benefit something that is NOT a person. So if a company is not paying a fair price for an employee's labor, the company should be compelled to pay a higher wage.

Companies do not suffer or starve. Even their managers are, ultimately, just employees themselves. The only people who should have an advantage in deciding the value of wages are those who enjoy basic human rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution; corporations have no human rights in and of themselves and have no position to negotiate anything at all.

Why should the employer be responsible for the living standards of the employee?

Because the employees fucking said so.

And even if you think they should, so you really believe that employers will pay more than needed for the work, rather than automate, relocate or find other ways to reduce labour need?

Most of them ALREADY DO. The minimum wage is such a laughably low level right now that any person desperate enough to accept minimum wage is probably unqualified for any job that requires any training or expertise whatsoever. They're likely to be replaced by automation no matter what. OTOH, there are some skilled professions (paramedics, fire fighters, nurses, caregivers, etc) that are paying between 15 and $20 an hour that would indirectly benefit from a minimum wage. It becomes harder to attract the most qualified workers in those fields if your opening salary offer is just 50 cents more than the lowest rate you can legally pay someone; most of your applicants will be high school dropouts with no skills and no experience, while the candidates you REALLY want with 5+ years of experience will all work for your competitor who is offering $25 to start with yearly raises and bonuses.

Which means the companies that pay much higher than the minimum wage will be more productive while companies that try to short-change their employees will suffer a marked reduction in the quality of their workforce and, therefore, the quality of their products. The rise in the minimum wage simply forces companies to actually pay a good price for good service.

As many people have pointed out, this would also have the secondary effect of raising wages EVERYWHERE, which means more customers now have disposable income enough to buy more products and services. That means your business has more customers, which means you can either hire more workers to keep up with demand or raise your prices to reduce demand to something your existing workforce can handle. Either way, everybody wins.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

1. Because the foundation of capitalist ideology is that the relationship between capital and labor is reciprocal and mutually beneficial.

The foundation of capitalist ideology is a fair exchange of value. There is nothing in capitalist ideology that requires one side of a deal to be responsible for the whole income or lifestyle of the other. I also say that the employer should only pay for the health care of the employee to the extent that the work endangers or harms the employee (hazard pay). This is an argument for single payer universal health care. Why should employers be saddled with that burden as well?

2. They already do this, so moot point.

Not moot point, because it isn't binary. Yes, technology will and is already pushing employees out, but making labor more expensive is only going to push that faster. Seriously, why would we predict a business owner not buy machines if machines are cheaper than humans?

I'd also like to shore up this statement from a predicted counter-point by further adding that automating labor is almost always cheaper and more efficient than paying someone to do the same job.

First, no it isn't. Second, when it is, by how much?

3. Wanna try this again? Maybe form a coherent sentence this time.

What I said was coherent. You just have to read what it was responding to. He is demanding that employers be responsible for the living standards of employees, even when the labour done doesn't justify the employer paying that amount. That is putting a burden on the the employer and taking it off of the rest of society (both of whom can be said to have an interest in the person having a living income), and it is a burden that the employer can flee from, leaving nobody to help the employee. It is a mirage tactic. The real answer isn't minimum wage increase. The real answer is universal basic income through reverse taxation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Attempt to shift the burden on the employers? You mean the companies that are under paying their employees so much that their employees would be on the street or living in apartments sharing the rent with 4 families? Why in the heck should my tax dollars be subsidizing the housing of someone because their employer is short changing them?

Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them?

"Worth to them"? The value of labor isn't a fixed thing. In general, corporations will pay the lowest amount they can get away with for labor. Even today, corporations are fined for underpaying or not paying for labor (big and small companies).

Why should the employer be responsible for the living standards of the employee?

This issue was addressed with the 13th Amendment in the United States, which indicated that there was a bare minimum for employment. Over the years, the minimum has increased from banning of slavery, to creating a minimum wage. Corporations aren't some mythical entity that exist through the grace of gods. They are paper entities that have to abide by rules in order to benefit from many things. If a corporation pays their employees such a wage that the taxpayers have to subsidize the employees food, housing, heating, health care, that is a burden on the society. The question should be asked, "Just how much of a burden can a corporation be on the taxpayers?" What is the benefit to the nation of allowing a corporation to underpay their workers so much that the nation has to pay to support the employee so they don't have to live on the street?

Housing support, food support, health care support for the working poor isn't welfare for the poor, it is welfare for corporations and coupons for their patrons! Raising the minimum wage increases costs at the cashier, not the society, as we are already burdened with paying for the support.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them?

Because the labor is worth a lot more to the employees than it is to the employer.

So? If I have something to sell you that is worth more to me than it is to you, that means you must pay me more than it is worth to you? That makes no sense, especially if you are free to not buy.

Those employees are people, and the United States of America describes itself as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

So make the people pay. Tax the employer evenly along with other businesses and individuals making comparable profit. Why put the full burden to support our fellow people on the employer and put none of it on the company that has automated or on the idle rich?