Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

[Axulus]

Of course it does not change the meaning of your position. No one said it did. It simply means your position has no real point in current practice. If and when UBI is adopted, then your position makes practical sense. Until that time, it is simply wishful thinking.

Again, you are not making sense. My point was first to ask what measures are being and what measures should be put in place to offset the negative impacts of the minimum wage on the vulnerable. My only other point was to ask why employers should take ultimate responsibility for employees meeting their cost of living. You are not addressing either with your statement that UBI isn't likely to happen soon.

What even is the "cost of living"? Tens of millions of people have lived to old age while earning at or barely above minimum wage their entire lives.

 

[barbos]

You're totally off target here, this isn't a rebuttal at all. You're not addressing the point.

I don't think so. There is very little evidence that unions raise unemployment levels, at least not significantly. There is good evidence that unionized workplaces generally offer better pay and conditions. The pay and condition in blue collar industries was achieved through unionism, but has been eroding away due to many factors, which include falling membership and laws that heavily penalize strikers...and of course, apathy.

I mentioned France earlier where unions do cause unemployment

 

[DBT]

I don't think so. There is very little evidence that unions raise unemployment levels, at least not significantly. There is good evidence that unionized workplaces generally offer better pay and conditions. The pay and condition in blue collar industries was achieved through unionism, but has been eroding away due to many factors, which include falling membership and laws that heavily penalize strikers...and of course, apathy.

I mentioned France earlier where unions do cause unemployment

I think you mentioned the difficulty of laying off unproductive workers being the cause of a reluctance of some employers to hire people. I don't know if this is caused by unions. Enterprise bargaining allows both sides to put their case and reach a mutual agreement. Unions simply increase the bargaining power of workers, shifting individual negotiation (not very effective) to collective bargaining. If some aspect of the EBA is causing problems, that can be addressed.

 

[barbos]

I mentioned France earlier where unions do cause unemployment

I think you mentioned the difficulty of laying off unproductive workers being the cause of a reluctance of some employers to hire people. I don't know if this is caused by unions. Enterprise bargaining allows both sides to put their case and reach a mutual agreement. Unions simply increase the bargaining power of workers, shifting individual negotiation (not very effective) to collective bargaining. If some aspect of the EBA is causing problems, that can be addressed.

Well, who do you think created that situation in France if not unions?

 

[DBT]

I think you mentioned the difficulty of laying off unproductive workers being the cause of a reluctance of some employers to hire people. I don't know if this is caused by unions. Enterprise bargaining allows both sides to put their case and reach a mutual agreement. Unions simply increase the bargaining power of workers, shifting individual negotiation (not very effective) to collective bargaining. If some aspect of the EBA is causing problems, that can be addressed.

Well, who do you think created that situation in France if not unions?

It could be a number of things. Australia has laws dealing with industrial relations between employers and employees, fair work commission, ombudsman, etc, government agencies that deal with unfair dismissal, the rights of business and workers in relation to termination of employment that has little or nothing to do with unions. I don't know what the workings of French industrial relation laws are or their history, so I can't comment on who is to blame in France.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nah. The welfare cheque isn't reducing the grocer's operating costs

I take it you mean to imply that the welfare check is reducing the employer's operating costs. What's your evidence for that hypothesis?

I don't need any - it ain't me objecting that a load of businesses would go bust if they had to pay employees enough to live on.

, and the grocer isn't claiming he'd go out of business without that reduction in operating costs. It's barely analogous.

I expect if there were a mass political movement trying to order grocers to supply poor people's food needs at grocers' expense, a typical grocer would start claiming he'd go out of business if that burden were assigned to him.

Indeed, which puts grocers in the position of tax payers with respect to unlivable wages. The mass political movement is effectively saying that it is not the responsibility of consumers to bear the full cost of groceries.

Should the employer hire the worker to do a job that will increase the employer's revenue by $20000, pay him $30000, and take a $10000 loss on the trade? Or should she not hire the guy, and get $20000 less revenue and $30000 less expense? Are both of those options more moral than paying him $20000 for the $20000 revenue increase he'll deliver, or only one or the other?

She should hire a worker who will increase her revenue by as much she needs to at least break even. If she can't find one, she should go out of business in a market economy because she doesn't have a viable business plan.

I.e., she should hire a different worker. I.e., you choose option two. I.e., the first worker should be stuck with a $30000 problem instead of a $10000 problem. I.e. you grabs his duds and his picks as well, and you hurls 'em down the pit of hell.

If hiring an individual means hurling everyone else down the pit of hell, you place a huge burden on employers.

Bugger all to do with morality (as already noted).

She should X. If Y, she should Z. Bugger all to do with morality. What is it you mean by "morality", if not answers to "should" questions?

But "should" statements aren't necessarily moral. You should hire a worker who'll generate enough revenue is more practical direction, like you should keep milk in the fridge. Other "should" statements are true irrespective of their moral dimension.

 

[laughing dog]

Given the low numbers of people working at minimum wage it would be hard for removing it to have a big effect.

Certainly that logic would apply to a moderate raise of the minimum wage as well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Given the low numbers of people working at minimum wage it would be hard for removing it to have a big effect.

Certainly that logic would apply to a moderate raise of the minimum wage as well.

This is not a moderate raise of the minimum wage. This is a rapid increase, with nothing being put in place to buffer the negative effects on the workers/unemployed or the economy.

 

[dismal]

Good column on minimum wage in San Diego:

Across the nation, about 3 million people were paid the minimum or less in 2014, or just 2 percent of 146 million workers. However, a $15 minimum would have affected 59 million workers, or 40 percent of the U.S. workforce including the ripple effects, as Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post reported in 2015, citing the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

...

Last month this column reported early evidence that San Diego’s 15 percent increase (9.5 percent for large employers) already may be killing thousands of jobs for the working poor. Since then the news has gotten worse.

The latest batch of federal data suggests the job losses among low-wage workers that began in October accelerated in February, March and April. For example, the food-service industry employed 2,200 fewer people last month than it did in April 2016 (a comparison that adjusts for normal, seasonal variation).

Indeed, if San Diego’s restaurants had merely kept pace with statewide growth — as it had for years before voters lifted the local wage floor — the sector would have employed 4,600 more people than it actually did in April, estimates Lynn Reaser, chief economist of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University.

...

And California’s decision to speed Darwinian selection also encourages automation. McDonald’s is rolling out ordering kiosks, Starbucks is testing robotic baristas, and hamburger-making machines are nearing production.

One local restaurant owner told me that all his future locations will allow customers to buy and pour their own beers.

A 50-handle system costs $1,800 per handle. That’s well above $1,000 per handle for the bartender-based system, but it pays off in a year by eliminating one or two workers per shift. Presumably someday robots will listen to our problems, too.

Rising productivity is good for the bulk of consumers, because fewer workers equate to lower bills.

Still, displacing people with technology wasn’t exactly what state lawmakers or San Diego voters had in mind. If job losses continue or spread as the wage floor keeps rising, California’s working poor may wish politicians would stop helping them so much.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...n-minimum-wage-job-losses-20170611-story.html

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No. As the change ripples through the system it will drive up the wages of those making more than minimum wage.

Eventually. Not immediately, and not by very much. I've seen it estimated that jobs within 200% of the new minimum will see an increase of 30 to 50% within the first three to five years after the increase, and then the effect drops off dramatically.

So if you raised the minimum to $15 an hour, those earning, say, $20 an hour would get progressive pay raises year after year until they get up to about $25 or $30. Those Already making $30 an hour might get bumped to $40 in that same time period, and those earning $35 or higher wouldn't see an increase any larger than what they would NORMALLY get just from the usual performance increases and pay raises.

In other words, the bottom quintile of the income bracket would be strongly affected, the second quintile barely affected, and the middle quintile wouldn't be affected at all. But there's a ALOT of people in those bottom two quintiles, and it makes a pretty huge difference to them.

It's as simple as acknowledging the fact that removing the minimum wage would have a very negative effect on the labor market whether Basic Income is implemented or not; since Basic Income has not been implemented, isn't going to be implemented, and even if it IS implemented won't be fully funded to levels high enough to make it work, "should" isn't worth a damn thing.

Given the low numbers of people working at minimum wage it would be hard for removing it to have a big effect.

In this very same post you just tried to claim that RAISING the minimum wage would have a big effect. Now you're saying that REMOVING it would have no big effect.

These are contradictory statements. Either the minimum wage has an effect beyond minimum wage earners, or it doesn't.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good column on minimum wage in San Diego:

Across the nation, about 3 million people were paid the minimum or less in 2014, or just 2 percent of 146 million workers. However, a $15 minimum would have affected 59 million workers, or 40 percent of the U.S. workforce including the ripple effects, as Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post reported in 2015, citing the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

...

Last month this column reported early evidence that San Diego’s 15 percent increase (9.5 percent for large employers) already may be killing thousands of jobs for the working poor. Since then the news has gotten worse.

The latest batch of federal data suggests the job losses among low-wage workers that began in October accelerated in February, March and April. For example, the food-service industry employed 2,200 fewer people last month than it did in April 2016 (a comparison that adjusts for normal, seasonal variation).

Indeed, if San Diego’s restaurants had merely kept pace with statewide growth — as it had for years before voters lifted the local wage floor — the sector would have employed 4,600 more people than it actually did in April, estimates Lynn Reaser, chief economist of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University.

...

And California’s decision to speed Darwinian selection also encourages automation. McDonald’s is rolling out ordering kiosks, Starbucks is testing robotic baristas, and hamburger-making machines are nearing production.

One local restaurant owner told me that all his future locations will allow customers to buy and pour their own beers.

A 50-handle system costs $1,800 per handle. That’s well above $1,000 per handle for the bartender-based system, but it pays off in a year by eliminating one or two workers per shift. Presumably someday robots will listen to our problems, too.

Rising productivity is good for the bulk of consumers, because fewer workers equate to lower bills.

Still, displacing people with technology wasn’t exactly what state lawmakers or San Diego voters had in mind. If job losses continue or spread as the wage floor keeps rising, California’s working poor may wish politicians would stop helping them so much.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...n-minimum-wage-job-losses-20170611-story.html

I thought it was millenials that are killing these industries.

 

[laughing dog]

Certainly that logic would apply to a moderate raise of the minimum wage as well.

This is not a moderate raise of the minimum wage.

Compared to the removal of the minimum wage it is.

This is a rapid increase, with nothing being put in place to buffer the negative effects on the workers/unemployed or the economy.

A rapid increase may or may not be a moderate increase. From what I can tell, the minimum wage rises from $11.40 to $14.00 per hour in April 2018 and to $15.00 per hour in April of 2019.
That translates into roughly 23% increase next year and then roughly a 7% increase the year after that. Not a draconian increase by any stretch. And if as LP claims, only a small proportion of people are directly affected, then it cannot have much of an effect.

As to the potential negative effects, no policy is perfect.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In this very same post you just tried to claim that RAISING the minimum wage would have a big effect. Now you're saying that REMOVING it would have no big effect.

These are contradictory statements. Either the minimum wage has an effect beyond minimum wage earners, or it doesn't.

Depends entirely on what rate you arbitrarily set minimum wage at and how closely it comes to the actual worth of the labour. If it is close then there will be little effect. If it is far the effect will be extreme. That's why it makes sense to make an actual effort to estimate it, and set it at the actual worth, instead of basing it on something extraneous like cost of living or inflation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Money is not a hazardous material.

Poverty is.

The employer is paying the employee money. That is hardly analogous to having the employee breathe toxins.

If your employees are working in a hazardous environment as part of their job for you, and you fail to provide them with equipment that keeps them safe, then you're responsible for their exposure and the health effects thereof. I'm not making that up, JP, that's just the way the law is written and how it has always been interpreted.

And yes, this includes monetary compensation. An employee who injures himself while working for you is eligible for workman's compensation even if he injured himself while doing something completely unrelated to the job. That's the law and how it's been interpreted for like 40 years.

So by precedent, if nothing else, employers ARE responsible for the well-being of their employees. That means they are also responsible for their financial well-being, to the extent that their employee's financial difficulties are a consequence of their employment. If you are paying your worker far less than a fair wage, you're directly contributing to financial hardship and INDIRECTLY contributing to the suppression of wages over the entire economy.

Of course it is true. Nobody puts a gun to the head of the employee and makes them work for the employer. This is not slavery. This is an agreed upon wage. The employee is free to decline and walk away.

The minimum wage laws were passed in the first place to prevent things like peonage and sweatshop labor, which built entire business models on exactly the sort of practices I have described. The only way you could make this statement with a straight face is with breathtaking ignorance of America's labor history.

Sure you can. You just tax the rich more to fund UBI.

The rich do not have that kind of income, JP, even in America. You could fund the top quintile of earners at 99% of their income and it still wouldn't be enough to find a UBI program above bare-bones subsistence level for everyone.

OTOH, not everyone NEEDS a bare-bones subsistence level basic income. Only those at the very bottom of the income bracket, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the retired would need that. So the universality of basic income is unnecessary. The presence of a minimum living wage, on the other hand, removes an even larger segment of the population from the need for Basic Income since ANY job that can do will be enough to meet their basic needs. That just leaves the disabled, the still-unemployed, those too old to work, the lazy, the stupid, and entitled angry white guy who hates welfare programs even though he doesn't have a job himself. We can DEFINITELY afford a basic income that covers all of those cases, and we wouldn't have to tax the rich at 99% to do it.

And with basic needs met through UBI, the employee is no longer willing to work for low wages.

There is NO precedent in the history of ANY country of workers being unwilling to work for low wages. Someone ALWAYS winds up working for low wages. This is because no matter who you are, there is always someone desperate enough to accept the offer. Sweatshop labor was built on this very simple principle you continue to pretend doesn't exist: when an employer can make ten employees compete for a single job, he can make them work for absurdly low wages and they can do nothing about it. When EVERY employer does this, then EVERY potential employee is forced to short-sell their own labor, because if they don't, the other 9 candidates they're competing with probably will.

Labor strikes and walkouts happen for exactly this reason: because employees cannot INDIVIDUALLY force their employers to pay them a fair wage and the only way to change the power balance is collectively. Labor unions were formed because the government was not responsive to the employees' demands for action; the minimum wage law is one of the ways it WAS responsive.

That isn't true.

Yes, it really is. Employers simply higher FEWER people to do the same job, which leads to a job shortage, which in turn cause a drop in wages as more and more workers start competing for the same jobs. So the point where "employers stop hiring workers" can never actually be reached because the labor costs will start to drop LONG before the market actually reaches that point.

If it were, then UBI would mean infinite wages for all workers.

UBI doesn't exist and has never been implemented by anyone anywhere, so I struggle to understand what if anything this statement is based on.

In fact, I'm beginning to think your understanding of basic economics is not all it's cracked up to be.

As I said above, why not make an effort to figure out what it would actually be

We did that already. It's called "living wage." That's considered "fair" because any lower than that and workers are giving up a lot of time and energy working and being productive while still remaining in poverty for long periods of time. We (collectively) do not consider it fair for a person to work a full time job and still be poor, so we consider a living wage to be a fair minimum.

AFAIK, the Ontario minimum wage is still someone less than a living wage, but they consider that to be more fair than it was before.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The idle rich and the rich companies who do not hire anybody benefit from the society they operate in.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. "Benefitting from society" isn't what's making working people poor, nor is it causing wage suppression. Even your mythical "companies that don't hire anyone" aren't contributing to that problem. On the other hand, not everyone in society IS working poor.

So how are the "idle rich" and your fictional robot companies responsible for conditions they aren't contributing to?

Same goes for health care. Universal Single Payer health care exists where I live.

But we're not talking about universal basic income, as much as you would prefer this to be. We're talking about the minimum wage. Universal healthcare is a great idea, and so is a social safety net/basic income welfare program.

But you still haven't explained why the idle rich and ficticious robot companies should take responsibility for that problem while sweatshop operators and wage slavers shouldn't. You CERTAINLY never explained why the latter category should be less responsible than the former.

It discourages employers from hiring the unemployed

Employers will hire workers when they need work done. They'll just be more careful about WHO they hire if the labor is more expensive.

 

[laughing dog]

In this very same post you just tried to claim that RAISING the minimum wage would have a big effect. Now you're saying that REMOVING it would have no big effect.

These are contradictory statements. Either the minimum wage has an effect beyond minimum wage earners, or it doesn't.

Depends entirely on what rate you arbitrarily set minimum wage at and how closely it comes to the actual worth of the labour. If it is close then there will be little effect. If it is far the effect will be extreme. That's why it makes sense to make an actual effort to estimate it, and set it at the actual worth, instead of basing it on something extraneous like cost of living or inflation.

How does one estimate the "actual worth"?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Good column on minimum wage in San Diego:




http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...n-minimum-wage-job-losses-20170611-story.html

I thought it was millenials that are killing these industries.

Only if millenials is code for automation.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends entirely on what rate you arbitrarily set minimum wage at and how closely it comes to the actual worth of the labour. If it is close then there will be little effect. If it is far the effect will be extreme. That's why it makes sense to make an actual effort to estimate it, and set it at the actual worth, instead of basing it on something extraneous like cost of living or inflation.

How does one estimate the "actual worth"?

the Laffer Curve?

 

[Bomb#20]

Wages paid by a company are wages paid by its owners. Shareholders are people. They have human rights too. You're dehumanizing your outgroup.

Not at all. The basic right to property is and has always been limited by taxation and business regulation to serve the common good. The economic security of the lowest-earning workers is exactly the sort of common good that trumps shareholders' property rights.

Put simply: the right of people to provide for themselves and their families is superior to the right of shareholders to get a slightly larger return on their investment.

But that's a completely new argument. What you wrote was:

"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."​

Of course you were dehumanizing the shareholders.

So I take it you're replacing that argument with your new argument. Good plan. But the question you were challenged to answer was "Why should the employer pay more than the labour is worth to them?" Do you figure "The economic security of the lowest-earning workers is exactly the sort of common good that trumps shareholders' property rights. Put simply: the right of people to provide for themselves and their families is superior to the right of shareholders to get a slightly larger return on their investment." answers that? Who are the lowest-earning workers? The ones making $15/hr after you raise the minimum wage? Or the ones who used to be making $10/hr and are now making $0/hr? Why shouldn't we conclude that the right of the laid-off workers to provide for themselves and their families is superior to the right of different workers to get a larger paycheck? If a worker's need for an extra $5 trumps shareholders' property rights, why doesn't a lower-earning worker's need for $10 trump the higher-paid worker's right to override those property rights?

(It should be noted, by the way, that the minimum wage does not in fact make employers pay more than the labor is worth to them. It makes labor worth more, by making it more scarce, by cutting some of the suppliers out of the deal.)

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

Because the employees ... said so.

No, "the employees" didn't say so.

Yes they did. They got their elected officials to speak on their behalf in the form of "laws."

Ah. So by "they say so", you simply mean the majority say so. You're not claiming that there's a consensus among the employees, or claiming that the ones who want the minimum wage raised are entitled to speak for the ones who don't, correct?

So why should the laws on this point be based on the will of the majority? America rounded up Japanese-Americans for being Japanese-Americans because the people said so. Did that mean Japanese-Americans "should" go to internment camps? What makes the shareholders' property rights and the laid-off workers' right to provide for themselves and their families inferior to the right of the majority to run roughshod over minorities' rights?

Paying an employee too little to live on is labeled "cheating", "screwing", "under-paying" and "the problem", without any consideration of how much the employee is accomplishing for the employer in return. I.e., the argument is that paying an employee that little is immoral per se, regardless of whether he's a terrific employee or only a barely helpful one. Well then, if that's immoral, what is the moral thing for an employer to do instead, when she encounters a worker who will not increase her revenue by as much money as the worker needs? Should the employer hire the worker to do a job that will increase the employer's revenue by $20000, pay him $30000, and take a $10000 loss on the trade? Or should she not hire the guy, and get $20000 less revenue and $30000 less expense? Are both of those options more moral than paying him $20000 for the $20000 revenue increase he'll deliver, or only one or the other?

It isn't a question of "morality." Suppression of wages impacts the labor market in ways that are unrelated to the performance or qualifications of any specific worker.

What is it you mean by "suppression of wages", other than that sometimes people agree on a wage among themselves instead of asking you to decide for them? What makes your preferred wage the magic reference point based on which all lower wages shall be defined as "suppressed"?

Wages simply are not as fluid as this paragraph seems to be implying, nor is the relationship between work and revenue as clear cut as you are pretending.

Really, the issue with the minimum wage is the burden of inflation on workers at the low end of the spectrum. It isn't actually a moral question to be settled individually, but in terms of the Public Good.

In which case you need, as I said at the beginning of this exchange, a cost-benefit analysis, instead of folk-economics and tribalism. How many people will be thrown out of work when you raise the minimum wage? How many businesses will go under? How much will prices rise? Show us the numbers.

It is, in other words, similar to regulations on any other business practice: is your factory producing toxic waste that is polluting the neighborhood around it? Are your products consistently unsafe but you sell them anyway because you just assume most people know the risks? Are your workers experiencing conditions that significantly shorten their life expectancy or compromise their health? These are all things we do not allow in a civilized society. You cannot really make a moral case IN FAVOR of these things just on an individual basis, nor by appealing to the rights of shareholders, nor by appealing to unintended negative consequences. The public good of the community and the nation at large MUST take precedence over the good of the business and/or its shareholders.

But you haven't shown that paying $20000 for labor that causes a $20000 revenue increase produces toxic waste, or makes products unsafe, or causes workers to experience conditions that significantly shorten their life expectancy or compromise their health. You simply assert the latter, based on an arbitrary comparison with whatever counter-factual conditions you pull out of your ass. Giving someone $10 doesn't shorten his life expectancy -- it makes it longer. It doesn't lengthen it as much as giving him $15 would, true, but then giving him $15 doesn't lengthen it as much as giving him $100 would. Is that a legitimate argument for a $100/hr minimum wage? This conviction so many people have, that they can redefine zero to be whatever other number they please, is pure folk-economics.

When you kick some poor people out of their jobs in order to make different poor people richer, that shortens their life expectancy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In this very same post you just tried to claim that RAISING the minimum wage would have a big effect. Now you're saying that REMOVING it would have no big effect.

These are contradictory statements. Either the minimum wage has an effect beyond minimum wage earners, or it doesn't.

Depends entirely on what rate you arbitrarily set minimum wage at and how closely it comes to the actual worth of the labour.

There is no "actual worth" of labor. There are only differing opinions on what the labor is worth and the market-wide prevailing rate which is just the net average of all those opinions.

That's why it makes sense to make an actual effort to estimate it

This is another one of those statements that reveals to me that you don't actually understand anything about economics. "Value of labor" is highly subjective and often entirely arbitrary. It is not uncommon at all for companies to deliberately under-pay qualified workers just because they have different life circumstances than less qualified ones; the man who has an MBA and three kids might get paid less for the same job than the guy with less experience and a bachelor's degree since his employer figures he's less likely to jump to another job if he gets a better offer. In my own business, there was a seven year period were salaries were based almost entirely on how much the boss likes you; an entry level employee started at $17/hour while two of the longest serving and better qualified employees were making $16.50 each (boss didn't like them much).

This is, in fact, the whole reason why it's considered rude to discuss salaries with coworkers. Because there are differences in pay rate for two employees with the same qualifications even in the same job, and the question of "Why is she making three dollars an hour more than I am when I've been working here longer and have certifications that she doesn't?" is one that ruffles alot of feathers.

instead of basing it on something extraneous like cost of living or inflation.

We consider a "living wage" to be a basic benchmark of fair compensation. That this value should keep up with inflation serves economic purposes for long term social stability. That I still have to explain this to you is another thing that suggests you don't really understand what you're talking about.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

[YOUTUBE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI[/YOUTUBE]