Ask Our Northern Neighbors Whether Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs

a reply to: AlaskanDad

IF anyone at all can take a Canadian research undertaking into anything to do with life quality and money seriously, then you deserve to be the gullible fool you are. There is only one thing I admire Canada for and that is their ability unlike any other country to spin all types of BS into propaganda that make them smell of roses.

a reply to: AgentShillington

And there will always be a need for the low end jobs. Both for the job, and people seeking work.

Welfare shouldn't be offsetting people's lives. And that goes for both people and business.


If people don't want a low end job, work and get a none low end job.

a reply to: macman

If your single and have obligations then sure.

But people are tied to certain areas due to things like elderly or ill parents and other dependent that may need carering ect.

Everyone is different. As you said earlier what works in Canada wont work in the USA, well that applies to individuals too, what works for one wont work for others.

Plus having ghost towns and ghost cites and collapsing states is not a ideal situation. Plus the US economy flat lined. More needs to be done to stimulate economic growth in a stable way.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: AgentShillington

And there will always be a need for the low end jobs. Both for the job, and people seeking work.

Welfare shouldn't be offsetting people's lives. And that goes for both people and business.


If people don't want a low end job, work and get a none low end job.

It shouldn't be offsetting business expense, but it is, and can be eliminated by increasing the minimum wage.

This isn't about people not wanting a low end job, this is about people working 40 hours a week wanting to be able to live while working 40 hours a week. If these jobs are necessary, then the people working these jobs are necessary, and as such, should be paid a wage that allows them to live above the poverty line.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

15% above the poverty line is generally regarded as a living wage.

If you are paying a living wage, food stamps aren't necessary.

Edit: The vast majority of people working at Wal Mart are on public assistance. Why should the tax payer being paying for people to work at Wal-Mart?

Why should walmart pay more than is required?
Do you send the government more taxes than you have to?

YES!

By Wal-Mart NOT having to pay their employees a living wage MY TAXES are going to public assistance programs that are gong to WAL MARTS employees.

Walmart has less than 6000 employees making minimum wage. That out of 1.6 million employees.

m.wsj.com...


I think most making that wage work for mom and pop type of businesses.

Out of the people not making minimum wage, what is the percentage working at or below 15% abovethe poverty line?

Those are the people that need to be factored in as well.

That's very true.
But I have to ask a question and please answer honestly.
I have shopped at Walmart and dread going in there.
I have also noticed that about half of the people working there are brain dead and have trouble figuring out a tooth brush.
Do you think that if forced to pay double the current minimum wage that walmart would not get rid of these brain dead people and hire better employees? And most likely need only half as many to do the same job.
That's how I see their reaction. Maybe I'm wrong.

a reply to: crazyewok

I understand that, but it simply comes down to this. What do you value more? Staying in a place with no jobs because of some reason? Or moving and being successful?

There also is one of the biggest things envious people always overlook. What did it take for someone to earn their wealth?

And, are you willing to do the same for that?

IT DOESN'T. We have a better economy.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

15% above the poverty line is generally regarded as a living wage.

If you are paying a living wage, food stamps aren't necessary.

Edit: The vast majority of people working at Wal Mart are on public assistance. Why should the tax payer being paying for people to work at Wal-Mart?

Why should walmart pay more than is required?
Do you send the government more taxes than you have to?

YES!

By Wal-Mart NOT having to pay their employees a living wage MY TAXES are going to public assistance programs that are gong to WAL MARTS employees.

Walmart has less than 6000 employees making minimum wage. That out of 1.6 million employees.

m.wsj.com...


I think most making that wage work for mom and pop type of businesses.

Out of the people not making minimum wage, what is the percentage working at or below 15% abovethe poverty line?

Those are the people that need to be factored in as well.

That's very true.
But I have to ask a question and please answer honestly.
I have shopped at Walmart and dread going in there.
I have also noticed that about half of the people working there are brain dead and have trouble figuring out a tooth brush.
Do you think that if forced to pay double the current minimum wage that walmart would not get rid of these brain dead people and hire better employees? And most likely need only half as many to do the same job.
That's how I see their reaction. Maybe I'm wrong.

Don't think for a second that Wal-Mart isn't already trying to get by with as few people as they possibly can. Maybe Wal-Mart will downsize, yeah, and I don't see that as a bad thing. Encouraging growth and opening the door to competition by making Wal Mart cut into their profit margins is good for the work force.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Noooo, it can be eliminated by removing the welfare part of the equation. You know, stealing from me to give to you...

Raising the lowest amount someone can pay another for a low end job does nothing. It might feel good for a bit, until the curve snaps up any short sighted gains and the goal posts have been moved in one direction back to the last distance.

a reply to: squittles

It can be very difficult to compare two different systems, or even different states - minimum wage in some small Texas or Florida town means a lot more than minimum wage living in Manhattan, DC, or SF.

It's the same story here in Canada.

In rural areas and small towns, the minimum wage is a livable wage. But in cities like Toronto or Vancouver, it's not. And the only reason this is so, is because high demand in city housing means that landlords/bankers (cost of renting, cost of purchasing) can freely take advantage of the situation and line their own pockets. The market point set on housing is far overvalued and has been for decades now... and we the peons apathetically allow it to happen.




As a side note to other posters about this subject:

I avoid these threads because I get really tired of seeing people talk down their nose about minimum wage earners. What these self-righteous pompous asses don't realize is that every society has people who come in all flavours... ranging anywhere from folks who are only capable of digging ditches for a living, all the way up to people who are capable of being rocket scientists... and everything in between.

Anyone who has the fortitude to work for a living and try to earn their own way (rather than sitting on their ass and getting a free ride with government handouts), deserves the respect from his/her fellow brethren to not be looked down upon for earning a hard day's work (no less harder than your own hotshot job)... and a roof over their head and food in their mouth for doing so.

Every single human being from the guy who makes $8/hr pumping gas, all the way up to the guy making 6 figures a year performing heart surgery, plays an important role in the overall flow of a country's economic continuity.... A weak link in that chain makes for a fractured economic structure.

Shame on anyone who isn't in possession of the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend this simple little fact.



I'm done.

a reply to: macman

The curve doesn't snap if minimum wage increases keep up with inflation.

Congress gets a cost of living increase, why shouldn't the Americans working on the lowest end of the spectrum. They certainly work harder than congress does, am I right?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

I understand that, but it simply comes down to this. What do you value more? Staying in a place with no jobs because of some reason? Or moving and being successful?

There also is one of the biggest things envious people always overlook. What did it take for someone to earn their wealth?

And, are you willing to do the same for that?

But family should always come first. would you ditch your family in a crisis just to gain more money? Would you leave sick or dying parents behind ect Sometime its more than just "some reason" people have legitimate reason for being tied to a place. There is more to life than being successfully financially.

Of course there are plenty of people that can and should move too.

everyone different.

And if the USA economy was not unstable and stagnating this would likely not be even a issue. So is it not better to focus on getting the US economy back on track? As that would sort all these issues out.

originally posted by: AgentShillington


The curve doesn't snap if minimum wage increases keep up with inflation.

Yes, yes it does.
Where does this magical money come from then? I mean, the dollar tree that I planted a couple years back has yet to provide any fruit.
If the company has an increase in costs, and the employee(s) is/are not doing extra work for this increase, then the money comes out of the business.
And then the business will raise their prices, alongside other businesses, thus providing the "snap".

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Congress gets a cost of living increase, why shouldn't the Americans working on the lowest end of the spectrum. They certainly work harder than congress does, am I right?

WOW!!! You're really going to use Congress' raise as an arguing point with me??

a reply to: crazyewok

Yes, family should come first.

Are you a burden to that "family", or are you a success for the family and thus a provider?

Like I said.....choices. That is all it comes down to.

The choice to stay and not work...or the choice to move and work.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: AgentShillington


The curve doesn't snap if minimum wage increases keep up with inflation.

Yes, yes it does.
Where does this magical money come from then? I mean, the dollar tree that I planted a couple years back has yet to provide any fruit.
If the company has an increase in costs, and the employee(s) is/are not doing extra work for this increase, then the money comes out of the business.
And then the business will raise their prices, alongside other businesses, thus providing the "snap".

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Congress gets a cost of living increase, why shouldn't the Americans working on the lowest end of the spectrum. They certainly work harder than congress does, am I right?

WOW!!! You're really going to use Congress' raise as an arguing point with me??

Like I said, The Waltons of Wal-Mart are worth 1/3 of a trillion dollars. Excuse me if I don't shed a tear for their loss of profitability when under THIS system, my taxes have subsidized their fortune by paying their workers what they refuse to pay them.

originally posted by: crazyewok


And if the USA economy was not unstable and stagnating this would likely not be even a issue. So is it not better to focus on getting the US economy back on track? As that would sort all these issues out.

The US economy hasn't been on track for a long time now. It was played and manipulated by the Govt to look like it was, but it was a fictitious offering.

If we want the US back on track, go back to the Constitution, eliminate the IRS and the Federal Reserve and maybe we can get over this bad dream.

a reply to: macman

I agree.

Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Both are 1 and 2 in economic freedom. Low taxes, bare bones welfare and no minimum wages but have consistently stable economic growth, extremely low poverty and unemployment and provides good opportunity and extremely high standard of living.

a reply to: AgentShillington

So, envy and jealousy is your driving factor.

Because they have more then you, they are the bad guys.

And Walmart shouldn't receive welfare, like people shouldn't.

And it isn't just the Waltons that profit off the business. Any investor and person below them is affected.

a reply to: macman

No, not envy and jealousy. You are missing a key point in this.

They made their money on the backs of MY TAXES.

They don't pay their employees a living wage, so I have to compensate for that discrepancy.

I don't want Wal Mart's money, I want MY money.

What is the point of having a job and working fulltime anyway when you can't live off the income you earn?