$15/hour good for workers? Real life in Seattle shows different.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Fur

To create a successful business means risk, risk to the owner, not the labours.

If your not happy with your wage, go start YOUR own business. I think starting your own business is super easy, most NDP supporters are business owners right?

Never voted NDP. Actually voted conservative for a long long time. But you should get used to them.

[couleefolk]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

So businesses are suppose to pay you for skills that you can't use?

That is exactly it. Next he will tell you he is trading in an old car because it is a classic, and just because it can't drive anymore and is rusted out doesn't mean the dealership shouldn't pay him the collectors full price.

[GrandSlam]

And what do you think is going to happen when minimum wage is set at $15? The added cost of labour will be passed on to customers. Which in turn increases the cost of products/service and makes that "extra" money irrelevant. Back to square one.

[SageValleyOutdoors]

Originally Posted by IceDemeter

I find it quite sad the number of people who apparently agree with and support the socialist championed idea that a salary or wage indicates the "worth" of the person --- and not the "worth" of the task. The two concepts are deliberately conflated by those who want to be supported and protected by society --- even though they are totally separate and unrelated concepts in reality.

In reality, a wage or salary in the free market is primarily based on the "worth" of the task (how much income it can generate, how much consumers are willing to pay for it), with consideration to the preparation / education / skills / experience brought to bear by the employee which increases the "worth" of that task. It is not the responsibility of the employer, or especially the government, to ensure that ALL tasks are of sufficient economic worth to support a person employed to do that task (regardless of their lifestyle / family choices). It should always be the end consumer that dictates whether the task of supplying a cup of coffee is worth more or less than the task of installing a safe electrical system and is worth more or less than the task of cutting in to a living person and correcting what is wrong with them...

If a person can only find employment serving coffee, or flipping burgers, or cleaning offices, or any other task that is only "worth" minimum wage in the free market, then it is their personal responsibility to either fit their lifestyle to their income, or to make changes to their own education or skill set to improve their chances of getting employed to perform a task that the market values at a higher "worth". They need to recognize the reality that any skills, education, and experience that a person has are only of "worth" if they are actually used in the task that they are performing --- so it is ludicrous to expect an employer to pay for them when they are of no value in the position.

Unrealistically high wage standards dictated by a government, especially in a depressed market, can't magically make the entry level / lower skill level tasks worth more to consumers, and can't increase the income of the businesses that supply those tasks. The "worth" of the people, and what they do (or don't) "deserve" is completely irrelevant to the economic reality. It remains to be seen how long those still employed will be able to sustain the rest in the manner that they "deserve"...

^^^^^ THIS. Very much agree. Well said.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Bub

Taxes do not work as you think they do.

I dont think you understand how small business owners pay themselves. And by upping the amount they make they now have to pay more to taxes and can reinvest less into the business.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by IceDemeter

I find it quite sad the number of people who apparently agree with and support the socialist championed idea that a salary or wage indicates the "worth" of the person --- and not the "worth" of the task. The two concepts are deliberately conflated by those who want to be supported and protected by society --- even though they are totally separate and unrelated concepts in reality.

In reality, a wage or salary in the free market is primarily based on the "worth" of the task (how much income it can generate, how much consumers are willing to pay for it), with consideration to the preparation / education / skills / experience brought to bear by the employee which increases the "worth" of that task. It is not the responsibility of the employer, or especially the government, to ensure that ALL tasks are of sufficient economic worth to support a person employed to do that task (regardless of their lifestyle / family choices). It should always be the end consumer that dictates whether the task of supplying a cup of coffee is worth more or less than the task of installing a safe electrical system and is worth more or less than the task of cutting in to a living person and correcting what is wrong with them...

If a person can only find employment serving coffee, or flipping burgers, or cleaning offices, or any other task that is only "worth" minimum wage in the free market, then it is their personal responsibility to either fit their lifestyle to their income, or to make changes to their own education or skill set to improve their chances of getting employed to perform a task that the market values at a higher "worth". They need to recognize the reality that any skills, education, and experience that a person has are only of "worth" if they are actually used in the task that they are performing --- so it is ludicrous to expect an employer to pay for them when they are of no value in the position.

Unrealistically high wage standards dictated by a government, especially in a depressed market, can't magically make the entry level / lower skill level tasks worth more to consumers, and can't increase the income of the businesses that supply those tasks. The "worth" of the people, and what they do (or don't) "deserve" is completely irrelevant to the economic reality. It remains to be seen how long those still employed will be able to sustain the rest in the manner that they "deserve"...

Agree. ^^^ And also if you are "older" and looking for a "job", I would suggest , you should have saved your money and abstained from the "good life" and the "instant gratification" mindset of most "progressives"!

[raab]

Originally Posted by MrDave

So here's my deal. I'm a former oil and gas tradesman. Now that I'm worn out, jobs are impossible to find. Facing my second shoulder surgery in 2 days time. When I'm done this I won't be able to lift my arm, already can't kneel down from a prior surgery.
If I go to the local hardware store to work, I'm now only worth $12.50?

Don't tell me to improve myself. I can weld, insulate, gasfit, operate equipment, and so on. But because I can't physically do any of this, I'm supposed to work 3 jobs at minimum wage? Then I get paid the same as a 15 year old. Great.

Business owners abuse the minimum wage, and the employee. Hell I had an employer want to pay me minimum wage years ago for the first year of pipe fitting. Not every employer wants to help the employee to better themselves.

No, minimum wage isn't just being paid to green kids. It's used to screw anyone that they can.

Why can't you go into safety or inspection for those jobs that you used to do? Less physical still using your skills... To say that it's a minimum wage job or nothing is a defeatist attitude and I'll have none of it.

Wage should be directly correlated to the difficulty, location, and unpleasantness of the job and schedule. If someone wants to work in the middle of the bush for months at a time to make 100 grand, I have no problem with that because I wouldn't want to. When someone wants to work 9-5 stocking shelves, weekends off, having no responsibility. Then yes I'll have a problem with it. As it is, theres not to many people who work full time and make minimum wage. Most are small business owners or people working casual/part time.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by raab

I dont think you understand how small business owners pay themselves. And by upping the amount they make they now have to pay more to taxes and can reinvest less into the business.

I am not sure I follow the logic behind having to pay more to employees and having to pay more tax at the same time.

P. S. I am pretty sure I understand a little more than an average person, in all likelihood including you, about how our tax system works and how business owners - proprietors or shareholders - get paid.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Bub

I am not sure I follow the logic behind having to pay more to employees and having to pay more tax at the same time.

P. S. I am pretty sure I understand a little more than an average person, in all likelihood including you, about how our tax system works and how business owners - proprietors or shareholders - get paid.

So if a small business owner pays himself in dividends tax free, while paying himself minimum wage. How does he not get hurt and have less to spend on the business if his minimum wage gets upped once again and he's forced to pay even more out for his wage AND taxes?


How is this a good thing for a small business owner who might otherwise be able to actually hire staff if minimum wage was down around 6 bucks an hour? For example the small business owner pays himself 6 bucks an hour but can now hire some one around 12-15 because he's not paying a crazy 15 dollar an hour wage to himself and is instead paying himself a lower wage and dividends tax free. This takes a corporation to do, but a lot of small businesses run this way.

[Bub]

I am assuming you are talking about an incorporated business since you are talking about dividends. In that case, the business owner, ie shareholder and probably the president, can declare any amount of salary, ie T4 for the year, he/she likes and any amount of dividends he/she sees fit. Dividends are not tax free. I wish they were, but they aren't.
If you are talking about a proprietorship, there are no dividends involved and income from the said business is treated as employment income to the owner of the business.

If your accountant told you you need to pay yourself at least a minimum wage as the president of the company, you should find yourself a new accountant. Minimum wage has nothing to do with shareholders' income except for a reuction in income due to the higher wages the company has to pay the employees. As far as taxes go, taxes would even be lower due to increased wage expense.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Bub

I am assuming you are talking about an incorporated business since you are talking about dividends. In that case, the business owner, ie shareholder and probably the president, can declare any amount of salary, ie T4 for the year, he/she likes and any amount of dividends he/she sees fit. Dividends are not tax free. I wish they were, but they aren't.
If you are talking about a proprietorship, there are no dividends involved and income from the said business is treated as employment income to the owner of the business.

If your accountant told you you need to pay yourself at least a minimum wage as the president of the company, you should find yourself a new accountant. Minimum wage has nothing to do with shareholders' income except for a reuction in income due to the higher wages the company has to pay the employees. As far as taxes go, taxes would even be lower due to increased wage expense.

You can use the Canadian dividend tax credit to write off dividend tax... it might not get rid of it but it can get rid of a lot.

As for wages I didn't realize corporations were allowed to have people work for them for free. Still doesn't change the fact that if you had 25 dollars an hour to spend on employees you could possibly hire one full time at 15 bucks and hour and two part timers at 10. With this raise they just theoretically wiped out a full time job or two part timers.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by raab

You can use the Canadian dividend tax credit to write off dividend tax... it might not get rid of it but it can get rid of a lot.

You are right in terms of minimizing the tax, but you are giving it way too much credit. At least it sounds like it to me since you have mentioned (on more than one occasion) that dividends eliminate all or most of the tax one would be paying otherwise. It is definitely a very important tool in tax planning and the reason many (or most) small businesses incorporate during the first few years of their existence. Dividends minimize the income taxes one would pay otherwise, indeed. It is considered to be a loophole by the government, FYI. And it is not a liberal or conservative thing. It has been in question for years and they are trying to close it "slowly". In many cases it is, in fact, a loophole. But that definitely is beyond the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by raab

As for wages I didn't realize corporations were allowed to have people work for them for free.

Management remuneration slightly differs from regular wages. You do not have to pay yourself a minimum wage. Again, this discussion is beyond the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by raab

Still doesn't change the fact that if you had 25 dollars an hour to spend on employees you could possibly hire one full time at 15 bucks and hour and two part timers at 10. With this raise they just theoretically wiped out a full time job or two part timers.

I see what you are saying, but with the numbers you have provided, one can still keep the full time guy at $15/hr and another one part time for the same wage
Note, I haven't commented on whether I support the raise in minimum wage, so you do not have to prove me anything. However, I will mention that I do not think that flipping burgers all day at McDonald's or elsewhere, serving coffee/burgers/etc is an easy job. I would personally go and work construction instead for the same money. Keep in mind that I am saying it in spite of the fact that I am used to dealing with clients, CRA, banks and other potentially annoying entities on daily basis.

[MrDave]

Originally Posted by raab

Why can't you go into safety or inspection for those jobs that you used to do? Less physical still using your skills... To say that it's a minimum wage job or nothing is a defeatist attitude and I'll have none of it.

Wage should be directly correlated to the difficulty, location, and unpleasantness of the job and schedule. If someone wants to work in the middle of the bush for months at a time to make 100 grand, I have no problem with that because I wouldn't want to. When someone wants to work 9-5 stocking shelves, weekends off, having no responsibility. Then yes I'll have a problem with it. As it is, theres not to many people who work full time and make minimum wage. Most are small business owners or people working casual/part time.

Have you ever noticed the discrimination against the disabled in the patch? Thanks to the liability of reinjury, getting a new career is quite hard. If the employer doesn't retain you and create a position that works...
Going to hire a guy who can't climb up to inspect stuff, or can't raise his arm over his head? Is it ok, if the need for first aid comes if I stand there and watch?
The reality of looking for employment, is that the healthy young body is what employers want. No employer wants a hit on the WCB account.
Add in 150 percs a month to get through the pain, sure I'm already for a safety sensitive job.
Minimum wage jobs are not the choice many make, it's all that will hire certain types of people.

Look at the 2 other ignorant responses I got. People who my signature is written for.

[raab]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Have you ever noticed the discrimination against the disabled in the patch? Thanks to the liability of reinjury, getting a new career is quite hard. If the employer doesn't retain you and create a position that works...
Going to hire a guy who can't climb up to inspect stuff, or can't raise his arm over his head? Is it ok, if the need for first aid comes if I stand there and watch?
The reality of looking for employment, is that the healthy young body is what employers want. No employer wants a hit on the WCB account.
Add in 150 percs a month to get through the pain, sure I'm already for a safety sensitive job.
Minimum wage jobs are not the choice many make, it's all that will hire certain types of people.

Look at the 2 other ignorant responses I got. People who my signature is written for.

For safety I meant like a safety officer not a first aider. The guy who makes the safety plans who works in a cushy office and maybe makes site visits and offers recommendations. You already have the experience you need you'd just have to take a couple courses.

You need to find an office job where you can utilize your experience.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Have you ever noticed the discrimination against the disabled in the patch? Thanks to the liability of reinjury, getting a new career is quite hard. If the employer doesn't retain you and create a position that works...
Going to hire a guy who can't climb up to inspect stuff, or can't raise his arm over his head? Is it ok, if the need for first aid comes if I stand there and watch?
The reality of looking for employment, is that the healthy young body is what employers want. No employer wants a hit on the WCB account.
Add in 150 percs a month to get through the pain, sure I'm already for a safety sensitive job.
Minimum wage jobs are not the choice many make, it's all that will hire certain types of people.

Look at the 2 other ignorant responses I got. People who my signature is written for.

If you're on 150 "percs"/month (5/day average) why would you think you are able/capable to go back to The Patch in any kind of physically demanding job? I can't see how you could perceive an employer not hiring you as discrimination.

[couleefolk]

Originally Posted by MrDave

Have you ever noticed the discrimination against the disabled in the patch? Thanks to the liability of reinjury, getting a new career is quite hard. If the employer doesn't retain you and create a position that works...
Going to hire a guy who can't climb up to inspect stuff, or can't raise his arm over his head? Is it ok, if the need for first aid comes if I stand there and watch?
The reality of looking for employment, is that the healthy young body is what employers want. No employer wants a hit on the WCB account.
Add in 150 percs a month to get through the pain, sure I'm already for a safety sensitive job.
Minimum wage jobs are not the choice many make, it's all that will hire certain types of people.

Look at the 2 other ignorant responses I got. People who my signature is written for.

So it sounds like you have lots of experience, so you should be in a position where you could start a great consultation business for yourself, and hire all these other disabled folks and pay them well to better their lives. This would also prove your point to all the companies refusing to hire the somewhat disabled that you can still make millions contrary to their beliefs. Just think of all the people that would be ever so grateful to you. Have you looked into what incentives may be available to you for such an endeavor? Sometimes it only takes the right motivated person to better our world.

[Albertacoyotecaller]

Originally Posted by jcurl

What if they have no choice and no qualifications to get a better job that pays more than minimum wage? Do we just say "screw them"?

Nope. I say promote them to be a surgeon at your local hospital and let them complete complicated surgeries for $15/hr. A win-win for everyone.

The gov needs to stay out of the living wage business unless there is some benefit for them...

I think I deserve to get some more money for my daily job. I have had a raise in four years.

Socialism is alive and well in Alberta!

[jcurl]

Originally Posted by Albertacoyotecaller

Socialism is alive and well in Alberta!

Socialism isn't all that bad, otherwise your @ss would of been bankrupt from high health care costs in no time and living out on the streets with no pension once you are too old to work. You should probably think twice before badmouthing it.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by jcurl

Socialism isn't all that bad, otherwise your @ss would of been bankrupt from high health care costs in no time and living out on the streets with no pension once you are too old to work. You should probably think twice before badmouthing it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You should probably take your own advice with that previous comment.

First, I and many others, would have far fatter bank accounts if I paid for the healthcare I use. The entire system works on the fact that the majority subsidize the few that don't pay their share.

Secondly, you are saying that I would live on the streets if it wasn't for the CPP? Really? So the government of Canada takes my money and invests it for 47 years and then gives me a pension back. I would gladly opt out and use that money with another investor and see much better returns. If you depend on the CPP as your only retirement savings, you will be homeless even with your social assistance. Your financial future is 100% your own responsibility.

[5Lgreenback]

Of course socialism is alive and well. Its implied in academia from grade 1 and up that socialism is a good thing and this belief and ideology is further reenforced through all of the MSM. We jumped off this cliff decades ago and I don't think theres any climbing back up unfortunately.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by jcurl

Socialism isn't all that bad, otherwise your @ss would of been bankrupt from high health care costs in no time and living out on the streets with no pension once you are too old to work. You should probably think twice before badmouthing it.

And this folks, is how we get the government's we get.


You would "OF" [sic] been better served paying attention in English, Math AND Economics class instead of drooling over Che Guevera t-shirts.

[jcurl]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You should probably take your own advice with that previous comment.

First, I and many others, would have far fatter bank accounts if I paid for the healthcare I use. The entire system works on the fact that the majority subsidize the few that don't pay their share.

What if you get struck by a debilitating illness one day or become seriously injured? In a free market healthcare system your once "fat bank account" would be wiped out in seconds. Look at what has happened in the states with countless people becoming bankrupt due to high medical costs.

[jcurl]

Originally Posted by 5Lgreenback

Of course socialism is alive and well. Its implied in academia from grade 1 and up that socialism is a good thing and this belief and ideology is further reenforced through all of the MSM. We jumped off this cliff decades ago and I don't think theres any climbing back up unfortunately.

Socialism has been alive and well since the good old days of Tommy Douglas.

A mixed economy of both socialism and capitalism is what works the best.

[jcurl]

Originally Posted by rugatika

And this folks, is how we get the government's we get.


You would "OF" [sic] been better served paying attention in English, Math AND Economics class instead of drooling over Che Guevera t-shirts.

I always preferred the likes of Tommy Douglas and FDR. Complete opposites from the slimeballs you probably admire.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by jcurl

What if you get struck by a debilitating illness one day or become seriously injured? In a free market healthcare system your once "fat bank account" would be wiped out in seconds. Look at what has happened in the states with countless people becoming bankrupt due to high medical costs.

shh... Don't tell these guys that all it takes is one family member to fall ill, and the family could be bankrupt for decades.. They would much rather have that..


(don't get me wrong, the system needs to be revamped to build some accountability into it, and to purge all the BS, but everyone should be very happy we have the healthcare we have).

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by IceDemeter

I find it quite sad the number of people who apparently agree with and support the socialist championed idea that a salary or wage indicates the "worth" of the person --- and not the "worth" of the task. The two concepts are deliberately conflated by those who want to be supported and protected by society --- even though they are totally separate and unrelated concepts in reality.

In reality, a wage or salary in the free market is primarily based on the "worth" of the task (how much income it can generate, how much consumers are willing to pay for it), with consideration to the preparation / education / skills / experience brought to bear by the employee which increases the "worth" of that task. It is not the responsibility of the employer, or especially the government, to ensure that ALL tasks are of sufficient economic worth to support a person employed to do that task (regardless of their lifestyle / family choices). It should always be the end consumer that dictates whether the task of supplying a cup of coffee is worth more or less than the task of installing a safe electrical system and is worth more or less than the task of cutting in to a living person and correcting what is wrong with them...

If a person can only find employment serving coffee, or flipping burgers, or cleaning offices, or any other task that is only "worth" minimum wage in the free market, then it is their personal responsibility to either fit their lifestyle to their income, or to make changes to their own education or skill set to improve their chances of getting employed to perform a task that the market values at a higher "worth". They need to recognize the reality that any skills, education, and experience that a person has are only of "worth" if they are actually used in the task that they are performing --- so it is ludicrous to expect an employer to pay for them when they are of no value in the position.

Unrealistically high wage standards dictated by a government, especially in a depressed market, can't magically make the entry level / lower skill level tasks worth more to consumers, and can't increase the income of the businesses that supply those tasks. The "worth" of the people, and what they do (or don't) "deserve" is completely irrelevant to the economic reality. It remains to be seen how long those still employed will be able to sustain the rest in the manner that they "deserve"...

Very well written...and agreed with.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by jcurl

I always preferred the likes of Tommy Douglas and FDR. Complete opposites from the slimeballs you probably admire.

Tommy Douglas on "subnormal families":

Surely the continued policy of allowing the subnormal family to bring in to the world large numbers of individuals to fill our jails and mental institutions and to live upon charity is one of consummate folly.

In his 1933 master’s thesis, titled The Problems of the Subnormal Family, Douglas advocated the “unfit” be placed on state work-farms and be sterilized to prevent them from having children.

Douglas also advocated anyone who wanted to marry be subject to government testing to obtain certificates of mental and physical fitness. He saw this as a way to keep “subnormal” humans from marrying.

"Because this class tend to intermarry... the second and third generations are nearly always worse than the first. The result is an ever increasing number of morons and imbeciles who continue to be a charge upon society,” Douglas wrote in defence of eugenics.

Tommy Douglas on homosexuals:

In the 1968 election, Douglas stated during the leaders debate he agreed with decriminalizing homosexuality. But he added "…we ought to recognize it for what it is: it's a mental illness, it's a psychiatric condition, which ought to be treated sympathetically by psychiatrists and social workers.”

[Jigger]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

shh... Don't tell these guys that all it takes is one family member to fall ill, and the family could be bankrupt for decades.. They would much rather have that..


(don't get me wrong, the system needs to be revamped to build some accountability into it, and to purge all the BS, but everyone should be very happy we have the healthcare we have).

You and jcurl ever heard of insurance?

[raab]

Originally Posted by jcurl

What if you get struck by a debilitating illness one day or become seriously injured? In a free market healthcare system your once "fat bank account" would be wiped out in seconds. Look at what has happened in the states with countless people becoming bankrupt due to high medical costs.

Why can't we have public and private healthcare like every other developed nation in the world? Why does the government have to run the whole system? We are lucky here in Alberta as we do have some private business in health care. For example we have private long term care and palliative care homes that can be accessed by the general public. In contrast my grandmother had to stay hospital room in Atlantic Canada because they don't have access to private long term care, and palliative care facilities like out here.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by Jigger

You and jcurl ever heard of insurance?

Yes I have, but that does not fall under the "pay what you use" mentality.

Insurance is no different that what we have now, except some company is getting rich instead of our gov't.