deathtokoalas

the idea here is real, but what you're doing is some kind of inverted conservative confirmation bias: you're affirming the effects of the tory media, which claims it is effective, but which all evidence suggests otherwise.

the fact is that the conservative base in ontario has been eroding for decades and there is no sign that this is reversing. they've tried everything. the right is so dead in ontario, that they've actually spent large amounts of time in the recent past trying to get ethnic minorities to vote for them. it's a movement in irreversible decline that is tied almost entirely to the older generation. and, they've just given up on even being conservatives; the most recent incarnation of the conservative party in ontario is really further left than the democratic party, because it's realizing that it has to be in order to be competitive.

the conservatives might win the next election. but, if they do, the popular vote is going to look something like:

conservatives - 35%

liberals - 33%

ndp - 30%

the reason for this is that the only actual swing demographic in ontario is between the liberals and the ndp. there used to be a larger swing between the liberals and the old pcs, but that has been slowly collapsing since the mid 90s, to the point that it's negligible. what's left of the conservative base just simply does not vote liberal, ever - and would vote for hitler if he wore a blue sweater-vest.

i mean, you could look at the data in the end and find evidence that the there was a 3% swing from the liberals to the conservatives and say "see!". but, if you do that, i'll show you that there was also a 3% swing from the conservatives to the liberals. you could make the argument, sure. but, what you're missing is the 10% swing from the liberals to the ndp that actually decided the election.

the people that are being "tricked" by the media are really the same people that always vote conservative, and they're just looking for an excuse to be a conservative. it's the party faithful. they're not in play.

personally, i think the liberals have a pretty good chance of surviving because i don't see that swing to the ndp materializing at this time - but that if that happens then wynne needs to be putting her successor in motion, immediately.

----

jim

To counter your argument, I'm pretty sure there is data that shows that when minimum wage is increased, number of hours worked decreases. Maybe the total job number doesn't go down or actually goes up, but the hours worked per person usually goes down. Maybe it's just in the short term, though, idk.

deathtokoalas

the number of hours that a manager needs to staff is determined by demand, not by costs. 

here's the thing: if you're working minimum wage then your boss is already minimizing your hours because they only want you there when they need you there, in the first place. if they were to lay you off, they'd be short-staffed, and if they could deal with being short-staffed, they would be. the reason that the minimum wage worker is working in the first place is that the employer needs them there.

if minimum wage increases are going to have any effect at all, they should be to increase demand, which would, if anything, increase the number of staff that is required to meet the demand. 

since reagan, conservative economics have been nothing short of incoherent; david is being empirical here, and that's good, but the idea that a tactic designed to increase demand will lead to job losses doesn't actually make any sense.

if there are any counter-examples, they would have to be very industry-specific. really, any job losses from minimum wage hikes would have to be ultimately tied to automation, and in the rare situations where production is so ramped up that costs are not determined by demand. these are going to be mostly unionized, require some skill and probably not be at the minimum wage to begin with.

one of the things that david points out here is that, as it is, more than 50% of workers are working less than 40 hours. these missing hours are the hours that an employer might cut due to a wage increase, but they can't be cut, because they've already been cut as a process of profit maximization. trust me: companies like mcdonalds and walmart are already doing everything they can to minimize labour costs. there's nothing left to cut. and, if some brilliant accountant could find something to cut without affecting profitability, it would be cut, regardless.

jim

That's a pretty good point. I guess just so long as the increase in cost of living lags behind your increase in minimum wage, the lowest earners should be fine.

deathtokoalas

actually, it's tied to inflation, too. yearly. so, if we get 20% inflation as a result of this, they'll have to boost the wages by another 20%, next year. some businesses might get away with this, if they're not contributing to the cpi. but, the cpi is constructed to focus on the things that real people have to actually deal with...

social assistance is also tied to inflation. so, if the grocery store, for example, reacts to this by inflating prices, the people that really need it will get increases, too. and, if rentiers want to raise the rent, everybody gets paid more, too.

so, if there's going to be an issue with this in ontario, it's going to be this: when wages and inflation get caught in this upwards spiral. and that is what i like about this policy: we've found a way to convert the race to the bottom into a race to the top.

i wouldn't expect this to actually play out. there's little appetite for it, from what i can see. most businesses will probably realize the benefit of the policy to increase demand, in the end. the real potential problem is from rentiers, and that tactic would be ultimately self-defeating for them - they're better off lobbying.

supernuts060

"Minimum wage" was used to keep black people out of the of the job market after slavery, because they would do the same work for a lower wage. 

Now it will be used against people with no experience (teens), old people, disabled people and new immigrants who don't yet speak fluent English. 

For $15/h employers will expect the a VERY productive worker.

deathtokoalas

i would like to counter your point, but what you just typed makes absolutely no sense at all.

supernuts060

Minimum wage laws effects low skill workers. Employers simply scrape off the top. If they have to pay $14 or $15.. They will only hire the most productive workers. Which will likely exclude people without experience.

deathtokoalas

well, that depends on the demand for workers, doesn't it?

if these managers had the choice, everybody on the floor would have experience, as it is. but, sometimes you get short-staffed and have to hire somebody else, or risk losing business because you can't find enough qualified staff.

this has nothing to do with the cost of labour, and the cost of labour has no effect on decisions being made in this regard, either.

i mean, what are you suggesting here? that you think employers are more likely to hire unqualified workers over qualified ones, if both are available?

they cost the same price. so, why would a manager hire an inexperienced worker if an experienced one exists to hire, instead?

when inexperienced workers are hired, and nepotism is not the reason, there is only ever one explanation, and that is that experienced workers are not available in some way - perhaps at all, or perhaps in the precise capacity that is needed.

if an experienced worker exists and applies, they will get that job 100% of the time, anyways.

supernuts060

Well if workers could negotiate their own contract that would best, for example.

"Hello Ms. Jessica, I am a high school student looking for experience, I understand you pay your experienced workers $15. I am more interested in earning work experience can we make a deal for $7.50/h?"

 

Now you as the business owner can still pay your more valuable employees $15/h but you can also have 2 inexperienced workers for the price of 1. The employees should be able to prove their value to the employer. Some businesses have tasks which are not deserving of $15/h, and low skill employees should be allowed to work for any amount of money they choose.

I think it is better than that a motivated high school student can work for $5/h and get some experience, rather than not get a job at all, because an employers cannot legally pay them less than $15.

deathtokoalas

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

*breath*.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ok.

so, to begin with, student wages are actually a little lower, here. that is, kids under 18, which you don't want to give any kind of responsibility at all and only want to hire at part time hours, anyways. you can't run a business this way....

but i am adamantly opposed to any suggestion that children should try to undercut their parents for lower wages, and you should really be ashamed of yourself for promoting that kind of anti-social behaviour.

to put it another way: i don't care if teenagers have a harder time finding a job as a consequence of this policy.

...but your argument is ridiculously weak, to begin with. it's not likely to have any substantive or measurable change in teen employment.

workers are not in competition with each other for jobs or lower wages, they are in solidarity with each other against the upper class. and, in my mind, such a kid should be taken behind the shed, in the first place.

supernuts060

Not ashamed, if right out of high school you are competing for your parents minimum wage job, your parents obviously have no skills and should not have had kids. NOBODY is supposed to have a family on minimum wage. Trying to support a family on minimum wage is antisocial, and disrespectful to your children, shame on you.

I have been in competition with other workers, and so is my wife. We are compensated for our efforts to grow the employers business, we are not in solidarity with anyone but our own family. I respect people enough to allow them to make their own decisions, if they don't want to compete with me for a job, they do not have to. However i feel that not competing will have negative consequences on their life. The people who compete will not be making minimum wage for their entire life. The people who don't compete, will probably try to get the government to force their employer to artificially give them wages that they did not earn.

deathtokoalas

see, this is a very strange change in the mindset of conservatives, who have historically argued that the lower classes need to have many, many children in order to ensure that there is a sufficiently large enough pool of slave labour, including military labour, for them to draw upon. can you imagine the catholic church arguing in favour of contraception? but, perhaps you've just been caught in your own circular logic.

but, i'm not about to listen to a lecture in morality from what appears to be a scab. and, i'll reiterate what ought to be done to scabs when they're identified: picked off and thrown away.

supernuts060

I am not a conservative, I do not believe there is anything about our society worth conserving. I am simply Pro-Freedom, and government legislation on wages and business is oppressive and anti-freedom. 

Singapore has the second highest millionaires per capita (%17.1) in the world, no minimum wage, little regulation.

Qatar also has little regulation and the most millionaires per capita(%17.5) and minimum wage is $200 per month (very low).

I am simply advocating that we follow countries who are boosting the most people into the wealthiest categories possible. 

Canada only has 1.14 million total millionaires. 

You are actually the Conservative one here, i do not want to conserve anything that Canada is doing.

deathtokoalas

see, again, the way you use language is entirely incoherent. you claim you are 'pro-freedom', and yet you are arguing for the abolition of collective bargaining rights, by pointing to policies that exist in deeply unfree countries. they'll kill you in qatar for being gay, but you think that they're more free because they have more millionaires? 

what is the size of the middle class in qatar or singapore?

you should be arguing that you're in favour of slavery, not that you're in favour of freedom, because that is the result of your proposals: a return to slavery.

and, that is what you are trying to conserve, as all conservatives are: the hierarchical class divisions that exist in contemporary society. which is what i'm trying to abolish...

but, would you prefer the term 'neo-liberal', supernuts?

i can be politically correct, if you'd like.

supernuts060

It isn't "bargaining" if the government says "you have to pay minimum $15/h".

You should look it up yourself the economic opportunity there is superior to Canada.

But here is singapore.

Unemployment rate %2.2.. less than half of Canada's

Average wage $4795.00 Singapore dollars a month (1 Sinapore dollar = $0.96 Canadian dollars) AND THEY PAY ALMOST NO TAX.

People in Singapore retire at 62. Many people in Canada cannot retire. 

Yes people in Singapore are very "enslaved".. LOL you are so silly. 

I don't care about Qatar's opinion on peoples sexuality, i am only interested in their economic approach.

Gay people can make a lot of money in Qatar, and then immigrate somewhere else. 

I actually don't have a label, because i choose to take the parts of groups that have demonstrated to work the best for the most of their citizens, and dispose of the ideas that bring people down. Not all ideas i agree with come from 1 specific group (liberal, conservative, ect.) or countries.

deathtokoalas

the collective bargaining agreement underlying the minimum wage is an abstraction of the social contract between governments and voters. and, averaging wages in a brutally stratified society is a stupid way to calculate the existence of a middle class - which does not exist in these countries.

supernuts060

"Collective"- does not represent voters, just loud activists. Only half of Canadians have full time jobs, now the cost of creating jobs is higher in a highly indebted economy.

You talk about "slavery". Most of Canada is already economically enslaved, whether its jobs, housing, education ect. 

Those "enslaved" countries Qatar and Singapore you have a %17 chance of becoming very wealthy. In Canada it's a %50 chance you will be lucky to even have a full time job. 

No where is perfect, its better to be able to make $70 a day than $0 day. 

Minimum wage means you make $15/h or nothing. I am not as cruel as you, and i say the poor people of this country should be allowed to make a little something rather than nothing.

deathtokoalas

well, voters have a responsibility to speak up if they want to be heard, as well. that is also a part of the social contract. but, the changes are more popular than you're suggesting - it's not as though a small percentage of people rammed through unpopular changes. these came out of a popular struggle. conversely, it actually was a small number of people that pushed through the reversal of collective bargaining in places like wisconsin, against popular support for it.

you have a tendency to type nonsense that requires a lot of words to unravel. but, it's ultimately nonsense. and, i'm not interested in continuing this conversation, as a result of it.

 

isailwind

Raising minimum wage to 15 is moronic. Bottom line is if it goes up $4 then everyone else is going to want a $4 raise plain and simple.  Goods and services will cost more, there will be no gain.

supernuts060

isailwind,  Yea, sadly, we have elected leaders who dont know anything about how a bussiness works. Soon we will have 10$ cups of coffee because the person pouring it demands $20\H.

deathtokoalas

again: ontario's minimum wage is set to inflation. so, if you increase the cost of items, what happens is that you contribute to a ratio we call the inflation rate. normal inflation is around 2%, so minimum wage earners receive around a 2% raise every year. if inflation goes up to 5% or 6% or higher due to price increases from the wage increases, businesses will merely have to raise wages by 5% or 6% again the next year. this is a very strong disincentive for owners to raise prices.

supernuts060

NO, you really don't know what you are talking about. Businesses are not going to take the hit. They operate to make a profit, if workers don't give them a profit they close up shop and go to a place where it is more profitable to operate. Simple as that. The thing about rich people is that they create jobs, if we charge them more to operate, they take their business elsewhere, because they can afford it. The poor Canadians who need those jobs can't afford to just pack up and leave. Which is exactly why Singapore is getting a lot of business investment and jobs, they make it profitable to operate. 

Business owners will take the path of least resistance, $14/15 minimum wage is a big hurdle.

California raised minimum wage as well and lost alot of jobs.  Im glad i dont live in Ontario. Nobody with money will invest there because the people there will use the government to steal from them, instead of providing value to an employer for a fair price.

isailwind

If you're going from 11 to 15 a typical mc donalds will have to come up with another 250,000 a year, just to cover wages. It's ridiculous.

deathtokoalas

it's a significant redistribution of wealth. but, the laws are designed to force the business owners to absorb the costs, one way or the other. and the thing is that this approach was chosen because studies done on the way the economy is structured right now indicate that the vast majority of these low wage jobs are not in small businesses, but either in large conglomerates or in franchised outlets - the businesses can afford to restructure this way, which is why they're being forced to.

capitalism is, indeed, about profit generation, and profit maximization. businesses don't operate for the benefit of their employees. so, when the statistics come back at us and say that a disproportionate amount of profits are going to business owners, rather than to workers, we should not be surprised - that is the inevitable direction of unregulated capitalism. but, this cannot sustain itself, as the tendency to push the working poor into poverty is a primary cause of the cyclical downturns in capitalism; when workers don't have money to spend, the economy goes into recession. so, in order to stop capitalism from collapsing in on itself, it itself requires a system of regulation to ensure that incomes do not fall too low. self-regulation, in this instance, is contradictory to short term profits, and because the firm is a psychopath, it cannot operate under a long term strategy - it must be ordered to redistribute, when the statistics deem it necessary to do so.

some businesses will not be able to adapt and will close. they will be replaced by competitors with better business models that will absorb what demand exists for their products, and those competitors will create jobs to replace the ones that are lost. i have little empathy for business owners that want to blame the unsustainability of their poor management practices on government interference.

supernuts060

Why would companies want to compete in an area where self entitled people will get the government to force a minimum wage, "I have a million dollars to invest in a community, i am going to invest in a place where my investment will grow the least" said NOBODY EVER. Do you have empathy for workers who lose their job and no new companies fill in the lost positions?  Which is exactly what happened in California, nobody want to invest there.

I understand you think redistribution of wealth make the poor richer.. But China was cracking down on wealth, and now look and our housing market, it is full of chinese money, BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH MONEY LEAVE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO TAKE IT FROM THEM. The only people who get screwed are the poor Chinese who's economy just had billions of dollars leave.

deathtokoalas

jobs are not created by investment from rich people, they're created by demand from poor people.

supernuts060

LMAO!! If that was at all true, why would there be such thing as an "unemployment rate"???? 

You make no sense. Why is it that poor countries with the least wealth have the least amount of people working??? These countries have a huge demand of poor people, but no jobs.

deathtokoalas

the reason that the captured state, and america is an example of this, would seek to decrease employment levels is to reduce wages. the higher the unemployment rate, the lower wages can be depressed. and, they don't care about the longer term implications, because they're fundamentally sociopathic in nature. you are correct in a certain sense - capitalism is a fundamentally irrational system.

but, to be clear, when i stated that jobs are created by demand, what i meant was in countries that are in the advanced stages of late capitalism, as that was the context. that includes the united states and canada, but wouldn't include a country like india or china, where the unemployment is a combination of poor infrastructure and overpopulation (and, in the case of china, employment is very controlled by the state). these comparisons across states are dubious, in much of any way. when you get to the kind of overpopulation you see in asia,  there's just not enough work to be done. and, that is a problem because, unlike in advanced countries, the infrastructure doesn't yet exist to compensate for it. we'll see what china ultimately does about this, as it continues to move towards a more advanced stage of capitalism.

but, it doesn't matter what you're investing in, ultimately somebody needs to buy it in order for jobs to exist. spending billions on solar cars is just a waste of money if the demand for them fails to materialize. and, in order for the system to be sustainable, that demand needs to come from the lower segments of society. america used to understand this quite well, back when it was actually in a more advanced stage of capitalism than it is now (america has gone backwards since the 80s....), called fordism.