Min wage increase | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Min wage increase

People working for low wages need to be vilified and shamed to stay home. They're very existence threatens our way of life. We certainly wouldn't want to reduce minimum wage as that would exacerbate the problem. Maybe a $20 minimum wage would raise all ships? I don't think we can have it both ways.
 
Yeah, if only there was organizations that would get all the employees in a company together and negotiate on their behalf for fair wages for fair work, and also for other things like a pension and fair that would give them financial security into their retirement years. And fair treatment. And time with their families instead of being a slave to the company.

They could call it a union or something.

And then people would cry that those "lazy union employees" make too much because they're doing better than they are.

Vicious circle indeed. Fact is people always find something to complain about.

Disclaimer: I'm a union driver and make significantly more than the average wage in my industry now, and I'm OK with that, but unfortunately the other companies racing to the bottom in their rate structure (which in turn passes to their drivers pay structure) are making it harder and harder for companies like mine to survive unless shippers are willing to pay for the vastly superior service we provide, instead of just going with the bottom feeders because they're cheap.
It's interesting that those very same unions then advocate for higher minimum wage in order to keep their competition priced out of the game.

As long as union and non-union companies can compete freely in the marketplace, it's fine.
 
If there's people willing to work for that, then companies will pay crap for it...that's part of the problem - people race themselves to the bottom and then complain about it.

Don't think the job is worth what they're offering for pay? Walk away. If others do the same and the job goes unfilled then they'll start paying more.

I see this unfortunately all the time in the trucking industry - guys jump all over themselves to race to the bottom on the wage structure tree just so they're behind the wheel, but then they moan and groan about how little money they're making and all the long hours they need to work because of it. Unfortunately the companies have the drivers wrapped around their fingers in many of the bottom feeder companies because they know damned well that there's 20 other bottom feeder drivers waiting at the door who will also work for the same piss poor wage that the last guy might have quit over.

If driver stood up for themselves and said "No, I'm not working 14 hours a day for less than minimum wage" (a scenario that plays out quite easily in the trucking industry given the milage based pay structure and the fact most companies don't pay drivers for delay time) companies would be left with nobody to move their loads and then would be FORCED to pay more to get drivers in the seats.

But nope, guys tripping over themselves to work for those wages instead.

People are their own worst enemies sometimes.

Unfortunately when your choice is starving and homelessness or work for ****, you work for ****
 
And when evidence shows that increasing minimum wage also increases unemployment...?

You're living in bizarro land if you think the way to counter job losses and lower wages due to automation is a mandatory increase in wages. Talk about taking all the remaining air out of the balloon....

Seattle has lower unemployment and higher minimum wage
 
Last edited:
Seattle has lower unemployment and higher minimum wage

correlation != causation

There are 10,000 reasons why Seattle might be ticking up in employment trends. If you wanna know how a higher minimum wage affects a given area you have to look at industries which depend on minimum wage. You need to look at industry growth trends, not the employment rate. I do believe Seattle shows a slowing growth in food services, for example. San Francisco, LA, and DC all seem to show the same trends.

The pace of hiring in the leisure and hospitality sector fell to a five-year low for the Bay Area last month, Labor Department data show. Job gains have slowed to less than half the rate that preceded Oakland's and San Francisco's adoption last spring of the highest citywide minimum wage in country.

After rising close to 5% a year, hiring at restaurants, hotels and other leisure sector venues rose just 2.2% from a year ago in November. Meanwhile, in the rest of California, where the minimum wage is generally $3.25 below the $12.25-an-hour level set in Oakland and San Francisco, leisure and hospitality employment rose 4.9%.


Job gains in the Chicago-area leisure and hospitality sector slumped to a five-year low after the Windy City's $1.75-an-hour minimum-wage hike took effect in July, Labor Department data show, confirming similar impacts in San Francisco in Los Angeles.

Annual employment gains at restaurants, hotels and other leisure-sector venues averaged just 1.1% from August through November, about half the pace seen in 2014 and the weakest since the summer of 2010.

The timing of the slowdown coincides with the 21% jump in Chicago's minimum wage from $8.25 to $10 an hour. The wage will get another bump to $10.50 an hour on July 1 and eventually climb to $13 by 2019.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/bay-area-is-red-flag-for-big-minimum-wage-hikes/
http://www.investors.com/news/economy/minimum-wage-chills-hiring-in-chicago-la-san-francisco/

Its early, but the trends aren't positive. I'm sure you can find naysayers and deniers with agendas, but the above data falls perfectly in line with simple economics. When something gets more expensive, people buy less of it. Labour included. People aren't losing their jobs (yet), but the hurdle to get into the job market is getting higher.
 
Its early, but the trends aren't positive. I'm sure you can find naysayers and deniers with agendas, but the above data falls perfectly in line with simple economics. When something gets more expensive, people buy less of it. Labour included. People aren't losing their jobs (yet), but the hurdle to get into the job market is getting higher.

If the changes Wynne and her crew of crooks are intending to bring in do in fact come, I know for my business it will at a minimum mean we don't add more staff because of the increased costs associated with Wynne's nuttiness. This province is already competitively challenged, of course nothing like the Liberals to want to further cripple us to buy votes.
 
+1
I keep telling people to look at Costco to see a good example of how paying significantly more than minimum wage doesn't necessarily cripple the bottom line.
Then you're giving people a bad example. Don't forget that every Costco shopper represents a minimum membership fee of atleast $60(recent increase from 55). Not to mention that A Costco store alone will take in much more revenue in a day than any Walmart does, and if they have a gas station, then they also serve more gasoline in a day than any other gas station, I know that my local Costco has about 40 pumps, a never ending line up from open to close, and only one or two attendants present at any given time. Their revenue to staff ratio is far different than even Walmart, let alone a small business.
 
If the changes Wynne and her crew of crooks are intending to bring in do in fact come, I know for my business it will at a minimum mean we don't add more staff because of the increased costs associated with Wynne's nuttiness. This province is already competitively challenged, of course nothing like the Liberals to want to further cripple us to buy votes.

I need something explained. I know you used "increased costs associated with" and not min. wage hike to make your point about difficult economic climate. That part I get. But can you use the proposed increase in minimum wage as a reason to hold off on new hires? The increase might affect your profit per employee so wouldn't that mean you should have more employees? Unless you're running a business with redundant employees. But why do that?
 
I need something explained. I know you used "increased costs associated with" and not min. wage hike to make your point about difficult economic climate. That part I get. But can you use the proposed increase in minimum wage as a reason to hold off on new hires? The increase might affect your profit per employee so wouldn't that mean you should have more employees? Unless you're running a business with redundant employees. But why do that?

I don't have any minimum wage staff so my problem is things around sick days and the increase in minimum vacation (there was even talk I believe at some point about required OT for managers) all of which increase my overall costs but of course revenues don't magically inflate when this occurs. Since I can have staff where ever I wish, Ontario is competing for potential jobs at my company. If they make it disadvantageous to operate here, I will simply find a more competitive jurisdiction to hire people in. Just extrapolate that broadly across all industries, Ontario is a have not province that is making it increasingly hard to do business (or even want to do business) here.
 
I don't have any minimum wage staff so my problem is things around sick days and the increase in minimum vacation (there was even talk I believe at some point about required OT for managers) all of which increase my overall costs but of course revenues don't magically inflate when this occurs. Since I can have staff where ever I wish, Ontario is competing for potential jobs at my company. If they make it disadvantageous to operate here, I will simply find a more competitive jurisdiction to hire people in. Just extrapolate that broadly across all industries, Ontario is a have not province that is making it increasingly hard to do business (or even want to do business) here.

Are you competing in foreign markets and/or with foreign companies? I get everything that you're saying and am grudgingly forced to agree with you yet it always baffles me how these restrictive societies tend to have the best standard if living for the majority of people overall. The tug of war shall continue I guess. Unless PrivatePilot gets his own way where the great unwashed stay home lest they bite into his lifestyle projections. Of course these very same unwashed will be berated in another thread for not making something of themselves like him and his offspring have done but I digress.
 
I don't have any minimum wage staff so my problem is things around sick days and the increase in minimum vacation (there was even talk I believe at some point about required OT for managers) all of which increase my overall costs but of course revenues don't magically inflate when this occurs. Since I can have staff where ever I wish, Ontario is competing for potential jobs at my company. If they make it disadvantageous to operate here, I will simply find a more competitive jurisdiction to hire people in. Just extrapolate that broadly across all industries, Ontario is a have not province that is making it increasingly hard to do business (or even want to do business) here.

arent salaried employees already entitled to OT? Might want to recheck the labour laws??
 
Are you competing in foreign markets and/or with foreign companies?

Local markets with some "foreign" companies. The issue is simply labour cost is such a high part of a tech companies business and Ontario is most likely going to make it higher. So an astute businessperson (me excluded of course :) ) has to look at alternatives.
 
Local markets with some "foreign" companies. The issue is simply labour cost is such a high part of a tech companies business and Ontario is most likely going to make it higher. So an astute businessperson (me excluded of course :) ) has to look at alternatives.

I just needed to know if you're operating on a level playing field. All the small business owners I know and have worked for seem to have an impossible collateral workload keeping up with the "paperwork" end of the business. The hoops to jump thru seem maddening. But they're all doing it equally so......who's got the competitive advantage? If you go to Saskatchewan everybody will be doing it like the romans there. Except now you're in Saskatchewan.
 
Yeah, if only there was organizations that would get all the employees in a company together and negotiate on their behalf for fair wages for fair work, and also for other things like a pension and fair that would give them financial security into their retirement years. And fair treatment. And time with their families instead of being a slave to the company.

They could call it a union or something.

And then people would cry that those "lazy union employees" make too much because they're doing better than they are.

Vicious circle indeed. Fact is people always find something to complain about.

Disclaimer: I'm a union driver and make significantly more than the average wage in my industry now, and I'm OK with that, but unfortunately the other companies racing to the bottom in their rate structure (which in turn passes to their drivers pay structure) are making it harder and harder for companies like mine to survive unless shippers are willing to pay for the vastly superior service we provide, instead of just going with the bottom feeders because they're cheap.

Vastly superior?

How is the service your company provides vastly superior to others?

I deal with numerous companies, big, small and o/o's...
 
Did you feel any shame doing that

NO! It was sarcastic and humorous ...for me:D and who ever else found it so.

At the end of day does any of this really matter?
We can't deal with taxation. It only goes UP.
So min wage goes to $15/hr then business increase their costs and govt gets more in taxes from ALL.

I guess some people think business owners seem to be making 1000% markups on their good and services so it's no biggie to just raise wages and raise taxes.

Government is not helping small and medium business in Ontario.
Isn't that why Amazon is building there server farm data center to Quebec instead of Ontario due to higher operating costs?
 
I just needed to know if you're operating on a level playing field. All the small business owners I know and have worked for seem to have an impossible collateral workload keeping up with the "paperwork" end of the business. The hoops to jump thru seem maddening. But they're all doing it equally so......who's got the competitive advantage? If you go to Saskatchewan everybody will be doing it like the romans there. Except now you're in Saskatchewan.

I worked for someone for a long time and now I own my own gig. Some would say I'm crazy to be an owner, and sometimes I think they are right for the reasons you mentioned and many more.
 
Then you're giving people a bad example. Don't forget that every Costco shopper represents a minimum membership fee of atleast $60(recent increase from 55). Not to mention that A Costco store alone will take in much more revenue in a day than any Walmart does, and if they have a gas station, then they also serve more gasoline in a day than any other gas station, I know that my local Costco has about 40 pumps, a never ending line up from open to close, and only one or two attendants present at any given time. Their revenue to staff ratio is far different than even Walmart, let alone a small business.
Sorry, but I don't see your point at all.

sent from my Purple LGG4 on the GTAM app
 

Back
Top Bottom