Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 11  Next

Great conclusion from someone stuck on class distinctions. You think a server or assembly person or teller is "lower skilled"?
It will enable employers to select from a bigger pool instead of taking only the people who'll show up an pretend to work.
You're just going to have to accept there are too many people too damn useless to employ and you can choose either to train them up to basic levels or pay them welfare forever with your tax dollars. They're always going to be there.

And that's one hell of an assumption, not a fact. There's no responsibilities paying for tuition, loans, transportation, rent to mom & dad? You must've been spoiled as hell.
And even if they are exactly as you claim, you deny that the added income will benefit the economy when it's spent?
Never been in sales or retail have you? You look at the extra $20 in that guys pocket as how do I get a slice of it, not 'they should take it away' cuz I didn't get an extra $20.

   

I didn't say that. You did:



'a better pool of employees' necessarily means that the people being ousted from their jobs are inferior to the people who will replace them.

They're your words so you need to own them.

   

It's the reality.

The reality that these jobs pay a low amount because that's what the market has dictated; while being falsely inflated by the government.

   

That is not an undeniable fact at all. It's a prediction by an economist. It may or not come true. Given the general forecasting accuracy of economists, I'd say it's a bit better than 50/50. Minimum wages have been around for as long as I have in Canada. I used to be quite grateful for them as a young lad, because I had rent to pay and food to buy.

I understand the negative effects, which is why I wonder if we shouldn't be moving towards a guaranteed annual income approach.

I already live in a pretty nice place thanks. I'm just articulating my opinion here; I'll leave the hating and loathing to others.

   

Yeah, right. My butler is laughing himself silly at this comment of yours as he's typing this for me.

   

It won't work in the real world because all it will do is impact the money supply the same way that the minimum wage has and it will only provide temporary gains that will be erased by inflation.

We'd be better off training people for jobs they can actually perform and then getting rid of the minimum wage so that people with minimal skills can have an opportunity to perform meaningful work where they can build job skills.

Otherwise all you're doing is just expanding the welfare rolls and expecting working people to pay more and more of their incomes to support everyone else.

It's just not a sustainable economic model because at some point you'll tax the rich out of existence and both companies and skilled workers will flee your country...probably to the USA.

And then you'll have millions of dependent people rioting because they can't buy anything with their hyperinflated welfare money.

   

It's a fact for many students. With over 50% of these people being 19 and under, they aren't paying for tuition as they're finishing high school and I don't know one family that charges their high-school aged kids rent. I don't.

Sub 25 years old, you have limited responsibilities. Let's just be honest here.

FWIW, I worked a large part of my life in the retail sector from entry-level to management.

   

On a related note, what, in your opinion, will be the overall impacts of automatic checkouts and automation in general on retail employment?

   

Increased employment in the IT department.

   

If Wynne wanted to help the poor why not increase the nontaxable income fro $15000 to $25000.

This is nothing more than a tax grab. Just another Liberal scam.

   

"Newsflash: that's how society works. We all pay tax, so the .001% of homes that burn down have fire coverage when they do."

sort of a stringer for an argument, considering I have well documented just how much tax I pay say in comparison to others. Does that mean I get a dedicated fire truck then? After all, I pay 2.5 x the 'average' Canadian in taxes, so then I am demanding 2.5 x's the services. Your argument is very weak and doesn't hold weight when it's just me and my wife in my household. Between us we pay 5 X the average Canadian tax bill so lets NOT go down that road, because it's not a defensible position you have to hold.

Furthermore, I have posted many times and many sources that people earning $100K and over ( so all incomes > $100K) pay 80% of all taxes collected (personal). So if you want to have a discussion about this I am here for you, really I am but your accounting is just not accurate. It's quite clear that people of this income level pay MORE than their 'fair' share of taxes and only receive the same service as someone who a. pays no tax or b. pays significantly less tax.

I am not saying that isn't the common society view, nor that it's 'wrong' but I sure don't want to be lectured by someone who isn't thankful I pay as much tax as I do, without our income bracket, this country would be very very different.

   

Good point.

And if you note the $31,000 a year that someone will now make on a full-time minimum wage job will be reduced by the taxes the person has to pay.

After the anticipated inflationary effect of the new wage takes place then the minimum wage workers will actually have less purchasing power than they did before the increase.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

   

That's what some people actually think and some employers tell them. just sat with a bunch of my daughter's friends who were turning down management jobs because the gov't would take it all away in taxes. Had to explain if they made $1500 more and the gov't takes $500 (not all ffs) they're AHEAD $1000
Yeah, if their wages go up, the gov't will take more in income taxes too. AND in sales taxes on the disposable income. So what the hell's the problem with that?

And what's with you, Bart? You keep picking three words of a sentence or one sentence of a paragraph to trigger your contrarian responses instead of comprehending the overall thought and responding to that.

Even if you're in high school and living at home, you kick in. Buy your own clothes, pay for your own skates, chip in a case of pop and not bitch about sharing it with your siblings. It's the rules for every family I know of. That reduces the load on parents a little and makes more disposable income from them too.
More money moving around IS 'the economy'. not how much the guy at the top can shove in an offshore bank.

   

I've been known to sometimes pick eight words of a sentence.

   

It's going to continue to accelerate as minimum wage increases.

But automation might be good for society as a whole, as it will increase productivity and lower costs. Look at the auto sector, it has cost jobs, but also improved quality and kept vehicle prices relatively low.

Who knows, it might even give us more free time and increase our quality of life.

Of course, there is the dark side you mention where most jobs are automated and unemployment soars.

We have to hope there will be balance in how it rolls out over the next couple decades.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 11  Next