Restaurant chain owner lobbies for increased minimum wage
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Brenda @ Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:35 pm
Anyhow... as long as CEO‘s get bonuses every year, in the millions of $, the ‘you can't raise the minimum wage unless you want to go bankrupt‘ is simple bullshit.
peck420 @ Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:55 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Anyhow... as long as CEO‘s get bonuses every year, in the millions of $, the ‘you can't raise the minimum wage unless you want to go bankrupt‘ is simple bullshit.
Nobody should be worried about the effect a min wage raise will have on CEO's.
Everybody should be worried about the effect it will have on the middle brackets.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:56 pm
herbie herbie:
Urban myth. Though I do remember working a lot of overtime for little gain on the paycheck... like $50 worth of overtime only netted $10 or $12. Used to have the choice to bank it and take vacation, which I much preferred.
The minimum wage is only the starting wage. Let's just say a certain castrated 2-tier union here had to adjust their contract to compensate for the min. wage going above their starting wage here in BC. The scales had to be bumped a bit but nobody got $3 increases like the starters did.
The minimum wage is only the starting wage. Let's just say a certain castrated 2-tier union here had to adjust their contract to compensate for the min. wage going above their starting wage here in BC. The scales had to be bumped a bit but nobody got $3 increases like the starters did.
My father always took days off in lieu of pay for any extra shifts or stat holidays he worked. Corrections did 12 hr shifts so he saved them for the summer to go fishing. That all changed when he got promoted to Asst. Superintendent at the prison.
Brenda @ Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:02 pm
peck420 peck420:
Brenda Brenda:
Anyhow... as long as CEO‘s get bonuses every year, in the millions of $, the ‘you can't raise the minimum wage unless you want to go bankrupt‘ is simple bullshit.
Nobody should be worried about the effect a min wage raise will have on CEO's.
Everybody should be worried about the effect it will have on the middle brackets.
I'm not sure if you got my point.
If you can pay CEO's huge bonuses, you can also pay a higher starting wage and pay your CEO's a less huge bonus.
What exactly IS the effect the raise in minimum wage in BC has had on the middle brackets?
bootlegga @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:00 am
andyt andyt:
What's up, you change your mind in the min wage? Won't this just boost inflation leaving the workers worse off than before and make the employers cut back on hours? These deli employees should just get an education and become engineers and such if they want a liveable income. That's always been your argument before.
The min wage is not an ideal solution to poverty. For one it does nothing for people without a job. But it's something doable, vs all the nice theoretical ideas floating out there that nobody will actually put in place.
The min wage is not an ideal solution to poverty. For one it does nothing for people without a job. But it's something doable, vs all the nice theoretical ideas floating out there that nobody will actually put in place.
Actually, I'm praising his company's push to pay a 'thrive-able' wage to employees, instead of minimum wage.
$1:
He said that paying a higher wage doesn’t just benefit the workers, but ultimately the employers also see benefits from paying what Saginaw calls a “thrive-able wage.”
“What I heard from these men and women who run small businesses is that when you put more money in workers’ pockets, they stay on the job longer which reduces turnover and training costs,” Perez said in the meeting.
“Additionally, those workers spend that extra income at local businesses in their communities, which benefits the overall economy. It's really that simple.”
“What I heard from these men and women who run small businesses is that when you put more money in workers’ pockets, they stay on the job longer which reduces turnover and training costs,” Perez said in the meeting.
“Additionally, those workers spend that extra income at local businesses in their communities, which benefits the overall economy. It's really that simple.”
I think increasing minimum wage to LICO as you want won't change much of anything (I still think skills training is a far better option), but any company paying its employees a wage they can actually get ahead on is a good thing IMHO.
It's the same reason why I like Costco far more than Wal-Mart.
stratos @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:56 am
In truth its not a minimum wage increase that is the issue its the fact that many companies do not give annual cost of living increases/pay raises and over the last 4-6 years peoples economic stability has declined. By giving an increase to just the low end income earners and not a increase across the low and middle income spectrum all you truly do is creates a larger demographic percentage of poor that are used by some politicians along with lobbyists as reasons for their personal agendas.
This is done by how poor and middle income earners are classified. Middle wage earners make X amount of dollars more then minimum wage. If you raise minimum wage by $2-3 you have moved a significant portion of middle income people into the poor bracket while also keeping all those who make minimum wage still classified as poor.
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:22 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
What's up, you change your mind in the min wage? Won't this just boost inflation leaving the workers worse off than before and make the employers cut back on hours? These deli employees should just get an education and become engineers and such if they want a liveable income. That's always been your argument before.
The min wage is not an ideal solution to poverty. For one it does nothing for people without a job. But it's something doable, vs all the nice theoretical ideas floating out there that nobody will actually put in place.
The min wage is not an ideal solution to poverty. For one it does nothing for people without a job. But it's something doable, vs all the nice theoretical ideas floating out there that nobody will actually put in place.
Actually, I'm praising his company's push to pay a 'thrive-able' wage to employees, instead of minimum wage.
$1:
He said that paying a higher wage doesn’t just benefit the workers, but ultimately the employers also see benefits from paying what Saginaw calls a “thrive-able wage.”
“What I heard from these men and women who run small businesses is that when you put more money in workers’ pockets, they stay on the job longer which reduces turnover and training costs,” Perez said in the meeting.
“Additionally, those workers spend that extra income at local businesses in their communities, which benefits the overall economy. It's really that simple.”
“What I heard from these men and women who run small businesses is that when you put more money in workers’ pockets, they stay on the job longer which reduces turnover and training costs,” Perez said in the meeting.
“Additionally, those workers spend that extra income at local businesses in their communities, which benefits the overall economy. It's really that simple.”
I think increasing minimum wage to LICO as you want won't change much of anything (I still think skills training is a far better option), but any company paying its employees a wage they can actually get ahead on is a good thing IMHO.
It's the same reason why I like Costco far more than Wal-Mart.
I don't get the distinction. Just how much do you think this guy is paying his workers? It will be around the kind of level I suggest for Canada. In the states, $10 as he wants is around that level, in Canada, especially in Vancouver, with the higher cost of living, min wage needs to be higher than that. LICO takes cost of living into account and varies by region.
Of course skills training is a better option for the individual. Even there, a better base wage makes it easier for them to afford the training costs and/or take the time off for training. And, as I've said, if everybody got training, there aren't enough skilled jobs for them anyway, they's still be stuck where they are. Alternatively, who would do the low wage job? Somebody has to - they should also receive a wage they can thrive on, as this CEO says.
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:28 am
stratos stratos:
In truth its not a minimum wage increase that is the issue its the fact that many companies do not give annual cost of living increases/pay raises and over the last 4-6 years peoples economic stability has declined. By giving an increase to just the low end income earners and not a increase across the low and middle income spectrum all you truly do is creates a larger demographic percentage of poor that are used by some politicians along with lobbyists as reasons for their personal agendas.
This is done by how poor and middle income earners are classified. Middle wage earners make X amount of dollars more then minimum wage. If you raise minimum wage by $2-3 you have moved a significant portion of middle income people into the poor bracket while also keeping all those who make minimum wage still classified as poor.
This is done by how poor and middle income earners are classified. Middle wage earners make X amount of dollars more then minimum wage. If you raise minimum wage by $2-3 you have moved a significant portion of middle income people into the poor bracket while also keeping all those who make minimum wage still classified as poor.
Care to back that up with a link, that poverty is defined by the minimum wage?
Or here, I'll do it for you:
$1:
Since the 1960s, the United States government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.
The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[16]
At the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan, but updates do not reflect other changes (food is no longer one-third of the after-tax income).
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[16]
Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.
The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[16]
At the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan, but updates do not reflect other changes (food is no longer one-third of the after-tax income).
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[16]
Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.
Not a word about the minimum wage. The shit you come up with.
Public_Domain @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:37 am
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:36 am
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
The problem with this situation has always been that no one will listen to your opinion when you're poor. Only wealthy people not living at minimum wage get to hold an esteemed opinion. You see it here too.
Anybody with money who advocates for the poor is called a hypocrite. Anybody poor is called envious.
Yogi @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:39 am
So why is it generally held that it is up to the employer to make sure that employees- who have not had the ambition to obtain education- make a 'living wage'?
Brenda @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:50 am
Yogi Yogi:
So why is it generally held that it is up to the employer to make sure that employees- who have not had the ambition to obtain education- make a 'living wage'?
Ambition? REALLY??
You think the guy at Walmart, who is VERY good at stocking shelves or bringing the carts back into the store, cleans the floor when you drop a bottle, is amazingly friendly and always lends a helping hand because THAT is what he is good at, but not at learning and lacks technical skills, should not earn a living wage?
People skills are skills too, and I wonder why trade skills are rewarded, but people skills are not.
You have it or you don't, right?
Yogi @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:02 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Yogi Yogi:
So why is it generally held that it is up to the employer to make sure that employees- who have not had the ambition to obtain education- make a 'living wage'?
Ambition? REALLY??
You think the guy at Walmart, who is VERY good at stocking shelves or bringing the carts back into the store, cleans the floor when you drop a bottle, is amazingly friendly and always lends a helping hand because THAT is what he is good at, but not at learning and lacks technical skills, should not earn a living wage?
People skills are skills too, and I wonder why trade skills are rewarded, but people skills are not.
You have it or you don't, right?
Nope! True enough, a lot of skills seem to come naturally to some and not others.For example, I have the knack for catching on quick and doing very detailed work when it comes to 'hands on' construction type work. However, a big part of my line of work involves reading and reviewing blueprints. I was not a'a natural' at reading blueprints. Learning this aspect took a lot of 'want to' on my part. I accomplished this thru dedication. It was not an easy row to hoe! I held down a minumum wage job, odd jobs and attended college Mon-Fri. 5 days/week for 2 years, whilst raising a young family.
peck420 @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:03 pm
Brenda Brenda:
What exactly IS the effect the raise in minimum wage in BC has had on the middle brackets?
Sorry for the slow reply, Brenda.
I will post up the links on the Canadian specific studies, but the general overview is that raising the min wage makes teen employment rates drop.
That creates a two fold problem (in my opinion):
a) It is very difficult to assess over the short term. As long as the 'overall' numbers don't change much, the negative effects get dismissed as minor, short term fluctuations.
b) The corrective actions will take as long or longer to fix the issue.
Now, this all seems minor...and, to be honest, if min wage only went up every 10 years or so, it would be a negligible issue...but, once you start to compound this, we get a looming problem.
No middle class replacements! Low teen employment has shown, historically, to be bad for the workforce. Usually attributed to a larger number of 'unskilled workers' in the market place.
Sorry for the scatter, time has been of short supply the past couple days, and will continue until Saturday, at least.
Brenda @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:19 pm
Yogi Yogi:
Brenda Brenda:
Yogi Yogi:
So why is it generally held that it is up to the employer to make sure that employees- who have not had the ambition to obtain education- make a 'living wage'?
Ambition? REALLY??
You think the guy at Walmart, who is VERY good at stocking shelves or bringing the carts back into the store, cleans the floor when you drop a bottle, is amazingly friendly and always lends a helping hand because THAT is what he is good at, but not at learning and lacks technical skills, should not earn a living wage?
People skills are skills too, and I wonder why trade skills are rewarded, but people skills are not.
You have it or you don't, right?
Nope! True enough, a lot of skills seem to come naturally to some and not others.For example, I have the knack for catching on quick and doing very detailed work when it comes to 'hands on' construction type work. However, a big part of my line of work involves reading and reviewing blueprints. I was not a'a natural' at reading blueprints. Learning this aspect took a lot of 'want to' on my part. I accomplished this thru dedication. It was not an easy row to hoe! I held down a minumum wage job, odd jobs and attended college Mon-Fri. 5 days/week for 2 years, whilst raising a young family.
But can you wait tables?
Can you mix a fantastic Margerita?
Can you work with children at a day care (that you need certain education for, btw, yet pays almost nothing)?
Can you be a social worker (which requires a diploma, yet pays $13/hr here)...
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next