BC considers wage hike

[whatwhat]

Seems to me that thinking it through is better than just jumping from one belief to another, which is what choosing capitalism or socialism asks us to do. Why pick sides?

Exactly. Think things through and you will see that neither side has it figured out, and that both have good ideas that can function together if the proper thought is applied. Just doubling the wages of everyone over night does not work.

Wow, I think that has to be the nicest thing I have seen you write GB. Good stars. I do agree with both of you, that both sides need to work together to make a workable program.

But I will say I never said to double the income of everyone. I realize that saying "livable wage" means same, but where I am coming from is that if someone is working full time they should be able to meet some sort of minimum living standard. I do realize that just paying people unlimited amount of money isn't realistic, but I do think paying people more and being able to provide supports for the working poor is do-able.

[fluffy]

"6Seems to me that thinking it through is better than just jumping from one belief to another, which is what choosing capitalism or socialism asks us to do. Why pick sides?

Exactly. One or the other in it's purest form would not work in Canada, a mix of the two like we have now is where the fertile ground lies. What we are doing is trying to fine tune the system so that those who need the help get it, but at a cost the rest of us can afford to bear.

Still, moving from the ideal to the actual is easier said than done because not everyone wants to get on board with the sort of change needed. Just as there will always be those "get your hands offa my stack" types, there will be those who want a pice of that stack for nothing. The trouble with idealism is that it assumes that everyone will act with some degree of integrity.

[The Green Barbarian]

I do realize that just paying people unlimited amount of money isn't realistic, but I do think paying people more and being able to provide supports for the working poor is do-able.

Well, the government knows exactly how much money you make as a corporation because every year you have to file a tax return. They also know exactly how many employees you have and what each one makes, as every year you have to file T4 information with the government. So how about this? The government could assess how profitable you are, and how much you pay your employees, and if you are above a certain income threshold, mandate that you pay more to your employees in salary. That way if you have the cash, you pay more, if you don't, you don't pay more. The increased employment pay-outs would be offset with a tax deduction, in that you could deduct those extra salary payments from your corporate income tax. That way the effect is net-net to the employer and the employee takes home more cash. Just the government is out the corporate tax revenue, which is fine by me, as I hate corporate taxes anyway.

I realize the above is fraught with issues and probably wouldn't work, but I am just spit-balling, rather than just blanket saying "pay everyone a living wage". Some companies, a lot of them in fact, especially small ones, can't afford to do that, and it's just not fair to them to suddenly impose a dramatic increase in costs on these companies. I realize the response is "then they shouldn't be in business in the first place" but this is both a thoughtless and heartless (and brainless) response that you expect from people who have never run their own business or participated much in the real world.

[fluffy]

There's still the problem of what constitutes a "living wage". The so-called "snowball" effect could well have repercussions through the rental market as well, my son and his wife have been renting in Vancouver for a few years now and they found out pretty quick that there is no shortage of unethical, greedy landlords.

Two minimum wage earners could share a modest apartment and get by even on today's wages.

[whatwhat]

Well, the government knows exactly how much money you make as a corporation because every year you have to file a tax return. They also know exactly how many employees you have and what each one makes, as every year you have to file T4 information with the government. So how about this? The government could assess how profitable you are, and how much you pay your employees, and if you are above a certain income threshold, mandate that you pay more to your employees in salary. That way if you have the cash, you pay more, if you don't, you don't pay more. The increased employment pay-outs would be offset with a tax deduction, in that you could deduct those extra salary payments from your corporate income tax. That way the effect is net-net to the employer and the employee takes home more cash. Just the government is out the corporate tax revenue, which is fine by me, as I hate corporate taxes anyway.

I realize the above is fraught with issues and probably wouldn't work, but I am just spit-balling, rather than just blanket saying "pay everyone a living wage". Some companies, a lot of them in fact, especially small ones, can't afford to do that, and it's just not fair to them to suddenly impose a dramatic increase in costs on these companies. I realize the response is "then they shouldn't be in business in the first place" but this is both a thoughtless and heartless (and brainless) response that you expect from people who have never run their own business or participated much in the real world.

Could be a good idea, especially was considering huge companies like Walmart and McDonalds who pay their employees minimum wage/part-time to avoid benefits and raises but bring in billions and billions of dollars annually. I can see smaller mom-and-pop shops having a difficult time trying to find employees as most people would be looking for employment at the stores that would pay more.

Went online to see where in the world has the highest minimum wage. Looks to be Australia at $34,358/annually and that is working 38 hours/weekly. Which is compared to our ($10.45 minimum wage) $20,649/annually working 38 hours/weekly. Would be interesting to see how their higher minimum wage impacts the business there, large and small.

[The Green Barbarian]

Two minimum wage earners could share a modest apartment and get by even on today's wages.

My niece and her B/F are doing that right now, though they are both making above minimum wage, even only with high school degrees. Vancouver job market is actually pretty active right now, both have had no trouble finding jobs that are paying $15+ an hour plus overtime. In fact, they are banking good money right now, as their rent is only $900 a month, for a house, in Coquitlam. Outside of fast food and the hated Walmart of course, it's actually hard to find minimum wage jobs in hot job markets like Vancouver, as the market needs to pay more to attract workers.

[The Green Barbarian]

Would be interesting to see how their higher minimum wage impacts the business there, large and small.

I was in Australia in 2013 and while the places like Macdonalds have similarly priced food prices to Canada, everywhere else we went for lunch and dinner was much higher priced than Canada. Going for lunch for two people was $40 easily, and that was just for a sandwich and drink each. I was really amazed at how high living costs are there. Of course I was only in Sydney and on the Perth west coast, it may be cheaper further north like Darwin or Brisbane, but I doubt it.

[GangstaTurtle]

So how about this? The government could assess how profitable you are, and how much you pay your employees, and if you are above a certain income threshold, mandate that you pay more to your employees in salary. That way if you have the cash, you pay more, if you don't, you don't pay more. The increased employment pay-outs would be offset with a tax deduction, in that you could deduct those extra salary payments from your corporate income tax. That way the effect is net-net to the employer and the employee takes home more cash. Just the government is out the corporate tax revenue, which is fine by me, as I hate corporate taxes anyway.

*removed*

This idea sounds great to me.

[The Green Barbarian]

This idea sounds great to me.

We agree on something. I think that I just heard the sound of the 4 Horsemen approaching....

[GangstaTurtle]

the hated Walmart of course, it's actually hard to find minimum wage jobs in hot job markets like Vancouver, as the market needs to pay more to attract workers.

Wal-Mart's SWAS formula (store within a store) actually allows easy access for people to move into better paying positions. I've never really understood why this particular company is always singled out. Not only that, they actually offer decent dental and health plans.

I was hired at the West Kelowna one years ago without any experience at a rate above minimum and was given chances to move up.

[Muzza]

Went online to see where in the world has the highest minimum wage. Looks to be Australia at $34,358/annually and that is working 38 hours/weekly. Which is compared to our ($10.45 minimum wage) $20,649/annually working 38 hours/weekly. Would be interesting to see how their higher minimum wage impacts the business there, large and small.

You are not quite correct. People tend to look only at the highest level to try to prove a point. However, Australia uses a sliding scale. Young people earn about the same as they do here. As you reach a certain age, you get more. Personally, I like their system. The following is from 28-01-2016, so is recent

<16 years: $ 6.36
16 years: $ 8.18
17 years: $9.99
18 years: $11.81
19 years: $14.26
20 years: $16.89

Also keep in mind that the Aussies are currently debating the idea that minimum wages are too high, because the higher wages are causing unemployment.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-d ... 1422210360

[The Green Barbarian]

You are not quite correct. People tend to look only at the highest level to try to prove a point. However, Australia uses a sliding scale. Young people earn about the same as they do here. As you reach a certain age, you get more. Personally, I like their system. The following is from 28-01-2016, so is recent

<16 years: $ 6.36
16 years: $ 8.18
17 years: $9.99
18 years: $11.81
19 years: $14.26
20 years: $16.89

Also keep in mind that the Aussies are currently debating the idea that minimum wages are too high, because the higher wages are causing unemployment.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-d ... 1422210360

If as an employer I wanted to game the system, I'd just keep firing all of my employees on their 20th b-days and hiring 16 year olds. I see that as an inherent flaw of this method. Of course, it depends on the job. If there are training and skills involved you would have to endure training costs for training up new employees every two - three years.

[Muzza]

If as an employer I wanted to game the system, I'd just keep firing all of my employees on their 20th b-days and hiring 16 year olds. I see that as an inherent flaw of this method. Of course, it depends on the job. If there are training and skills involved you would have to endure training costs for training up new employees every two - three years.

I lived there for 2 years. They have pretty strict standards about that sort of thing, so probably pretty tough to get away with it.

[whatwhat]

<16 years: $ 6.36
16 years: $ 8.18
17 years: $9.99
18 years: $11.81
19 years: $14.26
20 years: $16.89

Also keep in mind that the Aussies are currently debating the idea that minimum wages are too high, because the higher wages are causing unemployment.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-d ... 1422210360

Oh I didn't read that part anyways. That could be a good way of going at it, but it still causes concern for the younger people who don't have the luxury of good parents and a good home life. Some teenagers (16+) are on there own, and have to still earn a living to take care of themselves.