who hired this guy?

there are 2080 hrs/year based on 40 hrs/week and 52 weeks/year

Lets say minimum wage is $10.00/hour. Which gives you 20800 gross

In the bottom tax bracket, all dedections, (cpp/ei/ prov. tax/fed. tax) work out to roughly %20 of gross...
so 20% of $20800 is $16640. Which would be your take home.

now lets say it costs $1.00 to ride the bus.
that's 16640 bus rides per year.

now lets say minimum wage gets raised $2. Thats 20% So now you get $12/hr

Great right?

well...

now you make $24960 gross income
which means $19968 take home

But the bus now cost $1.25 to ride. The same 20% increase.(bus rides are tax included pricing )

So now you can only afford 15974 bus rides.

And the difference in number of bus rides...

666


_______________

wages should be lowered, not raised.

cost go down, prices go down.

Whether there's an increase in wages, those same people have to pay higher for that bus ride, as the ttc still raises the price of tickets, tokens, bus pass all the time, yet those minimum wagers are still making the same and are nite falling farther behind. At least an increase would help offset that cost
 
And here I thought you were willing to pay more for them to make more money.

You have an opportunity to make their lives better by doing exactly what you said you would do. Why don't you do it?

I said I'm willing to pay more for my purchases. Saying I should just be the one to subsidize everyone's income through tips is just dumb.
 
And here I thought you were willing to pay more for them to make more money.

You have an opportunity to make their lives better by doing exactly what you said you would do. Why don't you do it?

Because like most of the "entitlement" based society participants, they want the benefits but don't actually want the costs to come out of their own pockets.
 
I said I'm willing to pay more for my purchases. Saying I should just be the one to subsidize everyone's income through tips is just dumb.

This thread went FR
 
Complete logic fail!!

You'll pay more in prices but not through tips?

Put down the crack pipe Mr. Mayor........

Really, there's a big difference between paying more for something then actually tipping everyone. If I smoked crack I wouldn't have the pipe, because you're are obviously hogging it. My tipping helps one person, increasing minimum wage helps all employees, but I guess I expect too much from some people to understand that.
 
Last edited:
Actually it's virtually identical which makes your posts such a source of comic interest.

:)

How is it the same thing. If I tip, that gives one person extra money, raising minimum wage gives all minimum wagers more money. This tipping argument is pure stupidity at it's best. I guess next time I go into a place where people make minimum wage,I should tip everyone in that store
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread went FR
10496390-454e-4f6d-b2cb-3ddb69530e73.jpg
 
there are 2080 hrs/year based on 40 hrs/week and 52 weeks/year

Lets say minimum wage is $10.00/hour. Which gives you 20800 gross

In the bottom tax bracket, all dedections, (cpp/ei/ prov. tax/fed. tax) work out to roughly %20 of gross...
so 20% of $20800 is $16640. Which would be your take home.

now lets say it costs $1.00 to ride the bus.
that's 16640 bus rides per year.

now lets say minimum wage gets raised $2. Thats 20% So now you get $12/hr

Great right?

well...

now you make $24960 gross income
which means $19968 take home

But the bus now cost $1.25 to ride. The same 20% increase.(bus rides are tax included pricing )

So now you can only afford 15974 bus rides.

And the difference in number of bus rides...

666


_______________

wages should be lowered, not raised.

cost go down, prices go down.

Good example....however what about taking into account something different than a bus ride?

For instance...

Minimum wage worker has $16,640 as take home pay. But now the GREEDY landlord that's trying to be good to his own family and money woes decided to raise the rent by 2.5% (as per 2013 rates - it's 0.8% for 2014)

So your 800/month rent leaves you with 7,040 to live off

But now the rent goes up 2.5%
So now your 820/month rent leaves you with 6,800 to live off

But with the 20% increase in income you have an extra $3,328 to take care of the increased rental price.

In most people's lives RENT is the highest expense. Not bus rides. It's rental pricing. And I see it daily how much rents are jumping in this city all over.

I agree this isn't a simple A+B=C type of math here, but I do feel that increased wages help the marginalized and those on the bottom end of society.

My opinion, and I see a lot of disagreement but that's what we're here for.
 
I guess next time I go into a place where people make minimum wage,I should tip everyone in that store

Correct. That is the personal effect on you of your argument for raising minimum wage. The good news is that you personally end up paying that way so you get to live the reality of you wanting to increase minimum wage while the rest of us don't have to which in turn keeps the economy stronger.
 
If a business offers a job at minimum wage they are saying "we would pay you less if we could but we can't so this is what you get". I wouldn't want people working for me under that black cloud if I could legitimately pay more. If that's all they can truly afford, it's a pretty sketch business imo.

My buddy owns an awning company. He's a "nice" guy. He needs co-ordinated muscle to help on installs. Because he does the quotes, farms out the fabrication and owns the truck c/w step ladders he totally begrudges forking over $18-20 per hr. for on call part time help because he has taken all the risk. He thinks the money is coming directly out of his pocket, never seeming to realize nothing would happen without the help. And he does quite well, thank you very much.

I wonder how many other business owners think that way?
 
If a business offers a job at minimum wage they are saying "we would pay you less if we could but we can't so this is what you get". I wouldn't want people working for me under that black cloud if I could legitimately pay more. If that's all they can truly afford, it's a pretty sketch business imo.

My buddy owns an awning company. He's a "nice" guy. He needs co-ordinated muscle to help on installs. Because he does the quotes, farms out the fabrication and owns the truck c/w step ladders he totally begrudges forking over $18-20 per hr. for on call part time help because he has taken all the risk. He thinks the money is coming directly out of his pocket, never seeming to realize nothing would happen without the help. And he does quite well, thank you very much.

I wonder how many other business owners think that way?

one thing I noticed when I worked in smaller (15-50 employees) companies is that the business owner felt like he was doing me a favour by hiring me and that I should be grateful just to have a job.

first job was 35k/year and he was offended and angry that I left for an extra 10k/year elsewhere. I left that second place because of similar reasons. It was like being at home with my dad telling me how grateful I should be that he hired me and there will be no better place in the world for me. Well there was...until 6 months ago.

Anyway not all of business owners are like that but in my experience I didn't like the small company feel. And more importantly I didn't enjoy the feeling that I should be feeling guilty for wanting to earn more money and try to make my life better.
 
first job was 35k/year and he was offended and angry that I left for an extra 10k/year elsewhere.

A good employee is like a good tenant. Not appreciated until gone.........

30+ yrs. ago I thought my landscaper boss was gonna have a nervous breakdown right then and there when I left for greener pastures 1/2 way thru my 4th season with him.
 
Pointing out that forced minimum wages go against the market or drive up costs overall is over-simplistic entry-level economics stuff. A high minimum wage is by no means a problem if your society is structured to accommodate it, as is done in Scandinavian countries.

There are other important factors that come into play, but the essential thing to understand is that a high minimum wage is perfectly fine and workable if you are using it as part of an overall scheme to narrow income disparity.

Of course, then you get people crying that the sky is falling, that we can't reward the talented anymore, that the economy will collapse, but there's a funny thing about people: If you have one society where the lowest wage is $20/h and the highest wage is $100/h and another where the lowest wage is $2/h and the highest wage is $5000/h the most talented people still fight for that top wage. But in the first society, people on the 'losing' end can afford to raise their kids and maybe live with a little less shame and a little more comfort. And yep, that means high taxes!

This isn't made up "theoretical" stuff. There are actual countries now that do just that. But it's hardly communism. There are rich people and corporations and the like in Scandinavia too. For whatever reason of our history and culture, we have chosen not to emulate that model. In the US they're even farther off.

But funny enough, when you run polls in Canada, the US, or many other places, you sure do get a lot of respondents saying they wish things were the way they are in Scandinavia. High minimum wages, high taxes and all.
 
Last edited:
Pointing out that forced minimum wages go against the market or drive up costs overall is over-simplistic entry-level economics stuff. A high minimum wage is by no means a problem if your society is structured to accommodate it, as is done in Scandinavian countries.

There are other important factors that come into play, but the essential thing to understand is that a high minimum wage is perfectly fine and workable if you are using it as part of an overall scheme to narrow income disparity.

Of course, then you get people crying that the sky is falling, that we can't reward the talented anymore, that the economy will collapse, but there's a funny thing about people: If you have one society where the lowest wage is $20/h and the highest wage is $100/h and another where the lowest wage is $2/h and the highest wage is $5000/h the most talented people still fight for that top wage. But in the first society, people on the 'losing' end can afford to raise their kids and maybe live with a little less shame and a little more comfort. And yep, that means high taxes!

This isn't made up "theoretical" stuff. There are actual countries now that do just that. But it's hardly communism. There are rich people and corporations and the like in Scandinavia too. For whatever reason of our history and culture, we have chosen not to emulate that model. In the US they're even farther off.

But funny enough, when you run polls in Canada, the US, or many other places, you sure do get a lot of respondents saying they wish things were the way they are in Scandinavia. High minimum wages, high taxes and all.

I think there might be a big difference in logistics when you compare the populations. Norway has 5 million people compared to Canada's 35 million or so? Minimum wage in Norway works out to about $18/hr but also bear in mind that going out to buy just about anything costs double what it does here.

It also seems that the Norwegian government operates in the best interest of the people, unlike our government that operates in the best interest of itself. How do we change our government to operate like a Scandinavian government? That's a major ideological shift.
 
Back to the energy BS. When you charge 15c a kilowatt and you pay the solar dudes 75c a kilowatt to produce it, it doesnt take a genius to realize that its unsustainable.

Meanwhile OPG in Pickering is going NUTS building **** like its going out of style. Fiances dad works there and he says they are throwing money around like they have a printer in the back.

Then the government (Go Transit) builds a parking garage in Burlington that consumes enough electricity (400-500KW) to run a couple of dozen houses but we should scrap our old beer fridges because they waste energy.
 
Oily, I really don't think you get it at all.

Lets say a walmart has a 100 employees making $10/hour. That is $1000 per hour cost.
Minimum wage goes up to $15/hour and now walmart is paying $1500 per hour.

Do you think they will just eat that loss? No... they won't. They will either reduce their staffing to 66 employees (making 34 employees jobless with no income), or they will increase their prices, or they will do a combination of both.

So... some people get a raise, some people lose their jobs, and everyone has to pay $15 for that shirt that was $10 last year, so their buying power is either exactly the same or worse (for those that lost their jobs or didn't get a raise). In the end, what was the point again?

The math is a bit off. The cost of goods, overheads, building lease and utilities don't go up.
 
This thread started out as a protest about electricity rates, so I will continue down that path (although the minimum wage discussion certainly has been interesting!)

For those who are laying all the blame for high electricity rates on the Liberals, think again. Sure, their Green Energy plan has been a disaster for ratepayers, and was ill conceived from the beginning, but the focus should be on the root cause of the problem, not the minor contributing factors.

The root cause of high electricity rates can be placed squarely at the feet of the Ontario PCs and their Common Sense Revolution, lo those many years ago. Side note - Tim Hudak was one of the architects of this... something to remember when the next provincial election rolls around. Before Mike Harris broke apart Ontario Hydro and attempted to create a competitive market for the essential service called electricity, Ontario Hydro did all the planning, building, generating, and distribution of electricity largely free of political interference. The OH mantra was "power at cost" which served Ontario beautifully through the years - cheap electricity made Ontario the economic powerhouse of Canada. So, along came Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution... The Harrisites believed that the free market could serve the people much more efficiently than a crown corporation, so they went about their business breaking apart Ontario Hydro and creating a competitive marketplace for electricity - they in effect replaced one non-profit organization with many profit making organizations. To spur the process along, they practically gave away the Bruce Nuclear site and then proceeded to guarantee Bruce Power a higher than market price for the electricity they produced. Meanwhile, the part of the generating system that still remained in public hands (OPG) was hobbled with payments that barely allowed them to operate and maintain their generating facilities. So, now the stage has been set for the eventual privatization of the entire electricity system. I often wonder - should a service as essential as electricity be subject the free market, where the price will naturally rise to a level that is as high as the market will bear, or is a "benevolent monopoly" (such as the old Ontario Hydro) the best way to go? How would the people feel if their water supply was privatized, with water being sold at a competitive market price (which would certainly be much higher than what we currently pay.)

Exit the PCs and enter the Liberals. The Libs showed little or no interest in expanding public ownership of the electricity system - they instead have allowed private, for profit electricity generators to build natural gas generation facilities to meet the demand for electricity. Funny thing about this... these private generators get paid a lot more for the electricity they generate than Ont. Hydro ever did, but no matter... OPG would be squeezed to produce at ridiculously low prices to offset the difference. Then came the Liberal Green Energy Plan, where they contracted more private generators to install wind and solar generation with guaranteed prices of roughly $170/MW for wind and up to $750/MW for solar. During this time, OPG was regulated to supply electricity at $55/MW. The first bad part about this is that these wind and solar generators were guaranteed that all the electricity they produced would be purchased at those high prices, even if it meant that OPG had to shut down their much cheaper generation to accommodate them. If you look at the Global adjustment figure that is calculated into your electricity bill, that is to make up for the increased cost of wind/solar generation. (The Global Adjustment alone is responsible for nearly doubling your electricity bill.) This is why the Ont. Government wants to pay them NOT to produce... because when they do produce, it drives the cost of electricity up enormously. The second bad part of this is that wind/solar are not reliable... we want the lights to go on every time we flick the switch - not just when the sun shines, or the wind blows. This means that solar/wind cannot replace any fossil, nuclear or hydraulic generation - it can only supplement it, so we still need backup generation to fill our needs. Enter the privately-owned natural gas plants, which are going to cost us dearly in the long run, because they are only going to produce electricity when it is profitable to do so (ie: at a much higher cost than the publicly-owned OPG.) The third bad part about this is that the Ont. Government has shut down all the cheap, publicly-owned coal fired generation, thus reducing OPG's ability to moderate the electricity rates charged by these private generators (ie - OPG' slice of the pie is getting smaller, and will get smaller still after Pickering Nuclear is shut down in 2020.) Side note: On a global scale, does it make much sense to shut down our coal fired plants, when China is bringing online about 4000 MW of coal fired electricity every 2 weeks? On a more local scale, does it make any sense to shut down our coal plants when virtually all the pollution/acid rain we receive comes from coal fired plants in Ohio? Eventually, I predict that the government will sell OPG to private interests. If you think your electricity rates are high now, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Bottom line here - it is the former Ont. PC government under Mike Harris that is entirely to blame for the high electricity rates we pay today, because they set the stage for all of this to happen. Now, Tim Hudak wants to ride in on his white stallion and save us all from the mess he had a hand in creating... what a joke!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom