But then for the first time in my life today I was thinking about it (I'm only 25 but still)... I have never worked for minimum wage in my life, except for a brief period of 2 months while I was in school (Loeb). I must also state that up until now I've been very healthy and I've also had no disablities.

But beyond this I've by no means lived a privliged life. I can't speak for women, but for a man... unless you are physically limited there is no excuse to be working a min waged job. Does anyone have the statisitcs on the type of people who are working minimum wage jobs?

I'm not exactly sure what point I'm trying to make other then if your a physically abled man then you should have no problem finding at least a decent job. Not saying your going to get rich but.. decent in the 10-12 dollar range.

I find your blanket statement that "every able-bodied person should be able to earn at least $10/hr" uninformed and offensive to those of us who are educated and underemployed.

Edited to add: Oh, yes, I see that you say every able bodied MAN. Heh. There's another factor.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: steffie ]

Here in the city its even easier. But again the main point here is MAN. It wasn't hard for me to take the bus to LABOURTEK and have them give me a job. Literally they were looking for poeple and couldn't get enough.

I also realise that the jobs being given out aren't secure or extremely high paying, I'm just saying its an option.

I just find myself wondering why more people don't take advantage of it. I went to school with alot of people who "just wern't working that kinda job" for the summer, but instead would work for 7$ an hour at some clothing store.

It just confuses me.

The average construction company here will lay you off if you call in sick. Even for one day. It is not only low wage jobs but the bosses are rather demeaning. you get crap jobs and if you say anything (half the time you don't have to say anything) you are gone.

Consider this: if the minimum wage were lowered or abolished, most of those jobs which now offer $10-$12 per hour would suddenly start paying the current minimum wage, or even lower.

This might point towards what got you wondering:

Many waitstaff jobs are minimum wage (and minimum wage for waitstaff is by law lower than for other jobs, I believe).

Many "joe-jobs" are minimum wage, or start there, I beleive. Or if not absolutely minimum, not much above. McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Shopper's Drug Mart, Loblaws and their competitors, plus Mom+pop small businesses with counter help.

If you're wondering if most part time student jobs are minimum wage, I bet yes. If you're wondering if most minimum wage jobs are held part time by students, I'd bet no.

Regardless, the whole point is trying to determine what is a fair minimum possible for one hour's employment.

quote:

---

unless you are physically limited there is no excuse to be working a min waged job.

---

Why should a physically limited person be expected to work at a min waged job? Many people with disAbilities are well educated and perfectly capable of handling very good jobs. Sometimes some extra accomodation is needed on the worksite but that is usually a one-time expense.

quote:

---

Why should a physically limited person be expected to work at a min waged job? Many people with disAbilities are well educated and perfectly capable of handling very good jobs. Sometimes some extra accomodation is needed on the worksite but that is usually a one-time expense.

---

Stop acting crazy and unreasonable. Who said anything about disabled people HAVING to work at a minimum wage jobs? I agree with what your saying but I don't really see why you decided to bring it up. If a physically disabled person didn't run down to the closest construction site begging for work I think 99% of cdns would understand, don't you?

quote:

---

Sorry, but I'd like to step back a moment to the whole 'able-bodied man' part and remind you that slightly over 50% of the population is female. If they don't qualify for these boundless construction jobs you speak of (and I don't see why they shouldn't nor do I see them being nearly so unlimited), I see a big problem. Have you heard of the feminization of poverty? Many of the people working these minimum wage jobs are single moms trying to get by. Often they have to work several because their McJob wouldn't want to bring them on full-time and be responsible for benefits too!

---

Maybe I'm in a bad mood I'm not sure. But this is 2 people now jumping the gun. Again I agree with what you say but I'm not sure why your saying it. You mention it like I disagree with you or that I actually said otherwise. But I didn't. Women are more the welcome to work construction I'd be the first to say go for it. IMHO again 99% of cdns would understand if you didn't see the average housewife running down to the nearest construction site looking for work. It just so happens mother nature made the avg male more suited to heavy labour then the avg woman, this is not saying the avg woman can't do it or isnt' better suited to other things. Power to all women, I just didnt realise this was a conversation about female empowerment.

I guess I was just fishing for reasons for the minimum wage. And for the most part people brought up some good points. But i'm going to stick to my points that more able bodied men should look to construction for employment if they are looking for it. Its obviously not a universal answer for everyone in all situations, but I wonder if its looked at as much as it should be.

Edited to fix my terrible spelling

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: jean chretien ]

People get their packs up when someone challenges the need for a minimum wage because such attacks are basically an attack on the working poor.

And the whole point of the minimum wage is that while the proverbial "able-bodied (non-immigrant) young man" who doesn't have bad luck might not need it most of the time, the "able-bodied young man" is, obviously, a small minority of the entire working population.

Keep in mind, many people working at or near minimu wage have families to support, single-handedly.

Now, if your problem is that too many able-bodied young men you happen to know complain about working for minimum wage, well,

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe they're underpaid for the work they do.

Mind you, if I had a choice between slow, minimum wage counter-work (like back in the day at the comic shop--I started at $3.25/hr) and back-breaking construction work which left me too exhausted to do anything constructive at the end of the day, and I if I had no responsibilities and very few expenses, I'd probably take the minimum wage gig.

[Edited to remove a little uncalled-for snarkiness]

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

Up until now I hadn't thought about the minimum wage alot. I supported it mainly out of the goodness of my heart and I still do, altho because of this discussion, i have more reason to support it.

At the same time, although many people may need it, I also made the point, men looking for work should look to construction more then they do.

In the mean time people flew off the handle about disabled persons being able to perform more then minimum wage jobs, and women can work construction just as well as men can. I don't think I ever argued against any of this. When people get defensive for no reason it bothers me. Maybe I should be more sensitive to why they are defensive in the first place.

Back to the point.... Sure young able bodied men might make up the minority of the people working for minimum wage but they still make up a porition of it. I don't believe you'll find a silver bullet for a problem like this. Its something that needs to be solved piece by piece.

Solving complex problems requires open minds, getting defensive won't help anyone, especially when its not called for. I'm on thier side:>)

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: jean chretien ]

I'm not going to go dig up stats on people working for minimum wage (it shouldn't be hard if you're really curious), but as I said earlier the feminization of poverty is a reality. And I brought it up because it does have a place in this discussion: there is a need for a minimum wage to prevent the phenomenon of the working poor and people generally being extremely underpaid for their labour. I brought up women because it particularly affects them.

In terms of this whole young men working construction thing, I understand that in your experience there have been ample possibilities for such employment, but in many communities the jobs don't exist. Or, if they do they're seasonal or you have to know the right person to get them. Not to mention that many people are unemployed because there just aren't enough jobs to go around - nevermind ones that pay $10/hour.

You're right, it is a complex problem. Blanket statements such as able-bodied young men can get a decent job don't help either.

[ 09 November 2004: Message edited by: shaolin ]

In Calgary, there are 82,800 workers earning $9.00 or less, which is 16.8% of the total workforce. Of that total, 41,900 are 25 years or older. 4,300 people earn $5.90 or less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:
... Simple business sense dictates that employers will pay, literally, as little as they can get away with.

Consider this: if the minimum wage were lowered or abolished, most of those jobs which now offer $10-$12 per hour would suddenly start paying the current minimum wage, or even lower.

---

I think there's a contradiction here. I believe you're right the first time, employers pay no more than they have to for a given job. But if they are now paying $10, and the minimum is at most $8, (here in BC) then there is no relationship between the market for workers doing the $10 per hour jobs and those who are closer to $8.

The same two countries also have the lowest rates of unionized work force.

The same two countries also own the highest rates of child poverty andinfant mortality with the U.S. coming in last place in both first world comparisons.

"Flexible" labour markets were supposed to be the answer to high unemployment rates as politicians so often like to point to in Euro-socialist nations, but many economists will admit that real unemployment rates in the States and Canada are at least twice the official rates reported by the feds.

About a third of the global work force of those nations subscribing to "liberal democracy" are currently unemployed.

I agree, miniumum wage should be increased, and poverty lines in the States and Canada need updating.

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budd Campbell:

I think there's a contradiction here. I believe you're right the first time, employers pay no more than they have to for a given job. But if they are now paying $10, and the minimum is at most $8, (here in BC) then there is no relationship between the market for workers doing the $10 per hour jobs and those who are closer to $8.

If employers could lower the wage after the minimum was abolished, they would have lowered it boforehand, at least down to $8.

---

quote:

---

I believe you're right the first time, employers pay no more than they have to for a given job.

---

quote:

---

Why aren't all jobs minimum wage? Why would any employer pay any more?

---

They are all minimum wage jobs (the minimum acceptable wage for whatever job you are talking about)

I think they do it so that they can go up from there (if you are anygood) in yesteryear you would start at the bottom and your pay would rise as your number of years with the company did. but people aren't staying with one company their whole life anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Why aren't all jobs minimum wage? Why would any employer pay any more?

---

I'd say that labour is, sort of, a market. But it is one in which the buyers have access to the levers of government and use them to manipulate supply and demand factors, and also one in which they collude in ways that are not monolithic, but which leave that market far from what could be called "free" (Not that it ever really could be; there is going to be labour law of some sort, and the question is whose side it will predominantly be on). Some of this collusion is informal, some relatively formal (e.g. seminars on, and consultants specializing in, union busting and wage reduction).

That said, many distinctions in wage levels have little to do with supply and demand even after extensive manipulations. They often seem to follow status, hierarchy, tradition as much as anything else. Case in point: Nurses. There's a nursing shortage last I heard. But nurses are an essential service--the government frequently says so. The theoretical result would be awesome wages and/or improvements in working conditions for nurses. Has this happened? Not that I've noticed. In fact, in BC it's tended to be quite the reverse: wages not keeping up with inflation, and as nurses burn out responses involving getting the ones that are left to work that much more overtime. In large firms, wages tend to reflect gradations in status as much as anything else. Given a hierarchical setup, wages are used to symbolize who is above whom in the pecking order. Thus, even though the CEO may be more replaceable and have far fewer useful or unique skills than some of the programmers, the CEO will make far more money, as will various senior managers in proportion to their seniorness. So while there may be marketish aspects to labour, there are other important factors as well.

I expect this is a little too complicated for your typical reductive ideas, Magoo, but try to follow along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Case in point: Nurses. There's a nursing shortage last I heard. But nurses are an essential service--the government frequently says so. The theoretical result would be awesome wages and/or improvements in working conditions for nurses. Has this happened? Not that I've noticed. In fact, in BC it's tended to be quite the reverse: wages not keeping up with inflation, and as nurses burn out responses involving getting the ones that are left to work that much more overtime.

---

Not only that, but the Fraser Institute went on record a month or so ago saying they thought nurses were being paid too much.

quote:

---

If they've been saying it *shouldn't be* a market, then you're talking nonsense.

---

How so? Why wouldn't we expect/want jobs that require less common skills or abilities to pay more? Few people can program in C# (while businesses want this done). Anyone can push a broom (businesses want this done, but not as badly as they want web services).

quote:

---

Has this happened? Not that I've noticed.

---

I think in this case the reason it's not a true market is because the "buyer" is crying poor (whether they are or aren't). The local gas bar might similarly attempt to drop wages while keeping a full staff to cover all shifts if their profits are dropping. They need someone working all the time, but can't really afford to pay them, so the "answer" is to drop wages. I'm not saying I agree with this... in fact I'd suggest looking into "accepting less profit" as a possibility too. For the government this might translate to "re-appropriate some funds to nurses and live without the Olympics" or some similar.

quote:

---

Whether labour *should be* a market is a different question.

---

It seems to me that the only way to keep it from being one is to simply restrict it by government fiat. Like decreeing that every can, carton or box of anything at Loblaws shall cost $1. But people's spending habits would change dramatically in that case. Everyone would be rushing to buy the canned Lobster (used to be $5.99), and nobody would buy the Mr. Noodles (used to be $.25)

Wouldn't the same happen if the job market were no longer a market? Why on earth would I care to do anything that taxes my body or brain if I could choose to pump gas and make the same wage as the doctor whose car I'm filling? And why would he want to take on responsibility for people's lives, not to mention the possibility of massive malpractice suits, for the same pay as a gas-jockey?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Everyone would be rushing to buy the canned Lobster (used to be $5.99), and nobody would buy the Mr. Noodles (used to be $.25)

---

Governments have imposed price and wage controls in the past, and it worked. Market purists would say, that's communism, but do we really need 10 versions of noodles at varying prices ?. I don't agree. I think a noodle is a noodle, and if it's made from Canadian Durham wheat, you can't get anything better. If our flour is good enough for 80% of Italian pasta making, then what value can any capitalist add to it, really ?.

quote:

---

Wouldn't the same happen if the job market were no longer a market? Why on earth would I care to do anything that taxes my body or brain if I could choose to pump gas and make the same wage as the doctor whose car I'm filling? And why would he want to take on responsibility for people's lives, not to mention the possibility of massive malpractice suits, for the same pay as a gas-jockey?

---

Well something's got to give with the present doctor situation in Canada. Doctoring used to be the domain of those who came from well off families. And we had doctor shortages. We had doctor shortages when physicians per so many patients wasn't an interesting stat to report on.
So where is the incentive to become a physician now with six years of GP training costing upwards of a quarter million bucks now?.

Why are Liberals (and conservatives) underfunding higher education when this country is short of doctors, teachers and skilled people in general ?.

Why aren't well off families filling the void by sending their kids to med school ?. Does the right wing even care that we have a doctor shortage ?

Why can't the private sector fill these skills shortages in Canada ?. The States ?.

quote:

---

I'd see no problem with some sensible restrictions to keep both the low and high ends of the pay scale from getting ridiculous, but I can't get on board with the idea that jobs should somehow be divorced from supply and demand.[/qb]

---

Where has the free market ever met the demand for skilled labour and high skill service jobs ?. There is a scarcity of highly skilled workers, so where is the free market delivering in this regard now ?.

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

but do we really need 10 versions of noodles at varying prices ?.

---

Need? Maybe not. But even with only one brand of noodles and one brand of canned lobster there's still a market of a sort. The lobster is considerably more rare than wheat, requires more preparation, and (to me anyway) tastes better (ie: satisfies the consumer need better) and so it would, if left alone, command a higher price.

BTW, Mr. Noodles aren't made from #1 Canadian Durum. They're made from 80% post-consumer recycled toilet paper.

quote:

---

If our flour is good enough for 80% of Italian pasta making, then what value can any capitalist add to it, really ?.

---

Ask those same Italians. They must have about 150 different shapes of noodle alone, never mind the different brands, package sizes, etc.

quote:

---

Why are Liberals (and conservatives) underfunding higher education when this country is short of doctors, teachers and skilled people in general ?.

---

Eating the seed corn? Taking the short view?

quote:

---

There is a scarcity of highly skilled workers, so where is the free market delivering in this regard now ?.

---

quote:

---

Need? Maybe not. But even with only one brand of noodles and one brand of canned lobster there's still a market of a sort. The lobster is considerably more rare than wheat, requires more preparation, and (to me anyway) tastes better (ie: satisfies the consumer need better) and so it would, if left alone, command a higher price.

---

I'd prefer some fresh Cod, but thanks to conservabrals domonstrating to us that government couldn't manage a lemonade stand never mind fishing liscences, then we'll consider ourselves lucky to enjoy clams and lobsters and maybe a few shrimp ... while they last.

quote:

---

Ask those same Italians. They must have about 150 different shapes of noodle alone, never mind the different brands, package sizes, etc.

---

If only the Berlusconi mafia could provide Italian's with a free market in jobs or more veal for their spaghetti sauce.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are Liberals (and conservatives) underfunding higher education when this country is short of doctors, teachers and skilled people in general ?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Eating the seed corn? Taking the short view?

---

Cuba has no shortage of doctors. Swede's, German's and Cuban's don't censor higher ed by attempting to assign market values to it. Then again, their infant mortality rates and adult longevity are improving while the same stats here will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

quote:

---

Well, I'm no Milton Friedman, but does a market necessarily deliver? My understanding is that if there aren't enough of something in demand (eg: highly skilled workers) then "the market" simply suggests that those workers will become more valuable.

---

Not if we don't want it to deliver, no. I suppose that a good number of us do still believe in the wrath of the free market gods, and any attempt to intervene would bring economic catastrophe. I thought the invisible hand of laissez faire and the tooth fairy were scare tactics meant for short people ?.

I and many others believe in controlling our national future for the good of ourselves. We can intervene for our own good. We're good enough, we're smart enough, and gosh dernit, people will like the results.

Magoo, as one of our resident conservatives, I appreciate your comments, however wrong they may be and however much you upset the apple cart here. That's good, we need some yang with our yin, I suppose. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to hammering away at your virtual presence here every chance I get.

cheers!

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Governments have imposed price and wage controls in the past, and it worked. Market purists would say, that's communism, but do we really need 10 versions of noodles at varying prices ?

---

This fundamental principle applies not only to pasta, but also to marriage.

This brings to another idea: is it possible to treat "labour services" (i.e. my time or life) as a commodity bought and sold in a market? I see no problem with that. After all, that's how it is bought and sold in practice.

This viewpoint provides some enlightenment by comparison. For example, what would happen if we enforced a minimum price for cars? (Let's say $50,000) Well, the high end of the market (BMW, Merecedes) would be unaffected but no one would buy a Korean import.

IOW, minimum wage laws simply hurt poor people by making them too expensive.

I think we should separate the wage issue from the poverty issue. If we want to help poor people, there are other better ways to do it than raising the minimum wage. For starters, why not eliminate payroll taxes (CPP, EI etc.) for incomes below some threshold?

Lastly, I have a suspicion that the minimum wage debate will become increasingly irrelevant.

We will soon be moving (we are now entering) a world of labour shortage. The baby-boomers long ago entered the labour market, as did the once stereotyped housewife. The 1970s and 1980s saw a glut on the market - fuelling reminders of the glut of the 1930s.

Low wages condemn families to poverty

Child poverty remains firmly entrenched in Canada. Despite political vows and public concern, Canada cannot shake its high rate of child poverty. For the past three decades, child poverty levels have hovered at one child in six.

“We face a structural crisis in our attempts to address child poverty”, says Pathways to Progress: Structural Solutions to Address Child Poverty, a study commissioned by the anti-poverty organization, Campaign 2000 and released today in Ottawa.

“Advances in some areas, such as increases in the national child benefit, are undermined by low wages and bad jobs”, says principal author, Christa Freiler. “More than 60 percent of lone mothers employed and living in poverty earn less than $10 an hour. Canada stands out as a low wage country, second only to the U.S. among industrialized countries.”

Concentrations of poverty in large cities among Aboriginal peoples and recent immigrants and refugees threaten the social fabric of our communities. Unaffordable housing deepens the crisis.

“This country needs a comprehensive, multi-year strategy to break the back of child poverty in Canada”, says Laurel Rothman, national coordinator of Campaign 2000. “We need the same determination from the federal government to children as was demonstrated in the elimination of the deficit”.

The report lays out responsible and realistic goals for a social investment plan over the next five years. Campaign 2000 recommends that the federal government and the provinces legislate a livable minimum wage of $10 an hour by the end of 2007. Combined with an enhanced child benefit of $4900 per child and the significant expansion of affordable housing, these measures would guarantee families with children a pathway out of poverty. To ensure equal opportunities for all children, the report calls for the creation of an early learning and child care system.

Campaign 2000 proposes that the federal government commit at least 1.5% of GDP, or approximately $18 billion a year in new public revenue, to carry out the plan. The country will not be able to invest in children nor in the other social priorities of Canadians such as health care and post-secondary education unless we begin to recover revenues lost through general tax cuts.

“No government in Canada supports child poverty. As we have learned from other countries, solutions can be found”, Rothman says.

quote:

---

"This house seeks to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000."
— House of Commons unanimous all party resolution, November 24, 1989.

---

quote:

---

Minimum wage is just a way of creating a level playing field (something the business community always asks for).

---

quote:

---

If minimum wage is irrelevant now, then why are high child poverty rates still a problem in Canada and the US?

---

Help the poor? Be like Robin Hood. Honest and direct. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. To achieve such a goal, don't use such an arcane mechanism as the minimum wage. Just do it.

The Right understands this well but the Left is so confused. It depresses me.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: August1991 ]

And rich American's wouldn't have become rich without a prosperous middle class. The prosperous middle class and lower working class account for two-thirds of annual spending in the American economy. The American's won't see positive economic gains again without a labour induced recovery, and that means people spending in the economy, further spending on Keynesian-militarism and mortgage re-fi activity in padding growth figures aside.

The Census Bureau does adjust poverty lines for inflation, but the definitions and guidelines for poverty in that country haven't changed since the 1960's while much everything else has with respect to cost of living.

The Yanks have the worst child poverty and infant mortality rates in the developed world, so no, I don't think any country should be looking to the States for answers to poverty.

I believe that part of the answer is in re-defining poverty for Canadians. A stroke of a pen and a commitment by our liberal and conservative governments to say, hey, if very few Swedes or Finlanders, Germans or Danes lives outside in the winter, then no Canadian should have to be faced with $700 to $900/mo bachelor pad rents, and that's when their actually available during economic slow downs. And Canadians shouldnt be forced to live in substandard housing with their children because private enterprise comes up short of fulfilling a real market need, affordable housing for those living on low incomes.

But I agree that raising minimum wage isn't enough. If we and the American taxpayers can subsidize huge, profitable (as well as those who tend to under-exaggerate their bottom lines) corporations, then why can't we subsidize those of us who can't afford a hot lunch at the end of the month let alone buy another foreign made sports car or invest in China with their lobbied-hard-for tax breaks and Canadian tax loop holes which are large enough to drive transport truck loads of money through.

Have the rich threatened to move out of Europe because of high taxation ?. No, they've got more millionaires than any other region of the world has.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I wish politicians were as serious about child poverty in North America as they are in European countries.

---

You use the name, Fidel. Surely that is evidence.

The New World manages better than the Old World.

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991:
Fidel, I think children in North America have had a better life than children in Europe or Asia.

You use the name, Fidel. Surely that is evidence.

The New World manages better than the Old World.

Why? How?

---

I disagree. And to clarify, I was comparing N. America w European and Scandinavian social democracies. Infant mortality, longevity and child poverty statistics speak for themselves. The Euro-socialist countries are, in fact, rich countries. And they've made significant progress toward abating child poverty at the source: a lack of means, access to decent housing and hot meals seven days a weak in all neighborhoods for school age kids, regardless of family income.

According to Mel Hurtig, Council of Churches and chidl welfare agencies, there are children in Canada showing up at school house doors with empty bellies and poor memories.

Picture your six year old girl wearing worn out running shoes and treading through snow drifts to get to school in minus thirty degree weather.

A school in one of our major cities held a raffle for six pairs of winter boots and coats donated by a local business person. One little girl was entirely lucky that day. She wore them day in and day out after her ship came in. A problem arose when she wouldn't take off her new boots during gymn class. A school official took her aside and asked her why she wouldn't take them off. With tears streaming down her face she replied, "I haven't got any socks."

These are Canadian kids. European kids have socks, ffs.

And I use the handle, "Fidel" out of respect and admiration for the revolutionary leader himself. Cuba's socialism shines in comparison to the deteriorating state of liberal democracy in the former USSR, Africa and Latin America in general.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

And I use the handle, "Fidel" out of respect and admiration for the revolutionary leader himself. Cuba's socialism shines in comparison to the deteriorating state of liberal democracy in the former USSR, Africa and Latin America in general.

---

Jobs cost the employer less than what the person’s time can be sold for. The price that someone’s time can be sold for is dependent on the demand placed by society on the product or service that is being created. All employers will make a profit off someone’s time, or they will either let them go or go bankrupt. By raising the minimum wage to $10/hr, for instance, you are taking some of that profit out of the hands of the employer, and eliminating any job that can’t be sold for $10/hr. (Actually, due to payroll burdens, you’re getting rid of any job that can’t be sold for about $15/hr, but that’s a separate issue, and we can skip it.)

Employers will typically find a way to maximize profits. If a job produces less profits, they will tend to shift away from that type of work, and find a way of selling a product that has a higher profit. However, investments in low paying job ‘infrastructure’, such as restaurants and other service industries, tends to be fairly intensive, and won’t be able to rapidly shift to other markets. New jobs won’t be created in these fields if wages are too high, but demand to have these jobs filled won’t disappear instantly.

With higher wages, more money will be spent locally on goods and services. Demand for these goods and services will go up, which will increase the costs, until sufficient employment is created to supply these goods and services. Thus, prices will go up with higher wages. Profits of the owners will drop for the short term. The disparity between rich and poor is reduced, at least temporarily. Inflation probably goes up, and interest rates probably rise to keep the economy on an even keel.

It should be simple to model what the effect will be for any given change in the price of labour. Determine the price elasticity for the goods and services purchased by the working poor. Determine how much of these products are imported. See how much of the extra revinue that comes from increased wages will remain in the economy by creating jobs. Determine how many jobs are lost from existing business if the cost of minimum wage labour is increased. Weight the existing jobs slightly higher than the new jobs, and then set the minimum wage so that there is a balance. This will produce an optimal solution, where raising or lowering the minimum wage will not be of any advantage to the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:

Many "joe-jobs" are minimum wage, or start there, I beleive. Or if not absolutely minimum, not much above. McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Shopper's Drug Mart, Loblaws and their competitors, plus Mom+pop small businesses with counter help.

---

I'm currently employed by Wal-Mart making $8.10/hr which is well above the minimum wage which is currently $6.65/hr.

I've worked three minimum wage paying jobs: Buck or Two, VHQ, and Northern Reflections. Most fastfood places start out at minimum wage because the majority of the people who work there have no work experience.