[golodhendil]

Operating cost recovery from fares

Toronto 74%
New York City 55%
Montreal 57%
Chicago 44%
Philadelphia 59%

Which cities have 100%?

London 100%
Taipei 120%
Hong Kong 150%
Tokyo 170%

In London, despite it being automated, there is an attendant at every station to answer questions, sell Oyster cards and help with any problems that can arise with automated systems. So if anything you'd be paying the same attendant to a bit of a different job than he is now, and implementing a new multi-million dollar system. Automated systems are a good idea to solve other issues, but if we're looking to save money by having less people on the job, it's not the answer.

That is also true for other automated systems around the world, including HK, NYC and Boston. But at least in those cases, the stationmasters are actually always busy walking around helping people with the fare machines, giving directions to tourists, or in cases they are sitting in the booth, busy selling passes and such.

 

[Northern Light]

Two replies, to 2 posts

London 100%
Taipei 120%
Hong Kong 150%
Tokyo 170%
.

These figure are potentially misleading in any comparison to Toronto.

Obviously population density here is not comparable with the above.

For the most part, these systems are in cities where alternate (read Car-based) transportation is either not as possible (fewer highways, narrower roads) and/or less desirable via $6.00 per litre gas, or congestion charges or tolls.

I would also tack on that at least in the case of London, The TUBE (subway) is not part of the same system as the buses.

In Toronto, its my understanding that the Subway is in the Black (purely on an operating basis); the streetcars are moderate money losers; and its the bus system, particularly on long-haul routes in outer suburbia that is an absolute sinkhole.

*******************

To Whoaccio's point on wages.

While I don't disagree that as wages go up, pressure for productivity goes up, and in general, employment per unit of production declines.

However, the aggregate unemployment rate has not climbed materially since the early industrial age; and the Labour Force participation rate has actually climbed.

Meaning that while there are fewer jobs at an established business, or in the creating of an established product, there is an off-set as capital goes into new services, products and jobs.

Moreover, I noted the Australian Minimum Wage; and its unemployment rate is on average, comparable to Canada's.

So I feel that the evidence does not support that 'living wage' policies materially reduce employment levels over time. They do shift employment, and may create temporary dips, depending on the suddenness of increases in the mandated minimum wage.

I also have a strong distaste for guaranteed wages or income supplements, which I see as corporate welfare.

Ultimately, if you removed all economic support for individuals (not that I favour this) , then companies would have to pay enough for their workers to survive. There is no circumstance under which a FOR PROFIT enterprise should be getting a public subsidy to employ people. Instead the business should have to pay its worker a fair wage. If the work can't be justified at fair wage, then don't do it. Simple as that. We'll find more useful work for people to do; and smarter business managers while were at it! The gov't must regulate the wage, because all the other interference with the private market makes it regrettably necessary.

The government's responsibility should be limited to a suite of universal programs (like healthcare); to not taxing low-income earners into poverty; and to providing support for those who can't work due to disability, youth (minors) or the elderly; OR short-term support for the unemployed.

Long term top ups are just like the GM hand outs; free money from people who earned it; to for profit enterprises that have no claim on it.

 

[kEiThZ]

In London, despite it being automated, there is an attendant at every station to answer questions, sell Oyster cards and help with any problems that can arise with automated systems. So if anything you'd be paying the same attendant to a bit of a different job than he is now, and implementing a new multi-million dollar system. Automated systems are a good idea to solve other issues, but if we're looking to save money by having less people on the job, it's not the answer.

I am not sure if the booth jockeys in London are regular Tube employees or customer service reps but that's certainly the case in Munich. I'd much rather have CSRs who can get paid a little less than some gruff TTC employee on light duties. The CSR should know more than the system. They should be a key cog in the machine that services tourists.

On topic...although scams like this can't be avoided when you have a human in the system, they can most certainly be minimized (along with other fraud schemes) if the system is automated. On security and labour cost grounds, I'd support automation.

 

[Jonny5]

Passing through Union Station at lunch time today, I saw a huge line up at the west collector booth. The reason? The east booth was "closed" for window cleaning. Yes, the booth was shut down at a busy time as someone felt it had to be windexed right then.

I have never seen a slower window cleaning in my life. Especially considering the window was pretty much clean anyway. All the windows, inside and out, top to bottom were wiped down, as slowly as humanly possible. A squeegee kid could have done it in 7 seconds. But we had someone getting paid $25/hour to do it.

Many curious tourists were huddled around the token dispensers trying to understand the cryptic instructions and wondering if they were actually at the Toronto Union subway station or the Moose Jaw bus depot.

 

[golodhendil]

These figure are potentially misleading in any comparison to Toronto.

Obviously population density here is not comparable with the above.

For the most part, these systems are in cities where alternate (read Car-based) transportation is either not as possible (fewer highways, narrower roads) and/or less desirable via $6.00 per litre gas, or congestion charges or tolls.

I would also tack on that at least in the case of London, The TUBE (subway) is not part of the same system as the buses.

In Toronto, its my understanding that the Subway is in the Black (purely on an operating basis); the streetcars are moderate money losers; and its the bus system, particularly on long-haul routes in outer suburbia that is an absolute sinkhole.

Exactly the point I am trying to make, that it is misleading and irrelevant to compare a bunch of numbers for systems with drastically different ridership levels and network structures. Except NY and Montreal, TTC has a much higher ridership per capita, and ridership per se, than any other anglo-American cities, and many of their systems include buses and commuter rails that run deep into the sparsely populated suburbs and exurbs, at frequencies often higher than GO, and own and maintain their own rail infrastructures. Doady is trying to use farebox recovery to make a point that the TTC is not as "inefficient" as it seems, but my point is that these numbers fail to do that.

BTW, while your point about gas prices is true, all those cities I mentioned have more extensive highway and expressway networks than Toronto. And alternate transportation modes in those cities are not only feasible but readily available. Other than London (whose bus service is actually owned and coordinated by TfL, the same agency that runs the Tube), buses and jitneys in all those other cities are owned and operated by different, competing private companies that actively compete with the metro operator(s), usually charge a cheaper fare than the metro, and eg in HK's case, control a higher market share than the metro. In Tokyo's case, there are 30 rail operators alone competing with each other, and the % I cited is for only one of them, Tokyo Metro. So success is not necessarily guaranteed for metro operators in any of these cities.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If Toronto's subway is profitable, it's because of the feeder bus routes.

 

[afransen]

I also have a strong distaste for guaranteed wages or income supplements, which I see as corporate welfare.

Ultimately, if you removed all economic support for individuals (not that I favour this) , then companies would have to pay enough for their workers to survive. There is no circumstance under which a FOR PROFIT enterprise should be getting a public subsidy to employ people. Instead the business should have to pay its worker a fair wage. If the work can't be justified at fair wage, then don't do it. Simple as that. We'll find more useful work for people to do; and smarter business managers while were at it! The gov't must regulate the wage, because all the other interference with the private market makes it regrettably necessary.

I'm not sure I agree. The programs we have now, like welfare, disability, unemployment, affordable housing, etc. are very expensive, require substantial bureaucracies the validate claims, and provide strong disincentive to work. A guaranteed income with a tax on employment income from the first dollar is a much weaker disincentive to work. Minimum wages tend to hurt people who aren't worth the price. They often end up unemployed or underemployed, and in turn, employed by the government to sit at home and do nothing through EI or welfare.

And living wage policies aren't a punishment for corporations. They will earn the world rate of return, or their capital will leave. The costs in the long run are borne by consumers (price inflation), taxpayers (unemployment claims and the big one--public sector union wage extortion), and those who aren't worth the 'living wage'.

 

[kEiThZ]

Moreover, I noted the Australian Minimum Wage; and its unemployment rate is on average, comparable to Canada's.

That's applied across the entire society not just a certain sector like over here (municipal workers and employees of city contracted firms). That's what makes the difference. Agreeing to pay a living wage to one segment (unionized city workers) while ignoring the rest of society distorts the wage market. It's what's led us to the situation we have today where we pay garbage collectors one third more to do half the work of their non-union counterpart and pay injured operators to be booth jockeys at the wage of a skilled worker (simply because the union would never tolerate a fully separate job category for fare collectors). Yet, on top of that it does not seem to be enough for some. Now they rob us as well!

 

[Whoaccio]

re. Northern Light

The effect of minimum wage laws on employment levels, particularly amongst low income or otherwise disadvantaged individuals, is fairly contentious. Broadly speaking, it is difficult to compare countries. Australia could have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, but the question could remain does the minimum wage legislation increase its' unemployment from a theoretical baseline? Naturally, certain economies have differing rates of unemployment based on dozens of correlated factors. It also maters how the minimum wage relates to average wages. Luxembourg has a higher absolute minimum wage than Australia, yet the minimum wage itself represents only 25% of the average income (80k) versus 50% in Australia. In some cases, mainly in Africa, minimum wage can reach 90% of average income. I know in the case of Ireland specifically, many now blame its' high minimum wage on increasing inflationary pressure on the economy, leading (partly) to the current recession as well as making it less competitive vis a vis Britain for the first time in ages. David Neumark reached the following conclusion on minimum wages:

...First, minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less skilled workers, especially those most directly affected by the minimum wage. Second, although wages compress the wage distribution, because of employment and hours declines amongst those whose wages are most affected by minimum wage increases, a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than increase the earnings of the lowest skilled individuals. Third, minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty, but rather redistribute income amongst low income families.

Separately, income supplements constitute a corporate subsidy only in the sense that *everything* tends to subsidize *everything* else. Given that the direct recipients of programs like low income tax credits or guaranteed incomes are individuals, they can't be said to be a corporate subsidy. You also hinted at the likely reality of forcing employers to provide minimum wages by saying "f the work can't be justified at fair wage, then don't do it", a phenomenon technically referred to as unemployment. Work will be redirected to other uses, elsewhere.

Personally, let's say you wanted to have your kid take out the trash, if you had to pay him a "living wage" to do it would you even bother? If so, is the kid really better of with no wage? You are advocating effectively banning certain types of employment, a fact you seem conscious of, on the assumption that if we ban people from becoming janitors or cashiers they will become doctors or lawyers.

 

[Northern Light]

employment shifts

I don't contend that we should, statute, bad lower skill jobs.

Rather, I take for granted, as with industry and agriculture before, as wages rise to fairer levels, employers will be incented to innovate, automate etc. where possible, and thus perform the work in question with fewer staff.

This, of course, will not always be possible. Tomatoes and strawberries are both too delicate for current machine picking, and those workers still ought to get a living wage. But clearly farmers were incented to automate wheat, corn and potato harvests among many others.

In industry, car makers today employ 1/3 of those they did only 15 years ago per unit of production.

Though they still do employ people, as portions of the manufacturing process are not given to automation.

But unemployment has not risen. (over decades)

Rather, workers who used to harvest corn, became auto workers, who in turn may be shifting to other industrial production or to post-industrial service jobs.

In the same way, some people will be shifted up, and others sideways, so to speak, as wages in the service sector arrived at a minimally acceptable level.

Your local grocery store may move to all automated checkouts, but there will still be a produce person, a butcher (if you shop at a good store!) and a manager.

That I'm fine with.

I take for granted new jobs will crop up, capital will be reallocated; the money has not disappeared, it has moved.

Your local McD's may or may not survive a higher wage model; but if doesn't then people will still eat. So the grocery store; or the higher end restaurant or a new fast food purveyor will arrive to fill that gap. If it does survive the higher wage model through improved productivity, the the workers (and their jobs) will reappear elsewhere. If McD's automates more, the workers who are left are still better off; they in turn will spend more in the economy, which will in turn create new jobs for their former colleagues; and so on.

Money can also be shifted in other ways; and from other groups. Canada has no inheritance tax, Japan, a very capitalistic nation has one at 70%. I'm not suggesting that alternative, nor as I suggesting the minimum wage is a tool in isolation, but it is one tool I like, as I feel it promotes joining the work force, and self-sufficiency.

***********

As to what I would pay my kid.......



I'll tell you a true story, in my house, at 13, living with just my dad, who, bless him, could not boil water to save his life, I took over all the cooking and dishwashing. I also charged him $35.00 a week, back when minimum wage was $5.80 per hour or thereabouts.

That paid for my first trip overseas, after High School

As a good capitalistic, fiscally responsible, entrepreneurial socialist, LOL, I would pay my kid a fair rate for anything above nominal chores, it teaches the value of money. Of course, they can also buy their own Wii, they ain't getting that for Christmas!

 

[Second_in_pie]

The thing I see is that if you give poorer people more money (i.e. a real wage,) they will be more integrated into the world economy. When I'm saying this, I'm thinking more about the Billions of people in Asia and Africa that are pretty separated from the rest of the world in more ways than one. If you give them money through a better job, then they will be able to buy a variety of food, electronics, cars, and other things from around the world. This would create more demand for these foods, electronics, cars and other things, which means more people will have to be employed in countries where such things are produced. As these people's countries end up getting more and more developed, there will be more opportunities for them to work white collar jobs running their country better and administrating local sections of companies as well. These would mainly be jobs that don't exist currently (mostly due to lack of demand for services,) but the money that comes out of that would also help for other jobs. Essentially, it would almost be money coming out of nowhere.

Things are never going to be perfect (there is never going to be enough money for everyone to have a big house and a car,) but there is enough for a large majority of the world population to live comfortably, with adequate food, water and other needs and even some wants.

 

[afransen]

The way you improve the lot of people in Africa, or other underdeveloped places in the world is not try to say: "Any off-shored job from a developed country will be paid the same as minimum wage in a developed country." That is a recipe for very few jobs in these places.

What these places do need is infrastructure: roads, rail, ports, communications, etc. They also need education. A lot of subsistence farmers are desperately poor because no one taught them how to farm effectively. They don't necessarily need anything more than information on best practices. This is a case of low productivity (of labour, and land, if not so much capital) driving poverty.



As far as high minimum wages: that isn't socialism. It's a failure to understand economics. Economics isn't evil, or right wing. It's a study of how incentives drive human behaviour, and it can be harnessed to help achieve social justice goals.