[bleeepbluuup]

No, but I'll make more food at home, and McDonalds will try to replace as many jobs as possible in their kitchens and at retail with machines.

I think McDonalds would have done this already if it was possible.

 

[cacruden]

I think McDonalds would have done this already if it was possible.

McDonalds might have done it if it was possible - but then you have to think like a company - and figure out if the payback puts it higher on the priority list - or lower. Any change in the economic equation changes the priorities of what they need to do business-wise. And yes, it is possible to downsize the tellers - kiosks, phone-apps, etc. Where you enter an order, potentially pay directly and that leaves kitchen staff - and one person to hand out the orders to the receipt-holders. A kiosk is expensive - but it can work 24hours with no holidays - if a person is more expensive then it might be more likely implemented.

Stores in Thailand (large stores) have lots of employees - because it is economical - as countries low end wages become more expensive - there are less jobs. If the workforce becomes more educated, more higher end jobs become available and there is less need for those lost jobs in the balance. Right now - we are going in the wrong direction though (IMHO).

Basically it might work out - but it also might make things worse - but the better (long term) solution is to work towards increasing the skilled workforce (with a more entrepreneurial drive) and driving the upward push in wages that way.

 

[unimaginative2]

At a certain point, there is clearly an economic cost to a minimum wage, but we're not at that point. Obviously if it were $20 an hour or something like that, we'd see a lot of small businesses closing and more automation of cashier-type jobs. On the other hand, from 2003-2008, we saw the minimum wage rise from $6.85 to $10 and there was no significant decline in employment in the low wage service sector.

 

[cacruden]

Economy was in more robust shape too.

 

[daveto]

11% is not the top tax bracket - it is an illusion.

The is the fair share health surtax that brings it up to 14% (approximately) which is already a surtax - and was suppose to replace premiums.

Premiums were then reintroduced (but collected as well through taxes).

Actually, the 11% "top rate" and all the other lower ontario rates are subject to a 56% surtax which brings the top Ontario rate up to 17% (before the inclusion of the health tax). The 56% surtax phases in, but basically is in sync with the Federal top rate 29%, and thus Ontario's combined top rate of 46% is in effect above $126k. I must say that it's a bit of a kicker to realize that I'm only getting 54cents on the dollar of any payraise or bonus I get (...I know some of you are now thinking, "cry us a river!" ;-).

 

[afransen]

At a certain point, there is clearly an economic cost to a minimum wage, but we're not at that point.

That's not very convincing.

Obviously if it were $20 an hour or something like that, we'd see a lot of small businesses closing and more automation of cashier-type jobs. On the other hand, from 2003-2008, we saw the minimum wage rise from $6.85 to $10 and there was no significant decline in employment in the low wage service sector.

I don't think it is a light switch. These changes don't necessarily happen overnight. I would not be at all surprised if Ontario firms were in the process of reducing hours worked for staff being paid minimum wage.

 

[afransen]

Stephen Gordon has an excellent post over at his blog, Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, exploring why increases in minimum wage don't do much to alleviate poverty. The gist: most minimum wage earners are not members of poor households (think teenagers) and most poor households do not rely on minimum wage earners to provide income.