Would you accept a 30% income reduction to help your employer be more profitable?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yet they could also pay $60,000 a year and offer 6 weeks of holidays and have an extremely reliable employee who would hang on to that job for dear life.

Seriously.

"Why can't I get top notch employees for minimum wage and part time hours?!"

[misher]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

They are also notoriously unreliable. Was at a Save-On Foods about 6 months ago at auto check-out and several people were having problems and yet there was no one to help us. Complained to the manager as they should have at least 1 person looking after 6 check-outs and he completely agreed but he said it will continue and there is nothing they can do about it.

He said they are constantly hiring but said most of the younger people are completely unreliable not showing up for work, hired one day and quit a 3 weeks later, are lazy as hell, always late, or just couldn't care less because they know they can get another one tomorrow. He said it's a revolving door. I was quite surprised by his frankness but he very much gave me the impression that he was sick and tired of it and the pay wasn't really the issue.

I think this is why many stores hire more elderly workers now as they are far more reliable, responsible, and committed. Seeing much older workers like at food stores, restaurants, and places like Home Depot was unheard of when I was young but back then unemployment was higher so the kids were very thankful to even land a job.

Agreed youth are extremely unreliable and work ethnic is shit now. I tried hiring some of my friends and ended up losing money on most.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by esquire

Not necessarily, because losing half the workforce would probably inflict a crippling shock on the economy. It would take decades for the dust to settle.

Ok. maybe not overnight....but point still stands.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Ok. maybe not overnight....but point still stands.

So are you putting in your notice today, or waiting until tomorrow?

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by esquire

So are you putting in your notice today, or waiting until tomorrow?

My wife is a full time mother.

She is exceptional at it.


I'd love to see some sort of research into the topic. I can't help but assume that there is a massive developmental benefit to not ship off your toddler to some day care.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Unpopular opinion time....

The work force has essentially doubled due to most households now being two income. If 50% of the working population was to quit to become stay at home parents, wages would skyrocket overnight.

Except women flooded the workforce during and after the war (prompted by labour shortages due to so many men being away) which caused the workforce to basically double when the men returned and women continued working. This was in the 50s and late 40s and from then until the late 70s which was the most lucrative period for North American workers until the ravages of neoliberal policies (Ragonomics, Thatcherism, et al) and globalism started sweeping the world in the 80s at which point real wage growth stagnated and failed to match growth in productivity. If anything the extra workforce participation helped to make the golden era of labour as successful as it was.

[WarrenC12]

Stagnating wages with steadily rising GDP definitely explains the big economic issues of today: wealth inequity, massive household debt, homes being vastly more expensive relative to wages, and 2 income households being required to maintain a "middle class" lifestyle.

Late stage capitalism, as cliche a saying as that is.

I recommend Piketty's Capital in the 20th Century for how we've seen this all play out in the past.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure if this was related, but Alberta just dropped the minimum wage for under 18s to $13 from $15.

I'd be damned if a teenager mooching off their parents made $15 an hour. Thats my average base income for the year, since I work contract and have fluctuating income depending on season.

The premise of minimum wage is flawed because it screws over (devalues the work) of people who are more qualified and already earning $15-18 per hour. It also screws over contract workers.

Universal Basic Income like Andrew Yang's freedom dividend proposal is a much more fair, small business-friendly, and effective solution to ending involuntary poverty. I'd argue it's the only solution, especially with the AI revolution. Canadas labour force participation rate at an all time low speaks for itself.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I'd be damned if a teenager mooching off their parents made $15 an hour. Thats my average base income for the year, since I work contract and have fluctuating income depending on season.

The premise of minimum wage is flawed because it screws over (devalues the work) of people who are more qualified and already earning $15-18 per hour. It also screws over contract workers.

Universal Basic Income like Andrew Yang's freedom dividend proposal is a much more fair, small business-friendly, and effective solution to ending involuntary poverty. I'd argue it's the only solution, especially with the AI revolution. Canadas labour force participation rate at an all time low speaks for itself.

I'm skeptical if things would actually play out like that. I mean, an employer already pays more than minimum wage for a worker with more qualifications they I assume they must be doing it for a reason, ostensibly to attract those workers away from other jobs that could be filled by less qualified people. So why would that reason no longer exist if there was a higher minimum? If the qualified workers could earn just as much at a job that could be filled by any worker while the position you're offering could only be filled by a qualified worker, how would an employer manage to compete and attract enough qualified workers without offering them more?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

My wife is a full time mother.

She is exceptional at it.


I'd love to see some sort of research into the topic. I can't help but assume that there is a massive developmental benefit to not ship off your toddler to some day care.

So you got your wife to leave the workforce instead of putting your money where your mouth is?

...

I'm yanking your chain here but the point is that whenever I hear this argument it generally assumes that the woman is the one who will be staying at home. I'm not a woman, but if I were, I'm not sure how much I'd appreciate that reasoning..

[Rollerstud98]

We went through some layoffs and short hours from December to end of April this year. 20% pay cut which stung but still had a job. Now back up to 90+ hour pay periods and also $7/hr raise for finishing my apprenticeship.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I'd be damned if a teenager mooching off their parents made $15 an hour.

Baseless generalization, but ok.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Thats my average base income for the year, since I work contract and have fluctuating income depending on season.

So that's your average wage considering you work sometimes, and don't work sometimes. It sounds like your hourly wage is higher, you just don't work much. Nothing stopping you from picking up part time work in the mean time. If I make $100/hr but only work 2 hours a day, can I complain too?

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The premise of minimum wage is flawed because it screws over (devalues the work) of people who are more qualified and already earning $15-18 per hour. It also screws over contract workers.

Universal Basic Income like Andrew Yang's freedom dividend proposal is a much more fair, small business-friendly, and effective solution to ending involuntary poverty. I'd argue it's the only solution, especially with the AI revolution. Canadas labour force participation rate at an all time low speaks for itself.

You certainly have a weird way of looking at the world.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Stagnating wages with steadily rising GDP definitely explains the big economic issues of today: wealth inequity, massive household debt, homes being vastly more expensive relative to wages, and 2 income households being required to maintain a "middle class" lifestyle.

Late stage capitalism, as cliche a saying as that is.

I recommend Piketty's Capital in the 20th Century for how we've seen this all play out in the past.

Except this is entirely based on people taking on pointless debt.

Car ownership, home ownership, and student loans are all massive wastes of money.

People are over consuming and their lifestyles suffer as a result.

The middle class lifestyle is a pile of nonsense.

It was based on something that was unsustainable, that made no sense, and that was ultimately bad for the world around it.

What is most odd is that people feel like they are somehow entitled to it, like its a solid measure of societal development.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by esquire

So you got your wife to leave the workforce instead of putting your money where your mouth is?

...

I'm yanking your chain here but the point is that whenever I hear this argument it generally assumes that the woman is the one who will be staying at home. I'm not a woman, but if I were, I'm not sure how much I'd appreciate that reasoning..

I couldn't do what my wife does. She couldn't do what I do. It works really good and our decisions are rather practical for our situation.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I couldn't do what my wife does. She couldn't do what I do. It works really good and our decisions are rather practical for our situation.

Fair enough, but I'd wager that not many women necessarily want that lifestyle. In my circle of friends, there are very few stay at home moms... it usually happens in only two cases. People who are very socially conservative/traditionalist, or where one partner is a professional or business owner who makes more than enough money on their own for the family to live comfortably.

In our society, I don't think something like that has broad appeal. Not many educated women are going to be content to stay out of the workforce once the kids come along.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Except women flooded the workforce during and after the war (prompted by labour shortages due to so many men being away) which caused the workforce to basically double when the men returned and women continued working. This was in the 50s and late 40s and from then until the late 70s which was the most lucrative period for North American workers until the ravages of neoliberal policies (Ragonomics, Thatcherism, et al) and globalism started sweeping the world in the 80s at which point real wage growth stagnated and failed to match growth in productivity. If anything the extra workforce participation helped to make the golden era of labour as successful as it was.

You sure?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015009-eng.htm

There may have been a bubble during and after ww2 that is not shown on the link...but any "flooding" that occurred after during/after is overshadowed by woman entering the workforce in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by esquire

Fair enough, but I'd wager that not many women necessarily want that lifestyle. In my circle of friends, there are very few stay at home moms... it usually happens in only two cases. People who are very socially conservative/traditionalist, or where one partner is a professional or business owner who makes more than enough money on their own for the family to live comfortably.

In our society, I don't think something like that has broad appeal. Not many educated women are going to be content to stay out of the workforce once the kids come along.

No doubt, I struggle with what I want for my daughters. Obviously, its about what makes them happy. As we entered this phase in our life, i did some pretty serious self reflection and realized how unappreciative I was as i child to have my mother around all the time. I actually remember crying over not getting to go to after school care and hang out with friends until parents came to pick them up. I approach things differently now. I never call her a stay-at-home-mom....i always call her a full-time-mother....frankly it is a full time job...one with a shit ton of overtime. And, well, its usually a fun discussion that occurs when i boldly refer to her as a full-time-mother infront of other parents who have chosen different paths. But I'm proud of what she does and if somebody wants to look down upon her...well, dropping a full-time-mother bomb is fair game.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Except this is entirely based on people taking on pointless debt.

Car ownership, home ownership, and student loans are all massive wastes of money.

People are over consuming and their lifestyles suffer as a result.

The middle class lifestyle is a pile of nonsense.

It was based on something that was unsustainable, that made no sense, and that was ultimately bad for the world around it.

What is most odd is that people feel like they are somehow entitled to it, like its a solid measure of societal development.

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying education is overrated?

One can make the argument that "renting" cars and homes is a more financially responsible way to live, but typically ownership of those things is linked to a higher standard of living. Of course there's societal pressure to "keep up with the Jones'" that can drive people into debt.

Student loans is an interesting example though. Just like wages, things have gradually moved out of whack. You used to be able to get through post secondary with reasonable loans, or working summers and living at home, etc. Now you can't. Tuition has skyrocketed.

Why?

As a society we are wealthy. But that wealth is being redirected. Wealth is being consolidated at the top 1%, while it is being extracted out of the rest of us.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying education is overrated?

One can make the argument that "renting" cars and homes is a more financially responsible way to live, but typically ownership of those things is linked to a higher standard of living. Of course there's societal pressure to "keep up with the Jones'" that can drive people into debt.

Student loans is an interesting example though. Just like wages, things have gradually moved out of whack. You used to be able to get through post secondary with reasonable loans, or working summers and living at home, etc. Now you can't. Tuition has skyrocketed.

Why?

As a society we are wealthy. But that wealth is being redirected. Wealth is being consolidated at the top 1%, while it is being extracted out of the rest of us.

Yes it’s the rich people’s fault that I took out that credit card loan to go take a vacation!

According to the report, 67% of Canadians are “stretching themselves too thin on expenses to be able to save,” while 45% are still working on paying back their debt. Then there are 37% of millennials who say that “social pressures” are what’s preventing them from being able to save money. BMO didn’t elaborate on what constitutes social pressures — we imagine it might be things like dining out with friends or social drinking.

https://www.lowestrates.ca/news/quarter-canadians-didnt-save-any-money-2018-bmo-25484

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

No doubt, I struggle with what I want for my daughters. Obviously, its about what makes them happy. As we entered this phase in our life, i did some pretty serious self reflection and realized how unappreciative I was as i child to have my mother around all the time. I actually remember crying over not getting to go to after school care and hang out with friends until parents came to pick them up. I approach things differently now. I never call her a stay-at-home-mom....i always call her a full-time-mother....frankly it is a full time job...one with a shit ton of overtime. And, well, its usually a fun discussion that occurs when i boldly refer to her as a full-time-mother infront of other parents who have chosen different paths. But I'm proud of what she does and if somebody wants to look down upon her...well, dropping a full-time-mother bomb is fair game.

I agree that it is a completely legitimate choice. But it is one that will probably never appeal to a large majority of middle class families, I suppose unless something drastic changes. And more to the point, it would never eliminate half the workforce as you were suggesting before because in many instances, the stay at home moms/full time mothers/what have you often go back to work sometime between once the youngest enters school or once the kids become self-sufficient as adolescents. So you might be talking about a give or take 10 year absence from the workforce... I stand to be corrected, but I doubt that would do much to increase wages across the board.