# Minimum wage earner cannot afford rent



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

A recent study has been making the news. You can read about it here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ccpa-rents-minimum-wage-1.5216258

Whenever I hear or see this kind of 'affordable housing' type of thing, I find it always seems to look only from one perspective. WHY should a minimum wage earner be able to afford their own place? There is no RIGHT that I am aware of that says they should. Yet this assumption of a right seems to be a given somehow.

It's hard to argue against the last line in the linked article, ""Everyone deserves a decent place to live.", but it makes certain assumptions nevertheless. One example in the article is a family of 4 with one wage earner (no mention of wage earned by that wage earner given). How do we reconcile their deserving 'a decent place to live' with their decision to support 4 people on one wage? At what point did the couple sit down and say, 'we can afford to support 2 children on one wage.' Obviously, they didn't. So who is to blame for that? Supporting a family of 4 on one wage obviously requires that one wage to be pretty decent. Who does not realize that? Who thinks they should be entitled to do it on a low wage?

Obviously, it is complicated but I can't help but think there is this sense of entitlement that people have without any sense of responsibility for themselves. When I hear 'minimum wage earners can't afford rent', my first thought is, 'so what, there's no surprise there, why would they think they could'?

Whaddaya think?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The article says that a 2 bedroom apartment would require 112 hours of work at the minimum wage in Vancouver and 100 hours in Toronto.

That is the equivalent of 2 people working 40 hours a week and another working 20 hours a week in Toronto and almost 3 full time jobs in Vancouver.

I think wages are too low. People don't choose to work for low wages. Those are the jobs that are predominantly available.

Unionization is the key to improving wages. All workers should automatically become members of a national union that represents their interests.

The facts show that stagnant wages are directly correlated to the decline of union memberships. That problem needs to be fixed.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

When I was going to university, I had 3 jobs and...roommates. Living in Vancouver, was affordable while paying for school if you did it that way. Could I have done it living by myself? Nope. 

People are unwilling to compromise...next complaint will be minimum wage earners can’t get ocean front properties.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

sags said:


> I think wages are too low. People don't choose to work for low wages. Those are the jobs that are predominantly available.


But people choose to live in Toronto. There are plenty of other places where the cost of housing yourself is far less and businesses are looking for employees. And if enough people move out, the wages will naturally increase for those who remain as the employers compete for employees. I say if you can't afford it, don't live there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> When I was going to university, I had 3 jobs and...roommates. Living in Vancouver, was affordable while paying for school if you did it that way. Could I have done it living by myself? Nope.
> 
> People are unwilling to compromise...next complaint will be minimum wage earners can’t get ocean front properties.


Some people going to university live in the dormitories. Are you advocating that as a solution ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

off.by.10 said:


> But people choose to live in Toronto. There are plenty of other places where the cost of housing yourself is far less and businesses are looking for employees. And if enough people move out, the wages will naturally increase for those who remain as the employers compete for employees. I say if you can't afford it, don't live there.


But if everyone moves to the cheap town with plentiful jobs, the wages will go down and the rents will go up.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

Sorry but I don't agree with "everyone deserves a place to stay" which goes hand in hand with our mayor who was on a talk show recently and stated "everyone is entitled to a place to stay". Certainly not the way myself or our children were raised and I believe most everyone needs to earn their own way in life with perhaps a little help and guidance from Mom and Dad. Of course there are some exceptions where people need help and support to which I agree.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The article says that a 2 bedroom apartment would require 112 hours of work at the minimum wage in Vancouver and 100 hours in Toronto.
> 
> That is the equivalent of 2 people working 40 hours a week and another working 20 hours a week in Toronto and almost 3 full time jobs in Vancouver.


So what? Paying 25% - 30% of one's income for lodging is perfectly normal.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> But if everyone moves to the cheap town with plentiful jobs, the wages will go down and the rents will go up.


You're right...it's far better to live somewhere you can't afford :stupid:


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> off.by.10 said:
> 
> 
> > But people choose to live in Toronto. There are plenty of other places where the cost of housing yourself is far less and businesses are looking for employees. And if enough people move out, the wages will naturally increase for those who remain as the employers compete for employees. I say if you can't afford it, don't live there.
> ...


Well, then build more housing. 
The problem is that government keeps implementing anti housing policies.

The reality is people with low or moderate incomes can't afford to live in high demand areas. 
No amount of government interference is going to solve the basic economic reality.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

frase said:


> Sorry but I don't agree with "everyone deserves a place to stay" which goes hand in hand with our mayor who was on a talk show recently and stated "everyone is entitled to a place to stay". Certainly not the way myself or our children were raised and I believe most everyone needs to earn their own way in life with perhaps a little help and guidance from Mom and Dad. Of course there are some exceptions where people need help and support to which I agree.


Fully agree. No reason why a single minimum wage earner should be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment on one's own. That is what bachelor/studio suites are for... or having a room mate in a 2 bedroom. Nor is there any reason why couples, or families, should not both be working. There is no free ride. Besides, a large number of minimum wage earners are students with part time semester, or full, summer jobs. Almost anyone not in school, other than some of the more difficult mental or physical disadvantaged, has the opportunity to improve one's self with some training, whether office clerical, or in the trades.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Fully agree. No reason why a single minimum wage earner should be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment on one's own. That is what bachelor/studio suites are for... or having a room mate in a 2 bedroom. Nor is there any reason why couples, or families, should not both be working. There is no free ride. Besides, a large number of minimum wage earners are students with part time semester, or full, summer jobs. Almost anyone not in school, other than some of the more difficult mental or physical disadvantaged, has the opportunity to improve one's self with some training, whether office clerical, or in the trades.


Fully agree. 

With two people working, I'm sure they could find something. 

I think of the absolute crap-holes I lived in as I was getting established in my youth would surely not pass muster with the new entitled generation who expect they deserve so much more and spend their time on social media letting us all know about it.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> So what? Paying 25% - 30% of one's income for lodging is perfectly normal.


25%- 30% of income from a 112 hour work week is perfectly normal ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Fully agree. No reason why a single minimum wage earner should be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment on one's own. That is what bachelor/studio suites are for... or having a room mate in a 2 bedroom. Nor is there any reason why couples, or families, should not both be working. There is no free ride. Besides, a large number of minimum wage earners are students with part time semester, or full, summer jobs. Almost anyone not in school, other than some of the more difficult mental or physical disadvantaged, has the opportunity to improve one's self with some training, whether office clerical, or in the trades.


A one bedroom apartment is a little better. It only requires working a 70 hour work week to spend 30% on lodging.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

The larger problem is the housing price bubble which is driving up rents. Landlords have no choice but to continually raise rents as their expenses go up.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone working full-time should be able to rent a one bedroom or a studio, but even that would require $27 an hour in Vancouver.

Yes, I think people should focus on improving themselves to above minimum wage, but it's also a fact that our economy relies on low wage workers. If affordable housing is not available, then wages must increase... either by legislation or attrition (enough people leaving will force employers to pay more). IMO, it makes more sense to have affordable housing than to continually raise wages, which has the knock-on effect of increasing the cost of everything else. It's a definite problem for cities whose economies rely on low wage workers.

One solution is to slowly deflate the housing bubble, which seems to be happening at least in Vancouver. Building more would also help, as long it's the right kind of housing (ie, not luxury investment condos). Metro Vancouver actually saw a record number of housing starts in 2018. In fact, the number of housing starts was well in excess of population growth. But that doesn't help at all if it's the wrong kind of housing.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I've never considered minimum wage as something long-term. It is more for students or people just starting out or occasionally for someone who just wants a few casual hours (eg. a stay-at-home mom or retiree who just want to keep busy). Some students do quite well on minimum wage - mom and dad take care of everything else so everything they earn is discretionary funds and on top of that they get various tax rebates that often put close to another $1000 in their pockets. 

Perhaps there should be some help for those who, for reasons beyond their control, will likely never be able to earn more than minimum wage but I don't think the solution is to raise the wage for absolutely everyone.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Not sure of how Sags works his math but there are about 176 working hours in a month (no overtime) @ $15 = $2640/month. True, it would be difficult for one person to rent a 1 bed on his/her own, but highly workable in a 2 bed with a working room mate, or as a couple, etc.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

A three bedroom with two roommates would probably be very affordable even in Toronto. Wouldn’t be lake front though so I’m sure it’s unacceptable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think you missed the part of it using 30% of net income, so your example would allow about $800 net income for rent.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> 25%- 30% of income from a 112 hour work week is perfectly normal ?


You must have been asleep in math class. 40 hours a week x 4 weeks x 2 people is 320 hours, not 112. Rent is paid monthly not weekly. 

As I stated...2 people paying about a third of their gross monthly income for lodging is perfectly normal. Look it up. Therefore when calculating percent of housing cost you must use the same time frame. No one uses weekly income for monthly rent unless they are trying to mislead people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I can see now why you struggle.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> I can see now why you struggle.


You're the only one struggling. Even performing basic math seems to be way beyond your limited skillset.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I think you missed the part of it using 30% of net income, so your example would allow about $800 net income for rent.


Sags, no individual needs to have a 1 bed apartment. A studio or bachelor unit @ $800 or so, is quite acceptable for a minimum wage earner, especially the few of them that are not already students and part timers with other financial support. I don't personally know any individual earning minimum wage as a long term means of making a living. 

As said earlier up thread by others, they are students, part timer spouses or retirees supplementing their other income sources. It's not society's job to provide what is no doubt a small segment of society, e.g. high school dropouts and those too lazy to improve themselves, with a means to rent a one bed apartment. To my knowledge, that situation doesn't exist anywhere on this planet, even true socialist countries.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually I know a guy who rents to former homeless, natives, low income people, etc. The government coughs up thousands of dollars each month. He figures they probably get 2500-3000 tax free every month. Can’t turn their life around though, no desire to. Then again with that kind of income, there’s no need to.

Of course, their all victims and feel society is screwing them and not giving them enough...not that they contribute much to society...except ensuring the police are well employed. Lots of drug use and crime he says.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Two guys walk into a bar and start talking.

The first guy asks the other guy.........._"where you from" _?

The second guy says........_"I was born and raised right here."_

_"No kidding"_, says the first guy........_"so was I."_

_"So where did you go to school"_, asks the first guy. 

_"I went to Franklin public school and Roosevelt high school"_, answers the second guy.

_"Wow"_, said the first guy......._"so did I."_

_"How old are you"_ asks the first guy. 

_"I am 38 today"_, says the second guy.

_"That's incredible"_ says the first guy. _"I am 38 today too."_

The phone rings and the bartender answers......."_oh nothing much happening here, just the Guy twins are drunk again_.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Another old joke: Maybe I'm drunk but tomorrow I'll be sober. But you'll still be wrong.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags, when the whole world seems to disagree with you, maybe you should get your meds checked and stop listening to imaginary voices.

By the way, how much of your money or time do you donate to the poor? Personally I spend s lot of my time trying to help...you just seem to like to preach. No point in putting your mind where your mouth is though, the voices didn’t say that right? Go forth and spew...

I’m really sorry you don’t like the realities as observed by real landlords, especially those who specialize it the group you advocate for but know nothing about as usual.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have contributed and fund raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades for charities, most predominantly during the annual United Way campaigns.

I have always found those who contribute the most to charities feel the least compelled to broadcast it to the world.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As pointed out by others, the most difficult time is felt by single people living on one low wage.

Couples have better financial outlooks when they combine incomes. Retired couples depending solely on government benefits find themselves in difficulty when one passes away.

The Liberal government has indicated that their version of a basic universal income would be directed towards single people and lone retirees. 

Perhaps it is time for the government to introduce their plan.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> As pointed out by others, the most difficult time is felt by single people living on one low wage.


This has been explained to you already. Get a roommate or rent a studio.



> Couples have better financial outlooks when they combine incomes.


That's obvious. 3 working people living together will also have more money than 2, and 4 working people living together will have more money than 3. Did you have a point or are you struggling with basic math again?



> Retired couples depending solely on government benefits find themselves in difficulty when one passes away.


CPP, OAS, and GIS are more than enough to cover a studio apartment with plenty left over.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So once a year you get involved in united way, wow...knock yourself out there. So you stay a long way away from the actual people you “want” to help. Well insulated. Also good to take credit for the funds raised by a national organization instead of your actual contribution...

You do know that many government benefits transfer over to the spouse upon death right? Most elderly tend to have financial issues because they start to have mental issues and can’t physically handle money properly anymore. 

You’d be amazed at how many become hoarders and victims of scams if you ever had contact with them, you may have your eyes opened. 

I find those who make minor contributions to charities tend to pat themselves on the back and pretend they’ve solved the problem and ignore it for the rest of the year. They also take credit for what the organization does, not what they actually contribute.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

sags said:


> The article says that a 2 bedroom apartment would require 112 hours of work at the minimum wage in Vancouver and 100 hours in Toronto.
> 
> That is the equivalent of 2 people working 40 hours a week and another working 20 hours a week in Toronto and almost 3 full time jobs in Vancouver.
> 
> ...


I think your math is REALLY wrong. Unionation and government intervention is not the solution. Teaching people that they are not entitled to a two bedroom place when they are working on minimum wage. 



sags said:


> A one bedroom apartment is a little better. It only requires working a 70 hour work week to spend 30% on lodging.


 Again, poor math. 



sags said:


> As pointed out by others, the most difficult time is felt by single people living on one low wage.
> 
> Couples have better financial outlooks when they combine incomes. Retired couples depending solely on government benefits find themselves in difficulty when one passes away.
> 
> ...


Perhaps its time for people look at minimum wage jobs as the stepping stone to something better as they were intended. Minimum wage jobs were meant for young people, people looking for a little second income. When you raise the minimize wage too much, then the available of jobs get reduced, prices increase, small businesses cannot start up, and you lose innovation. Unionizing will just kill any incentive for someone to start a business or people to work hard. The needs for unions are long gone (different thread). 

How about teaching young people get a minimum wage job and realize it's hard work for little pay. Then this might an incentive for young people to learn to that if they want to have a decent life, they need to work and something more for themselves. If they don't want to have a roommate, then get a better job. My parents intentionally taught me this by having me work crappy jobs when I was younger to learn that I need to do something more. Ironically, I was really good at what I did, and still made more than min wage. When I was going to quite my retail job as I was graduating university, I was offered a management position upon graduation. My parents taught me that this was just a stepping stone to something better.

Also, minimum wage earners are usually not the single mom as many think (less than 2%). 

• 88 per cent of minimum-wage earners do not live in a low-income household, as measured by Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off (LICO).

• 83 per cent of workers living in a low-income household earn more than the minimum wage.


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/the-typical-minimum-wage-earner-in-canada-not-who-you-think


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m not sure why people encourage their kids to seek minimum wage jobs in the first place. It takes the same effort to apply for higher paying ones. My son’s first summer job, one year of post secondary and no work experience, paid him 60k/year. It was a four month job interview for next year when he completes his courses. Then his wage goes up to something like 75k to start. 

He’s going to use his job for a few years to build up a passive income in rentals and then decide what he really wants to do, not that he doesn’t like his job. 

I always dissuaded him from applying for a low end job. Wasn’t expecting him to get a grand slam, but he did.

To juxtapose this, there was a kid who used to play football with my son. His mother had him at 16. She’d never had a job outside of places like Walmart, earning minimum wage. 

I knew the CEO of a local machining company which was looking for staff. They hired everything from secretary to labour which she could have done. Paid well, good benefits, flexible, etc. Plus they trained you to progress within the company. I offered to be a reference for her, but she never even submitted a resume...went back to Walmart. She wasn’t dumb, handicapped, or anything...just didn’t have the confidence to get out of her rut. Even when given the opportunity, some people refuse to change. Do these people deserve sympathy?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

JAG, no one encourages their kids to see minimum wage jobs. It is just that having a job to experience the rigors/demands of working and the discipline that comes with it is far more important than the 'money' unto itself That is motivational to 'get an education'. Indeed, kids that earn too much often don't go on to post-secondary. Just ask the parents of 18 year olds in Alberta that dropped out of school to drive oil patch trucks full time at >$100k per year during boom times. Yes, kids* can and should seek jobs that can pay more, usually associated with construction or manual labour with potentially long hours in the outside elements. But there are only so many of those jobs, and retail/commercial provides the bulk of the experience working for dysfunctional and abusive bosses sometime who have never made it past store manager. My kids had a variety of jobs from operating video stores, flipping burgers, landscaping, irrigation, etc. All good experiences.

* My first job was swamper on a pipeline construction job when 17 between Gr 11 and 12 placing skids under pipe so that the equipment could match the joints for the welding crews. That was hard work, 14 hrs a day 6 days a week during the 2 summer months. I earned well. My next job before starting university was stringing cable on telephone poles for the precessor of Telus and/or trenching cable underground. All good money but one has to be motivated to get them and/or lucky enough to get the relatively few that exist.

Added: PA's post above is bang on.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Too much focus on wages. I think if we can deflate housing prices, then more landlords will get into the business, increasing competition and lowering rents.

I wouldn't even try to be a landlord in Metro Vancouver these days. It's practically impossible to cashflow any property without charging more rent than the market can bear.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From the same Fraser "study".........

_• 58 per cent of minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults aged 15 to 24, with the vast majority of them (85 per cent) living with their parents or other relatives. For many youths, a minimum wage job is their first while in school and often a stepping stone to higher paid employment._

It is a deceiving way of presenting the statistics. 

Instead of stating 85% of 58% of minimum wage earners are teenagers living with their parents etc....why not just say about 60% of minimum wage earners 15 and older live on their own ?

A minimum wage job is no longer a "stepping stone" into higher paid employment when it isn't available.

It is a "rock" around the necks of people working full time for low incomes, who have no other choices.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Reality check for people who do not live in Toronto ,a bachelor apartment in my son's building is $1640 a month plus hydro/cable/internet and phone.My son is 26 works full time as a Graphic Deisgner and he cannot afford to live alone ,in fact he just found a stranger on the internet to share an apartment with.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I’m not sure why people encourage their kids to seek minimum wage jobs in the first place. It takes the same effort to apply for higher paying ones. My son’s first summer job, one year of post secondary and no work experience, paid him 60k/year. It was a four month job interview for next year when he completes his courses. Then his wage goes up to something like 75k to start.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The net income for a minimum wage earner is about $20,000 a year, which provides $654 a month for rent (at the maximum 30% of income)

A studio apartment in our city is $1000 a month. In Toronto it would be at least $2,000 a month.

There are stories in the media about people working for much more than the minimum wage who can't find afford a place to live.

($1640 according to Marina)


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think you missed the point. First, I believe in letting kids be kids, so I didn’t encourage them to get a job before 18. I let them play sports, hang out with friends, run around outside, etc. If they wanted a job, I told them to apply at bigger companies and get something that a) gives you real work experience for a future career and b) pays better than minimum wage. 

The difference is, my kids look up at potential when applying for jobs not down at the bottom. 

Even Sags admits most minimum wage earners can’t see any alternatives.

Of course my kids also look at developing passive income as soon as possible. Probably comes from the fact that they were raised in an environment that looks for opportunities, but also may come from the fact that they were never given an allowance, they were given tools, such as a vending machine to make money with. They have so sense of entitlement, but they know how to make money. 

My 19 year old bought a three bedroom rental and will be supplying those minimum wage earners with an affordable place to live in a trendy area. 

Different attitudes.

Oh, my youngest daughter now has the vending machine, she runs it and donates all the profits to helping the poor and animals split 50/50.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> From the same Fraser "study".........
> 
> _• 58 per cent of minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults aged 15 to 24, with the vast majority of them (85 per cent) living with their parents or other relatives. For many youths, a minimum wage job is their first while in school and often a stepping stone to higher paid employment._
> 
> ...


Nothing you said says that 60% of minimum wage earners 15 and older live on their own. Terrible math..... Only that 15% of minimum wage earning youth 15-24 live on their own or with someone else other than home or a relative, e.g. unrelated room mate. 

Indeed, another 20% live in a relationship with employed spouse, most of whom are not minimum wage earners themselves. 

That is now 78% of all minimum wage earners (58+20) who have alternative financial support. Only 2% are single parents with a young child, which is now 80%. That means, the remaining 20% are over the age of 24 and either live alone, or have room mates , to share costs. So, to do the simple math from the Fraser excerpt to put it into context for you Sags:

2% of minimum wage earners are single parents with a child(ren)
15% of minimum wage earning youth aged 15-24 live on their own, or with unrelated room mates
20% of minimum wage earners age 25+ live on their own, or with room mates of some kind

Added: Raising minimum wage to catch these 37% of minimum wage earners is a heavy burden for business to support if the margins of these businesses are squeezed. What does happen is that many businesses have to cut back on the number of minimum jobs, or hours, or both to sustain cash flow OR prices have to go up to compensate for the extra labour burden, and risk lower sales volume. It is a vicious circle.

FWIW, I do support a certain level of minimum wage and $15/hr is as good as any. There is no magic wand other than than improving one's education, skills and experience to get out of that minimum wage job or re-locate to where the jobs are. Far too many people are unwilling to re-locate. Other than my childhood years, I've never been in one location for more than 10 years, and often as little as 1.5 years. I admire all those folk who took camp jobs in the oil sands to earn a solid living for themselves and their families where ever their permanent homes are in Canada.

Real life case in point that fits with what JAG is saying. A relative of a distant relative had just graduated as an engineer from Dalhousie (I think) circa 2010. Couldn't get a job in NS, or at least in Halifax/Dartmouth. With contacts I still had in AB from my working days, got him interviews with a few companies that had opportunities ranging from municipal infrastructure in mid-sized cities to oil sands in Fort Mac. He was too lazy and/or unwilling to grab a great starting opportunity to his engineering career. Last I heard about a year ago, he was still not employed in NS. YCFS


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The people with children would also receive the child tax credit and the supplement which would increase their income. There are also numerous other benefits for low income earners, free health care, many cities give free admission to their facilities, heavily discounted city programs like summer camps, swimming lessons, etc.

To be below the poverty line has a lot of benefits which let you live quite well...go over that line however and life is a lot harder, the benefits go away for the most part.

One would know these things if one spent any time with the poor in their daily lives.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> One would know these things if one spent any time with the poor in their daily lives.


Or at least they should already know these things if they're claiming that they care. But it seems that the biggest complainers are also the least informed. Which is not really a surprise...those who are informed are never the ones to complain.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The math seems straightforward to me.

_58 per cent of minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults aged 15 to 24, with the vast majority of them (85 per cent) living with their parents or other relatives._

That means that 58 out of every 100 people earning minimum wage are aged 15-24.

85% of the 58 people live with their parents or other relatives. That is 49 people.

If 49 people out of 100 live with their parents or other relatives, that means 51 people out of 100 don't live with their parents or other relatives.

But you are right, it isn't 60%........it is 51% which is a long ways from the "majority" of minimum wage workers are students living at home.

The Fraser Institute wrote the article to create a false impression and to support their anti-worker bias, so I wouldn't expect any of their other statistics to be any more accurate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A decent minimum wage is not burden for employers.

This rhetoric was recently proved false once again in Ontario.

Business lobby groups wailed that raising the minimum wage to $15 would be an economic disaster. Thousands would lose their jobs.

The reality is the exact opposite. Ontario is thriving and there are plentiful jobs at the new minimum wages. In fact, companies can't find enough workers to fill the low income jobs.

I expect that soon we will hear from the business lobby groups that they need to import temporary foreign workers so the labor shortage doesn't create wage inflation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> The people with children would also receive the child tax credit and the supplement which would increase their income. There are also numerous other benefits for low income earners, free health care, many cities give free admission to their facilities, heavily discounted city programs like summer camps, swimming lessons, etc.
> 
> To be below the poverty line has a lot of benefits which let you live quite well...go over that line however and life is a lot harder, the benefits go away for the most part.
> 
> One would know these things if one spent any time with the poor in their daily lives.


Your low opinion of poor people reflects more on you than them.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Or real world experience. Trust me, seeing the wasted resources and poor attitudes day in day out in more cases than not really wears you down after a while. It’s why there is such a high turnover rate with social workers. 

Of course, a $20 united way donation probably doesn’t really reveal that. 

As to a burden on employers, have you ever run a company...silly question I know. Businesses have a very high failure rate and do you have any idea why they fail? Monetary issues is pretty high on the list. 

Of course a former union employer who always demands more, never has any questions about where the money comes from. Every employer is a rich ******* ripping off the employees, not some guy trying to make a company work and ensure employment of his valued staff.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nevertheless, Ontario is still thriving with lots of available minimum wage jobs.

Garth Turner has a comment on renting in his latest blog article. I guess he must be wrong too.

_High prices mean high rents. It takes an income of almost $58,000 to lease a one-bedder in Toronto, and that’s higher than the median wage.
_
https://www.greaterfool.ca/


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

He could be a fool. Anyone actually in the industry (am I the only one noticing a pattern here) knows that the housing market and the rental market aren’t related. You can have high housing prices and low rental prices, you can have high rental rates and low housing market. You can have both high, or both low. Both markets are based on something called supply and demand, but the target market for each industry is different. People seeking housing aren’t looking for rentals and are leaving that market. People who rent have no interest in buying, therefore no impact on the industry. 

But I’m sure a journalist knows way more than actual landlords who get paid to know these things. Only a foolish landlord would buy in a high housing market assuming that they’ll get high rates.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> The math seems straightforward to me.
> 
> _58 per cent of minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults aged 15 to 24, with the vast majority of them (85 per cent) living with their parents or other relatives._
> 
> ...


Sags....says....says. Look at the math. Of the 51 people, 20 of those are also with employed spouses who earn anything from minimum wage upwards. 2 more of those people are single parents with children. That leaves 29 minimum wage earners for which we don't have a description (either live alone or with an unrelated room mate). Last time I did math, 49 is a bigger number than 29.

Besides you have misread the sentence. It is indeed true that the vast majority of those earning minimum wage AND are aged 15-24 live with parents or relatives.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

How many people kick out their kids at 15-18? How about up to the end of post secondary? That would be 22 at least.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

sags said:


> The math seems straightforward to me.
> 
> _58 per cent of minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults aged 15 to 24, with the vast majority of them (85 per cent) living with their parents or other relatives._
> 
> That means that 58 out of every 100 people earning minimum wage are aged 15-24.


So I had my 10 and 13 year old help correct your math. They are politically unbiased but both nationally ranked in math, so appropriate when it comes to the facts. 



> 85% of the 58 people live with their parents or other relatives. That is 49 people.


Correct according to both of my kids. Add that 9 of the people are between 15-24 and don't live at home and make minimum wage. (They offered to draw a Venn diagram if that helps.)



> If 49 people out of 100 live with their parents or other relatives,


Still correct. 



> that means 51 people out of 100 don't live with their parents or other relatives.


According to my kids, could be right if this was the end of the math problem, but is wrong but as my 10 year old points out there was another line in the stats 

'• 20 per cent of minimum-wage earners have an employed spouse, meaning there is more than one earner in the household.'

51-20 = 31 percent are people that make minimum wage that are older than 24 and don't have a spouse.


However, my 13 year old stated there was a fact right at the top

'88 per cent of minimum-wage earners do not live in a low-income household, as measured by Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off (LICO).' 

If you look at this fact, then only 12 percent of minimum wage workers work live in low income houses. She noticed there is a discrepancy between the 12 percent and the 31 percent, equaling 19 percent difference

That 19% could be people who are above 24 and living at home for unknown reasons. She suggested that up to 9% could be those living away from home making minimum wage, but not wanting poor, because they are students living away from home. 

So if take the 9% out, then *the percentage of people that are making minimum wage as their form of living would be somewhere between 12-22%.* if I give them enough time, they may be able to come up with other logical mathematical insights. However, realistically, they started getting in to silly reasons.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

One group that can probably explain the numbers are the mentally and physically disabled. 

Here’s a 2014 stats canada report...

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/54854-eng.htm

If your involved with the poor, you’d know they have a disproportionate number of mentally and physically disabled people.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> That 19% could be people who are above 24 and living at home for unknown reasons. She suggested that up to 9% could be those living away from home making minimum wage, but not wanting poor, because they are students living away from home.
> 
> So if take the 9% out, then *the percentage of people that are making minimum wage as their form of living would be somewhere between 12-22%.* if I give them enough time, they may be able to come up with other logical mathematical insights. However, realistically, they started getting in to silly reasons.


It is also known that 2% are single parents with children...to further delineate the data.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> It is also known that 2% are single parents with children...to further delineate the data.


I was going to put that in but according to my kids’ venn diagram, it was already in the number of the 12% so it would be double counted. I took her word for it, as her explanation made more sense than some of the math here.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> One group that can probably explain the numbers are the mentally and physically disabled.
> 
> Here’s a 2014 stats canada report...
> 
> ...


Good points. My kids didn’t think of that. They don’t have a lot of experience with mental health or physically disabled yet.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was correct in my math regarding the statistic from the Fraser Institute, which is that 51% of minimum wage earners don't live at home.

The rest of the statistics presented seek to prove the 51% of people is not a worrisome number because of other factors.

To highlight a couple......

1) Living with a spouse. The problem with this is that those minimum wage earners aren't financially independent. They rely on a partner's income.

2) Mentally or physically disabled. This is a low income problem likely unrelated to the minimum wage. They are more likely to be living on government benefits than a minimum wage job.

The Fraser Institute study reminds of the old joke that was passed around for years. 

It took the population of Canada and statistically reduced the number of people who are working and paying taxes down to 2.........you and me.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It should also be noted that it isn't just minimum wage workers who are struggling to live independently.

A high percentage of adults live with their parents or depend on financial aid from their parents to live on their own.

The question should not be if rents are too high or minimum wages are too low. The question is if wages in general are sufficient for people to live independently.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I was correct in my math regarding the statistic from the Fraser Institute, which is that 51% of minimum wage earners don't live at home.
> 
> The rest of the statistics presented seek to prove the 51% of people is not a worrisome number because of other factors.


That is a socialist's point of view and you still have the math wrong. You deduced your statement without facts. You don't know how many others 25+ live at home because the data didn't say so. It targeted the 15-24 yr olds in that statement. You play footloose and fancy free with the data. And as already articulated by others, many members of a couple, work part time at minimum wage, if the other spouse is well employed. That also has people living at home (with their spouses). Many minimum wage workers generate many hours of overtime, e.g. labourers in construction of various types. Have seen it myself over the years. Your 51% number is therefore extremely useless, the type of spin the CCPA would, and does, use. Just not credible and why the NDP, for example, will never be a credible alternative.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When did it become a "socialist" concept to expect that a person working full time should expect to be financially independent of anyone else ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

When someone earning the very least amount has the same living quarters as someone earning more...the very definition of socialism actually. You really need a dictionary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Minimum wage earners can't find "any" place to live, let alone one as nice as someone earning more.......which is the whole point.

As Garth Turner said, a person has to earn $58,000 per year just to qualify for a one bedroom apartment in Toronto, almost twice what a minimum wage worker earns.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> When did it become a "socialist" concept to expect that a person working full time should expect to be financially independent of anyone else ?


In addition to JAG's comment, when said person recognizes they have a responsibility to improve themselves with skills training and find jobs at a higher wage, and/or one with substantial overtime. People sitting in minimum wage jobs for an indefinite period, without a plan to improve, are their own worst enemies. If you really willing to even consider the concept, most minimum wage jobs are really temporary jobs taken up by part timers for a variety of reasons, e.g. students on their way to better things, or seniors looking for some supplemental cash flow. 

As an example, society has no responsibility to those who choose to work at Walmart for years at minimum wage, or as a barista at Starbucks. Have you ever talked to any of those folks to find out more about them? I have from time to time. C'mon Sags, think this through!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You make the inaccurate assumption there are all kinds of jobs available that pay much more than the minimum wage.

I doubt it since many university educated professionals are also struggling to live independently. The majority of well paid jobs are attached to the public service.

I doubt conservatives are advising everyone to work for the public service at the same time they complain about the "high" wages of public servants such as teachers.

Also as Garth Turner pointed out.......the $58,000 required to qualify for a one bedroom apartment is higher than the median salary for all Canadians.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> You make the inaccurate assumption there are all kinds of jobs available that pay much more than the minimum wage.


In a free market pricing environment, the prices of goods and services will gravitate to a level where the lowest income people in that society effectively cannot afford them. In our society the lowest income people are minimum wage earners and of course, as you indicated above, people without jobs. The amount of jobs available will also gravitate to a level where a certain number of people in that society will not get one.

There is effectively no way to fix that economic reality you and I have pointed out above. A social safety net of some kind is required but the bigger the net, the larger the problem will become. Individually, the fix is to ensure that you are not one of the people out of a job or earning minimum wage and trying to survive.

As I have said before, on these threads, life is a competition. There is not enough prosperity to go around. You need to ensure you are better, faster and smarter then the people around you. Wealth is simply the difference between the rich and the poor. If you want to have anything, many others must have close to nothing. It is not the way I wish the world was, it is simply the way the world currently is. Any attempts to correct this, in the past so far, have all ended in only reducing the prosperity of everyone.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why should anyone be entitled to live alone in Toronto? 

When I wanted to live in Vancouver to go to school, I wasn’t entitled to live alone, nor only have one job. I worked three jobs and had roommates, it was the cost of my choices. I could have gone to university in a cheaper place like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or maybe on the east coast where living expenses are significantly less. Still would have gotten an education, but I chose not to. 

I suppose making choices, having a work ethic, making sacrifices and building character are considered a weakness to the senior comrade here. Just hand out everything to people, they’re entitled to it all, as long as sags doesn’t have to pay.

I’d point out there are major cities in Canada where you can buy a nice 3 bedroom in a trendy area for $70k, so spend a hundred bucks and catch a bus out of the most expensive city in Canada.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Optsy,

Canada has a lot of untapped resources, while there may not be traditional, high paying jobs, there are plenty of opportunities to create wealth in non-traditional ways. The only thing holding people in Canada back is a lack of imagination or will. If you want to go from the bottom and climb the financial ladder, no one will hold you back except yourself. We don’t force people to remain poor, if they choose to change their situation, they can.

Of course, if their only solution is to get a job, then they are fairly limited in their chances of success, but those limits are self imposed not an actual barrier. There are literally millions of ways to make money, but most people only think of one...a job. That’s their fault, not society’s.

When I got injured and physically couldn’t work for years, I had to find ways to make money other than the traditional job (even though I technically owned a company, it was not set up to work without me) or my entire family would starve. It was a good motivator to change.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> In a free market pricing environment, the prices of goods and services will gravitate to a level where the lowest income people in that society effectively cannot afford them. In our society the lowest income people are minimum wage earners and of course, as you indicated above, people without jobs. The amount of jobs available will also gravitate to a level where a certain number of people in that society will not get one.
> 
> There is effectively no way to fix that economic reality you and I have pointed out above. A social safety net of some kind is required but the bigger the net, the larger the problem will become. Individually, the fix is to ensure that you are not one of the people out of a job or earning minimum wage and trying to survive.
> 
> As I have said before, on these threads, life is a competition. There is not enough prosperity to go around. You need to ensure you are better, faster and smarter then the people around you. Wealth is simply the difference between the rich and the poor. If you want to have anything, many others must have close to nothing. It is not the way I wish the world was, it is simply the way the world currently is. Any attempts to correct this, in the past so far, have all ended in only reducing the prosperity of everyone.


A fair assessment OptsyEagle. The world as it is, not as we wish it was.

Let's be fair to SOME minimum wage earners. I know a guy for example who is a nice person, but let's say, very socially inept. He had a job in an accounting department of a mid-sized company for many years. He's good with numbers but only finished Grade 12. So he was fortunate to find a job that did pay over minimum wage but not by much. He lives in a 'boarding house' type environment in a 'bed sitting room'. A couple of years back he lost that job he'd had for around 20 years. The company closed down.

So now you have this guy who has always paid his own way, bothered no one, paid his taxes, etc. If he can get an interview at all, he is a bundle of nerves, sweating, twitching and stumbling over his words. For him an interview is a nightmare. If you know him and he is relaxed in your company, you will soon realize he is actually quite intelligent, well read, articulate and insightful about many aspects of the world. In the right job, he would be as honest and reliable an employee as you could want. But he can't get past that interview. The job he had, he got through a 'connection' who is no longer alive to help him.

So he now works for mimimum wage stacking shelves in a supermarket. It was that or welfare and he does have pride and self-respect, so he is working at the only job he could get and is likely to be able to get. My point is that it is easy to say, 'work hard, find a way to improve yourself', etc. but for various reasons, there are people who simply cannot change who they are and how they are. He is one of them. He has always worked and paid his own way and I do not think it is unreasonable to say he 'deserves' a decent place to live in. Try walking a mile in his shoes as the saying goes.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> So he now works for mimimum wage stacking shelves in a supermarket. It was that or welfare and he does have pride and self-respect, so he is working at the only job he could get and is likely to be able to get. My point is that it is easy to say, 'work hard, find a way to improve yourself', etc. but for various reasons, there are people who simply cannot change who they are and how they are. He is one of them. He has always worked and paid his own way and I do not think it is unreasonable to say he 'deserves' a decent place to live in. Try walking a mile in his shoes as the saying goes.


There is always a segment of society between jobs, or have a handicap, to get beyond a full time minimum wage job. That doesn't the minimum wage should be increased simply due to a small segment of society who will always be 'there'. I've mentioned before I have no issue with a $15/hr minimum wage, a significant and I believe warranted increase from what it was before. Should it go to $18? Why? Simply to appease a small segment of society at the likely cost of at least some minimum wage jobs elsewhere? As OE and LTA have articulated, there will ALWAYS be a group at the bottom.

Sags's comment is not economic reality in any society.


> Also as Garth Turner pointed out.......the $58,000 required to qualify for a one bedroom apartment is higher than the median salary for all Canadians.


 That is an absurd expectation. Very much a socialist Garth Turner/union/NDP view that isn't remotely correlated to Econ101. There would be a hollowing out of TO due to loss of jobs to other locales, and especially the USA, if everyone made a minimum of $58k, and/or more likely rents could double to balance supply vs demand. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Rent and home ownership is priced at the margin, just like goods and services are priced at the margin. Sags, Garth and CCPA are chasing their tails.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Garth Turner is a conservative. He was a Conservative MP and the Minister of National Revenue in Stephen Harper's government.

His theory is that home prices in Canada are in a historic bubble that is going to deflate and homes will drop dramatically in price.

As homes fall.........rents will fall, and the cacophony of wailing from home owners demanding the government "save them" will drown out the birds.

Socialism will be welcomed then.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After all this discussion, if some people are correct then we are right back to what I have stated on other threads.

If you want decent pay, good benefits and a future......work for the public service. Don't bother with private industry. They can't afford to pay you.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Housing prices and rents are not related as I explained before. 

Also, let me illustrate something for you. 

Current wage levels and people:

Bottom <———————————————> Top

After an increase in minimum wage:

Bottom <———————————————> Top

Nothing really changes, there will always be people at the bottom and at the top, most likely the same people.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Garth never was a minister in Harper's government and has not carried much credibility for a very long time. He was part of the Waffle group in the NDP in his early days and known as a Red Tory later. He was a dud as Minister of National Revenue in the short lived Kim Campbell govt and was booted out of the Conservative party in 2006 after mere months as a Conservative MP and then joined the Liberal party but was defeated in 2008. His history is simply opportunistic with anything but a right of center ideology, and failing at most things....except the following he developed as a journalist and then financial writer and financial advisor. He is regularly quoted but that does not make his opinions credible. I do not read any of his stuff.

I think you have it wrong with rent prices. If the bubble bursts, it will simply mean more people are underwater on their mortgages and those that lose their homes have to rent. IOW, everyone has to live someplace and that will not necessarily move rent at all. In the expensive regions of Canada, cap ratios are way out of line, i.e. rents don't reflect inflated house values to begin with. Hence why it is near impossible in recent years to be cash flow positive in places in TO and Vancouver.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> ......work for the public service. Don't bother with private industry. They can't afford to pay you.


Neither can the public service.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> If you want decent pay, good benefits and a future......work for the public service. Don't bother with private industry. They can't afford to pay you.


Over 90% of my friends work in the private sector, get paid well with good benefits ... weird huh?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I stand corrected.

Garth Turner was the Minister of National Revenue in PC Kim Campbell's government. He was later an MP in Stephen Harper's PC government and also ran for the PC leadership.

He is also a best selling author and is a co-owner of a successful wealth management fund.

I would say he has the required credentials.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Over 90% of my friends work in the private sector, get paid well with good benefits ... weird huh?


The question is if they would earn the same today if they applied for the same job.

My observation was based on the comments that private industry can't afford to pay more than a $15 dollar minimum wage.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

My son got a summer job with no work experience and one year of post secondary paying a base of 65k/year. I’d say private industry can afford to pay for good people, maybe not deadwood.

Of course the government can’t afford to pay the wages, of you need proof look at the FACT that they can’t balance a budget, something private industry needs to do, and continually runs a deficit. 

If you had that dictionary, you’d realize that deficit equates to unaffordable, as in spending more than they bring in. Only governments can do that long term.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> The question is if they would earn the same today if they applied for the same job.
> 
> My observation was based on the comments that private industry can't afford to pay more than a $15 dollar minimum wage.


Yes, they would earn the same today, some have recently changed jobs and still have it good. So yes, private industry can easily pay more than minimum wage when the job warrants it.

Not sure what your point is here? Is it that you believe, for example, someone working at McD's should be making $50/hr with benefits and a DB retirement pension?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't expect McD's to pay $50 an hour.

I do expect they should pay sufficient wages that their employees don't have to rely on government social benefits,food banks and welfare benefits for their retirement.

Why should the taxpayer subsidize one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world ? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why would we support someone retiring after 40 years of serving French fries? Managers make enough to live off of, servers shouldn’t be looking at that as a career, sorry. 

Capitalism doesn’t mean you get to work at menial jobs forever, it encourages you, through wage increases, to climb the corporate ladder.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fear not.........the days of jaded capitalism are coming to an abrupt end.

The future is revealed in the Twitter feeds of those who will replace the old guard.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.......leader of the Squad, is a social media master with a natural born wisdom beyond her years. After one year in office she has 4.89 million followers on Twitter alone. She will be President of the US in the not too distant future and lead the world into a new era of social responsibility.

For a glimpse of the future..........https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author.

✅ Medicare for All
✅ A Living Wage & Labor Rights
✅ K-16 schooling, aka Public Colleges
✅ 100% Renewable Energy
✅ Fixing the pipes in Flint
✅ Not Hurting Immigrants
✅ Holding Wall Street Accountable


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You live in the most apathetic country in the world, I wouldn’t expect any major changes. Besides the government can’t afford the programs they already “supply”, so they won’t be able to afford implementing new ones any better. 

Look up the word “deficit”. And quit being a fiscal denier. 

Of course, in your case you also live in your own version of reality...are the voices you hear in stereo? I know a lot of mentally ill, never thought to ask them until now.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> I don't expect McD's to pay $50 an hour.
> 
> I do expect they should pay sufficient wages that their employees don't have to rely on government social benefits,food banks and welfare benefits for their retirement.


All your worries are for not because in fact they do! Check out the salaries for McD's employee's, nearly $75k for an operations manager!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I stole this from mindsetfinance.com

Why raises don’t work explained – it’s as easy as Pie

Let’s go back to the simpler days of farm life…

Mother’s in the house baking a nice pie, while the whole family, including the extended family (Two Grandpas and 2 uncles), is out doing the harvest…

Supper time comes around, and the family comes in to enjoy a good meal and a slice of pie…

After dinner, the extended family goes home, but dad is a little miffed…he doesn’t feel, as the main breadwinner, that he got a big enough piece of his favourite pie…

The next day, mother decided to make two pies, but she only had the same amount of ingredients to work with, so she rolled out the crust until you could almost see through it, and put half the filling into each. As you can imagine, Father wasn’t happy with the results, and he thought the flimsy pies were insulting to his guests, not to mention they ate twice as many pieces anyway…

The next day, realizing that there is only enough ingredients to make one pie, father decides, he really doesn’t need the help of their parents with the harvest, and that would leave more pie for the rest…

Well, work too a whole lot longer, and by the time they got in, they were starving…even after getting a bigger portion, Father was still hungry, and was quite upset that Mother couldn’t produce more food in a single day. They had quite the fight, and Father and Mother went to bed angry.

The next day, Father realized that Mother was right, and there just wasn’t enough time to make more food in a day, so instead of inviting his two brothers over to help, he decided to do all the work himself and finally get enough to eat…

Unfortunately, the workload hadn’t changed, and it was very late by the time father got back in. By then, he was way too tired to eat and wound up falling asleep at the table…

Lesson: When there is only a limited supply (money) to begin with, and you want a bigger piece of it, the pie can’t miraculously grow bigger just because you want it to.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Great........but if all their employees are operational managers, who will actually prepare the food and provide the service that actually earns the money ?

It is typical though. Management claims all the rewards, shares nothing with non-management workers and don't see a problem with that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Lesson: When there is only a limited supply (money) to begin with, and you want a bigger piece of it, the pie can’t miraculously grow bigger just because you want it to._

Poor example. The economic pie does grow bigger every year with productivity increases and growth in the GDP.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Great........but if all their employees are operational managers, who will actually prepare the food and provide the service that actually earns the money ?
> 
> It is typical though. Management claims all the rewards, shares nothing with non-management workers and don't see a problem with that.


Ah ha, so you do expect all McD workers to make big money, even those that just started ... shame on you for saying otherwise earlier!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

At what inflation rates? Jumping minimum wage by more than that and the story is correct. Also, not every business grows every year. The pie can also get smaller in recessions and depressions, but you’re unwilling to drop wages. Then again, you’ve never run a business, so once again you don’t know what you’re talking about...then again we’re still looking for something you do know about. 

As for the food prep, most can be automated, but you don’t like that either. Of course only you would strive to retire as a burger flipper. I’d hate to be your kids...their dream job, as inspired by sags, is ending their career with the famous line “will there be fries with that?”


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Great........but if all their employees are operational managers, who will actually prepare the food and provide the service that actually earns the money ?
> 
> It is typical though. Management claims all the rewards, shares nothing with non-management workers and don't see a problem with that.


There is no problem paying temporary and part time workers minimum wage. I suspect virtually everyone you see working in McDs or Timmys (or pick your joint) is part time and is part of a family with other financial support, e.g. a student supported by parents, or a working spouse. They are already expensive being replaced by DIY panels. Best I can tell, no one makes a career of working for McDs, unless they are the few that move up into supervisory or managerial ranks. They take on the responsibility for profitability of the store or they won't last long either. After all, McD equity shareholders expect at least a long term 10% ROE on their investment. 

OTOH, if you feel that strongly about it, boost the menu prices by 10-20% or so and pay $18/hr for labour. Indeed, you could voluntarily pay more for your fast food on the condition that the extra cost you pay goes to the workers serving you.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I have a family of foreign temporary workers in one of my rentals. Very good tenants, always pay the rent on time, keep the place clean, and all of them work for minimum wage. 

Sags, why not stand outside mcD’s a at shift change each day and hand out $20 bills to all the employees as they leave. You’re willing to hand out my money, but I suspect nothing gets into your wallet.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I don't expect McD's to pay $50 an hour.
> 
> I do expect they should pay sufficient wages that their employees don't have to rely on government social benefits,food banks and welfare benefits for their retirement.
> 
> Why should the taxpayer subsidize one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world ? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work ?


It's all well and good to say "they should pay more", but if the money isn't there, it isn't there.

There is a reason why when the campaign workers complained that they weren't getting paid minimum wage, Bernie Sanders simply cut their hours.
They get the same $$.
This is just like the minimum wage hikes at Amazon or Tim Hortons, they cut other benefits to make it up.

The vast majority of people saying "just pay them more", aren't actually willing to put their own money out to pay them more.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The vast majority of people saying "just pay them more", aren't actually willing to put their own money out to pay them more.


^+1 A case of armchair quarterbacking, pomp and ceremony with no accountability. 

I suggest defenders of increased minimum wages could pay 20% more for fast food (maybe by tip if no other method is workable) to help those poorly paid workers boost their take home pay (no skimming off the top into quarterly profits that way). Not sure what to do in Walmart - hand out $5 bills to workers in the aisles perhaps?

Added: I tip for a range of hospitality services knowing with some certainty the individual warrants it, most likely being paid at minimum wage.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_There is a reason why when the campaign workers complained that they weren't getting paid minimum wage, Bernie Sanders simply cut their hours.
They get the same $$._

Not even close to accurate.

Sanders was paying his workers $15 per hour but because some were working more than 40 hours the hourly rate was less. They were told not to work more than 40 hours.

The federal US minimum wage is $7.25 per hour so Sanders was paying wages of twice the minimum wage.

They were also being paid $15 US dollars which is $19.04 hourly in Canadian dollars.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Every poll I have seen showed that customers are willing to pay more if the money goes to the workers.

Problem is the companies raise the prices continually and give the workers nothing. Executives give themselves bonuses and the shareholders get higher dividends.

The people who actually earn the money get nothing.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I really don’t understand the problem, you contribute to the united way, that should solve all the problems so stop complaining.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Minimum wage was increased in several provinces Alberta, and Ontario last year, yet there are still poor people in both provinces, people still demanding more money even though they got a significant raise in Alberta and its got a lower cost of living. 

People will always complain they don’t have enough, no matter how much they get paid because someone else will always be making more. There is no end to this argument.

Sags will always have his handout because they have no clue as to how to actually earn money, or pride, without someone else to take it from.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Fear not.........the days of jaded capitalism are coming to an abrupt end.
> 
> The future is revealed in the Twitter feeds of those who will replace the old guard.
> 
> ...


Her $93 trillion green deal would destroy the country. She also blatantly lied (several times) about illegal aliens being forced to drink toilet water. She also took a photo of herself fake crying next to an empty parking lot and tried to pass it off as a pen for illegals.

AOC is a laughing stock. The fact that you admire her is not surprise to anyone here.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Those boosting minimum wage levels appear to believe that every employer has pockets stuffed with cash. Many are small businesses just barely scrapping by as it is. There is always a consequence to manipulating the economy and often the consequence is the reverse of what is intended. Some potential consequences:

- Small businesses not being able to hire and instead having to put in long shifts.
- Small businesses going under.
- An increase in automation by the larger businesses. 
- An increase in the price at places like MacDonald's which is often one of the only places where the poorer people and their families can eat out. Some might say they can afford to eat out with their living wage but not if they don't have a job due to automation and small businesses being unable to hire.
- Workers being caught in the "employment trap" of being afraid to leave a menial job because it pays too well. (And this does happen.) 
- People simply doing things themselves rather than hiring (eg. painting, yard maintenance, cleaning, etc.) 

I think any reasonable person would at least recognize that there is a balance to be maintained and there is a point where an increase in minimum wage will cause more damage than good.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree to a degree, but the minimum wage increase to $15 an hour didn't have much of a negative effect in Ontario.

Business is booming and employers in service industries are seeking more employees.

The question could be where the tipping point would be.......$16 an hour, $18 an hour, $20 an hour.

Minimum wage employees with more money in their pay is also good for the economy. Low income folks spend their extra money rather than accumulate it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not think the news that mininum wage earners cannot afford rent is anything new. It may be in some cities, but long term I do not think so.

One thing to remember is that as minimum wages are increased, staff pay levels above minimum wage are often impacted. Not saying that we should not increase minimum wage.

I believe that there will always be minimum wage jobs and that minimum wage will never be enough. When inflation increases, rents increase. And so it goes. I believe that the real challenge facing us is how to move those minimum wage earners along the skill spectrum to the point where they can migrate to better jobs with higher wages. Or at least those minimum wage earners who have the ambition to move forward. There are some who simply do not. We have acknowledge that they will always be in this situation.

Just think of how many new immigrants to this country started in minimum wage jobs. They progressed, acquired skills, and move forward with their lives.

The Government cannot do it all. There comes a point where people need to take responsibility for their lives and move themselves forward. Too often we hear the same about retirement. I can understand the angst of someone whose DB pension has been reduced by a significant amount because of a funding shortfall. I have a harder time with those who never saved a dime during their working lives and suddenly complain that the Gov't is not doing enough for them or those who get a sudden attack of pension envy. Or those who have blown away their retirement funds by investing is hair brained schemes that promised incredible rates of return along with capital preservation guarantees. The solution is often in the mirror.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

ian said:


> One thing to remember is that as minimum wages are increased, staff pay levels above minimum wage are often impacted.


That's always overlooked. Increase minimum then those who make $2 more than minimum need to get a raise. Those who make $2 more than the ones making $2 more than minimum also need a raise. Prices go up accordingly to cover the costs and many minimum wage employees will lose their jobs forever. In the end increasing minimum wage does nothing really except to create some virtual signaling for people that have no real solutions in the first place.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

^It's never that black and white. Yes, those making close to minimum wage will usually get a bump in pay, but not an amount equivalent to the increase in the minimum. The further above minimum wage someone makes, the less of a bump they are likely to receive -- if any. I don't think that most people making over $20/hr are paying very much attention to the minimum wage, let alone asking their bosses for a raise.

As far as rents go, I think the main problem is that rents in larger cities have accelerated so quickly compared to wages. People at the lower end of the market have been squeezed -- in some cases right out of the market, as evidenced by the growing homelessness issues in Metro Vancouver. It's going to take wages a long time to catch up, and that assumes that rents begin to level off.

Unfortunately, I think things will probably get worse before they get better. Long term tenants have been somewhat insulated from the rent hikes because they signed up at much lower rents. One lady at my work is in this exact situation. She wants to move, but she can't qualify at current (higher) rents. When people like her have to move (for whatever reason), they will need to sign new rental agreements at much higher rates. Long story short, this issue isn't going anywhere for a while (as much as some would like to believe there is no issue).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _There is a reason why when the campaign workers complained that they weren't getting paid minimum wage, Bernie Sanders simply cut their hours.
> They get the same $$._
> 
> Not even close to accurate.
> ...


Minimum wage is $14/hr in DC.
You're missing the point, they were not getting paid minimum wage, and instead of giving them a pay hike, they had their hours cut.

They still aren't making a living wage, according to their claims, and Bernie Sanders election platform. Which is the point.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> _Sanders was paying his workers $15 per hour but because some were working more than 40 hours the hourly rate was less. They were told not to work more than 40 hours.
> 
> The federal US minimum wage is $7.25 per hour so Sanders was paying wages of twice the minimum wage._


_

Sanders was demanding a $15 minimum wage for everyone but he wasn't paying his employees $15 an hour. He's a hypocrite.




They were also being paid $15 US dollars which is $19.04 hourly in Canadian dollars.

Click to expand...

So? They work in the US not Canada...they get paid in US wages. Sanders wants a $15 minimum US wage for US workers in the US, not a Canadian wage converted to US dollars.

Maybe you should sue your parents and teachers...someone dropped the ball and stopped caring long ago._


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sanders is paying the workers $15 an hour. Some were working more hours and he told them not to do that.

The minimum wage in the US varies from state to state, and even within some cities. Sanders is talking about increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25.

A $15 wage in the US has more purchasing power than the equivalent $19.04 in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If allowed to, we could retain our unit and rent it out for $600 a month more than we pay. 

That would give us some of that "passive income" JAG is always talking about.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Sanders put employees on "salary"...a common tactic used to undercut wages when the employer knows employees will have to work more than 40 hours a week. Salary has been made illegal in many places for that very reason.

Just pretend Trump or Harper had done the same thing and then tell us how fair it is.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Conservatives make me laugh.

They rant on and on about "socialists" spending money, and there is Donald Trump and the Republicans leading the charge to an extra $360 billion in deficit spending.

Trump and the "fiscally conservative" Republicans have added $2 Trillion to the national debt, while giving tax cuts to the rich.

They could have put the $2 Trillion into the Social Security and Medicare funds, but oh no..........rich people need tax breaks more.

Trump predicted long ago that spending was out of control and some day the debt "could" reach $22 Trillion. It just passed $22 Trillion under Trump's Presidency.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Interesting, I was reading the quarterly and annual reports from companies I own and are interested in...

For the Canadian ones, who operate out of the provinces where they saw an increase in minimum wages, guess what topic keeps coming up as an issue, if not a cause for losses...

Give you a hint, it’s something Sags, who obviously doesn’t read such reports, claims to have no impact. 

Life is so much better when you just make up reality and ignore the truth.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

In our small town, I know of 2 small businesses that had to let an employee go when the minimum wage went up. One was where I get my haircut. They had a girl who did the hair washing. Now the person cutting my hair also does the washing herself. The garage where I have my car serviced had a youngish woman who drove customers back home when you dropped your car off and later returned your car to your driveway. Now the garage owner does that himself.

Those small businesses don't earn huge amounts of money obviously and they had a choice to make, take a pay cut themselves to pay the employee more or increase their prices to compensate. While I would have been willing to pay a bit more personally, the reality is that most people would not. Instead what they would have done is go down the road to the competitor who did not increase their prices and instead, let an employee go.

Its' fine to say, a minimum wage increase is a good thing, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it does have unintended consequences as well as the intended consequences. So maybe the Walmart part-timer is earning more per hour but there are 2 people in our little town that are now out of work as a direct result. Nothing is every that simple, there are always 'unintended consequences'.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Just read how chilli’s a big chain from the states pulled most of their restaurants in Canada because wages increased. 

I had some reports from people who used to attend the restaurant, said there were always wait times to get in, I assume that meant people liked it, but management was struggling with balancing servers (guess that means the restaurant business, which works on small margins, couldn’t remain profitable even with high demand). 

Instead of assuming they were right however, or pretending everything was just fine and they were sooooo greedy they could just shut down the restaurants instead of paying employees...much more profitable to close than pay $15/hour I’m sure. I actually read the annual report and got something official. 

No impact at all...


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Why would we support someone retiring after 40 years of serving French fries? Managers make enough to live off of, servers shouldn’t be looking at that as a career, sorry.
> 
> Capitalism doesn’t mean you get to work at menial jobs forever, it encourages you, through wage increases, to climb the corporate ladder.


You seem to be implying, with your over active imagination, that everyone will/can climb the corporate ladder. Accrording to your utopian perspective, everyone will be a fatcat. If that happened who would you rent your mundane apartments to?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Fear not.........the days of jaded capitalism are coming to an abrupt end.
> 
> The future is revealed in the Twitter feeds of those who will replace the old guard.
> 
> ...


She's a kook making about 170,000 per year US off the dreams of the poor and the nightmares of the alarmist warmists.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Pluto said:


> You seem to be implying, with your over active imagination, that everyone will/can climb the corporate ladder. Accrording to your utopian perspective, everyone will be a fatcat. If that happened who would you rent your mundane apartments to?


Actually I rent to the middle class for the most part. I do have the group of immigrants, but they are always looking to improve their lot, one recently became a truck driver and another one joined a cleaning company...both earning more than minimum wage now. 

I’ll leave the “housing” the homeless, with all their government benefits to my buddy...he’s not a slum landlord either, but he rents to subsidized housing almost exclusively. Maybe they pay him in leftover French fries which the steal and government cash.

Personally I can’t stand the attitude that a job is the only way to make money. If people could get out of that rut, they could be a lot better off.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that we should simply increase the minimum wage to $20, have strict rent controls in place for years, double or triple the CPP payout rates and/or GIS. Perhaps price controls while we are at it. Triple the baby bonus.

We could pay for it by substantially increasing the tax rate on those awful less deserving high earners and greedy corporations.

That would work....wouldn't it?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m for struck rent controls, if we have strict restrictions on mortgage rates, municipal taxes, provincial taxes, federal taxes, contractor rates, property management rates, lawyer rates, insurance rates, etc. Oh, let’s not forget making tenants pay their rent, not damage the places, doing midnight moves, causing us to hire a sheriff when they refuse to leave, not paying their arrears...

Why cap my ability to earn when everyone else is free to increase their rates? Real estate, especially in the early years isn’t free money flowing in like water. The margins are small, but they grow.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I hate to sound unsympathetic here but i just hope they don't offload building/paying for affordable housing onto property tax payers. Already there was talk about in burnaby about not building new rec centres to support affordable housing. I know, i sound like a grinch but what next are we going to see a line on our property taxes to support affordable housing? When i couldn't afford to buy in my old neighborhood, i moved. Also if you are single, get a roommate. I had one for years.

Also just a comment i live fairly well on a 60,000 salary living solo although i don't take a lot of vacations. I live in a suburb of vancouver. So a couple making around 70,000 total or a bit more should do just fine.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What people forget is all the subsidies that are available if you fall below the poverty line. You basically get thousands of dollars thrown at you every month...if you misspend it, no one checks, you get another pile of cheques the next month. If you do it right, you could easily live a middle class life with an official income below the poverty line. 

The real problem comes when you get over the poverty line, the cheques get cut off pretty quick. In Canada it’s best to be well off or poor, don’t be almost poor. That’s a real struggle.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> I believe that we should simply increase the minimum wage to $20, have strict rent controls in place for years, double or triple the CPP payout rates and/or GIS. Perhaps price controls while we are at it. Triple the baby bonus.
> 
> We could pay for it by substantially increasing the tax rate on those awful less deserving high earners and greedy corporations.
> 
> That would work....wouldn't it?


Depends on what your goal is.
If your goal is to say that you're trying to help I think people would believe you.

However if you wanted to kill jobs, cut incomes for low wage earners, destroy the rental housing supply and bankrupt CPP you'd succeed at that too."

Price controls would just be the icing on the cake to go full Venezuela, so we'd end up with shortages.

Price controls either result in shortages, or artificially high prices.

You're basically proposing acts to make the situation worse for everyone, with no upside.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Set up tent cities in parks in wealthy neighborhoods and see how fast the problem gets solved.

They don't care as long as it is somebody else's problem to deal with.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Set up tent cities in parks in wealthy neighborhoods and see how fast the problem gets solved.
> 
> They don't care as long as it is somebody else's problem to deal with.


So your solution to a problem is an illegal protest?
Great idea, that never turns out bad!


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Set up tent cities in parks in wealthy neighborhoods and see how fast the problem gets solved.
> .


So in your wealthy area do you have a park right outside your house?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A tent city would result in a lot of phone calls to the city and "affordable" housing would become a priority.

As long as it is confined to down by the river or under a highway overpass.......affordable housing isn't a problem.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I recall reading that London Ont has at least 60 homeless camps (I expect this counts a single person's site as a 'camp'). They are not in wealthy neighbourhoods though. They set up in/near downtown areas where support services are nearby. If they locate in an inappropriate location they get moved pretty quickly.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-homeless-camps-1.5153792


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Set up tent cities in parks in wealthy neighborhoods and see how fast the problem gets solved.
> 
> They don't care as long as it is somebody else's problem to deal with.


Far left California spends more money than anyone else on the homeless and all it accomplishes is attracting more and more homeless people to locate there. 25% of all homeless people in the US now live in California.

I guess the moral of the story is that throwing money at it with no plan doesn't work...it only makes the problem worse.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The weather may have something to do with it. Who wants to live on the street in Minnesota during the winter.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There’s a reason Vancouver and Victoria have more homeless, same as California... the climate is better. No one wants to be homeless in places like Edmonton where it hits -40.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Sure the weather is part of it...but why did California's homeless population explode just over the last few years to such a high number? The same homeless increase didn't happen in Florida or Texas.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Florida is a swamp. The alligators take care of the homeless. In Texas, everyone carries a gun...’nuff said. Okay I’m kidding on both, except the swamp part.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Sure the weather is part of it...but why did California's homeless population explode just over the last few years to such a high number? The same homeless increase didn't happen in Florida or Texas.


I think the homeless avoid sweaty mosquito ridden communities. The west coast seems preferable given the choice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A tent city would result in a lot of phone calls to the city and "affordable" housing would become a priority.
> 
> As long as it is confined to down by the river or under a highway overpass.......affordable housing isn't a problem.


No it isn't. 
If affordable housing was a concern the problem would be solved. The left gets all their votes by promising to do things and giving handouts. Solving problems and making people self sufficient isn't in their political interest.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is a cost to homelessness. Visit the local emergency room in the hospital.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There is a cost to homelessness. Visit the local emergency room in the hospital.


Yes, so we should work on solving the problem.

Step 1 Stop creating barriers to those who wish to provide low cost housing. Make it as easy as possible to create low cost housing.

Step 2a., Help the temporarily homeless.

Step 2b, Understand why the chronicly homeless are so. Many of them have other contributing issues.
- This is the hard one to crack.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> Step 2b, Understand why the chronicly homeless are so. Many of them have other contributing issues.
> - This is the hard one to crack.


Yes, it is. Unfortunately, I think it's the majority of homeless around here. Those who are simply poor end up poorly housed (apartments with mold, etc). They are the ones affordable housing could help.

Others need more than simply affordable housing. Even with free housing they need various kinds of help to hold it together.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

sags said:


> There is a cost to homelessness. Visit the local emergency room in the hospital.


I watch New Amsterdam and one episode the director pointed out a homeless guy cost them a million a year because he was always at the hospital.He wrote a cheque and signed a lease on apartment and told the board to say thank you because he just saved them almost a million a year off that patient.Sometimes we may be better off paying rent for these people and providing shelter as we are spending alot more on medical costs.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I was in emergency room last year and the young woman beside me (mid 20s) was battered and bruised from an assault on the street.

The hospital patched her up and told her she was released. She broke down in tears and said she had nowhere to go and no way to get there.

The hospital staff was empathetic but there wasn't much they could do as the hospital was overcrowded and the waiting room was still full.

Many of the people in the waiting room were obviously in some financial distress as well as the medical problems. It is commonly reported that the standard practice for the hospital is to hire a cab and drop the people off on some corner to fend for themselves.

We have a really sad situation that is mostly hidden from view, but it is there and it is expensive.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have seen some cities build micro homes as a subdivision for the homeless. They look quite neat and tidy and I imagine must be managed to keep them that way.

I don't think it takes long for people to take pride in their neighborhood and gardens and flowers would soon spring up.

Our city has a lot of abandoned land owned by the Provincial and Federal governments. It is centrally located and is a huge swath of land.

The old Ontario Hospital and an old military base used to occupy the land. Now it is overgrown weeds on the hospital grounds and fenced in on the military grounds.

If the city could get that land donated, they could build some micro homes and start solving the problem.

From what I see in local media reports, all that is done is to herd the people from one area to another according to who complains the loudest.

I wouldn't support any "partnership" with private landlords. That tends to end up in more problems as they don't maintain the buildings and just want to make profits off the city.

The government is big enough it doesn't need a partner. Politicians just lack the will to get it done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpF-aFme-nA


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Most people are homeless for a reason. You just can't give them a home and think that the problem is solved, the vast majority of homes will be trashed or destroyed within a year. All it takes is one look at a rough neighborhood to see how badly some people treat homes.

A workable solution...everyone who really wants to help can take in a homeless person as a boarder. It's a win/win...they can do something good that they've been wanting to happen for years, and the taxpayer isn't on the hook.

Anyone can demand someone else fix a problem because there is no penalty for being wrong and they don't have to get their hands dirty. Pure virtual signaling. Therefore Sags should step up to help a homeless person and prove it workable before demanding that the taxpayer do it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I have seen some cities build micro homes as a subdivision for the homeless. They look quite neat and tidy and I imagine must be managed to keep them that way.
> 
> I don't think it takes long for people to take pride in their neighborhood and gardens and flowers would soon spring up.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should come to my city and see how trashed public and subsidized housing is. It isn't all of it, but in many areas they simply don't care, and you can see it.
You simply can't hand out houses and expect people to take pride and care of them without a stake of their own.

That's the big trick in Habitat for humanity, they have to work to build part of the home, it's theirs.
Affordable housing, they tend to care less.

Yes I'm being harsh, and I know many fine people, but we're talking about the problems.

A big problem with these areas is there is no mechanism to enforce the law.
They end up with drugs and crime, while people want a "sanctuary city" where they're safe from law enforcement. 

Our neighbourhood is screaming for policing, but they're busy at the various city housing complexes.


One further problem that I see if you think the government is big enough, that's the problem, it is WAY too big. 
The government shouldn't' be an adult daycare for the population.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve got a buddy who specializes in rehousing the homeless. His places are what I’d call middle class. Nice places, I’d probably live in if I were a young student. Certainly not slums, full of mould or bugs like some people like to portray. 

His clients are all former homeless on a government funded and guaranteed program. When the tenants trash his places, the government pays the whole bill to rebuild (that’s why he has nicer places). Many of his places get rebuilt yearly, if not sooner. The homeless usually have a lot of guest management issues that cause problems, there is a lot of drug abuse, even with his people who have gone through detox programs, and there are a lot of mental issues. 

It’s not a group I’d want to deal with. Some of his stories...one time one of his tenants had a bad trip, caused a psychotic break and he trashed the building. He got a $6000 cheque from the government over and above the damage deposit. Another family had an all out brawl caught on video. There were machetes involved, fortunately just brandished, not used. 

This program is supposed to be for people who want to change their situation, it involves a lot of other aspects like detox, money management courses, job placement help if wanted, and a lot of money...

Less than half make it a year as tenants, let alone longer. The people usually revert rather than change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Higher taxes will be necessary if you are happy to leave it with the police and hospitals to deal with the problems.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I’ve got a buddy who specializes in rehousing the homeless. His places are what I’d call middle class. Nice places, I’d probably live in if I were a young student. Certainly not slums, full of mould or bugs like some people like to portray.
> 
> His clients are all former homeless on a government funded and guaranteed program. When the tenants trash his places, the government pays the whole bill to rebuild (that’s why he has nicer places). Many of his places get rebuilt yearly, if not sooner. The homeless usually have a lot of guest management issues that cause problems, there is a lot of drug abuse, even with his people who have gone through detox programs, and there are a lot of mental issues.
> 
> ...


Here in Ontario you can't even have a damage deposit.
Like you said, the guests also cause a lot of issues.

But if some people can flip things around in less than a year, that's great, and they're the ones you just needed a bit of hand up.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

It's a lot like the justice system. Some want prisons to "rehabilitate" the offenders. As we know, very little of that takes place. The majority of improvements comes from the inmates learning from everyone's mistakes on how to be a better criminal. Others want them to provide justice. An eye for an eye type of thing. Myself. I just want those people out of the world I live in. Sure a few are wrongfully imprisoned and a few might even be rehabilitated, but the large majority are where they belong and if you let them out, society will regret it.

Homelessness is a lot of the same. I am not saying that it is not a noble cause to try to fix. I am just saying good luck with that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think it’s a multi-year program. The first bit, you apply, go through courses like aa and detox, some life skill stuff. If you pass that, they help you find a place, pay most of your bills (thousands of dollars each month) and guarantee your housing for at least a year. They have caseworkers visit at least twice a month and are on call for the people. Still many can’t make it through. 

I’ve heard one of the biggest problems, aside from the drugs, is guest management. Their “friends” cause a lot of problems. Fights, damage, squatting, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Greedy drug companies and compliant doctors have caused a lot of the problem. They are the ones who should be in prison.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I think it’s a multi-year program. The first bit, you apply, go through courses like aa and detox, some life skill stuff. If you pass that, they help you find a place, pay most of your bills (thousands of dollars each month) and guarantee your housing for at least a year. They have caseworkers visit at least twice a month and are on call for the people. Still many can’t make it through.
> 
> I’ve heard one of the biggest problems, aside from the drugs, is guest management. Their “friends” cause a lot of problems. Fights, damage, squatting, etc.


Good luck with that.
Mike Harris tried to push through a support program and it got slammed by the lefties.

They don't want help, unless it's a big pile of cash, with lots of union bureaucrats to manage it.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

This was an interesting listen. What the leadership of a committed and reformed, 'been there done that' guy in East Vancouver has accomplished.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/meet...counter-for-ideas-host-paul-kennedy-1.5188962


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The feds just sent something like 50M to support the program for the next 5 years or something. I’d have to look it up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good to know that Trudeau is busy providing real solutions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Good to know that Trudeau is busy providing real solutions.


To what? With 4 years of majority government, his list of good accomplishments is pretty sparse.


----------

