Originally Posted by
Krastyn
Prior to any change, they offered $3/hour more than mimimum, or 60% above minimum wage at cap.
Now, they're offering $2/hour more than minimum or 13% above minimum wage at cap.
So as I said before, relative to minimum wage a capped employing is worse off both in relative or absolute terms. In other words, their income did not scale with the rise in minimum wage. Which was the entire point.
Your issue, here, is with your employer's capping policy. Not minimum wage hikes. It's not observable economy-wide. I've already demonstrated that.
And you're again, completely not understanding what people are telling you. Because you're assuming that persons wage went up. If you actually read and understood what I said, your example would have been:
Before the adjustment I could buy 20 widgets / week, and my colleagues could by 15. After the change I can now buy 19 widgets per week, because the cost of widgets went up due to the increased cost of production, while my wage
did not change. My colleagues can now buy 17 with their increase in wage.
That wouldn't have been my example, because that example is predicated on lies and literal impossibilities.
The cost of widget production cannot possibly increase at the same rate as wages, even assuming that literally every employee working to make widgets makes minimum wage (doubtful). It's literally, mathematically, impossible.
Your argument is like claiming that you prefer 1/4 pounders hamburgers to 1/3 pound hamburgers, because 3 is less than 4, so you get more meat with the 1/4 pounder. It's that level of not understanding basic mathematics.
(and, amusingly, that's not even a hypothetical example I picked; that shit actually happened, with Burger King.)
Man, talk about picking a biased, garbage source to try and prove me wrong.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is a "biased, garbage source"?
Giving me a graph about how in the US that the percentage of people making the
federal minimum wage has gone down is useless. By 2013 (where your graph ends), at least 20 states had minimum wages that were above the federal level.
Of course the number is going to go down if states move the number higher. It doesn't change the fact though, that those people are still making the minimum.
You claimed more and more people would end up making the minimum wage.
The graph proves that this is not the case. That your claim was verifiably false. A claim, I'll note, you've provided jack shit to actually back up.
Your graph also doesn't show whether the decrease because people started making more money, or those jobs were simply offshored.
The graph doesn't look at data trends unrelated to its data points? That's not an argument.
I'll counter with some data a little closer to home for you,
here.
And quote one of the highlights:
I believe that data says my hypothesis is
demonstrably true.
Check Chart 1 of your own source. It clearly shows that 2018 was a year that, alone, showed a massive spike. From 6.5%, to 10.4%, in that one year (really, the first quarter of 2018, but the LFS collects data monthly, so they're not limited to just yearly data reports). The data line the couple years beforehand was already dipping downwards. As you can see in my own longer-range graph for the USA, there's a short-term upwards spike with a minimum-wage increase as the market adapts, but that spike quickly drops back down to the previous range, as wages adjust to the new normal.
And, just to confirm that analysis, again by citing your own source, which you didn't finish reading;
The Labour Force Survey results from the first half of 2019 show that, between the first half of 2018 and the first half of 2019, the number of minimum wage employees in Canada decreased by 116,600. Concurrently, the percentage of employees earning minimum wage declined from 10.2% to 9.2%.
Dude, I literally worked for StatsCan for more than a year, as part of the LFS phone crew, in college. I'm well aware of the data. It doesn't support your claims. The idea that the minimum wage increasing tends to increase minimum-wage workers as a percentage of the economy long-term, that idea is just observably untrue.