Clear Full Forecast

Boosting B.C.'s Minimum Wage Could Cost Jobs-Fraser Institute

By 250 News

Friday, January 09, 2009 03:56 AM

Prince George, B.C.- A new  study by the Fraser Institute  concludes  up to 52 thousand jobs in B.C. could be lost if the minimum wage is increased to $10  an hour.

The study, The Economic Effects of Increasing BC’s Minimum Wage, examines the research on the effects of increases to minimum wages in Canada and around the world and calculates that an increase in BC’s minimum wage to $10 per hour from $8 per hour will result in job losses ranging from 10,898 jobs to 52,200 jobs.

“This is a conservative estimate that only looks at the impact on teen and youth workers,” said Niels Veldhuis, Fraser Institute director of fiscal studies and co-author of the report.
“Increasing BC’s minimum wage to $10 per hour will have a profoundly negative effect on employment opportunities for young and low-skill workers, and will have almost no effect on those most in need of income and a job.”

The study examines existing academic research from Canada and around the world on the effects of increases to minimum wages and finds the overwhelming consensus is that increasing the minimum wage has a significant negative impact on employment, particularly for younger workers.

Acording to the report,  a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage is likely to decrease employment by three to six per cent among all young workers aged 15 to 24. For those young workers most directly affected – earning between the current $8 per hour wage and the new $10 per hour wage – the impact is more acute, leading to employment losses of 4.5 to 20 per cent.

The report also points out that higher minimum wages have other negative effects, including fewer benefits and less training for workers. Higher minimum wages can also induce high school students to drop out of school and search for employment.

“Fewer employment opportunities and less education and training are particularly harmful, given that experience and skill development are important drivers of higher wages,” said Keith Godin, co-author and a Fraser Institute senior policy analyst.

Who earns minimum wage?

Veldhuis and Godin note that the most commonly cited purpose of minimum wages is to increase the incomes of society’s low-income workers. But at the same time, there is a general misunderstanding of who actually earns the minimum wage.

Based on data from Statistics Canada, the authors found that 62,600 BC workers earned the minimum wage in 2007, representing 3.4 per cent of total employment in the province. The majority of these people were young workers between the ages of 15 and 24 (56 per cent), with 87 per cent of them living at home with family. More than half of these young workers were also attending school, while many of the remaining individuals earning minimum wages are adults supplementing their family income with part-time work during child-rearing years or after retirement.

“While implemented with the best of intentions, the economic reality is that minimum wages likely do much more harm than good. Minimum wages are simply incapable of achieving the intended results and can actually worsen the situation of the people minimum wage laws are intended to help,” Veldhuis said.

The complete report is available at www.fraserinstitute.org


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Most off the minimum wage jobs are in the service industry, that is forever looking for new workers. So either the businesses will go under or they will smarten up, pay people what they are worth. The customers will get better service as the workforce will be better dedicated and things will continue on.

The government set the tone. 22-43% wage increases to high level politicians. In theory to attract the best or retain them. Well they have all ran the province into the ground. So lets fire them and save those dollars as apparently they are not doing their jobs well.
once again, why would anyone pay any attention to what this neo-con propaganda spewing agency has to say?
What this study is missing is what would happen to employment if the minimu wage were to drop to $6; $4; $2: no minum wage law, let the market dictate.

Once we figure out what happens to employment can we figure out where the minimum wage would actually end up.

Please keep in mind that there a thousands of people in communities such as Prince George who work for absolutely nothing. Those people are called volunteers. Those are the "real" minimum wage earners and theirs is the real "minimum" wage.

They do not show up on the employment figures. Many of them work at low level manual labour doing jobs that few others would do for pay, others work at levels which would normally qualify for professional fees of $50, $100 and $150 per hour and higher.

Can't people working at this so called "Institute" find some more productive work to do? Can't they realize that they have graduated and that it is time for a real job?
An increase in the miniumum wage could realistically be managed in a few different ways:

1) People would be laid off to ensure that overall wage costs remained constant
2) Prices would be increased so that the additional wage costs would be offset or
3) Perhaps the business owners would have to be content with a lower net income or greater net loss than what they experience with their current wage cost levels. This would obviously impact their return on investment expectations.

Of course, this also assumes that the business is already being run efficiently and that there is no room to make up the difference by cutting other costs or increasing revenues in other ways. This may or may not be the case.
Would it be possible to use tax dollars to subsidize the employer for the increase in the minimum wage. Is this what the Fraser Institute has in mind? Just wondering.

Cheers
hey lunarguy You are right. How can gordos crew not rasie minumum wage after taking a 25 % pay rasie. Oh right that would mean helping the working class not screwing them.
"Most off the minimum wage jobs are in the service industry, that is forever looking for new workers."

I think that perception has considerable merit, although the report may not deal with that.

So, what have some of those industries done? You see the pay rates posted at such locations as Macdonalds; they have raised the wages offered above the legislated minimum. How many have done this? Starbucks takes even a different approach and offers insurance and other benefits.

Supply and demand at work? How realistic is this so called report?

I guess I will have to look it up on the internet and read it. It might actually have some of those answers.
Look at the 'big picture'. Take all the wages paid collectively by all the businesses in the cconomy as a whole.

Take all the "costs" incurred by businesses collectively, ones that have to be recovered in "price" or the business goes under, over any same period of time you wish to choose.

Leave any 'profit' for any business out of the picture. As a whole, then total "costs" will equal total "prices", since EVERY business is then pricing its product at exactly what it cost to provide it. But even so, which is still greater?

Collectively, 'prices' are. For the 'wages' PAID OUT in any given time period are only a PART of the total "costs" that have to be charged into "prices" in that SAME time period.

Yet if TOTAL "costs" can't be fully recovered in total "prices" from the spending of total "wages", how can businesses, as a whole, manage to stay in business?
It seems obvious that a mandatory minimum wage would apply to all companies, so where is the disadvantage to employers? If evry busines that employs people at minimum wage has the same basic cost, then they are all on a level playing field. So rotten Ronnies has to raise the price of a bog muck by .35 cents, would that not also apply to BK and their Whimper? I do not understand how any one is disadvantaged here, it is not as if we are going to drive to Quesnel for a cheaper meal or coffee. If you are dealing with a landscaping co. or a fence builder or a roof re-shingler that employs min. wage
aren't their costs the same in terms of wages? For once I totally diagree with the Fraser Institute. If we went back to the stone age and had NO minimum wage, a lot of employers would take advantage for sure. The smart ones would continue to pay people properly, in order to retain the good ones.
metalman.
okay so the minimum wage goes up $2.00 and the prices go up. Does that mean my wages went down $2.00? My wages won't go up the $2.00 and now I am back down to making the minimum wage when I work hard so I could make more than the minimum.
Posted by: Bridge on January 9 2009 9:47 AM
Would it be possible to use tax dollars to subsidize the employer for the increase in the minimum wage. Is this what the Fraser Institute has in mind? Just wondering.

Cheers


Have another drink Bridge, LOL.
A two dollar an hour increase in the minimum wage only equals $16.00 a day for most employees.

Wow I guess that $16.00 is going to break most companies. Ridiculous!
A $2.00 per hour raise (times however many employees a business has) would be passed onto the customers. Some businesses could survive, but some would have a hard time.
I used this one in another thread. A comedian said, "Minimum wage is the employer's way of saying 'I wish I could pay you less, but legally I can't.'"
This discussion is so shallow that it really makes little sense. We are dealing with emotion here rather than with a true business approach.

Wanna hire someone at minimum wage? Go ahead. Don't expect a trained indiviual. Don't expect an individual committed to do his or her job. Don't expect a thinking individual. And those are just three components of a living human being doing a task rather than a machine.

If the Fraser Institute wants to do some real useful work to help small business determine how to staff their operations, the value of looking after their employees, the costs associated with poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly motivated employees, they should delve into the whole notion what the true VALUE of doing a task in a business is.

Cost is just a measure of input. There is the other side of a ledger - output.

The notion of value for money is not being considered at all.

What is the value of an $8/hour person versus a $10/hour person versuy a $12/hour person?

Well run businesses train their employees or expect their employees to be trained or experienced.

Well run business know that things typically get done more quickly, to a better quality and to a better customer satisfaction with people who are motivated to d oa good job.

In addition, well run business understand that people will put out more if treated well and are respected. They also know that poorly trained and poorly motivated people can cost a company more than their pay due to the mistakes they make.

Keep the minimum wage where it is and we basically encourage a continuing lot of business which really should not exist. We will not frequent the restaurants because the service and the product is lousy. We will not buy things in the store because their service and products are poor. Once in a while a business will start that way and "get it" very quickly and make adjustments.

Those are the ones that will likely have a good mix of looking after their employees through training, encouragement, wage increases, benefits, and a pat on a back for a job well done.
On the other hand, I there is the union wage of $24/hour or whatever comparatively ridiculous rate for sweeping the floor and being a gopher.

The Fraser Institute conveniently forgets about that. Who funds those "bozos" anyway?
Obviously MrPG and lostfaith have no idea about running a buxiness and all the costs involved with that. The company I work for pays more than minimum and also pays benefits such as medical, dental, life insurance, etc. When that is added on that is an extra 35 - 38%. If a company has 15 employees for instance, $2.00 per hour plus the 35% would add up to $40.50 per hour. That makes it $1620.00 per week extra, or $84,240.00 annually. That is no small change for a small business. This is the thing union people don't "get". I don't know if you two are union people but you sure sound like it. Look at how the unions have screwed the auto makers and see the results of having huge wages. Now the taxpayers are bailing them out again, not only in the exorbitant prices of vehicles but by the government giving them millions of our tax dollars that could be used for much better things.
So many business that are already just scraping by would just go under if the minimum wage went up. Then people would just be complaining that a two cheeseburger combo cost 10 bucks instead of whatever it is now... Suck it up. 8 bucks is plenty...
duffer, the UAW is not the sole cause of the automaker crisis. If you look at the market Ford, Dodge, and GM they are the automakers who supplied all the full sized pickups to most industries in North America and around the world for that matter. With most governments putting pressure on automakers to comply with emissions it has cost billions to the big three.
Toyota and Honda have not experienced the same problem as they are mostly in a different market, supplying smaller vehicles to the public, and cost alot less to comply with these emission laws.
So its not a bailout for huge wages as much as it is a huge bailout for laws that are costly to comply with given the short time period they are jammed down their throats.
Actually duffer, if you had read my post, you would have found that I essentially agree with you, but whatever.
Duffer, most minimum wage people do not work for businesses which provide those types of benefits to them. Starbucks is one of the few I am aware of and as far as I know they pay more than minimum wage anyway.

I think it is fair to say that most minimum wage people are also part time people. Some even have to pay for uniforms and for the cleaning of those uniforms..

There is one thing I agree with, however. Minimum wage is not the method to tackle the problems of the working poor since at least half are young workers living at home and many of those are still going to school.

I have skimmed over the report which can be downloaded here.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/EconomicEffectsBCMinimumWage.pdf

It makes claims which are internally incorrect, sort of the normal Fraser Institute inability ot correctly present data.

A simple for instance. It ties the USA in with Canada in table one, which makes both the BC and most of the provinces look good. They do not factor in that the poverty line in the USA is at about half the level it is in Canada and that the minimum wage ratge relative to the single person poverty level is considerably higher in the USA than it is in Canada. They are not cmparing like things, a favourite tactic used by the Institute which most people do not pick up on since most people look at conclusions rather than methodology.

At the same time, they present the minimum wage rates in the povinces in a tabular form. Since rates went up in many provinces in 2008, they prorate the rates for the year. However, at the beginning of 2009, the fact is that PEI and NB stand at $7.75, Newfoundland and BC share the $8.00 rate, and the rest are all higher, thsu BC is tied in 7th lowest, while they state it is 5th lowest which it wasn't even in the prorated situation. It was 6th lowest.

A false concluding statement they make on page 11: "British Columbia maintains one of the highest minimum wage rates in Canada and the USA."

If they were to say: "BC maintains one of the highest minimum wage rates in a combined Canadian and USA rate table" then that would be accurate.

The fact is they are not one of the highest in Canada. The study is important only in the context of Canada. In Canada, the facts presented in the study show thatr BC is one of the lowest of 10 provinces, in fact, it shares the 7th lowest rate with Newfoundland where the Cost of Living is lower and the poverty line is lower than in BC.
we should all look at fort mac where people working in resturants and tim hortons get paid 18 to 20 bucks hr. Duffer i think that you should give your head a shake if we never had unions we would all be making 5 bucks a hr. you must be a supervisor there are not to many companies that pay benifet if they pay 8 buck a hr If you think that the unions caused the problems with the auto industry you don,t have a clue maybe you should look at the bonuses the CEO get paid do you think the people of BC liked to give the MLAS a raise of 28 percent i think you are wrong a $2 raise would not be as hard on business as you think most of these business give employees 30 hrs a wk so they dont have to pay benifets it is easy to blame everything on the workers or unions just think what do supervisor do to bring value to a company they dont bring any value to a company i think what you should do is trade places with someone who makes min wage and see if you could live
Hey 'just', punctuation and sentence structure are your friends. Thanks for the headache.
If I was gonna be labeled an "associate" in a merchant like environment, I'm gonna want at least ten bucks per. Minimum.
I am for raising the minimum wage $8.00 is too low. Kagee, I don't understand your post would you clarify it for me?
$8.00 to start a part-time position with no experience is just fine. Giving them $2.00 more per hour does nothing to increase their motivation, their abilities, their experience or their attitudes. I started working for $1.25 per hour when I was 14 and damm thankful for a job of any kind. As I learned the job and proved that I was a hard worker with a willingness to learn, I was soon rewarded with an increase. But only then was and should I have received an increase. Reason is that I was now providing more value to the employer. I am thankful for the opportunity for the experience and the opportunity to develop my work skills.

Let's face it, take a drive through one of the local drive throughs and tell me if they should be paid $2 more per hour. It's a frustrating experience 8 times out of 10. Those who make up the other 2 times or 20% have already been promoted. My frustration is that they don't listen, they don't remember, they can't seem to concentrate on what they are doing for 2 minutes in a row. As an employer, it's more of a babysitting job for a good number of months. I do not support jacking up the minimum wage just because. Good employees will not be making minimum wage for very long. Lousy employees will continue to be lousy employees no matter what you pay them.
MrPG, I apologize. I read your post again and realize you meant pretty much the same as I did. I was just trying to get the general public to understand that not every company is rich. There are a lot of us that work on very small margins and if we raise wages too much we will not be able to stay in business too long. In the business I am in we have to compete with large American companies and when you are a small company like us you have to find your niche which thankfully we have been able to do for the past few years.
just the facts, maybe if you showed a little initiative you would get ahead, and you could be one of the supervisors you hate so much. Expecting the union to look after you is ridiculous in this day and age. Companies can no longer afford to pay the huge wages. If you research the UAW rates you will see that with benefits and everything added in these workers cost the companies $70.00 to $75.00 per hour. Tell me that is not crazy.
Quit blaming the unions.
Can you tell me how European countries can build cars, good cars, using high paid union employees, with lots of vacation time, fat pensions, higher energy costs and operating costs? Can ya? Huh?
North American CEO's are overpaid and under-taxed.
Car companies accepted contracts, agreed to pensions, and instead of putting that pension money aside they pissed it away on lobbyists. They made their bed, now we all get to lay in it!
As we watch the gap between rich and poor in Canada grow, and we've been hearing about it for 30 years, governments acknowledge it but do nothing to change things.
Keep drinking that corporate Kool-aid!
Govdux,pull your head out of the glue can. If your sustainable bizz model is Europe, watch and see the collapse. I owe the union movement little more than the sweat off my balls. Like the currant port strike threat, watch as the auto unions kill the industry. It's a new world "collective bargaining" fans, and your gonna lose. I can't wait to see how many people cross your picket lines.

You don't bargain for the working man/woman. you bargain for the union dues that keep you causing $hit. Times are tough and your ruse is exposed.

The first picket line that tries to stop me from going where I am legally entitled to will have an incident.

Govdux,pull your head out of the glue can. If your sustainable bizz model is Europe, watch and see the collapse. I owe the union movement little more than the sweat off my balls. Like the currant port strike threat, watch as the auto unions kill the industry. It's a new world "collective bargaining" fans, and your gonna lose. I can't wait to see how many people cross your picket lines.

You don't bargain for the working man/woman. you bargain for the union dues that keep you causing $hit. Times are tough and your ruse is exposed.

The first picket line that tries to stop me from going where I am legally entitled to will have an incident.