Economic illiterates not happy with the new $14 min wage!

>have undergraduate degree in economics
>try to explain to people that raising the minimum wage will screw the exact people raising it is supposed to help
>no one listens because they know better than me and all economists
>don't even make close to min wage but used the increase as grounds to ask for a raise since everything is going to cost more

My fucking sides when I saw this flyer spammed all over campus. This is literally what economists told them would happen and they're still pushing it! The most hilarious thing is, if they get their demands, it will only worsen the problem they're trying to solve beyond where it's already at. They literally don't understand that their "solution" is the problem. I can't wait to see what the flyer looks like when the Tim Hortons employees get replaced by machines or better yet, if Tim Hortons simply crumbles due to excessive regulations crippling their business model. Whatever happens, the one thing I know for sure is that all blame will be placed on greedy corporations, no one will blame the government for interfering in the free market or the idiots that lobbied for the change.

This is what happens when you have a majority population raised on the ideals that they're owed free shit for the price of their mere existence.

I just can't wait until the money actually runs out and they all find out how nature really works.

>Fighting automation
Stop keeping wages low, just let businesses eliminate the jobs you fuckwads.

We should LOWER the minimum wage.

>have undergraduate degree in economics
That is good toilet paper.

This, we should automate stupid shit like this cause I am tired of dealing with servers and retards that fuck up things, tipping these retards to make me shitty drinks or move food to me, etc.

Is Tim Horton's a franchisee business model? Do these people understand how that works?

Why are figures expressed in USD?

> This is literally what economists told them would happen and they're still pushing it!

Source on economists saying all your benefits and extra parts will get slashed when prices increase?

Because i've seen arguments against raising the minimum wage, but i've never seen "All your other benefits will get slashed as a petty retaliatory strike so you don't forget your place, fucking pleb."

I say this as someone who is against high minimum wage btw.

You idiots whine that the Boomers had it easier than you but you are against things that will make you have it as easy as the Boomers did. Idiots

Benefits and wages are usually the biggest cost for employers. Cuts have to be made somewhere and they'll try to squeeze out every penny from their workers before raising prices on their product.

I work for the government and I don't get paid breaks fucking lel.

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise and most fast-food joints will fire those 50 year old filipino leeches that work there full time. They can be replaced by kiosks and pimply teenagers.

>the corporation sets the price of sugar
who knew Tim Hortons maintained all the worlds sugar plantations.

Economists would make a more abstract argument that essentially says the same thing.

What has happened here is that financial compensation increased due to a government regulation and other types of compensation decreased to compensate. Tim Hortons employees may have been getting payed minimum wage, but they received other forms of compensation on top of that. The problem here is that the value of the labor the employees provide did not increase with the increase in the min wage, and the employer is responding accordingly by cutting back other forms of compensation.

This is very similar to what happens with rent controls, where if the landlord can't charge the market rate for rent, they stop spending money maintaining the property, they stop spending money on heat, they take large bribes from rich people who want cheap rent, etc...

This is one of the things people don't realize about interfering in the free market, it seriously does not work and you almost always end up achieving the opposite of the stated objective. Try to help poor people by raising the min wage? Your noble efforts result in them losing their benefits and having their hours cut. Imagine my shock!

All of what is happening with Tim Hortons is predicted by the theories taught in introductory economics courses.

So no one then, or 'they said it but you have to read between the lines.'

Fact is Hortons could easily take a hit, shareholders could see 2% rather than 4% and all of the 'problems' of all parties (aside from maximum profit at all costs) could be resolved.

Endless growth is the definition of cancer.

So shareholders take a 2% hit and you think they’ll stick around? The company would fold in a month.

Hey man it's their retarded system, and it's 2% more than their money would make otherwise since interest rates are never going back up again without destroying the global economy.

>350 million in profits to shareholders

Here that would probably mean someones 457 retirement fund.

You’re poor, aren’t you...

Projected to retire at 36

tims is trash so who cares
the only people that are counter-boycotting tim boycotters are ironically suburban/rural retards that can't operate a basic automatic slow drip coffee machine and rather waste $10 on gas waiting with their pickups in the drive thru.

>try to explain to people that raising the minimum wage will screw the exact people raising it is supposed to help
Works fine here in Australia

Libertarian detected.

Yup, it's a franchise and the poster is bullshit since Tim Horton's didn't cut shit, it was one single franchisee.

it's simply entry level economic theory... if you ask an economist what happens if you raise min wage, the answer is not a simple one-liner. there are many things that could happen, but the reason why these things could happen stems from what I just explained to you - the fact that the value of the labor these employees provide has not increased with the minimum wage. something has to give - in the case of Tim Hortons, it was the non-wage compensation being given to employees...

it's really not a complicated concept. Tim Hortons is simply trying to compensate their employees based on the value of the labor they are providing. before the min wage hike, they payed them the previous min wage + benefits + paid breaks, etc... after, they have to pay a higher wage so they cut the benefits, breaks, etc... they are attempting to compensate their employees the market rate, and if the government steps in the way they will find some other way of paying the market rate within the confines of the new law. you can keep regulating, but businesses will find more creative ways to pay what that labor is worth, and if you push too hard, you will simply kill the profit potential of that business and then all the employees will be earning $0/hour.

Stop illegal immigration and deport anyone here illegally and wages will naturally rise from a natural demand for labor.

>based on the value of the labor they are providing

I think you mean, 'based on the minimum amount they can legally pay.'

I would bet my bottom dollar that if the Minimum wage were to drop, they wouldn't suddenly start going "oh heres a $20 voucher for fuel every month to compensate."

I really love how paying profits to shareholders is being shown as a bad thing in the flyer.
> Holy shit , people who put money up to run the corporation are being given a return on their investment, fucking devils !!!

>I would bet my bottom dollar that if the Minimum wage were to drop, they wouldn't suddenly start going-
Or maybe they would compensate them with paid breaks, benefits, free uniforms and free food? lol??? nice self-own there... we know exactly what they would do if the min wage was lower, because they were doing it, they were giving their employees benefits and a bunch of other perks. those perks have value, you understand?

>I think you mean, 'based on the minimum amount they can legally pay.'
you obviously have no concept of how a labor market works. if the minimum wage did not exist, people would not work for free. ponder that for a while.

Seems like the problem is the execs and shareholders who were already getting exponentially more than the workers. They probably could maintain the worker benefits and such if, along with the min wage increase, they decreased their own wages and/or redistributed those various bonuses and other loose profits towards paying those new higher wages instead of adding it to their already substantial earnings. I'm no economist, but the flyer's point seems to be that Tim Hortons wants to do the min wage for workers without sacrificing any of their top shareholders' extravagant profits, resulting in cutting worker stuff to compensate while not changing their top level gains.

Jumping in front of a cab doesn't give you that much money friend.

> Shareholders could take 2% instead of 4%...
Why ? Why would they put up their money to pay for something that does not benefit them? By that logic, why can't the employees accept the cut in the benefits as they are now paid higher minimum wage ?

Because they believe in the product? Because they like the guy selling it? Because 2% return is better than 0.whatever the fuck it gets sitting in the bank?

Can you tell me what happens when shit stops growing? How this expectation of endless growth (as in 2% increase in 2016, good. 4% increase in 2017, good. 2% increase in 2018 REEEE MUH INVESTMENTS!) is at all sustainable?

Just flip shit from china retard, literally 300k starting if you got the seed money.

>I'm no economist
as if that needs to be said...

the shareholders are all risking their money, what are the workers risking? they have no skin in the game and they are free to change that by making better life choices. they could live lean, save money, and invest, but they don't do this. they show up to work to a business with millions of dollars of equipment, and they don't take on any of that responsibility or risk. it's not their millions of dollars on the line if the business isn't run properly. they've taken the easy road. they've taken the road of spending all their disposable income and never being disciplined enough to save or invest. they've taken the road of no responsibility. they get payed exactly what they deserve. no risk, no reward. no discipline, no reward. that's life.

if you think you're heading somewhere good by messing with the returns on investments, you need to ponder how that will affect decisions to invest or to not invest and how that is liable to affect the people you think your little idea is going to help. you can't just trash the value of an investment and expect everything else to stay the same. there will be a proportionate response to something like this.

have you ever considered that it is the shareholders willing to risk their capital, based entirely on the projected return, which makes it possible for the "workers" to earn a penny, in the first place? do you really want to mess with that process, especially as someone who obviously hasn't put much thought into this? do you not understand that you're literally talking about putting the jobs of the "workers" in jeopardy?

but hey, you're not an economist. so I guess it's ok for you to advocate things which would screw the group of people you want to help.

Frankly, there are a few factors to consider, current min wage of 18.26aud is equivalent to 18.07cad, the cost of living in Canada in on average around 15 to 25% cheaper than in Australia. Which brings it to 15.3 ~ 13.55 cad per hour, and that considering that the min wage has been growing in Australia and the the 18.26aud is 2017-2018 numbers. Tim Hortons is a specific company with its own issues and its own decisions to make. The min wage was raised as required and now people are asking even more.

And the workers take the investment the shareholders give to make the profit based on their work. All you're saying is that the capital investment trumps the actual production in priority of income of that profit by all the margins the already wealthy investors want, with absolutely no chance of the workers having a say in it in this case. You say workers don't deserve responsibility of how the company gives out their profits because they are low lifes who deserve nothing of the sort, unlike millionaires in this case who just gamble from investment to investment, as you put it.

You thinking prioritizing investment over labor results makes you an economist is beyond laughable. Who gives a shit about your degree when you make a shit fool of yourself

...

Good leaf. Very good leaf.

At least those suburban/rural "retards" can pump their own gas.

I am quite shocked at your analysis of investor behaviour. It is not about whether Tims goes from 4 to 2 but rather what is offered elsewhere. Shareholders can take their money out and put it somewhere else offering the same 4%. It is not a choice between Tims and a savings account, but rather Tims and company XYZ. Furthermore, this is also not about constant growth as you are calling it but rather putting money to use, you have no idea for the reasons why these people are investing their money, but you can be assured that their investment is a measure of capital work that they are performing and expect a profit in exchange just as workers expect a wage for their labour. Without the capital investment there would be no company and no job and hence no employee.

>employees get replaced by machines
How is this bad again?
Min wage increase won't lead to any noticeable inflation, and even if it has a minor impact higher inflation would be beneficial for most workers in today's conditions, as the labor is too weak to demand raises across the board.
This will lead to higher efficiency in industries that rely on min wage labor, which would have happened anyways due to automation/outsourcing so you are simply accelerating the process. The issue is how you transition the people who inevitably lose their jobs into other fields, not the fact that they are losing their jobs.
>muh free market
If you unironically believe that the free market is infallible and any regulation is bad as an economist you are exactly the sort of the person that made the public lose their faith in economists.

Feels like egg-shell logic. You are suggesting that the people who put money to run the business take 50% loss to their dividents so that workers who are offered the job, accepted the job on a voluntary basis and then were given a raise, are given more out of the pocket of investors. Investors are people too, most of whom are not millionaire but rather people who, having worked and collected capital, would like to put that capital to use and gain profits in exchange. Minimum wage jobs should not be a life-long career choice, they are a temporary employment while the individual is gaining skills and experience to go to a better paid job. Wages are supposed to be unequal and the least requiring employments should be paid the least in order to not only insite skill growth but also limit inflation.

I couldn't be happier with the minimum wage hike. This progressive move will drive technological development. Did I mention I'm an automation engineer?

To be fair i'm sort of arguing two points at the same time and shifting between the two.

I understand the investors angle, if Hortons shows basic decency to their workers they get fucked, by competition who don't have their scruples (and thus increased operational costs) and by investors who are 90% retarded fucking boomers and see 'minimal growth' as a sign of the end times. I just think we're reaching a point where the endless growth mantra of the investor class is significantly fucking everyone else over so they can see that extra 2%.

But in a perfect world, the golden calf of perpetual growth would be cast aside and instead of fuckhuge profits and declining living standards across the western world (and all of the sociopolitical problems that stem from that), you could easily sustain a system of nominal profits without all the negative aspects being shunted onto society rather than the business that is actively profiting off fucking us over (this goes for basically every large scale business).

Ultimately, unlimited growth is unsustainable, so why the fuck are we sacrificing our society so people can get an extra 2%.

Because western corporations are structured in such a way that short term profits are prioritized over long term growth and any executive that would try to achieve long term growth would be gone very fast.

> About to ask why.
> tfw it's always the fucking jews.

How about you have a crack at the questions I asked?
>have you ever considered that it is the shareholders willing to risk their capital, based entirely on the projected return, which makes it possible for the "workers" to earn a penny, in the first place?
>do you really want to mess with that process, especially as someone who obviously hasn't put much thought into this?
>do you not understand that you're literally talking about putting the jobs of the "workers" in jeopardy?

More like Reagan/Thatcher deregulated finance.

> This is outrageous coming from a wildly profitable corporation
> Hortons generated $3billion in revenue
> Revenue
> Profitable
> Revenue
> Profit

> Muh CEO got $6,173,993 in wages, options and perks
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

So you’ve never heard of (((Bezos)))

He's the primary shareholder of his own company.

I think people are overblowing the $14/hr min wage. There are several things to consider:

1. its in CAD (dollarettes) that haven't been near parity with US in 5 years.
2. we have a higher cost of living than in US
3. higher taxes than US

A dollar goes a lot father in the US than Canada and their minimum wage was only a dollar less in most states before 2018. This is money that will largely help the poorest in society and these people will spend their new money in their local economy (potentially more drugs, but still). I think if we give it time we will see a net benefit in our communities.

Tim Hortons is suffering from boomer delusion thinking they will get away with that crap. It's like kicking your dog when you're mad at your wife. I also find them reprehensible for hijacking Canadian patriotism and for their own benefit (like Molson does).

Jesus Christmas your retarded just just plz

The only people that will lose will be us.
All this stock talk is nonsense. Timmies will just raise prices.
If Akmed makes $2.40 more each hour now, and they raise the price of coffee 15cents (which they did) than all Akmed has to do is sell 15 coffees/hour and the difference is made up.
Timmies will probably make more money, that's the funny thing.

>western corporations are structured in such a way that short term profits are prioritized over long term growth

If that were true, they wouldn't grow, which they do. That's precisely what profits are for. Profits aren't 100% cash in the investors' pockets. It's usually reinvested in the form of more capital. Hence growth and the creation of more jobs.

If anyone is concerned about living wages, then the actual way to bring that about is to lower unemployment and employer side competition in the labor market. That's the correct way to push up wages. It's also the correct way to stabilize profits with regards to labor, since companies need to deal with the naturally higher labor rates and just take the hit if they actually want to expand.

You are fucking retarded.

You do realise that the cost of living here is on par with switzerland and that we pay insane amounts of money for nearly everything, right?

>it's simply entry level economic theory... if you ask an economist what happens if you raise min wage, the answer is not a simple one-liner.
The little guy gets fucked.

>Hence growth and the creation of more jobs.
Hasn't really been happening since 2008.
There hasn't been any real job creation since then and wages have not moved either.
That's not growth, that's asset price inflation due to QE among other things.

That looks poorly photoshopped

Yes. Liberals like illegals so they can have cheap maids, nannies, lawnmowers, construction, and guacabowlies.

>having minimum wage
Retarded

Dividends must be balanced with rewards for the employees, mind you. A lot of American companies are vastly over-compensating executies and management and investors and giving their regular employees essentially nothing. $100 Christmas bonus and fuck off. By the way, the middle management faggot that babysits 8 of you gets a $60,000 profit sharing bonus twice a year.

Look at companies where the CEO is paying himself more than 30,000 lesser employees. How is that justified? "muh fair market wages, im entitled to my own profits" bluh bluh.

White collar jobs do not deserve this level of compensation, the market is vastly out of whack in this regard and low-end employees have no bargaining chip other than the utterly-destructive practice of striking, because it's an employer's market when it comes to labor (thanks democrats)

>drug benefits
DRUG
BENEFITS

These fucking liberals man.

We should increase government benefits instead of increasing minimum wage.

Where do we get the extra money to pay those government benefits? Very simple. We cut into useless programs

For instance, society needs nurses, doctors, engineers, scientists, so we finance their education at 100%.

Society doesn't need toilet paper tier degrees such as gender studies, political science, women studies and so on. Their education should be paid 100% by the student enrolled into those programs.

The money saved from not funding shit tier majors can be used to pay for useful majors.

It doesn't have to be 0% or 100% either. It could be something like 0% for useless majors, 10% for majors that have very little prospect of jobs, 50% for somewhat useful major, and 100% for important majors.

Same thing should be done in other places such as welfare and healthcare. Welfare receipients should be people who work but don't make enough money. People who sit on their asses all day get nada since they don't contribute to society. The money is there, its just mismanaged.

Because as it is right now, we pay 30k/year for faggots who major in shit like arts, then end up paying them welfare because they can't find a job. That is 120k that can be saved by not paying for their 4 year majors and spent on things that actually matters and make peoples lives easier

tim hortans makes a living keeping their shit cheap, there are tons of sit down coffee houses in canada, tims is just the best for price/quality

they aren't going to spike prices because people will just either get MC cafe at mcdonalds or shell the extra cash for starbucks or coffee culture

The issue is that half of the jobs in our economy pay unlivable wages that dont allow two jobs. That will inevitably lead to peope living on welfare and even social unrest. IDK how we can solve this problem.

baka desu senpai