Tim Hortons reacts to minimum wage hike.

[gunshow101]

tim hortons is a franchise with a start-up cost of over 500,000 in canada. average profits per franchise are ~$250k, and thats after jumping through all the hoops and the big waiting list to actually be allowed to own one. some people fantasize that the owners of these tim hortons are a bunch of evil greedy business men smoking cigars not wanting to share their wealth when the reality is these are just middle class people trying to run a business. when the government decides you have to pay all your workers 20% more that takes a huge chunk out of their livelihood.

[whitepaper]

Except:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ers/431424001/

A report from the University of Washington (UW), found that when wages increased to $13 in 2016, some companies may have responded by cutting low-wage workers' hours. The study, which was funded in part by the city of Seattle, found that workers clocked 9% fewer hours on average, and earned $125 less each month after the most recent increase

That has got to be the most idiotic, self-fulfilling consequence, and the most useless study to date. I really don't understand why you quoted that, as it's done nothing to further any argument.


Increased min wage > Company reacts by cutting hours > The result...hours were cut and employees earned less. Tax dollars spent efficiently. I suppose next a study will be funded to determine if fire is hot.


The error with this thinking is that it's assumption based, not data driven. Business owners assume that their businesses will bring in less, and they will earn less money. This is in line with "trickle-down" thinking, and neglects the fact that a the lower and middle class, with emphasis on the latter, drive the economy.


The data points to the following:

1. Increased min wage
2. Businesses not acting irrationally, and presumptuously
3. Increased wages lead to increased spending
4. Businesses may take a hit in paying higher wages, but said loses are recouped with increased spending by those earning a higher min wage.

That's just the simple side of the equation; there are studies that look at turn-over rate with an increased wage (not too much data on an overall increase across the board), employee satisfaction/employee efficiency, studies that look at the decreased level of crime rates among young adults (20+) due to fear of job-loss/repercussions, etc.

Any company that relies heavily on minimum wage workers to drive it's revenue, and are working with razor thin margins across the board, barely staying afloat and unable to take the min. wage hike, likely deserve to be put out of their misery.


$2.75/hour extra
$110/week extra
$5720/year extra

After tax, that's roughly $4272/year, $356/month, $89/week, $.2.23/hour.

Now I am not saying that this is a rainbow-in-the-sky trade-off, and everyone will be happy. There are issues and questions of higher unemployment rate among teens, possibility of higher drop-out rates, increased debt collateralization (not bad in and of itself, but it can certainly lead to later problems), and of course, price pass-through among certain sectors (generally restaurants). But the argument, and thinking that is pervasive on the misc is illogical.


But with all that being said, the huge jump wasn't logical, and should have been more gradual, and in my opinion, should be balanced out by reducing small business tax, as it's the smaller businesses that can't leverage the economies of scale to eat whatever costs may come with increased min. wage, and better adjust to things over time.

[DoYouEvenNEM]

Canada is a Communist chit hole. The only thing people liked about it was healthcare but now many countries rank higher for health.

A Big Mac Set in Toronto goes up to like $18 / $20 after the price and all the taxes.


Of course businesses are shutting down everywhere in Canada. I'm not paying $10 for a donut and a coffee.

[askem]

Ask a few of these minimum wage laborers if this is what they want to be doing ten years from now.

If they say no, ask what they're doing about it.

[havoc00]

Ask a few of these minimum wage laborers if this is what they want to be doing ten years from now.

If they say no, ask what they're doing about it.

probably trying to get through life while busting ass for 400 bucks a week at some **** job

[askem]

probably trying to get through life while busting ass 40 bucks a week at some **** job

$40?

[milesgiles1]

That has got to be the most idiotic, self-fulfilling consequence, and the most useless study to date. I really don't understand why you quoted that, as it's done nothing to further any argument.


Increased min wage > Company reacts by cutting hours > The result...hours were cut and employees earned less. Tax dollars spent efficiently. I suppose next a study will be funded to determine if fire is hot.


The error with this thinking is that it's assumption based, not data driven. Business owners assume that their businesses will bring in less, and they will earn less money. This is in line with "trickle-down" thinking, and neglects the fact that a the lower and middle class, with emphasis on the latter, drive the economy.


The data points to the following:

1. Increased min wage
2. Businesses not acting irrationally, and presumptuously
3. Increased wages lead to increased spending
4. Businesses may take a hit in paying higher wages, but said loses are recouped with increased spending by those earning a higher min wage.

That's just the simple side of the equation; there are studies that look at turn-over rate with an increased wage (not too much data on an overall increase across the board), employee satisfaction/employee efficiency, studies that look at the decreased level of crime rates among young adults (20+) due to fear of job-loss/repercussions, etc.

Any company that relies heavily on minimum wage workers to drive it's revenue, and are working with razor thin margins across the board, barely staying afloat and unable to take the min. wage hike, likely deserve to be put out of their misery.


$2.75/hour extra
$110/week extra
$5720/year extra

After tax, that's roughly $4272/year, $356/month, $89/week, $.2.23/hour.

Now I am not saying that this is a rainbow-in-the-sky trade-off, and everyone will be happy. There are issues and questions of higher unemployment rate among teens, possibility of higher drop-out rates, increased debt collateralization (not bad in and of itself, but it can certainly lead to later problems), and of course, price pass-through among certain sectors (generally restaurants). But the argument, and thinking that is pervasive on the misc is illogical.


But with all that being said, the huge jump wasn't logical, and should have been more gradual, and in my opinion, should be balanced out by reducing small business tax, as it's the smaller businesses that can't leverage the economies of scale to eat whatever costs may come with increased min. wage, and better adjust to things over time.

May i put forward an erudite and informative rejoinder to your argument on behalf of Ashin, instantloser, HMFCbrowsing, etc..
























































COMMIE!!!

[Darkhare]

Ridiculous min wagies.


Look:

Tim Hortons is for people who don't know how to make coffee... You work there, you screw up orders and get paid min wage..... eventually you get better and make coffee correctly, that's when you become manager or go to starbucks and get benefits.

If you're so inept that you can't make coffee or get an order right (tim hortons reputation) then you should never be earning a living wage and you probably should be in a home.

[ballzaak]

Ridiculous min wagies.


Look:

Tim Hortons is for people who don't know how to make coffee... You work there, you screw up orders and get paid min wage..... eventually you get better and make coffee correctly, that's when you become manager or go to starbucks and get benefits.

If you're so inept that you can't make coffee or get an order right (tim hortons reputation) then you should never be earning a living wage and you probably should be in a home.

...I've never had a good cup of coffee at Tim Hortons. Ever.

Starbucks isn't the best but least I know it's good...and its consistent. Do I pay more for the luxury of quality and consistency? Absolutely. The employees also earn more. Go figure that one out.

The underlying current here is that it's impossible to elevate the people at the bottom to parity with the people on the top, so you instead propose tearing down those on the top to parity with those on the bottom. Classic Communist outcome.

I think he's making a point about 'maximum wage' forcibly preventing greed. I see that point, but unfortunately greed can't be governed by laws. Feeling anger over already wealthy executives taking the money and running isn't communist, it's an inborn sense of fairness. In that situation it's not about hiring an executive at 20 mil because you know he can take the company out of a slump or of paying him for his skill and experience at increasing profits. Its about executives literally just cashing out quickly and shafting eomployees. Getting pissed off about unfairness or greed isn't communism. It doesn't further the argument about wage increases, but it's not communist.

Executives are hired (in an ideal world) for the experience and the potential they bring to the company. It's carefully calculated profit and loss before he's signed on. Everyone comparing a multimillion/billion dollar corporation with the local carpet cleaning business on the corner or with self employment is out of his mind. He get paid 20 million a year. He increases earnings by 50 million. Was it worth it? Damn straight. Does that automatically mean minimum wage should go up? Hell no. Minimum wage is not based on corporate earnings. But neither should that executive's wage be used as an argument to increase how much the burger flipper makes. They're both paid on skill level for the job at hand, and both agree to work there under those terms. If either one doesn't like it, he can leave. No one forces the burger flipper to stick around.

Minimum wage should be based around cost of living. There isn't a law to control how much a company earns in relation to its employees - that's bordering on communism.

[ashin1]

Ask a few of these minimum wage laborers if this is what they want to be doing ten years from now.

If they say no, ask what they're doing about it.

Sambolton has no problem making minimum wage a livable means and he even owns property. I never thought I would say this but he is the hero mini wagies need.

[milesgiles1]

Sambolton has no problem making minimum wage a livable means and he even owns property. I never thought I would say this but he is the hero mini wagies need.

two properties I remember him saying, but I think that was when properties were a lot cheaper relative to wages, isn't he 40 something? Hes an excellent poster though anyone know what happened to him?

[HMFIC_BROWSIN]

That has got to be the most idiotic, self-fulfilling consequence, and the most useless study to date. I really don't understand why you quoted that, as it's done nothing to further any argument.
.

I'm so confused.... You agree the result of min wage is obviously hours (and thus, total income for a min wage worker) will be cut, but you think that's not so bad.... You completely failed to form an argument why increased minimum wage is a good thing, yet you defend increased minimum wage???

[ashin1]

two properties I remember him saying, but I think that was when properties were a lot cheaper relative to wages, isn't he 40 something? Hes an excellent poster though anyone know what happened to him?

borderline sounding like an excuse/cop out

[Jax05]

Wait...Canadians get paid breaks (or used to)?

I never had a job with paid breaks :/

[Drhunglow]

Wait...Canadians get paid breaks (or used to)?

I never had a job with paid breaks :/

15 mins every 4 hours? I thought it was the law here but apparently not, this is the first I've heard of people not getting paid breaks

[sooby]

As many people have pointed out which is a good point, a lot of these franchises are independently managed. The franchisee's pay a fee to the company and then they are pretty much all on their own.

Can confirm they've raised prices on a lot of the fast-food chains in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) by at least a dollar. Raising min wage affects the spending power of everybody while benefiting the min wage workers so it really ends up hurting the middle class as the rich can afford to eat these costs. And it's arguable that it actually benefits min wage earners because of increases elsewhere. Businesses respond preemptively to wage increases but I agree it would be interesting to see more studies on this subject.


$14 a month is about maybe $2240 before taxes (about 1600 after maybe). Poverty line is around 20,000 so honestly I think $14 is a livable wage as long as you are smart with your money and budget properly. You could rent a basement for $700-800 a month just 15-20 minutes out of the city, spend around $200 on groceries, $150 on bus passes (tax refundable) and I guess an extra $200 a month allocated to extra chit so that's about 1250-1350 a month. And you still have some money left over for some other stuff as needed. You can even seek a part-time job for an extra 15 hours which is an extra let's say 550 bucks a month. That's $2150 a month which is easily livable in areas not too far from Toronto. You don't need to live all the way east or up north. Keep in mind health care is "free" in Canada and poor people do receive a lot of tax benefits.

It's a tough life living like this but let's not act like you couldn't save money if you did this and that you'd be starving and homeless, lol. Maybe even get a roommate or two to split rental costs. If you have a wife/husband and you both work minimum wage you can definitely live off of that. That's about 54K between the both of you. You can rent a decent sized apartment or basement and live I guess an OK life as long as you don't have any kids. But you also have the option of taking on more hours between the two of you and you can save a hell of a lot more.


Again I'm speaking for Toronto. Toronto is considered an expensive city and even the outskirts can be slightly expensive but it's definitely within the realm of possibility. If you can't even manage landing a minimum wage job there probably isn't any helping you. Minimum wagies should thank for this simple yet effective budget. I'm not against raising minimum wage but raising it to $14 is a bit much. Perhaps a dollar at most and go from there.

[niospecv]

15 mins every 4 hours? I thought it was the law here but apparently not, this is the first I've heard of people not getting paid breaks

This is pretty much standard for an 8 hour shift at a full time job in the US. It is just not really talked about since the culture is to grind all day minus the lunch hour.


All you people agreeing with the mini wage hike need to LDAR.

I'm so glad I live in the U.S.

The cream rises to the top while the rest complains.

As already stated minimum wage is not for a grown adult with kids to live on. It's for the pimple faced high schooler and college kid. If you're a grown adult working at a restaurant as a career then you royally phukked up. I have no pity for you. It's insane how I see these dumb mini wagies with yeezys and the latest iphone X. Dumb peasants.

LOL @ mini wagies.

[Tapciv]

tim hortons is a franchise with a start-up cost of over 500,000 in canada. average profits per franchise are ~$250k, and thats after jumping through all the hoops and the big waiting list to actually be allowed to own one. some people fantasize that the owners of these tim hortons are a bunch of evil greedy business men smoking cigars not wanting to share their wealth when the reality is these are just middle class people trying to run a business. when the government decides you have to pay all your workers 20% more that takes a huge chunk out of their livelihood.

As much as I don't agree with the minimum wage hike (especially provincially where smaller towns are hit even worse), it isn't that simple. You need $1.5 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid assets to even be considered. The cost of the franchise depends on the location, size, etc... You would be hard pressed to be middle class (by today's standards) and get your hands on a franchise.

When Tim Horton's puts out an offer for a market they want to open, they get a ton of applications and potential buyers - they have the ability to select and they are more likely to select affluent buyers who are less likely to fail and have more capital to work with.

My understanding is that currently, the majority of the Tim Horton's are owned by corporate and the ones that are not are owned by pretty above middle class individuals.

Again, even if they are all owned by pretty wealth upper class people or corporations, I still am having a hard time understanding.

When you increase labour costs (especially by a large percentage, they also increase minimum vacation for employees working there over 5 years), it would be expected that business will adjust where they can to maintain a minimum expected profit. They will either raise costs on goods sold or reduce benefits in other areas. Individual operators can't raise costs on goods so they are forced to either lower their own profits or adjust benefits to make the same return on investment they have been making.

Regardless of how wealthy the owner of the store is, I don't understand the premise that - when a government increases costs of operating that businesses ought not remove other perks to re-coup some of that cost. At X wage, the company was offering Y benefits. If you force them into A wage, they ought to be able to look at Y benefits decide if they want to keep them or not.

It is easy to hate someone because they have a lot of money but insofar as they are following the law (IMO, it doesn't matter if most owners are wealthy and greedy or middle class) - what obligation does the employer have to keep these benefits?

It is worse that our government in the province is now publicly shaming them. If they were so concerned, they would have legislated minimum employment benefits into this as well so benefits could not be reduced as a result of the wage hike. They certainly should have expected this and if not, were naive (and even if they didn't, they didn't consider to protect these benefits they are now publicly shaming a business for taking away?)

[TommyTuffGuy]

Canada is a Communist chit hole. The only thing people liked about it was healthcare but now many countries rank higher for health.

A Big Mac Set in Toronto goes up to like $18 / $20 after the price and all the taxes.


Of course businesses are shutting down everywhere in Canada. I'm not paying $10 for a donut and a coffee.

Only misinformed American libchits like Canadian healthcare due to their incorrect fantasy of it, not Canadians. lol.

[Tapciv]

But with all that being said, the huge jump wasn't logical, and should have been more gradual, and in my opinion, should be balanced out by reducing small business tax, as it's the smaller businesses that can't leverage the economies of scale to eat whatever costs may come with increased min. wage, and better adjust to things over time.

Agree with this. The gov't that implemented the minimum wage hike did promise it to be coupled with a small business tax cut as well. Whether or not it is a reasonable one, that remains to be seen.

[Tapciv]

Wait...Canadians get paid breaks (or used to)?

I never had a job with paid breaks :/

It is a benefit that most employers provide (at least I think that most do, but I could be wrong on this).

Minimum standards in Ontario (can vary by province) state that after 5 hours of work you must get a 30 minute break period. You can agree to split this into two 15 minute breaks with your employer. This break period does not have to be paid.

[sooby]

As much as I don't agree with the minimum wage hike (especially provincially where smaller towns are hit even worse), it isn't that simple. You need $1.5 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid assets to even be considered. The cost of the franchise depends on the location, size, etc... You would be hard pressed to be middle class (by today's standards) and get your hands on a franchise.

When Tim Horton's puts out an offer for a market they want to open, they get a ton of applications and potential buyers - they have the ability to select and they are more likely to select affluent buyers who are less likely to fail and have more capital to work with.

My understanding is that currently, the majority of the Tim Horton's are owned by corporate and the ones that are not are owned by pretty above middle class individuals.

Again, even if they are all owned by pretty wealth upper class people or corporations, I still am having a hard time understanding.

When you increase labour costs (especially by a large percentage, they also increase minimum vacation for employees working there over 5 years), it would be expected that business will adjust where they can to maintain a minimum expected profit. They will either raise costs on goods sold or reduce benefits in other areas. Individual operators can't raise costs on goods so they are forced to either lower their own profits or adjust benefits to make the same return on investment they have been making.

Regardless of how wealthy the owner of the store is, I don't understand the premise that - when a government increases costs of operating that businesses ought not remove other perks to re-coup some of that cost. At X wage, the company was offering Y benefits. If you force them into A wage, they ought to be able to look at Y benefits decide if they want to keep them or not.

It is easy to hate someone because they have a lot of money but insofar as they are following the law (IMO, it doesn't matter if most owners are wealthy and greedy or middle class) - what obligation does the employer have to keep these benefits?

It is worse that our government in the province is now publicly shaming them. If they were so concerned, they would have legislated minimum employment benefits into this as well so benefits could not be reduced as a result of the wage hike. They certainly should have expected this and if not, were naive (and even if they didn't, they didn't consider to protect these benefits they are now publicly shaming a business for taking away?)

I think talking about franchises in general, the cost to open wildly depends. If it is a smaller franchise, somebody of the middle class can open one up. Apparently subway is fairly cheap to open up and a fairly popular burger chain Hero Burger is about 200-300K. Even then though, these guys are spending their own personal money to open one up so why shouldn't they try to look out for their own profit margins.

Many franchise owners aren't exactly balling in millions and much of their financial position would depend on the success/failure of the franchise. Being a cashier as opposed to owning and managing the day-to-day operations of a franchise is easy work. They're just like all of us trying to make the best living for themselves and their family, except maybe just slightly richer than the average man. We all seek to improve our living. Who is to say or determine that a person trying to go from a 3 bedroom apartment to a 2500 sq house in a great neighbourhood is somehow less important and they should donate or give up money to somebody who is living in a 1 room basement.

I never understood that as well; if you were a CFO or some position to do with financial management your ass would probably be fired for not looking out for the bottom line. Business is business, hate it or love it. Don't hate on another man's hustle whether they make $1 or a million dollars.

[askem]

ITT miles is an advocate fighting for minimum wagecels because they’re too stupid to fight for themselves.

ITT katya shows that a good portion of minimum wagecels have at least gone to college.

[project3]

inb4 kunts want 20 bucks minimum wages...

and definitely will happen in 5 years or so

[backinbusiness]

Recently, Sears Canada announced they would be going bankrupt. At the same time the CEOs wanted to cut pensions for their employees, wanted to pay their top executives millions in bonuses. That would be a situation where a maximum wage would prevent that bonus.

See this is why I know you have sub 100 IQ.

You work at X company and boss says company is closing in 3months. You should be looking for new jobs immediately right?
Now, what if boss says listen I need to continue operations while we sell inventory off etc - I’ll pay you twice your salary to stay til the end.

This is why CEO’s get bonuses on BK companies because who in the hell would stay?

Only sub 100 IQers wouldn’t be able to think critically enough to understand that.

[eltwentyone]

cant wait for automated machines to take over

[WinoCat]

I'm a small business owner in Ontario, who has several contracted employee's. My opinion: if a small business (and I'm not talking about "big businesses" like chain store/restaurants or wealthy small businesses- talking strictly "mom and pop" businesses that this wage hike will actually affect) can't afford to pay their employee's a liveable wage, based on their earnings, then their business model was too fragile to begin with. I could get away with paying my employee's the minimum wage, or even slightly above it but I don't because I value their work, effort and what they bring to my business too much for that. I pay 2-3x what I'm legally required to, and if that means I take home less of a paycheck than I otherwise could have, then thats fine by me. My profits are still increasing every year, my workers are happy and healthy and are contributing more because they feel valued, and life is good. But if my business was in the position to ultimately fail because I have to raise my employee's wage by a couple bucks, then I shouldn't be in business to begin with.

That being said, I feel the government should offer some extra tax breaks for the small business owners during this adjustment period, to help offset the extra expense. The wage hike IS a lot in a short period of time, so some extra help should be considered. Again, I'm only talking about small businesses, not corporations or mid-range businesses that allow the owners to own three vacation homes and the ability to rarely show up to work.

[Peter Ruby]

Maximum wage? WTF am I reading???

[RocknRollMuscle]

lol @ liberal canada.

liberals are alwyas fukking things up. But Canadians are used to bending over. They focus on Trump instead of focusing on their idiot leader and premier.

[RocknRollMuscle]

i read canadians pay around $600/month for their mediocre long wait time few options healthcare.

$600/month lol vs $300/month rockstar us healthcare.

If Canadians actually got a bill every month for what they pay for their healthcare they'd change their tune real fast. Ever wonder why so many great canadian doctors move to the us? and so many canadians come to the us when their own healthcare lets them down?

btw: how's canadian healthcare for those woh don't like in big canadian cities? native indians for example? veterans?