Careers

Liberals plan on a major boost to the minimum wage jumping from the current $11.40 to as high as $15

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 2nd, 2017 11:56 pm
Deal Fanatic
Jun 26, 2011
9915 posts
876 upvotes
Markham
alanbrenton wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 4:17 pm
I'm not going to shoplift but I would feel less guilty to skip scanning a few products with these self-serve check outs.
Really? I'd feel like I was stealing, because I would be.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
40176 posts
9435 upvotes
RolandCouch wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 8:36 pm
Really? I'd feel like I was stealing, because I would be.
I never said it wasn't stealing. It's just much easier to do without human element involved.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 26, 2011
9915 posts
876 upvotes
Markham
alanbrenton wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 8:56 pm
I never said it wasn't stealing. It's just much easier to do without human element involved.
Easier, yes. Wouldn't make me feel less guilty though.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
40176 posts
9435 upvotes
RolandCouch wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 9:14 pm
Easier, yes. Wouldn't make me feel less guilty though.
No one is singling you out as a shoplifter.

I think you guys are right. I thought the greeter provided a human element but they also check contents against the receipt, which is probably the theft deterrent.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... d504ce1dd3
http://fortune.com/2016/05/04/walmart-b ... ght-theft/
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 22, 2006
20812 posts
1995 upvotes
alanbrenton wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 4:17 pm
I'm not going to shoplift but I would feel less guilty to skip scanning a few products with these self-serve check outs.

Even with the $1 McD thread, people are more comfortable re-registering the app to avail of the $1 Big Mac at the kiosks but not over at the cashier.

We'll have to see how cost effective these self-check outs are.

I think it's being penny wise but pound foolish for many grocers.
I see people stealing the plastic bags -_-"
Sr. Member
Mar 18, 2015
829 posts
166 upvotes
Antarctica
Or instead of skipping scanning, you could just try to live by reducing as many of the 'things' you buy as you can. (I know this is RFD, but not everyone comes on this forum to find out how to throw money out on deals, some of us want to find out if the stuff we need can be bought for cheaper). Buy less stuff and only when you need it. You will be surprised at how much crap an average person has in their room that is used probably once a year or never.
Sr. Member
Mar 18, 2015
829 posts
166 upvotes
Antarctica
apnayloags wrote:
Aug 3rd, 2017 7:40 pm
just saw in a shopers drug mart the other day in the mall...........only 1 cashier, and 3 self-serve checkouts........long lineup.
guess what, we used the self-serve checkout.
Get ready for such scenarios to be more and more common once $15 kicks in
I have seen this happen for years at SDM and many places. When min wage was $8, $10, $11 etc.

Only a min wage of $0 will stop companies from automating processes. If I can add another million to my net income by automating, I dont give a crap about whether the guys are being paid $15, $11 or $5 an hour.
Deal Addict
Sep 23, 2009
3838 posts
1035 upvotes
Crichtonfan wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 11:44 am
I have seen this happen for years at SDM and many places. When min wage was $8, $10, $11 etc.

Only a min wage of $0 will stop companies from automating processes. If I can add another million to my net income by automating, I dont give a crap about whether the guys are being paid $15, $11 or $5 an hour.
You do an analysis to see if it is worth it or not.

Let's say it costs $2 Million to automate a store and yearly savings are $500,000 while machines need to be replaced every 10 years.

In this case, you pay $2 Million upfront and save $500,000 for 10 years. Going forward for simplicity sake, we will use a 0% interest rate.

In this case, the company can increase profit by about ($500,000*10 years savings - $2 Million upfront cost) $3 Million.

If minimum wage increases from $11.40 to $15.00 that's an increase of 31.58%

So, instead of saving $500,000 a store can save roughly $657,900.

Keeping other facts the same, by reducing labour costs by an additional $157,900 per year for 10 years, profit will increase to $4,579,000

So, if minimum wage increases 31.58% and machinery to automate remains constant price, a company will see an increase of 52.63%

So, by increasing minimum wage by 30% in one shot, many companies may make the choice to automate because the return is real nice.

If minimum wage was $0, and people worked for $0, then automating for a cost greater than $0 would not make sense.

That's the analysis that is done, if the company only saved $200,000 a year by automating and the system costs $2 Million and needs to be replaced in 10 years, than it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

Finally, if the company only saved $200,000 a year by automating and the system costs $2 Million and needs to be replaced in 10 years, than it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

However, if the amount saved of $200,000 increases by 31.58%, then automating would save $63,160 per year or generate increased profits of $631,600 over 10 years.

Of course, there may be other reasons to automate. But this is just looking at it in terms of costs and profitability.
Sr. Member
Mar 18, 2015
829 posts
166 upvotes
Antarctica
renoldman wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 3:26 pm
You do an analysis to see if it is worth it or not.

Let's say it costs $2 Million to automate a store and yearly savings are $500,000 while machines need to be replaced every 10 years.

In this case, you pay $2 Million upfront and save $500,000 for 10 years. Going forward for simplicity sake, we will use a 0% interest rate.

In this case, the company can increase profit by about ($500,000*10 years savings - $2 Million upfront cost) $3 Million.

If minimum wage increases from $11.40 to $15.00 that's an increase of 31.58%

So, instead of saving $500,000 a store can save roughly $657,900.

Keeping other facts the same, by reducing labour costs by an additional $157,900 per year for 10 years, profit will increase to $4,579,000

So, if minimum wage increases 31.58% and machinery to automate remains constant price, a company will see an increase of 52.63%

So, by increasing minimum wage by 30% in one shot, many companies may make the choice to automate because the return is real nice.

If minimum wage was $0, and people worked for $0, then automating for a cost greater than $0 would not make sense.

That's the analysis that is done, if the company only saved $200,000 a year by automating and the system costs $2 Million and needs to be replaced in 10 years, than it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

Finally, if the company only saved $200,000 a year by automating and the system costs $2 Million and needs to be replaced in 10 years, than it doesn't make economic sense to do it.

However, if the amount saved of $200,000 increases by 31.58%, then automating would save $63,160 per year or generate increased profits of $631,600 over 10 years.

Of course, there may be other reasons to automate. But this is just looking at it in terms of costs and profitability.
What all this fancy analysis fails to realize is that automation (which is really one facet of the age old market efficiency being chased) has been slowly creeping up on us despite whatever is the minimum wage. The only reason it hasn't come faster is because the other option made more profit. However, raising the minimum wage is now making the inevitable happen faster. Besides this, I mentioned I have seen understaffed businesses for years even when minimum wage was $8.

And that was my only point, not what $15 will currently do. Thats one of the many things the business guys cry over all the time.

Most people are probably upset here because they fear the upheaval will now come in their generation instead of the ones later on.

P.S. that "analysis" looks way cherry picked. You are saving $500000 by replacing humans. That includes stuff such as benefits, health and safety regulations, PPE considerations, training etc etc. A turn key automation system once perfected is surprisingly low cost to maintain. Adding that 31% wage increase to that savings figure doesn't even make sense. Also your savings math seems wrong suggesting a 5 mill saving by keeping min wage at $11.40. All I can say is good try but not convincing.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
25657 posts
5836 upvotes
GTHA
Province quiet on minimum wage hike
http://www.nugget.ca/2017/08/21/provinc ... -wage-hike
Amendments for Bill 148, Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act - which includes raising the minimum wage provincially to $15 an hour were due to be tabled in the Provincial Legislature last Wednesday. There has been an eerie quiet over the past five days with little coming out of the government on any proposed changes.
Deal Addict
Sep 23, 2009
3838 posts
1035 upvotes
Crichtonfan wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 6:01 pm
P.S. that "analysis" looks way cherry picked. You are saving $500000 by replacing humans. That includes stuff such as benefits, health and safety regulations, PPE considerations, training etc etc. A turn key automation system once perfected is surprisingly low cost to maintain. Adding that 31% wage increase to that savings figure doesn't even make sense. Also your savings math seems wrong suggesting a 5 mill saving by keeping min wage at $11.40. All I can say is good try but not convincing.
Of course it is cherry picked.

It was just a quick example of the type of analysis done whether to automate or to continue utilizing human labour.

The main point is that although minimum wage may increase 31%, the profitability gained by automating may be greater than 31%.

The numbers I picked were random, however the point and analysis is still the same.

On to something else you mentioned, for some businesses, it is not worth the added expense of one employee when needed temporarily no matter if the rate is $8 or $15.

By hiring another employee are they able to generate additional revenue of, say, the $8/hour added cost? If not, the company is better off not hiring another employee. Of course, the added employee may increase morale as the employees feel less like slaves, but again, the analysis is being done quick.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
9422 posts
1184 upvotes
Toronto
It's funny that this number is just picked randomly to sound cool and for political purposes.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 13, 2014
1686 posts
250 upvotes
Toronto
at1212b wrote:
Aug 23rd, 2017 9:28 am
It's funny that this number is just picked randomly to sound cool and for political purposes.
What number? Are you talking about $15? Because it's not random. It's the amount needed for a full-time worker to be just above the poverty line with our current economy/market/cost of living.
This message have been approved by the Office of the Mayor of Toronto.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
9422 posts
1184 upvotes
Toronto
MayorOfToronto wrote:
Aug 23rd, 2017 11:12 am
What number? Are you talking about $15? Because it's not random. It's the amount needed for a full-time worker to be just above the poverty line with our current economy/market/cost of living.
Where's the Ontario specific study on that? Everybody knows it was a 'wow' driven political move. No warning to anybody, no consultation, no known study. They just stole the idea from other jurisdictions, especially the US where it was making bigger headlines.

Top