Connect with us

Business

Do Minimum Wage Laws Accomplish Anything?

Published

6 minute read

The Audit

David Clinton

All the smart people tell us that, one way or another, increasing the minimum wage will change society. Proponents claim raising pay at the low end of the economy will help low-income working families survive in hyper-expensive communities. Opponents claim that artificially increasing employment costs will either drive employers towards adopting innovative automation integrations or to shut down their businesses altogether. Either way, goes the anti-intervention narrative, there will be fewer jobs available.

Well, whatā€™ll it be? Canadian provinces have been experimenting with minimum wage laws for many years. And since 2021, the federal government has imposed its own rate for employees of allĀ federally regulated industries. There should be plenty of good data out there by now indicating who was right.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Historical records on provincial rates going back decades isĀ available from Statistics Canada. For this research, I used data starting in 2011. Since new rates often come into effect mid-year, I only applied a yearā€™s latest rate to the start of the following year. 2022 itself, for simplicity, was measured by the new federal rate, with the exception of British Columbia whoā€™s rate was $0.10 higher than the federal rate.

My goal was to look for evidence that increasing statutory wage rates impacted these areas:

  • Earnings among workers in full-service restaurants
  • Operating profit margins for full-service restaurants
  • Total numbers of active businesses in the accommodation and food services industries

I chose to focus on the food service industry because itā€™s particularly dependent on low-wage workers and particularly sensitive to labour costs. Outcomes here should tell us a lot about the impact such government policies are having.

Restaurant worker incomeĀ is reported as total numbers. In other words, we can see how much all of, say, Manitobaā€™s workers combined took home in a given year. For those numbers to make sense, I adjusted them using overall provincial populations.

Income in British Columbia and PEI showed a strong correlation to increasing minimum wages. Interestingly, BC has consistently had the highest of all provincesā€™ minimum wage while PEIā€™s has mostly hung around the middle of the pack. Besides a weak negative correlation in Saskatchewan, there was no indication that income in other provinces either dropped or grew in sync with increases to the minimum wage.

Nation-wide, by weighting results by population numbers, we got a Pearson coefficient 0.30. That means itā€™s unlikely that wage rate changes had any impact on take-home income.

Did increases harm restaurants? It doesnā€™t look like it. I usedĀ data measuring active employer businessesĀ in the accommodation and food services industries. No provinces showed any impact on business startups and exits that could be connected to minimum wage laws. Overall, Canadaā€™s coefficient value was 0.29 – again a very weak positive relationship.

So restaurants havenā€™t been collapsing at epic, extinction-level rates. But do government minimums cause a reduction in theirĀ operating profit margins? Apparently not. If anything, theyā€™ve becomeĀ moreĀ profitable!

The nation-wide coefficient between minimum wages and restaurant profitability was 0.88 – suggesting a strong correlation. But how could that be happening? Donā€™t labour costs make up a major chunk of food service operating expenses? Here are a few possible explanations:

  • Perhaps many restaurants respond to rising costs by increasing their menu prices. This can work out well if market demand turns out to be relatively inelastic and people continue eating out despite higher prices.
  • Higher wages might lead to lower employee turnover, reducing hiring and training costs.
  • A higher minimum wage boosts worker incomes, leading to more disposable income in the economy. Although the flip-side is that we canā€™t see strong evidence of higher worker income.
  • Higher wages can force unprofitable, inefficient restaurants to close, leaving stronger businesses with higher market share.

In any case, my big-picture verdict on government intervention into private sector wage rates is: thanks but donā€™t bother. All that effort doesnā€™t seem to have improved actual incomes on a population scale. At the same time, it also hasnā€™t driven industries with workers at the low-end of the pay scale to devastating collapse.

But Iā€™m sure it has taken up enormous amounts of public service time and resources that could undoubtedly have been more gainfully spent elsewhere. More important, as theĀ economist Alex Tabarrok recently pointed out, minimum wage laws have been shown to reduce employment for the disabled and measurably increase both consumer prices and workplace injuries.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

Published on

 

From theĀ Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.

The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTOā€™s annual operating budget, with the organizationā€™s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million,Ā accordingĀ to Reuters.

ā€œWhy is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ā€˜developing countryā€™ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?ā€ Trump wrote in May 2020.

The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organizationā€™s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTOā€™s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.

But a major sticking point continues to be Chinaā€™s continued classification as a ā€œdeveloping countryā€ at the WTO ā€” a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the worldā€™s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.

The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank,Ā previously slammedĀ the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.

The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning.Ā WTO rulesĀ allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the bodyā€™s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.

Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems ā€œunfairā€ to U.S. interests.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Nathaniel Li

Albertans contributed $53.6 billion more to CPP then retirees in Alberta received from it from 1981 to 2022

Albertansā€™ net contribution to the Canada Pension Plan ā€”meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta
received in CPP paymentsā€”was more than six times as much as any other province at $53.6 billion from 1981 to 2022, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

ā€œAlbertan workers have been helping to fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and Canadians ought to know that without Alberta, the Canada Pension Plan would look much different,ā€ said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Understanding Albertaā€™s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan.

From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paidā€”Canadaā€™s compulsory, government- operated retirement pension planā€”while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertaā€™s net contribution over that period was $53.6 billion.

Crucially, only residents in two provincesā€”Alberta and British Columbiaā€”paid more into the CPP than retirees in those provinces received in benefits, and Albertaā€™s contribution was six times greater than BCā€™s.

The reason Albertans have paid such an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP, in recent years is because of the provinceā€™s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population.

As such, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could expect to receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians, while the payroll tax would likely have to increase for the rest of the country (excluding Quebec) to maintain the same benefits.

ā€œGiven current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Albertaā€™s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into it than Albertan retirees get back from it,ā€ Hill said.

Understanding Albertaā€™s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan

  • Understanding Albertaā€™s role in national income transfers and other important programs is crucial to informing the broader debate around Albertaā€™s possible withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
  • Due to Albertaā€™s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues than they receive back in federal spending.
  • From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 percent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid while retirees in the province received only 10.0 percent of the payments. Albertans net contribution was $53.6 billion over the periodā€”approximately six times greater than British Columbiaā€™s net contribution (the only other net contributor).
  • Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Albertaā€™s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth and income levels, Albertaā€™s central role in funding national programs is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
  • Due to Albertansā€™ disproportionate net contribution to the CPP, the current base CPP contribution rate would likely have to increase to remain sustainable if Alberta withdrew from the plan. Similarly, Albertaā€™s stand-alone rate would be lower than the current CPP rate.

 

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Nathaniel Li

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X