Discussions

Jellybean said "    Butterflymbca said "Choosing a job you love over one without opportunity for advancement is NOT a lack of opportunity, it is a conscious decision. You are choosing passion over advancement and that is perfectly fine - but when you choose the action, you choose the consequence so you must live with the limitations of that career.     If you want more than you earn it isn't up to society to give you more it is up to you to earn it and if you can't or won't, that is on you not on society. " So, what you are saying is if you have no desire to go to university, and become a professional, or if you can't afford to go to university, or do not have the desire to leave the career you love, you should be left with struggling to live, because if your choice of career?   I think that there should always be options out there for everyone. And by options, I do not mean fancy brand new cars, homes, tv's, etc. But to not have even the option of trying to get in to the housing market for example, so you can gain equity and work your way upwards, that is not right. Why do you think the vacancy rate for rentals is so low here and many other places? Because way too man people cannot afford to get started. If you are not provided with options to better your life, then it won't matter how dedicated you are or how hard you work. If you can't afford the cheapest education out there, or the cheapest house out there, etc. then you have no options.     Society doesn't need to cater to lazy people who want things handed to them, but at the same time, it doesn't need to make everything only possible for the rich.           "

"if you have no desire to go to university, and become a professional, or if you can't afford to go to university, or do not have the desire to leave the career you love, you should be left with struggling to live, because if your choice of career"  
 
If you work at a job or choose a career that only afford you a certain lifestyle - then yes, that is the lifestyle you get. If you want more, you do more.  
 
I don't understand what you are saying - are you really suggesting that people should have any lifestyle that they want regardless of what or how much they do to earn it?  
 
THAT is the sense of entitlement I was talking about. I will repeat. If you WANT more, than you DO more. If you aren't willing to do more than you get what you have. No one owes you a lifestyle.  
 
There are ALWAYS options for people who want to work. Only those people looking for excuses not to say that they are victims of circumstance with no options.  
 
Edited by Butterflymbca, 2015-08-21 10:20:42

Butterflymbca said "    Jellybean said "    Butterflymbca said "Choosing a job you love over one without opportunity for advancement is NOT a lack of opportunity, it is a conscious decision. You are choosing passion over advancement and that is perfectly fine - but when you choose the action, you choose the consequence so you must live with the limitations of that career.     If you want more than you earn it isn't up to society to give you more it is up to you to earn it and if you can't or won't, that is on you not on society. " So, what you are saying is if you have no desire to go to university, and become a professional, or if you can't afford to go to university, or do not have the desire to leave the career you love, you should be left with struggling to live, because if your choice of career?   I think that there should always be options out there for everyone. And by options, I do not mean fancy brand new cars, homes, tv's, etc. But to not have even the option of trying to get in to the housing market for example, so you can gain equity and work your way upwards, that is not right. Why do you think the vacancy rate for rentals is so low here and many other places? Because way too man people cannot afford to get started. If you are not provided with options to better your life, then it won't matter how dedicated you are or how hard you work. If you can't afford the cheapest education out there, or the cheapest house out there, etc. then you have no options.     Society doesn't need to cater to lazy people who want things handed to them, but at the same time, it doesn't need to make everything only possible for the rich.           " "if you have no desire to go to university, and become a professional, or if you can't afford to go to university, or do not have the desire to leave the career you love, you should be left with struggling to live, because if your choice of career"     If you work at a job or choose a career that only afford you a certain lifestyle - then yes, that is the lifestyle you get. If you want more, you do more.     I don't understand what you are saying - are you really suggesting that people should have any lifestyle that they want regardless of what or how much they do to earn it?     THAT is the sense of entitlement I was talking about. I will repeat. If you WANT more, than you DO more. If you aren't willing to do more than you get what you have. No one owes you a lifestyle.     There are ALWAYS options for people who want to work. Only those people looking for excuses not to say that they are victims of circumstance with no options.     Edited by Butterflymbca, 2015-08-21 10:20:42"

Maybe you are missing my point?  
 
I'll use another example.  
I have a child who has special needs, and there is a real chance that she will be mentally incapable of attaining a university education someday. This is will leave her with a more limited pool of options for career choices. She will have to choose a career based what she loves, and and what she is capable of doing, and what is available where she will live. She will only have a certain earning potential no matter how hard she works, and how much she pours herself in to advancing to her potential.  
 
So if her top earning potential based on her mental capability is too low and prices her out of ever being able to afford to get in to the housing market, or buy herself a reliable vehicle, etc., then that is ok? She should not be left with any options to be able to do these things? No, I don't think so. Prices of basic living should not be so high that is knocks out a certain class of people all together. And that is where our society is at. If you don't earn over a certain amount, there are certain areas things you simply can't do. There are not ALWAYS options for low income people.  
 
Again, like I said, if you are lazy and just want to be handed things, that is totally different than being a dedicated hard working individual, who only can advance so far. I never once said that we should have the lifestyle we want no matter what we earn. No one should have to be left with no options either though because of what they earn. Working hard and bettering yourself does not necessarily mean you will earn more money. We can't all be doctors and lawyers just so that we are able to afford live in today's economy.

Basic living does not include home ownership. I am sorry but that is the hard fact of life. There are programs available as there should be for those with physical and mental limitations to secure basic necessities, help with training etc. but home ownership is not a standard of living that everyone can have.  
 
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Disabilities are far different than the career choice based on passion that you were discussing earlier - but the fact still remains that what you have will always be based on what you earn.  
 
Disabilities aside, there are always options to earn more and pull yourself up to a higher standard. ALWAYS. If people put as much energy into working for what they want instead of complaining about what they don't have, they would be far better off.  
 
You aren't seriously suggesting that society owes everyone a standard of living beyond their means?

Another example.  
10 years ago we got in to the housing market quite easily with our income levels. We don't earn much more per year than we did 10 years ago (maybe $5000 more per year), and housing prices have tripled. If we wanted to buy a house now we couldn't. We would not have that option.  
So you are saying we should change our careers, just because we want to buy a house, so that we can have the opportunity to gain equity, and advance in life? Not the way it works....  
 

Yes. That's exactly what I did, and pretty much anyone else who wanted to improve their lot in life.  
 
It isn't society's fault you don't make enough to get into the housing market where it sits right now. You either accept that you can't (nothing wrong with that, homeownership isn't for everyone), find a house that is affordable at your current price point, or do something to increase your income so you can buy the house you want.

Jellybean said "Another example.   10 years ago we got in to the housing market quite easily with our income levels. We don't earn much more per year than we did 10 years ago (maybe $5000 more per year), and housing prices have tripled. If we wanted to buy a house now we couldn't. We would not have that option.   So you are saying we should change our careers, just because we want to buy a house, so that we can have the opportunity to gain equity, and advance in life? Not the way it works....     "

You believe you have to change careers to gain equity while saying that equity you purchased 10 years ago has tripled in value?

Trevor said "Yes. That's exactly what I did, and pretty much anyone else who wanted to improve their lot in life.     It isn't society's fault you don't make enough to get into the housing market where it sits right now. You either accept that you can't (nothing wrong with that, homeownership isn't for everyone), find a house that is affordable at your current price point, or do something to increase your income so you can buy the house you want. "

Great that you were able to change careers that easily, not everyone can do that.  
My husband has a college education in a certain field that only will ever earn him so much no matter how hard he works. He's not going to stop working to go back to school now, to get a new career, just so he could buy a home. That doesn't even make sense.  
 
And I'm only using buying a home as an example. At our income level now, we couldn't buy a home at all, never mind a home that we "want". My point is not about "wants", it's about being totally priced out of many areas, just for the simple fact that cost of living is rising way faster than wages. If we placed importance on becoming a homeowner at our income level now, and could afford a crappy little dump of a house, we sure would do it, as that would give us the opportunity to advance in that area of our life. But we wouldn't even be able to do that, and that is where the huge problem is. Not everyone can change their career like they change their underwear, just so they can keep up with rising costs.  
 
Maybe housing is a bad example, what about the cost of food? Even that is rising way faster than what people can afford on their wages. Food is a necessity of life, can't argue with that.

CommonTater said "    Jellybean said "Another example.   10 years ago we got in to the housing market quite easily with our income levels. We don't earn much more per year than we did 10 years ago (maybe $5000 more per year), and housing prices have tripled. If we wanted to buy a house now we couldn't. We would not have that option.   So you are saying we should change our careers, just because we want to buy a house, so that we can have the opportunity to gain equity, and advance in life? Not the way it works....     " You believe you have to change careers to gain equity while saying that equity you purchased 10 years ago has tripled in value? "

Not sure what you are getting at...  
 
If we were first time home buyers now, as compared to 10 years ago, we would not be eligible for a mortgage based on our income.  

Nowadays, changing careers midlife is quite common. It is a choice. Please explain how your husband does not have that choice.  
 
As well, as previously stated, home ownership is not a need or a right.  
 
Edited by CommonTater, 2015-08-21 11:19:36

Jellybean said "Another example.   10 years ago we got in to the housing market quite easily with our income levels. We don't earn much more per year than we did 10 years ago (maybe $5000 more per year), and housing prices have tripled. If we wanted to buy a house now we couldn't. We would not have that option.   So you are saying we should change our careers, just because we want to buy a house, so that we can have the opportunity to gain equity, and advance in life? Not the way it works....     "

yes - "just because" you want to buy a house but cannot currently afford it - you should change something if that's what you want/need. why should the housing prices change to accommodate YOU? a market is a market and it is based on supply and demand - not on hopes and dreams.  
If you want to buy a house maybe you could look at getting a second job, look to advance your career, make some sacrifices and save some money somewhere, somehow?  

CommonTater said "Nowadays, changing careers midlife is quite common. It is a choice. Please explain how your husband does not have that choice.     As well, as previously stated, home ownership is not a need or a right.     Edited by CommonTater, 2015-08-21 11:19:36"

Again, just an example. I didn't say he absolutely does not have that choice. I said it is unrealistic to think you can change your career every time you want to earn more money to keep up with the cost of living.  
 
And as of right now, no my husband does not have the option of changing careers. We have 4 young children, one is disabled, and we could not afford to even put food on our table if he were to quit his job, and go back to school to get a higher paying job. It's not an option for us right now, and we live the lifestyle we can afford right now, and are just grateful that we got started in our lives when things were a lot cheaper.

ash5555 said "    Jellybean said "Another example.   10 years ago we got in to the housing market quite easily with our income levels. We don't earn much more per year than we did 10 years ago (maybe $5000 more per year), and housing prices have tripled. If we wanted to buy a house now we couldn't. We would not have that option.   So you are saying we should change our careers, just because we want to buy a house, so that we can have the opportunity to gain equity, and advance in life? Not the way it works....     " yes - "just because" you want to buy a house but cannot currently afford it - you should change something if that's what you want/need. why should the housing prices change to accommodate YOU? a market is a market and it is based on supply and demand - not on hopes and dreams.   If you want to buy a house maybe you could look at getting a second job, look to advance your career, make some sacrifices and save some money somewhere, somehow?   "

Again, not a realistic way of thinking.  
You can't change your life and your career every time the cost of something goes up.  
 
Let's stop using housing as an example. The economy has dictated that home ownership is now for the rich, whatever, it is the way it is.  
 
So, how about food? You used to be able to afford food for your family, but your current job does not allow for a pay increase, but food keeps going up, so you should change your career just to keep up with the rising cost of food? Nope....sounds kinda silly doesn't it. If there is the supply and demand, making prices rise as fast as they have in the last 10 years, then that should be driving wages up as well. It's not though, so even food will become only for the rich eventually at this rate. Now how ridiculous does that sound.

What is unrealistic is to think that you shouldn't have to make any changes ever in your life to accommodate your wants and needs.  
 
If you aren't earning enough to buy food - what are you going to do stomp your feet and demand that the price of food goes down so you don't have to change jobs? You will be stomping into starvation.  
 
What is also unrealistic is to feel entitled to more than you can afford.  
 

Butterflymbca said "What is unrealistic is to think that you shouldn't have to make any changes ever in your life to accommodate your wants and needs.     If you aren't earning enough to buy food - what are you going to do stomp your feet and demand that the price of food goes down so you don't have to change jobs? You will be stomping into starvation.     What is also unrealistic is to feel entitled to more than you can afford.     "

Well, I guess with your way of thinking, if changing jobs were that easy every time the price of living went up, then way more people would be shifting jobs constantly, which in turn would drive wages up, as employers would have a harder time keeping employees. Not how the real world works though....  
 
The rich have dictated the cost of living, and so in turn, the rich have dictated the lifestyle for the poor. It has nothing to do with entitlement or demanding to live beyond your means. It's simple economics....what you'd learn in a first year university economics course.  
 

Not in any economics book I've ever read.

So I moved to Edmonton. Renting a 3 bedroom townhouse with attached garage built 3 years ago for $1475/month. 100mb/s with 500gig data cap $50/month. Insuring our 2013 Dodge Ram hemi for $900/year. I'm earning $33.20/hour and home at 3:30 everyday. Google "jobs Edmonton" if you don't believe me.  
 
We struggled for 2 years in Brandon before just saying "what the hell are we doing here?" Cost of living and wages suck in Brandon, always have. Unless you're tight with someone who can get you on at one of the plants or catch a government gig your just going to chase your tail in Brandon. I owned a business in Brandon for 11 years and it was very good for me. I don't begrudge any of the landlords who took the chance and reap their rewards.  
 
I'm just saying that all the people on here frustrated need to do some version of what I did. You don't have too, but the reasons for the wage/cost of living are going to push those 2 things farther apart in the next decade, like they've been doing for the last decade. Don't scream to the sky hoping that's going to change anything.

Adam said " This thread has gotten way off course.   Reminder that this is the original post. Please make sure that responses help to in some way answer the questions asked. thx in advance    --------------------------   [i]"What are some of the STARTING wages in Brandon?...what are some of the plants, box stores etc. paying to start for non-trade/non-professional employees. There will be positions with a minimum wage start, but are there other places that pay above minimum wage? Alberta has been talking about a $15. minimum wage...but what really is their average starting wage currently?"[/i]   -------------------------- "

Maple leaf is your best chance at a decent guaranteed gig. Starting wages for non trades/non professional will be $12'ish to $15. Box stores are your usual Walmart/Home Depot/future shop , etc....Koch and Canexus are the big industrial jobs but you won't get a gig there without a man inside or some pretty serious work experience/resume. Gardewine is always looking if you have a class 1 or 3 license and they pay reasonable ($17'ish). You're not likely going to see anything in the 20's, even the city or provincial employees aren't knocking out numbers outside the low 20's unless they've been there awhile or have a salaried technical position or degree of some sort.  
You're likely going to have a tough time paying the average $1250/month for and apartment (2 bedroom) you can find some like Rossview garden or converted 100 year old houses in the downtown core for high 600's-$800 month.

Butterflymbca said "Not in any economics book I've ever read. "

maybe that just means you need to read a bit more...  
 
educating yourself instead of pointlessly arguing your opinion is usually a better route.  
 
I suggest looking up wages, housing costs, grocery costs, etc. in the 80's as compared to now, and do the math. It will simply show how the cost of living has risen exponentially faster than wages have, and it will show that the gap between the rich and the poor is also increasing.  
 
That being said, people like to bash Brandon for being a terrible place to live, and that they can't earn enough to live here. That is just the reality of being in a smaller center. There are not going to be the opportunities here that there are in larger cities, and unfortunately, things like apartment rent costs, housing, taxes, etc. are rising a little high here for the size of the city and the opportunities available here.

Pretty sure your same complaint comes up every single time that minimum wage goes up.  
 
Safe to assume you don't earn minimum wage.

Yes....this is a basic explanation of how the economy work. But there is still the problem of wages rising at a much slower rate than cost of living.  
 
If you made 20/h in 1980, and were approved for a 100,000 mortgage, you'd get a pretty fancy brand new home. If you make that now, and qualify for a similar mortgage amount, that doesn't get you much, if anything. Do houses in the 100,000 range even exist here in Brandon?  
If you made 20/h in 1980, and had a family, your grocery bill wasn't eating up half your wages. Nowadays, if you make that, and have a family, it's probably a safe bet that your food bill alone is eating up a good chunk of your wages.  
Things like poor budget planning are driving things like property taxes through the roof faster than people can keep up with. That problem alone is pricing some people out of the housing market.  

I have no idea how this ended up as a new discussion as I posted this as a reply to this topic on the conversation of "Brandon wages and Cost of living".  
 
 
Yes I have though for 8 years the last of which was 60 hours a week between 2 jobs as one at 40 wasn't enough to pay my expenses but even at that time I still didn't believe that society owed me more for my unskilled labour. I saw it as I needed to find a new job and skills get better at the job I had which capped at $15/hr and or adjust my lifestyle I'd become accustomed to. Maybe I don't enjoy my job as much but the fact it was fairly easy and enjoyable was the reason it paid minimum as I was so easily replaceable at both of them.

almost everything in life is a choice, a choice to go to school with a capped earning potential, a choice to have 4 kids (the health of them is a roll of the dice tho) a choice to stay at your current career, even if it makes the most sense for where you are at in life at the moment. I also agree home ownership isn't a right or a necessity but what i think has changed is our belief that we need and should have everything, the dumpy house a family can buy at minimum wage was fine years ago and so was gardening and making your own everything so that you did not need to spend so much on groceries, newer cars ect our needs today is also a choice and i wish people would remember that  
 
as far as examples of wages go many drivers make in the $20hr labour at koch was advertized at 17 plus shift premium and double time, HCA or cook at a facility is around the 15 mark which includes benefits and shift premiums, nurses make 25- 45 depending on level , always in need plus brandon and area have tons of employment opportunists if you are willing to work for them

The people just above minimum will always suffer. The more we raise minimum the further from middle class and ability to get into the housing market become. The government can only mandate a minimum, and when it rises the people just above suffer. as it's purely up to the employer on whether to keep up with this which also puts him in a tough spot as while he was paying good wage he must now either higher prices and sacrifice potential business or save on employment to make up his losses based on increased costs.  
 
This is what is hurting us because people cry for minimum to go up feeling that will help them get further without actually having to do more such as second job or try harder to get above minimum wage.  
 
Minimum needs to stay where it is as increasing it only brings middle class closer to poverty. People need to realize minimum is just supposed to be enough to provide you with what YOU need to live not luxuries they are stepping stone opportunities to boost your resume or train you into something new while they essentially pay you to learn.  
 
Sometimes living alone or in a good area is a luxury depending on the city. If I Lived in say Florida or California and earned minimum wage If I lived alone it would be in a very bad end of town so you sacrifice and either live at home or with one or multiple room mates until you work more(maybe second job), find better job or earn a raise.  
 
I don't believe minimum wage should need to pay enough to support children as well. Children are a privilege too many see as a right if you choose to have them before you are stabile enough to support them expect to have to work hard for them and make sacrifices.  
 
I would like to get a house someday and maybe have a family but I know I should be stabile and secure enough in my own life one part of which is finances first before I could ever hope to give a child the sense of stability, and security it deserves.  
 
I may seem bitter. I have had many times where I have been within dollars of minimum after finally earning raises and had half of it become nonexistent because the basic cashier beside me barely able to accomplish basic tasks and no drive to get better who has 3 kids at home. They take a couple sappy stories like this to a news station about how she barely makes enough to get by leaving out what she does or how bad she is at her job and the government raises minimum again. Minimum goes up $1 and my $2 above minimum is now $1 after inflation she's nearly back where she was and after inflation I can afford that much less again and my efforts become in vein.  
 
BTW only seen two around $100,000 one was a single bedroom for 124,000 and one is $80,000 I think a 2 bedroom but located right on 18th directly north of coral centre with a horribly steep driveway  
 
 
 
 
Edited by darkg, 2015-08-22 23:19:44

Jellybean said "    Butterflymbca said "Not in any economics book I've ever read. " maybe that just means you need to read a bit more...     educating yourself instead of pointlessly arguing your opinion is usually a better route.     I suggest looking up wages, housing costs, grocery costs, etc. in the 80's as compared to now, and do the math. It will simply show how the cost of living has risen exponentially faster than wages have, and it will show that the gap between the rich and the poor is also increasing.     That being said, people like to bash Brandon for being a terrible place to live, and that they can't earn enough to live here. That is just the reality of being in a smaller center. There are not going to be the opportunities here that there are in larger cities, and unfortunately, things like apartment rent costs, housing, taxes, etc. are rising a little high here for the size of the city and the opportunities available here. "

If you made 20/h in 1980 that would be the equivalent of 60/h today. I don't think there were many people making 20/h in 1980 either.  
 
Minimum wage was $3.15 in 1980. Also in 1981 interest rates were 18%. Today minimum wage is $10.15 and interest rate is 2.5%. The average house price in 1980 was $70-75000 today it's $275-300,000  
 
It's all relative, but for some reason you don't seem to be able to understand.  
 
 
 
Edited by GuyR, 2015-08-23 02:18:11

The numbers quoted for 1980 might to be a good example, interest rates ran up in the early 80's but did not stay there, and I'm also wondering about the quoted house prices, I built my house in 1989, nearly a decade later, and quotes for that house came in near the price that was quoted for a 1980's house. Another thing that one has to take into account when making a comparison to 1980 would be taxes, as well as contributions to any of the government programs. We had the introduction of GST in the late 80's to replace a manufacturing tax, and it generated more tax dollars for government, which if government gets more from the consumer means less purchasing power.

Comparing 2015 to 1980 is pointless. We are where we are, we cannot go back so what's the point of arguing over 30 years that we cannot change.  
 
Since Jellybean wants to discuss economic theory and I have actually studied economics at the University Level, I will say that the one thing almost all economists agree on is that raising minimum wage increases inflation and unemployment.  
 
Raising minimum wage is not something governments do to boost the economy, it is a political maneuver not an economic one.  
 
The fact remains that regardless of whether minimum wage is $5 or $50, a minimum wage job will earn you a minimum wage lifestyle because everything else will adjust.  
 
You don't want a minimum wage lifestyle? It is up to you to increase your earning potential.

That is sort of a subjective statement.  
 
Right now down in the US both the congress and senate are controlled by the Republicans (right wing politics), and only the presidency is left wing, earlier this year under the advice of many economists in the US, as well as members of the Federal Reserve, an increase in minimum wage was legislated. Many of these economists were the same people who advised that if breaks were not given to business the American economy would continue to suffer. I would also add that the same fears were presented that if there was an increase in wages jobs would be lost, but it seems that has not happened, sometimes economists change direction with about the same frequency as the wind.

We have discussed this before and you have yet to be able to explain how an increase in minimum wage is good for low income earners, unemployment rates and the economy in general.  
 
If people really want more disposable income for low income earners they wouldn't be asking for a raise in minimum wage they would be fighting for a raise in the personal tax exemptions - now THAT would be good for the economy, employment and low income earners - BUT it doesn't make political headlines and buy votes from low income earners who THINK they are getting ahead with a raise in minimum wage but who really aren't