On January 5, New Brunswick’s provincial government announced plans to increase their minimum wage from the current $8.25 per hour to $10 over the next two years. The move has gotten surprisingly little coverage in the mainstream media out West so far, but I urge you to check out this excellent article on the Times & Transcript website.
New Brunswick’s decision to increase their minimum wage is part of a larger poverty-reduction plan adopted last November. This move shows that New Brunswick is committed to ensuring a decent standard of living for all workers not just on paper but through action as well.
It’s worth noting that this time last year, New Brunswick’s minimum wage was $7.75, putting it in last place among all Canadian provinces. How much difference a year can make!
Closer to home, our Premier’s latest excuse for inaction on minimum wages has been the poor economic conditions (most recently used in a mid-December interview on the Bill Good show, see here). That is despite the fact that we’re among the provinces least harmed by the recession and that other, worse affected provinces are managing just fine with higher minimum wages. Now that I think of it, the boom wasn’t the right time to increase minimum wages either, according to our government. Hmm.
As a result, minimum wages remain frozen at $8 per hour, well below where they need to be to ensure that full-time, full-year work is a ticket out of poverty.
Kudos to New Brunswick’s government for showing us that it is possible to maintain one’s social conscience during a recession, and confirming that public policy is, essentially, a matter of choice and not something dictated by “the economy.”
Iglika Ivanova // Jan 14, 2010 at 10:38 am
It’s true that BC has some of the most expensive housing in the country, which makes it even more difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. Transportation costs are another big-ticket item that varies among geographical areas. This is why measuring poverty or low income by Statistics Canada’s LICO (low income cut off) only gives us a rough idea.
HRSDC’s MBM (market basket measure) is the one measure we currently have that actually accounts for geographical variations (both among and within provinces) in the cost of living. According to the latest MBM data (for 2007), a single individual is considered low income if they had an after-tax disposable income of 15,884 in Vancouver and 13,601 in St John’s (NB). These incomes are after paying for health & dental expenditures that are not covered by provincial health insurance or an employee sponsored health plan (most low wage workers do not get benefits).
M. McCarthy // Jan 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm
In St. John’s, New Brunswick a one bedroom apartment with heat, hydro and water included costs $550-600 per month. BC is easily double that, so in effect our $8.00 minimum wage is relatively more like 4 bucks
LaPointe // Jun 7, 2010 at 6:31 am
Though the living expenses are less, there are less opportunities for earning a wage above minimum wage. We have an aging population, an out migration of students and a work force with skills mostly surrounding forestry, heavy equipment operators and fisherman. Expenses are not the only things to consider when thinking about minimum wage.
Iglika Ivanova // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:37 am
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I wanted to briefly address Marjorie’s question of how anybody can tell whether minimum wage earners are not the primary earners in their households.
Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is the main source for wage data in Canada, collects information not only on individual wages and employment status, but also on the wages and employment status of other household members living with them.
The ‘secondary earner’ assertions are based on the fact that some female minimum wage earners report living with a spouse who is employed and gets paid more than the minimum wage, and is thus considered the ‘primary income earner’ in the family. (The vast majority of minimum wage earners do not live with a spouse).
Frequently, men make more than women so the women living with a male spouse typically get counted as ‘secondary’ earners.
I think this is highly problematic, and not just because it completely ignores potential gender pay discrimination issues. The idea of primary and secondary earners is based on the assumption that families have one main breadwinner and if any other family members work, they do so to supplement the main breadwinner’s earnings. This is why we’re told that we shouldn’t worry so much about the ‘secondary’ earners’ wages.
While this may have been a good model in the 1960s or maybe even the 1970s, it’s long since not relevant for Canadian families.
It’s time to accept the new reality of dual earning families where both incomes are needed for the family to make it, period.
This is a very good reason to be very concerned about minimum wage earners, regardless of whether their spouse earns slightly more. Think about it folks, minimum wage earners are not typically married to millionaires.
Keith // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:27 am
One more thing. You mentioned that the government has not done a survey on this. I would be interested in a survey of how many Liberal MLAs have family members working for the minimum wage.
Keith // Jan 8, 2010 at 10:25 am
I heard you on CBC, Marjorie, and thought you did a fabulous job. I didn’t get the name of the UBC economist but thought his argument that a low minimum wage was OK because “it was mainly women who were second earners” smacked of the old “pin money” argument we used to hear. I am always startled to find there are still people who don’t understand how many women work to keep their families out of poverty.
marjorie griffin cohen // Jan 7, 2010 at 5:59 pm
It continues to stun me that the apologists for not increasing the minimum wage continue to say that because the majority of people who earn this are youths (i.e., 15-24 years old) it does not need to be raised.
This needs to be contested on two counts. First, it seems to assume that a differentiation in wage should be made on the basis of age and that the wages of the young should not keep pace with inflation. Studies of students in BC and Canada indicate that while some work to buy more stuff, most work because they absolutely need to to pay for their education.
But the other falacy is that everyone earning the minimum wage in BC is a middle-class teenager living with their fairly well-off parents. This certainly is not true. At least 25% of those on minimum wage are adult women. The spokespersons for the Fraser Institute and the government stress that these are not the ‘primary’ income earners for families. This is something they certainly do not know. The government has not done a survey of those on minimum wage, but simply rely on the simplistic arguments of the groups that contend that any rise in the wage — ever– is bad for business and bad for the economy.
Other jurisdictions have proven that this is not so.
Brian // Jan 7, 2010 at 12:47 pm
How can we move forward as a society if we constantly require the biggest sacrifices from those who face the biggest challenges? $10 is not a living wage, but would be a small step forward
Robert // Jan 7, 2010 at 10:48 am
Wow! First thing the NB government has gotten right in a long time. Congratulations. I wonder what got into them?