dre

Correlation does not always equal causation. Hmmmmmmm! What else happened between 2007 and 2009. Oh yeah! The Global Economic Catastrophuck!!!

Modest increases in wages would only effect companies with extremely small profit margins, that are not competitive with other companies that sell the same products and services. Those companies are bound to fail anyways. In general there's only one thing that effects staffing decisions at most companies. Demand for their products and services. A profitable company is going to chase increasing demand by increasing operations... end of story.

They DO apply. And if the government took other peoples money and gave it to poor people to buy big screen TV's, then demand would increase for those too. We arent talking about real supply and demand here, we are talking about the government manipulating pricing by paying for some of the things the low income workers need. If they didnt do that then yes... wages would go up, and costs of the products and services those workers provide would go up. But taxes would go down. And a company that cannot afford to pay its workers enough to live, has already failed. Its not profitable without government subsidies and its not competitive. We should let it fail instead of picking part of the living costs of its laborers and paying their entire tax bill for them. 1. Start taxing ALL workers. 2. Increase the minimum wage in each area so that each employee's after tax income equals the Market Basket Measure. 3. End all social programs and subsidies targeted specifically towards low income workers. 4. Fire all the government employees that do nothing but redistribute income from tax payers to low income workers. 5. Lower taxes for the middle class and businesses by the amount now being paid by low income workers, and the amount saved by firing the government middle men.

No, you haven't. Its absolutely and completely true.

Hahaha, thats pretty good

Nope. Get RID of the social programs directed towards medium wage workers don't raise taxes. Full time workers should support themselves and have to pay taxes. If they had to do that prices in the labor market for these workers would go up whether or not you raised the minimum wage to the Market Basket Measure. 1. Start taxing ALL workers. 2. Increase the minimum wage in each area so that each employee's after tax income equals the Market Basket Measure. 3. End all social programs and subsidies targeted specifically towards low income workers. 4. Fire all the government employees that do nothing but redistribute income from tax payers to low income workers. 5. Lower taxes for the middle class and businesses by the amount now being paid by low income workers, and the amount saved by firing the government middle men. And we ALREADY HAVE minimum wages, and the bureaucracies that manage them. But when we calculate them, we take into account that those workers wont have to pay taxes and will receive all kinds gifts from the tax payer. End those gifts, and stop accounting for them, and the minimum wage would be set at MBM. Why are you so determined to be on the hook for paying a low income persons taxes for them, instead of them paying their own taxes out of compensation for their employment? Why are you so enamored with socialism, subsidies, and wealth redistribution? Those are not medians. They are fixed numbers for a basket of goods and services needed to provide for basic needs in each city.

All direct subsidies to an employees minimum wage workers are indirect subsidies to the employer. Without them those worker flat out could not afford to support themselves on those wages, and those workers would become more expensive in the labor market. Its pretty damn simple.

The "backdoor nonsense is whats happening now" You don't need to set up a bureaucracy. We already have that information for every Canadian City. Its he're... https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/ref/dict/table-tableau/t-3-5-eng.cfm

Because many of them cant. If you are have one child, and you live in Vancouver or Calgary you need 25 thousand just to get basic necessities. If you live in toronto you need 26K, Halifax 23k and so on. But after deductions you probably make about 20k. These workers are eligible for various means tested benefits. These benefits are DIRECT subsidies to these workers because they allow workers to have a higher standard of life than they could otherwise afford. They are INDIRECT subsidies to their employers because without them their employers would have to pay these workers more. And then there's taxes! Iv seen a number of posts by you on here ranting about how "one third of Canadian workers pay zero income tax", and you're right! And again... These tax exemptions are DIRECT subsidies to these workers because they allow workers to have a higher standard of life than they could otherwise afford. And they are INDIRECT subsidies to their employers because without them their employers would have to pay these workers more. If these workers were taxed at 15% then employers would have to pay them more. But instead, tax payers pick up this tab, and by doing so we are paying 15% of a companies payroll for each tax exempt worker. The following would be a common sense approach to this issue... 1. Start taxing ALL workers. 2. Increase the minimum wage in each area so that each employee's after tax income equals the Market Basket Measure. 3. End all social programs and subsidies targeted specifically towards low income workers. 4. Fire all the government employees that do nothing but redistribute income from tax payers to low income workers. 5. Lower taxes for the middle class by the amount now being paid by low income workers, and the amount saved by firing the government middle men.

Also, while its true that religion plays a part in the conflict, the modern Israeli / Arab conflict (after 1960) is really just a dust-up over control of the Jordan River's headwaters. Violence between the armistice and 1964 was relatively contained. But it clashes started to increase again when both sides began building water diversion projects to try increase the water one side controlled at the expense of the other. Israel began construction of their National Water Carrier, which when complete would reduce the flow of water to the Hashemites. This was part of the Israeli goal to "make the desert bloom". Arab nations responded by starting their own water diversion project... Diverting the Hasbani and the Banias river to the Yarmouk River, that would result in less water being available for the Israeli NWC. In 1965 things heated up. Syrians started shooting at Israeli troops and farmers, and Israel destroyed the Arab water diversion project with tanks and artillary, and also destroyed all of the heavy equipment in the area. This set off a chain of border clashes which lead to the 6 day war just over a year later. And when the war the six day war started water was the central focus of Israels occupation. Israel issued a number of military orders, and sent troops directly to strategic water control locations. Military Order No. 291. All pre-1967 land and water-related arrangements are declared invalid Military Order No. 158 (1967): "Order Amending the Water Supervision Law" ordained that all wells, springs and water projects are under the full direct command of the Israeli Military Commander.[21] Every installation or resource built without a permit will be confiscated Military Order No. 92 (1967) states that it ″gives the absolute authority of controlling all issues related to water to the Water Officer who is appointed by the Israeli courts.″ Military Orders 498 and 558 of 1974 and 1977 transferred all powers to the IDF in Gaza Military Order No. 58 (1967) states that ″it is prohibited to construct any new water installation without a license and that the licensing officer has the right of rejecting any application for a license without having to give the justification for his rejection. Military Order No. 948 states that every citizen in the Gaza Strip is compelled to obtain the approval of the Israeli military commander before implementing any water-related project. Palestinians were denied the right to drill wells on their own land, and strict water usage quotas were imposed on them that allow them to only use 1/5 of what an Israeli uses. Meanwhile almost all of the water resources in the west bank are pumped into Israel supplying roughly 40% of Israels water supply. Proponents of both sides of this conflict want everyone to think its special. Its about god, and racism, and religion. And there's a little bit of truth to that. But for the most part this is a garden variety dust-up over territory and resources like most other conflicts are. There's nothing all that special about it at all. The only thing that makes it a little different is that global attitudes towards the use of military to conquer new territory changed, so Israel was stuck. If it had been a hundred years earlier they would have just expelled all the Palestinians, or killed them, and permanently annexed the territory. Instead they have had to pretend they want peace with the Palestinians and pretend they have an open mind to an Arab state in the occupied territories. But right in the ruling parties Charter.... In other words? "You cant have a state because we need permanent control of that territory and its resources". This analysis might seem to paint Israel as the bad guys, but I think it does the opposite. NO COUNTRY would voluntarily give up 60% of their Fresh water. And Israel has the misfortune of being a down-stream state, so they are vulnerable to attempts by the upstream states to starve them out. ALL nations are willing to do some nasty things in order to accomplish objectives that they see as vital to the survival and lively hood of their citizens.

Well as far as all the perks you mentioned above... most minimum wage earners cant afford them. We have something called the Market Basket Measure, that is built from a basket of basic living necessities. Shelter, Clothing, Food, and Footwear. The cost of the basic low income standard of life defined in the MBM depends on where you live in Canada but its somewhere around 1700 dollars per month in most places, and despite the fact that the MBM is lower than the "povery line", most minimum wage earners in Canada do not make enough to pay for their own basic necessities. Never mind cars, or cell phones, or Xboxes.

Well if they paid less than what it cost for workers to get shelter, clothing and food, then there must have been some subsidies then as well. Unless workers showed up naked or just worked for a week until they died of starvation, or were homeless. Its true that people today expect more... a lot of people a hundred years ago lived in tents with no running water, everyone heated with firewood, etc. Today most people live in structures with running water, heat, electricity etc.

No I wasnt trying to argue that. Clearly workers lives are way better now. Everyones lives are. This is due to technology, regulation, etc etc. What I was trying to argue is that real wages have declined or been stagnant since 1975. Before that wages and productivity rose together. After Bretton Woods ended however wage growth immediately stopped even though productivity continued to increase. This cant be attributed to technology and mechanization alone because those things started 30 years before. THe main reason is because at Bretton Woods ended new money could be created by the billions with the stroke of a pen by loaning it into existence. Industry now had access to almost limited capital which they used to phase out workers, and chip away at their bargaining power. Increases in productivity are no longer shared with the worker but instead are split between shareholders.

Why on earth would you do the math that way? That's now how off grid systems being done... Heres a 700 KWH system that includes the panes. http://www.wholesalesolar.com/1892845/wholesale-solar/complete-systems/the-lodge-5.04-kw-18-panel-suniva-off-grid-solar-system 16 000 dollars Store the power in this.. that will hold 2 to 3 days. http://www.wholesalesolar.com/1898740/crown/battery-banks/crown-860ah-48vdc-41-280-wh-16-battery-bank 5000 dollars Back it up with this... That's an 11k diesel backup that automatically comes on when your reserves get below a certain point. That's 4000 dollars. That's reliable off the grid power for 25k. I did two of these installations in homes along a lake near here and they worked great, but it was about 10 years ago and they were extremely expensive. But its getting cheap now and costs are still dropping very quickly. There are hundreds of millions of homes in the world that are in sunny enough locations so that the diesel backup would never have to come on. Most low rise buildings in the world could be run this way. But if its not sunny where you live for part of the year, you can add a few of these... 3 of them would cost about 25 hundred dollars. http://www.wholesalesolar.com/4913034/primus-windpower/wind-turbines/primus-windpower-air-40-12v-1-ar40-10-12 And lets have one last look at this... According to that report commissioned by investment bankers. The intersect for Australia is only a few years away. And by 2034 grid power will be 400% higher than off-grid power.

Sure but most homes have multiple incomes now. Both the mother and father works. So of course a lower percentage of their income is going to rent and food. If you got a working room mate you would now spend a lower percentage of income on housing as well. A better measure is just real inflation adjusted incomes...

None of that is necessarily correct. First of all you can get 24x7 power without the grid. If you used non-intermittent power you just need the right amount of generation. A small thorium appliance, or whatever. If you are using intermittent power you just need the right combination of generation and storage. As for the odd prolonged period where there's no sun or wind for a long time, any home can be backed up by a few thousand dollars worth of diesel generation for these worst case scenarios. And like I said with on grid power going up in price, and small electrical generation systems rapidly coming down in price, if those trends continue its just a matter of time until people start fleeing the grid. And when people start... grid energy is going to start increase even faster.

The electrical grid itself is the expensive part. Lets say you had to build the US grid today... A single mile of 69kv overhead line costs 285 thousand to install. Theres 283 thousand miles of transmission lines in the US. So to build the US grid (and we are ONLY including transition lines, not the rest of the infrastructure) would cost almost 300 TRILLION dollars. And that's OVERHEAD. And thats ONLY the intermediate lines. The long-haul lines are 300-500kv and cost way way more. Underground is even more expensive. Anywhere from 4-10 times as expensive as overhead lines for the same voltage and distance. To build the grid with underground lines would cost QUADRILLIONS of dollars. And AGAIN... That's just the lines. Not the power stations and generators and terminals. There's about 130 million building in the US with electricity. So IF you were starting from scratch, and you wanted each building to power itself instead and have no grid at all, you would have about 50 thousand dollars in your budget to set up generation and storage per building. More than enough for low rise residential buildings and homes, but not enough for commercial and industrial buildings. But there's another cost factor as well... And that is the huge costs of managing and maintaining a wide area grid after its been built, and funding grid authorities, load distribution centers etc. There's thousands and thousands of vans and trucks with man- lifts driving around all the time full of guys that make 80k or more per year, and thousands of dollars worth of equipment. And then there's the real-estate taken up by all this. Most of which is provided by the public because IPP's could never afford to purchase enough roadside to get lines to all the homes. Hanging copper wires from wooden polls to every single building on earth is an old, low tech idea that's not going to be around forever. UBS, an investment bank did a study on Australia (its very sunny there) and the gap between offgrid homes and ongrid homes is closing quickly. If current trends continue those lines will intersect on the graph within the next few years.

No, clearly these subsidies allow the companies to pay lower wages and sell their products for less. That is by definition a subsidy. But you avoided the point which is why bother with any of that?. Why tax the economy extra and then have the government redistribute that money to its workers to top off their wages so that they can afford to live. Why not just let the COMPANY pay its workers enough to live, and lower their taxes in to make it revenue neutral.

But India has a lot of hospitals that have passed the same accreditation standards as ours, and patient outcomes are comparable. At the very least experience working in those hospitals should be considered residency. And all these doctors have to pass our own exams in the first place. The real problem is medical protectionism. The same organizations that negotiate doctors wages control most of the certification process. Its in their interests to create scarcity because it drives up their bargaining power with each province, and wages for their members. Union functions such as wage negotiations should be completely decoupled from any control of the certification process Since 2007 15000 new immigrant doctors have moved to Ontario and passed our exams. Only 70 of them have been given residency opportunities. And there's a chronic shortage of family physicians. In NO economic model does creating artificial scarcity save money. It increases wages, and reduces the quality and availability of service. That's like saying that having a single automotive shop in a large city would make automotive work cheaper. What would actually happen is that mechanics that worked in that shop would make millions of dollars per year, and it would cost a million dollars to have your engine timing set or get a tuneup.

I dont disagree with what you said. But generally companies make staffing decisions based on predicted demand, not tax levels or wages. Unless escalating costs bring profitability down to zero at which point there's no real point in the operation continuing. Its important to note though that allowing companies to pay lower wages than a person needs to live is a subsidy to that company. Because those workers are left needing subsidized daycare, foot, shelter, medical care, etc. The tax payer is essentially paying part of their wages, and if we didn't the companies employees would die and it would have none. A better approach might be to increase the minimum wages, but then lower the taxes for these companies by the amount saved so that the change is revenue neutral for them, and a whole layer of bureaucracy is stripped out.

Right now if we were to bring in 100 thousand immigrants GDP would grow by 2.3% but the population would grow by 2.6 percent. GDP goes up, but GDP per capita goes down a tiny bit. This is because new immigrants make only about 60% of what other Canadians make in wages. This is MOSTLY because theyre credentials are not recognized and they end up not working in the areas they are educated in. IF however we double the number of Economic Class migrants that would raise immigrant wages by 5 percent and now GDP per capita would be growing. And if we streamlined the approval process for foreign certification (so that doctors and lawyers are not driving taxi cabs), then the immigrant wage would go up more, and new immigrants would increase per capita GDP even more, and the level of many Canadian services would improve. Like I said we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, but we have lots of foreign doctors that have passed our medical exams but cannot practice simply because they cant get residency slots due to medical protectionism by Canadian medical associations. These kinds of things drive down immigrant wages as a group. Anyhow the two bolded portions above are actual doable common sense ideas that would ensure immigration benefits almost everyone. I posted this as a reply to you Argus because you at least expressed an interest in making the immigration system better as opposed to TaxMe's "Lock the doors quick!!!" position.

That's just a pure statement of ideological creed. None of you have even done the first bit of research on the impact of immigration on our economy, and you are ignoring most of the factors. Like the fact that immigrants are more likely to start more businesses than Canadians. Or the fact they are on average more educated. Or the fact that so much of our economy is in the real estate and real estate services and retail and leasing sectors and they need population growth to stay healthy. If your concern is economics stopping immigration is the absolute worst thing you could ever do, and nobody (neither conservative or liberal) is ever going to do it, because businesses and politicians understand t his stuff a little better than you do (a lot actually). If your concern IS economic here's what makes sense. Double the amount of ECONOMIC CLASS MIGRANTS. Adding a hundred thousand refugees based on the current class rations would increase our real GDP by 2.3 percent. The problem is it would increase our population by about 2.6 percent so GDP per capita would slightly decline. But if you doubled the number of Economic Class Migrants it would raise the average immigrant wage by about 5 percent, and not only would our GDP increase but our per capita GDP would increase as well. I think we SHOULD do that. Also... we should work with other countries to harmonize more certifications and stop protectionism by Canadian professionals. For example Doctors from places like India, Thailand, and South Africa are highly skilled today. But we don't recognize their credentials. And even if they ace our exams (and most of the do) to become certified to practice, they still aren't allowed to practice without a two year residency. And guess who controls the residency slots? Canadian Medical Associations. Guess who negotiates for doctor wages and salaries? Canadian medical associations. So of course they dont want foreign doctors to practice. They want to create artificial scarcity to drive up the wages of their members (and the cost of medical care along with it). The result? Almost half of the foreign doctors in this country are driving cab. Even the ones that ace our medical exams. Meanwhile we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, and half the country gets care at walk in clinics by doctors that done even know them. Educate yourself on all these issues. Stop pretending that the economy is a fixed size pie and new participants will mean that you get a smaller piece. Its just not true.

Wage and price control in a Keynsian economy is ALWAYS a government responsibility. Its controlled through monetary policy, interest rates, immigration, etc. Direct wage controls are not normally used, but make no mistake wages are centrally managed.

No that's not necessarily true. It does mean the government accumulates a bit of extra debt to support them, but its usually only temporary, and the one nice thing about giving money to poor people is that ever single penny enters the economy almost immediately. Its really economic stimulus which is why studies have found that increased immigration actually results in a growth and a healthier economy.

No its not. Studies in both the US and Canada have shown that when immigration increases the economy improves and more jobs are created. http://www.readersdigest.ca/features/heart/why-canada-needs-more-immigrants-now/ Immigrants are also more likely to create new business than Canadian born citizens. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/immigrant-businesses-study-1.3500813 You're just repeating the same lump of labor fallacy and youre ignoring the part where I explained that immigrants are propping up not only the construction industry but the banks, and realestate industry as well, and encouraging private developers to grow the money supply by taking out loans to hire workers and purchase land and materials. Immigration CREATES jobs and economic growth. It has a positive effect not a negative one.