Great Labour Day Article

[Pliny]

If people are not allowed to contribute and are barred from contributing to society by such things as minimum wage laws then they will never understand what it means to create wealth and not just feel entitled to deserve it.

The damage done to society by minimum wage laws is not negligible, as illustrated in this article:

Why can't I find work?

[eyeball]

Perhaps we should have had a maximum wage law to balance any harm the minimum wage may have caused.

In my region as I've grown older I've been witness to the gradual and inexorable concentration of opportunity into fewer and fewer hands. If we'd had a maximum wage law perhaps we could have ensured that opportunity was more equitably distributed and kids in my region might still be able to make a living from the same forests and fish their parents did.

In any case calling any generation slothful in the wake of the intergenerational theft of natural resources that created the wealth that previous generations have lived high on is just not fair. I can't think of anything that will cultivate a sense of entitlement faster.

[Pliny]

Perhaps we should have had a maximum wage law to balance any harm the minimum wage may have caused.

In my region as I've grown older I've been witness to the gradual and inexorable concentration of opportunity into fewer and fewer hands. If we'd had a maximum wage law perhaps we could have ensured that opportunity was more equitably distributed and kids in my region might still be able to make a living from the same forests and fish their parents did.

In any case calling any generation slothful in the wake of the intergenerational theft of natural resources that created the wealth that previous generations have lived high on is just not fair. I can't think of anything that will cultivate a sense of entitlement faster.

The creation of wealth should create a sense of entitlement in the creators. It is essentially theirs.

You perhaps are witnessing the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. You are witnessing a development of the area and a creation of the division of labour that creates wealth and benefits all. Everyone has a choice of what to do with their portion of the wealth. Some choose to spend it in bars and and on partying. It is no fault of others they find themselves with very little in the way of "materialist" possessions, which is only a means of calculation of wealth, or anything to show for their contribution but then again they will be the first to complain about the materialist mentality and those hogging all the wealth. Their past cannot be changed.

Unfortunately, government plays its part in concentrating wealth. Ensuring that those who will provide the most economic benefit to government will get the most privilege.

Intergenerational theft? Call the police!! Charge the culprits!! Give them a fair trial and hang them!

Actual intergenerational theft comes in the form of government debt and deficits and the older generation having their benefits paid for by the current generation through LAW! All enacted for the collective good of all!

Don't you like the fact that you can send your frail and faltering parents to a home to be looked after so it is not a burden upon you? Or is that a rather expensive option? You pay taxes all your life for many things with no guarantee of receiving any benefit whatsoever. And if the future generation should really consider the debt you laid upon them they will certainly revolt, once again destabilizing the economy and society.

Now as far as the ownership of land goes. Ownership has in the past been determined by the biggest government. Lands were confiscated in the name of foreign Kings and Queens. Some of it was paid for and some of it was not. But most of it had no ownership and, in fact, one would have been hard pressed to find a deed of ownership or anything of the like before Europeans arrived here. The natives had to hurry and learn what ownership was. They didn't own North America. They occupied a portion of it and should have had ownership of that but they couldn't have occupied all of it and ownership requires utilization. You will notice that as soon as something is or appears abandoned or unoccupied it is quickly taken over by someone else. The natives simply never had enough people to occupy all of the land. The governments get away with not using land by using it as "parkland" or claiming it is public land which they then divvy up the way they like. They can do it fairly or not, usually not. So let's not confuse inter-generational theft with people trying to make a living and develop a community and a society. Government generally mucks it all up by playing favorites and enforcing what they "feel" is best.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Pliny

[Machjo]

A few points to make:

I do agree with eliminating minimum wage laws, as they essentially force people out of work, thus hurting the very people they're intended to help. Seeing that this also risks abuse from employers, I would also support some kind of co-determination laws or alternatively profit-sharing laws to ensure that workers benefit fairly from their actual work.

I could also agree with controlling unfair exploitation through monopolisation of a market, industry, or resources, as a capitalist could choose otherwise to strategically corner the market unfairly. There must also be controls on exploitative industries such as drugs, nicoine, alcohol, gambling, etc.

I believe that these woudl protect persons from injustice but would still require them to work and save their own money. I could also support universal compulsory education to ensure all have an equal start irrespective of parents' position in life. Beyond these parameters, I'm essentially capitalist. I guess one could say I'm a socialist when it comes to regulating the market, but a capitalist when it comes to owning the market.

[Oleg Bach]

Forty years ago as a kid - I made 400 dollars a week digging a hole - I am stunned that forty years later..people are actually working for 300 dollars a week....and that a corporate at the lower end makes 2000 dollars a week - all this Labour Day crap is a ruse .socialist are controlled by the extreme right...and these rightests would have us work for nothing if they could. Not saying I am a commie - but what I am saying is that there is but one political power in the world - who ever controls the money rules! AND we kiss ass waiting for a few crumbs to fall from their table...The whole system is corrupt and it lies...IF I knew what I know now - I would have joined the communist party and made a tacit agreement with the banksters and stole the way they did...

[Pliny]

..The whole system is corrupt and it lies...IF I knew what I know now - I would have joined the communist party and made a tacit agreement with the banksters and stole the way they did...

I doubt you would have made a tacit agreement with the banksters, Oleg. You know better than that.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Pliny

[Oleg Bach]

I doubt you would have made a tacit agreement with the banksters, Oleg. You know better than that.

Had my chance a long time ago....I just was not cut from that type of cloth..a doctrine that would state and ask. "Are you willing to harm millions to maintain power and luxury plus privledge?" I was not...so here I am fighting the good fight ...the one bankster that I knew...and advised - well _ he's on his own now and I don't work for free......Funny - you would assume that the rich and powerful are intelligent....They are tough and highly trained - and love to listen to nobodies like me - because.....they really are very un-dynamic and really not deep thinkers....It's best to let them fall and not help them ---- reason being - THEY WILL NEVER HELP YOU!

[Oleg Bach]

All I ever wanted was a fair playing field. A life where I would serve you and you would serve me. All I expected was honour and truth..all I got was lies that consisted of a propogation of continued illusions that wasted the best years of my life - I trusted the system _ I really believed if I loved, I would be loved in return...Now my youth has passed and I can see my own end over the not so distant hill - I feel cheated by those that ran our system - Why I ask did they behave in such a manner? Better yet why was I such a sucker....? IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT EDUCATE. BUT CONFOUNDS AND CONFUSES...AND ENSLAVES>>>The rest of my life is for me and let those that have it all and had it all slowly go back to hell...It does not matter if I am given one good day - of freedom...at least I will have that day...socialist? NO - capitalist? NO.......I am a freeman.....no one can take that!

[Pliny]

A few points to make:

I do agree with eliminating minimum wage laws, as they essentially force people out of work, thus hurting the very people they're intended to help. Seeing that this also risks abuse from employers, I would also support some kind of co-determination laws or alternatively profit-sharing laws to ensure that workers benefit fairly from their actual work.

Abuse and exploitation are determined by...????? I think what you are afraid of is slavery. Very few employers have ambitions beyond supporting their families and the employees and their their families. You are talking about big corporations who have lost their soul. In other words they have forgotten their purpose to their real customers, the consumers of their product or products and their customers have been replaced by the shareholders. This is one place where government fails us. They bailout those big corporations when they should collapse because of their improper emphasis in doing business. The shareholders should suffer the consequences of such poor management but government often considers these corporations as too big to fail.

I could also agree with controlling unfair exploitation through monopolisation of a market, industry, or resources, as a capitalist could choose otherwise to strategically corner the market unfairly. There must also be controls on exploitative industries such as drugs, nicoine, alcohol, gambling, etc.

It may occur that a company can corner a market but it is very rare in a free market. The best way for a monopoly to be gained is to have the government grant one, as it does in the communications industry, telephone and cable, less so in the States than here in Canada but there were monopolies and government owned. They have created monopolies in energy markets, wheat distribution and other farm product distribution like dairy products.

I have wrestled with the drug factor and am leaning on the legalization of illegal drugs and the deregulation of legal drugs such as nicotine and alcohol.

I say this because of the fact regulation is only something that promoters of their products work around and not only that approval by government of their products absolves them somewhat of responsibility for products that may have after effects.

You forget how much power the customer has over the market. If competition is kept open then only honest and ethical businesses will be supported. It is an unsafe and risky place for the entrepreneur - he can't be perceived in the least to be untoward. Lots of companies unethically and exploitively hide behind laws by following it to the letter and allowing customers to make incorrect assumptions regarding their purchases or with tactics that without the protection of the law would be called fruadulent.

I am not saying that fraud, criminality, exploitation and abuses would disappear in a free market but unethical companies and poorly run businesses would be left to to the whim of the consumer and not be allowed to continue or be propped up by government.

I believe that these woudl protect persons from injustice but would still require them to work and save their own money. I could also support universal compulsory education to ensure all have an equal start irrespective of parents' position in life. Beyond these parameters, I'm essentially capitalist. I guess one could say I'm a socialist when it comes to regulating the market, but a capitalist when it comes to owning the market.

I could probably agree that a public basic elementary education that encourages learning and sticks to ensuring the basics necessary to learning are known but beyond that would only agree that private education should be occurring.

The person that can regulate the market owns it. Once more the power of the consumer to destroy bad businesses is greater than government's ability to even determine what a bad business is.

[Pliny]

All I ever wanted was a fair playing field. A life where I would serve you and you would serve me. All I expected was honour and truth..all I got was lies that consisted of a propogation of continued illusions that wasted the best years of my life - I trusted the system _ I really believed if I loved, I would be loved in return...Now my youth has passed and I can see my own end over the not so distant hill - I feel cheated by those that ran our system - Why I ask did they behave in such a manner? Better yet why was I such a sucker....? IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT EDUCATE. BUT CONFOUNDS AND CONFUSES...AND ENSLAVES>>>The rest of my life is for me and let those that have it all and had it all slowly go back to hell...It does not matter if I am given one good day - of freedom...at least I will have that day...socialist? NO - capitalist? NO.......I am a freeman.....no one can take that!

Do they really know how to educate or has education become just a method of behavioral modification?

I will venture to say that I agree with you and that they really don't know how to educate and are heavily invested in attempting to enforce learning what is deemed important by behaviorists and educators. Instead of how to learn and continue to have a love of learning.

Be happy Oleg, the system couldn't have been that bad. You ended up a free man when not many do. The young face an even more corrupt system where love won't even exist - you got in at least where you were allowed to play the game.

[bloodyminded]

A few points to make:

I do agree with eliminating minimum wage laws, as they essentially force people out of work, thus hurting the very people they're intended to help. Seeing that this also risks abuse from employers, I would also support some kind of co-determination laws or alternatively profit-sharing laws to ensure that workers benefit fairly from their actual work.

I'm not belittling your post, which I think is interesting, but with all due respect, I wish to make one small correction: the elimination of a minimum wage would not "risk abuse from employers," it would guarantee it.

But, because you're sane and intelligent, you suggest some ameliorative possibilities.

If you'll indulge me (and I'm not searching for a "gotcha" moment, but rather professing genuine ignorance): what are "co-determination laws"? And how would "profit-sharing laws" work, and what is the motivation for a business to enact these rather than a minimum wage?

[Machjo]

I'm not belittling your post, which I think is interesting, but with all due respect, I wish to make one small correction: the elimination of a minimum wage would not "risk abuse from employers," it would guarantee it.

OK, you're right on a technicality. While some employers would still pay a fair wage, I'm sure at least a few would abuse it. But it still stands that not every single company would unfairly exploit it.

If you'll indulge me (and I'm not searching for a "gotcha" moment, but rather professing genuine ignorance): what are "co-determination laws"? And how would "profit-sharing laws" work, and what is the motivation for a business to enact these rather than a minimum wage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_sharing

I'm not necessarily saying that I support these ideas, nor that I don't support them. What I am saying though is that they could provide a base for further discussion at least.

In the case of co-determination, it does not guarantee workers the right to everything, but it does give them more of a voice in the company. The problem with minimum wage is that it's too arbitrary. In bad economic times it prices people out of the market, and in good economic times, it does not guarantee raises above the minimum wage (though granted it does raise its likelihood). The advantage with co-determination is that in bad economic times, the workers would be willing to take a pay cut as long as management does too. There is no arbitrary legal minimum wage that risks pushing them out onto the streets. And in good economic times, they have a strong voice on the board of directors to raise their wages. So in essence, unlike an arbitrary minimum wage that can hurt the most vulnerable, co-determination allows salaries to float according to the free market while still ensuring just wages according to economic circumstances at any given moment.

Personally, I think I'm quite fond of the idea of co-determination and would likely support our adoption of the German model in this case.

As for profit sharing, I don't quite like the idea as much in a legal context for similar reasons to my opposition to a minimum wage: it's somewhat arbitrary in how much the government decides needs to be shared percentage-wise, considering that different industries might require different amounts of investment, and even the same industry's investment needs might fluctuate depending on the market situation at any given time. This arbitrariness could risk putting certain industries out of business and thus workers out of work, hurting the very people it was intended to help.

Co-determination laws have the advantage of still allowing the company to adapt to the market by negotiating wage freezes or even wage cuts if necessary, and likewise for any profit-sharing agreement established between management and labour which can be renegotiated too in the event of an economic downturn while still ensuring that the workers aren't exploited (i.e. if the workers must accept these cuts, so will management). In this way, co-determination laws manage to accomplish certain socialist objectives within free-market constraints. It's a kind of third way policy if you will.

Another advantage I see with co-determination laws is that, unlike labour unions, they promote more collaborative relationships between workers and management rather than confrontational ones. From a cultural perspective too, certain cultures are averse to such a confrontational approach and so do not benefit as much from unionization. This is proven by the role of labour unions in different countries around the world, their prevalence, and their effectiveness. Clearly if the government wants to help all workers, it cannot be focussed exclusively on laws that benefit labour unionists only at the expense of other workers who might not, for whatever cultural reason, be able to benefit as much from such laws.

Co-determination laws essentially eliminate the need for labour unions since they require companies to consult with workers regardless of whether the company is unionized or not. From that standpoint, the union becomes redundant and a waste of money.

[bloodyminded]

OK, you're right on a technicality. While some employers would still pay a fair wage, I'm sure at least a few would abuse it. But it still stands that not every single company would unfairly exploit it.

I agree with you, except I see the liklihood of abuse as probably rampant. Overwhelming. Not a technicality, but a more-often-than-not scenario.

I'm talking about unskilled and semi-skilled labour. In higher economic and educated sectors, I believe it would be much more complex.

But unskilled and semi-skilled is a massive, enormous number of people. And I put it to you that (given the lack of the differing scenarios you propose, mind) eliminating the minimum wage will increase the poverty of tens of millions of North Americans. Immediately.

We know this, because of sweatshops and illegal labour. The primary PURPOSE of these things is to reduce wages.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Machjo]

I agree with you, except I see the liklihood of abuse as probably rampant. Overwhelming. Not a technicality, but a more-often-than-not scenario.

I'm talking about unskilled and semi-skilled labour. In higher economic and educated sectors, I believe it would be much more complex.

But unskilled and semi-skilled is a massive, enormous number of people. And I put it to you that (given the lack of the differing scenarios you propose, mind) eliminating the minimum wage will increase the poverty of tens of millions of North Americans. Immediately.

We know this, because of sweatshops and illegal labour. The primary PURPOSE of these things is to reduce wages.

FYI, Sweden, a model of social democracy, has no minimum wage, and yet it has a very high quality of life. I believe that co-determination laws could work. Granted, Sweden also invests a lot in education, and with it using a school voucher system, we can also add private investment on top of the government investment. So granted Sweden has a much higher level of overall educational attainment too. It doesn't change the fact though that Sweden proves that it is possible to ensure a reasonable quality of life for all without pricing people out of the market with arbitrary minimum wages.

[Machjo]

Though granted Sweden also has high taxes and various other regulations and tends to still be frugal in its spending by encouraging private investment in education and healthcare and focussing its spending on bread and butter issues like education, trades and professional training, health care, etc. as opposed to Gay Pride parades. We could argue that Sweden's is a 'conservative socialist' system if we can look past the oxymoron.

[bloodyminded]

FYI, Sweden, a model of social democracy, has no minimum wage, and yet it has a very high quality of life. I believe that co-determination laws could work. Granted, Sweden also invests a lot in education, and with it using a school voucher system, we can also add private investment on top of the government investment. So granted Sweden has a much higher level of overall educational attainment too. It doesn't change the fact though that Sweden proves that it is possible to ensure a reasonable quality of life for all without pricing people out of the market with arbitrary minimum wages.

Sure...I was trying to say that I think, as you do, that these ideas are worth discussion and debate. I only said that withOUT the proposed ameliorative processes--ie, eliminate minimum wage, period--we are in a poverty-stricken, wholly class-based society. Mind you, some people would no doubt like that idea.

[bloodyminded]

Though granted Sweden also has high taxes and various other regulations and tends to still be frugal in its spending by encouraging private investment in education and healthcare and focussing its spending on bread and butter issues like education, trades and professional training, health care, etc. as opposed to Gay Pride parades. We could argue that Sweden's is a 'conservative socialist' system if we can look past the oxymoron.

I don't think we're spending an exorbitant portion of national incomes on Gay Pride parades.

[Machjo]

Sure...I was trying to say that I think, as you do, that these ideas are worth discussion and debate. I only said that withOUT the proposed ameliorative processes--ie, eliminate minimum wage, period--we are in a poverty-stricken, wholly class-based society. Mind you, some people would no doubt like that idea.

Certainly. But of course any government action to help the poor must be well thought out otherwise it risks hurting the very people it is intended to help. To take rent ceilings as a classic example. Paris France had tried that for awhile to help poor tenants. It worked in the short term, but the problem was that while the city's population continued to grow, there was no more incentive for companies to build more apartment buildings. As a result, as apartments became harder to come by, some landlords started looking for legal loopholes like 'key fees', or otherwise charging for every little service or cutting building services to the bone and there was nothing tenants could do about it. In fact, tenants themselves were competing with each other trying to offer a better deal to landlords while all the while buildings were left minimally serviced.

Eventually, the government had no choice but to lift the ban and prices shot through the roof until the market readjusted. New York City had tried that once too, and more recently Toronto had made a similar mistake just over a decade ago (we would have thought they would have learnt from Paris' and NYCs mistake?). From my understanding, Toronto has been recovering since lifting the ceilings.

One thing socialists must remember is that they are not exempted from the basic economic rules of supply and demand. I think one reason Sweden has succeeded as a social democratic state is because it has understood that principle and so its brand of socialism still abides by the basic rules of supply and demand by not introducing artificial floors and ceilings like minimum wages and rent ceilings, but rather by simply democratizing industry. To the best of my knowledge, Sweden has never introduced price ceilings on rental apartments, and I know it's never introduced any kind of minimum wage. Yes, it gives workers more power, and provides quality education for all to ensure they can succeed, but otherwise tends to adopt a much more market-friendly and collaborative approach with industry.

[Machjo]

Honestly, I think Canadian socialists can learn from the Swedish experience. Socialists need not necessarily take on such a dogmatically confrontational and combative approach against all things capitalist. In Sweden, socialism has proven quite successful side by side with private schools and school voucher programmes, private clinics, etc.

In fact, dare I say that is the very reason socialism has succeeded in Sweden; it is willing to take the best from all systems. Canadian socialists seem to think in black and white, as in we must be either totally socialist or totally capitalist. This kind of extremism is what I believe has held Canadian socialism back.

[Machjo]

I don't think we're spending an exorbitant portion of national incomes on Gay Pride parades.

This parade, that parade. It quickly adds up.

[bloodyminded]

This parade, that parade. It quickly adds up.

No, it's a total non-issue.

But I think you're on to something with your Swedish democratization of capitalism model.

[Machjo]

No, it's a total non-issue.

I still disagree and believe every dollar spent ought to be counted no matter how small. But that's for another thread so I'll leave it at that.

But I think you're on to something with your Swedish democratization of capitalism model.

Thanks. I never quite thought of the term "democratization of capitalism". Clearly Swedish social democracy is far different from the Canadian model; much less confrontational and much more collaborative. I know various terms have been thrown at Swedeish democracy; 'third way', 'democratization of society', and I'd come up with 'conservative socialism'. And now you're calling it 'democratization of capitalism'. I think they can all fit the bill, and we can certainly learn from Sweden's efforts to build bridges between the right and left rather than burning them and then manning the fortress always bracing for attack.

[eyeball]

Honestly, I think Canadian socialists can learn from the Swedish experience. Socialists need not necessarily take on such a dogmatically confrontational and combative approach against all things capitalist. In Sweden, socialism has proven quite successful side by side with private schools and school voucher programmes, private clinics, etc.

In fact, dare I say that is the very reason socialism has succeeded in Sweden; it is willing to take the best from all systems. Canadian socialists seem to think in black and white, as in we must be either totally socialist or totally capitalist. This kind of extremism is what I believe has held Canadian socialism back.

This works both ways. Canadian anti socialists unrelentingly characterize any and all socialists as communists. If a socialist says 'democracy' for example many anti socialists insist it really means 'dictatorship'. Its ridiculous.

Edited December 21, 2009 by eyeball

[Machjo]

This works both ways. Canadian anti socialists unrelentingly characterize any and all socialists as communists. If a socialist says 'democracy' for example many anti socialists insist it really means 'dictatorship'. Its ridiculous.

Agreed. Honetly, I'd like to see some party arise that would be more like the Swedish model. The Green Party might be such a party in that it too tends to be quite moderate in its policies. I suppose the NDP could take on that role too if it became more eclectic. Actually, any party could fill that void if it really wanted to I suppose.

[Machjo]

And yes, to be fair, the Swedish right tends to be more moderate too.