Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?

[Bonam]

I get the feeling we're repeating ourselves here. Your position is clear to me, but I don't agree with it. The monarchies that we built our society from had an idea of 'noblesse oblige' and we improved on that by having the commons provide for the common welfare. As society grew richer, and specialization continued the welfare state appeared. I'm interested in what comes next, but it won't be a simple turn back of the clock or a tax cut.

What happens next is indeed an interesting topic. Personally, I think the reason we have the "welfare state" now is simply because our improving technology allows an ever smaller number of humans to do the work that provides the means for more and more others to live by. As technology continues to progress, more and more tasks will become automated, and the need for human labor will continue to decline. Certainly the remaining "manual labor" type jobs will be replaced in the near future, and progressively more and more "intellectual" jobs will be replaced by machinery as time goes by and these tasks can be replaced by AI/robotics.

What will be left is a very small number of the most specialized humans continuing to work in the development and advancement of the technology (mostly out of passion/interest rather than monetary necessity), while the vast majority of society simply lives off the results, contributing nothing of particular use.

This is commonly known as "techno-utopia".

[ToadBrother]

Fundamentally I don't see it as the domain of government to enforce morality upon everyone, even a morality that most people agree with.

And yet it cannot possibly exclude itself as a moral player. Do you think the British government during the Irish Potato Famine, by basically saying "We'll let the Irish farmers and peasants sort that out" could meaningfully deflect moral considerations?

As I have repeatedly said, governments are not alien entities that somehow lie outside of society. It is inevitable that government, no matter how hard it tries to stay out of the fray, will be forced to make moral choices. To simply hide its face and say "Well, that's too bad, but you see, that's not our problem" is a moral choice.

[Michael Hardner]

What happens next is indeed an interesting topic. Personally, I think the reason we have the "welfare state" now is simply because our improving technology allows an ever smaller number of humans to do the work that provides the means for more and more others to live by. As technology continues to progress, more and more tasks will become automated, and the need for human labor will continue to decline. Certainly the remaining "manual labor" type jobs will be replaced in the near future, and progressively more and more "intellectual" jobs will be replaced by machinery as time goes by and these tasks can be replaced by AI/robotics.

What will be left is a very small number of the most specialized humans continuing to work in the development and advancement of the technology (mostly out of passion/interest rather than monetary necessity), while the vast majority of society simply lives off the results, contributing nothing of particular use.

This is commonly known as "techno-utopia".

Not to mention the fact that we can now have transparency into any financial or government dealing if we want to. When the nature of information changes, the nature of the markets will change too.

As such, all bets are off: libertarianism and Marxism may be reconsidered, it's true, but they would have to modified somehow to take into account the new information infrastructure. What if all government financial dealings were completely public ? What would happen ? Something new will evolve from these changes.

[nicky10013]

obviously you have been sniffing glue and its clogging your comprehension. That is not what I said. I said an American company who operates in Ontario or anywhere in Canada is paying the Canadian an equal wage to an American but the Canadians is worse off. Why? because the Canadian's take home pay is being pillaged and plundered from him at the Grocery Store/Gas Pump/and other Retail Stores.

The biggest cost of a Retailer is probably labour. If you force a Retailer in Ontario to pay 3 dollars more an hour than what they are paying in the US it is a recipe for higher prices. Not only is this a logical assumption, I have seen it first hand. When in the US, I often go into Walmart to buy things. When I come back to Canada and see the same item 30 to 40 percent higher in price it makes me sick.

To further the Insult the Ontario Liberals are wanting to Harmonize the Tax so they can extend the tax on more inflated Retail goods and services. Ontario is sabotaging the economic recovery of Canada with their greedy tax grabbing.

It is right for the Federal Government to set realistic minimum wage levels to ensure global competiveness on wage front.

Ok, so this whole thing isn't about globalisation and us losing jobs and more about price but in the end it's about global competitiveness and jobs. I am confused. Considering the biggest cost for the retailer is "probably" labour and then run on that being gospel shows how truly out to lunch you are. The biggest cost to the retailer is product. Labour is merely an added percentage on top of that. Companies like grocery stores can cut labour if they want to. As I mentioned before, turnover in minimum wage industries is so high that no one really notices anyhow. Minimum wage hikes that are done responsibly over a period of time do no damage to the economy. In fact, the one area of the economy that is growing is part time minimum wage jobs which completely contradicts your global competitveness theory. As I mentioned before, minimum wage jobs that can be moved overseas already have been moved overseas. So what's next?

Furthermore, again, where is that statistic where things are 30-40% cheaper in the states? You see price spikes in fruits and vegetables at the grocery store but that's more because there's a freeze in Florida somewhere and half the orange crop dies. As I've said, I've got family down there and am down all the time and I can tell you for certain that's quite false. Considering I live in Toronto where it's one of if not the most expensive places to live in the country and go to depressed Ohio which is where my family is, it makes it that much more ridiculous.

[Bonam]

Not to mention the fact that we can now have transparency into any financial or government dealing if we want to. When the nature of information changes, the nature of the markets will change too.

As such, all bets are off: libertarianism and Marxism may be reconsidered, it's true, but they would have to modified somehow to take into account the new information infrastructure. What if all government financial dealings were completely public ? What would happen ? Something new will evolve from these changes.

Well the technology to allow transparency has been there for quite a while now, but it isn't being used that way. I don't think that just because we have a better information infrastructure that it will make the government reveal more information to the public. It is not to a government's advantage from a political standpoint to make these kinds of details available. No matter what they do and how correctly they act, people will find all the little mistakes and problems and commentators will blow them way out of proportion. Every page of every government transaction could potentially end up costing them an election. How much would that slow everything down, how many thousands of new bureaucrats would they hire to check all these transactions millions of times to make sure they contain nothing that can be used against the government?

Don't get me wrong, I am all from transparency, but I think that for an increase in transparency in government dealings, we would need some kind of fundamental change to the way government works that would not penalize them for releasing more information. Technology merely enables us to distribute information more widely, it doesn't force us to.

[ToadBrother]

Don't get me wrong, I am all from transparency, but I think that for an increase in transparency in government dealings, we would need some kind of fundamental change to the way government works that would not penalize them for releasing more information. Technology merely enables us to distribute information more widely, it doesn't force us to.

I don't really see how that's possible. Some information is harmful to government players (bureaucrats and/or politicians), and thus it is in their best interests to keep at least some dealings opaque. As we've seen from the Afghan prisoner abuse investigations, even where Parliament has an unfettered constitutional right to demand any and all documents, unredacted and in original form from the Government, the Government still has some capability of interfering with that release.

Politicians and high level bureaucrats don't get where they are by being high-minded and honorable, they get there by sucking up, by stomping on others on the ladder to the top and, yes, many times by deceits. Such individuals are hardly going to achieve there positions, and then go "Oh well, I guess it's time to start being open."

[Renegade]

Reread the posts in this thread. If you still don't get it get an IQ test and perhaps do something about it.

Whowhere you said this:

If you want a global economy you have to act like a global economy. That means being competitive locally and

globally

. All minimum wage is doing is overinflating retail prices and stealing money from those who do real work.

And this:

It is right for the Federal Government to set realistic minimum wage levels to ensure global competiveness on wage front.

Yet in all your ranting, you refer to the $3 difference in minimium wage with the US. Since you believe we should be competitive globally, why not have the wage reflect global competitiveness? I've looked at your posts. You don't address this inconsistancy. Perhaps you don't want it pointed out.

You've also said this:

I am not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage. It has to be a realistic minimum wage and not at the expense of everyone else.

What makes a minimium wage "realistic"? Any minimium wage no matter at what level will at some point will be "at the expense of everyone else".

[Renegade]

We don't own our labour, it's owned by those who employ us, or those whom we sell our services or produced goods, but ok.

It is only owned by those who employ us after we sell it. Your response implies that you at least agree that you agree that it is owed by us before the sale. If you agree with that do you not also agree that we own the proceeds of the sale?

Morality is constantly being read into rights, whether that is right or wrong. It was also so. Philosophical purity is intensely interesting for intellectuals (alliteration !) but should stay on campus where it belongs.

Frequently rights are being interpreted by human beings. As much as they may try, the probably can't separate their interpretations from their own morality. That is why the rules of society should specficly provide for provisions to separate out morality as much as is possible.

Maybe the idea that a corporation and the Kool Aid stand operator are the same entity and entitled to the same rights is a value too ?

I would argue that corporations don't have rights, only people do. If the contention that people have rights is a value judgement, I'm willing to acept that, however it is a value that is universally accepted.

I'm hardly alone in having "values" and you're making it sound like the measles. Go down to the US, which is the purest realization of a laissez-faire capitalist society in the west, by the way, and tell me that morality doesn't play into that system.

I don't fault you for having rights. I fault your advocacy in imposing your value system on the rest of society who may not agree with your values. I don't take the US system as the ideal. They are infected with many of the same imperfections as we are.

So, you have the same values as I do but you put the baseline somewhere else, I expect.

Yes but baseline is somewhere else because it is derived from possibly the only universally agreed upon value. That we own our own bodies.

I get the feeling we're repeating ourselves here. Your position is clear to me, but I don't agree with it. The monarchies that we built our society from had an idea of 'noblesse oblige' and we improved on that by having the commons provide for the common welfare. As society grew richer, and specialization continued the welfare state appeared. I'm interested in what comes next, but it won't be a simple turn back of the clock or a tax cut.

The welfare system appeared as people at the bottom assumed power within society. They acted out of self-interest and took wealth from those who had it. That trend is driven out of self-interest rather than some overarching aim to have a "fairer" society.

[ToadBrother]

The welfare system appeared as people at the bottom assumed power within society. They acted out of self-interest and took wealth from those who had it. That trend is driven out of self-interest rather than some overarching aim to have a "fairer" society.

What a load of crap. The British Poor Laws, for instance, began appearing before any of the major reform bills of the 19th century.

Have you ever read any history, or do you just sort of make things up that sound like they bolster your argument? If the only way to defend your political ideology is by basically making things up, that doesn't reflect terribly well for your ideology at all.

[whowhere]

Whowhere you said this:

And this:

Yet in all your ranting, you refer to the $3 difference in minimium wage with the US. Since you believe we should be competitive globally, why not have the wage reflect global competitiveness? I've looked at your posts. You don't address this inconsistancy. Perhaps you don't want it pointed out.

You've also said this:

What makes a minimium wage "realistic"? Any minimium wage no matter at what level will at some point will be "at the expense of everyone else".

Canada has higher retail costs than the US. We have free trade. That means if I were a retailer I could drive down to the US and BUY from the same wholesaler who provides products for the retailers in the US. What's happening in the shuffle? And if you don't think 80% percent of Retail products are shipped in from the US, you are on cloud nine.

I have made myself clear and I have been consistent. Perhaps the real solution is to establish a minimum wage for Retail sales & service (same as US) and a different minimum wage for non Retail. There is no such thing as a Free lunch. As I have said if you work for a US employer and they pay You the same wage as a US worker, you make less money because your money is being taken from you through inflated retail prices over the US. That is clear and is easy to understand. If anyone is argueing against this, it's because you are likely a retail worker clinging onto your gravy train. Get some ambition.

[bloodyminded]

Canada has higher retail costs than the US. We have free trade. That means if I were a retailer I could drive down to the US and BUY from the same wholesaler who provides products for the retailers in the US. What's happening in the shuffle? And if you don't think 80% percent of Retail products are shipped in from the US, you are on cloud nine.

I have made myself clear and I have been consistent. Perhaps the real solution is to establish a minimum wage for Retail sales & service (same as US) and a different minimum wage for non Retail. There is no such thing as a Free lunch. As I have said if you work for a US employer and they pay You the same wage as a US worker, you make less money because your money is being taken from you through inflated retail prices over the US. That is clear and is easy to understand. If anyone is argueing against this, it's because you are likely a retail worker clinging onto your gravy train. Get some ambition.

This is (to my knowledge) the second time you've bitterly complained about these fat-cat, greedy labourers at WalMart and McDonald's. It's one part bizarre, two parts hilarious.

[Renegade]

What a load of crap. The British Poor Laws, for instance, began appearing before any of the major reform bills of the 19th century.

Have you ever read any history, or do you just sort of make things up that sound like they bolster your argument? If the only way to defend your political ideology is by basically making things up, that doesn't reflect terribly well for your ideology at all.

So then TB, is it your contention that rich were kind to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts and thus formed the existance of the welfare state?

The British Poor Laws you refer to were not driven out of any montivation to create a welfare state and help the poor, it was driven out of an interest to maintain a labour pool. The makings of a true welfare state was not there until the poor started to assume some measure of control.

[Renegade]

Canada has higher retail costs than the US. We have free trade. That means if I were a retailer I could drive down to the US and BUY from the same wholesaler who provides products for the retailers in the US. What's happening in the shuffle? And if you don't think 80% percent of Retail products are shipped in from the US, you are on cloud nine.

Don't know about you whowhere, but most of the retail stuff I see seems to come from China not the US. If a retailer is shipping stuff from the US, it woudl seem he can just cut out the middleman and ship directly from China.

[Renegade]

And yet it cannot possibly exclude itself as a moral player. Do you think the British government during the Irish Potato Famine, by basically saying "We'll let the Irish farmers and peasants sort that out" could meaningfully deflect moral considerations?

As I have repeatedly said, governments are not alien entities that somehow lie outside of society. It is inevitable that government, no matter how hard it tries to stay out of the fray, will be forced to make moral choices. To simply hide its face and say "Well, that's too bad, but you see, that's not our problem" is a moral choice.

I would agree that it is inivitable that a government is sometimes drawn to make moral choices, however my position is that it should not justify its actions based upon moral choices. The moraity of an action should be nothing more than a side effect of some other justification. For example, a government may arrange to feed starving Irish farmers, not because it is morally "right" to do so, but rather to prevent a far more disruptive riot.

If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?

[ToadBrother]

I would agree that it is inivitable that a government is sometimes drawn to make moral choices, however my position is that it should not justify its actions based upon moral choices. The moraity of an action should be nothing more than a side effect of some other justification. For example, a government may arrange to feed starving Irish farmers, not because it is morally "right" to do so, but rather to prevent a far more disruptive riot.

If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?

I don't require a government to make decisions based solely on morality, but allowing a million Irishmen to starve was completely immoral. That suggests that there is always a moral element to any choice.

[ToadBrother]

So then TB, is it your contention that rich were kind to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts and thus formed the existance of the welfare state?

Hardly the kindness of their hearts. More like preventing social disorder, which, to their minds, was worth the silver.

The British Poor Laws you refer to were not driven out of any montivation to create a welfare state and help the poor, it was driven out of an interest to maintain a labour pool. The makings of a true welfare state was not there until the poor started to assume some measure of control.

And yet they were a social service system, whatever the motivation. You need to start reading history instead of trying to invent it to back up your ideology.

At any rate, in a democracy, should not the majority have the say? If the majority want social services, then so be it. You seem to be decrying universal emancipation.

[Renegade]

Hardly the kindness of their hearts. More like preventing social disorder, which, to their minds, was worth the silver.

So, isn't that what I said?

And yet they were a social service system, whatever the motivation. You need to start reading history instead of trying to invent it to back up your ideology.

At any rate, in a democracy, should not the majority have the say? If the majority want social services, then so be it. You seem to be decrying universal emancipation.

Yes, the majority should have their say, as should the minority. But a core aspect of any system should be not to trounce the rights of the minority, even if the majority wills it.

[Renegade]

I don't require a government to make decisions based solely on morality, but allowing a million Irishmen to starve was completely immoral. That suggests that there is always a moral element to any choice.

Your statement is not inconsistent with mine. I have simply said that a moral element is a side effect of any choice, and not the justification of it.

Since you still seem to say that the government, at least to some extent should act on the basis of morality, you haven't answered the question. "If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?"

[ToadBrother]

Your statement is not inconsistent with mine. I have simply said that a moral element is a side effect of any choice, and not the justification of it.

Since you still seem to say that the government, at least to some extent should act on the basis of morality, you haven't answered the question. "If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?"

The best answer is that morals are what society agree upon. Admittedly, societies throughout time have insisted their moral codes come from sky gods or whatever, but in general, moral codes are those codes of behavior and conduct that society agrees are to be kept. The government, as simply an instrument of society, can hardly be immune to the society's general moral framework. The protections in modern liberal democracies are simply that we've all agreed to limit the moral code, not that we've decided there isn't one.

[Michael Hardner]

What happens next is indeed an interesting topic. Personally, I think the reason we have the "welfare state" now is simply because our improving technology allows an ever smaller number of humans to do the work that provides the means for more and more others to live by. As technology continues to progress, more and more tasks will become automated, and the need for human labor will continue to decline. Certainly the remaining "manual labor" type jobs will be replaced in the near future, and progressively more and more "intellectual" jobs will be replaced by machinery as time goes by and these tasks can be replaced by AI/robotics.

What will be left is a very small number of the most specialized humans continuing to work in the development and advancement of the technology (mostly out of passion/interest rather than monetary necessity), while the vast majority of society simply lives off the results, contributing nothing of particular use.

This is commonly known as "techno-utopia".

And the Libertarians will say that it's up to you to compete with the robots for your labour.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't really see how that's possible. Some information is harmful to government players (bureaucrats and/or politicians), and thus it is in their best interests to keep at least some dealings opaque. As we've seen from the Afghan prisoner abuse investigations, even where Parliament has an unfettered constitutional right to demand any and all documents, unredacted and in original form from the Government, the Government still has some capability of interfering with that release.

Politicians and high level bureaucrats don't get where they are by being high-minded and honorable, they get there by sucking up, by stomping on others on the ladder to the top and, yes, many times by deceits. Such individuals are hardly going to achieve there positions, and then go "Oh well, I guess it's time to start being open."

And the system has degenerated to the point where a better one should easily be able to supplant it.

[Michael Hardner]

The welfare system appeared as people at the bottom assumed power within society. They acted out of self-interest and took wealth from those who had it. That trend is driven out of self-interest rather than some overarching aim to have a "fairer" society.

Unfortunately, the system can become violent if there is excessive disparity. We have seen that again and again.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

I would agree that it is inivitable that a government is sometimes drawn to make moral choices, however my position is that it should not justify its actions based upon moral choices. The moraity of an action should be nothing more than a side effect of some other justification. For example, a government may arrange to feed starving Irish farmers, not because it is morally "right" to do so, but rather to prevent a far more disruptive riot.

Haven't I heard the idea of removing minimum wage will give people motivation to improve themselves ? That's a kind of morality too - that people should have an incentive to work out of poverty. That people who work hard should be rewarded. That's a value and a moral too isn't it ?

[Bonam]

The only type of decision is a moral decision. Any decision that a government can possibly make is based upon a set of moral codes and principles. Even the very act of a government taking it upon itself to decide something already presupposes a lot about the moral values of the government. It is impossible to make decisions in the absence of morality. Give me any decision any government ever made and I'll show you how it was based on moral considerations. The only question is what kind of morals the government is following.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

The only type of decision is a moral decision. Any decision that a government can possibly make is based upon a set of moral codes and principles. Even the very act of a government taking it upon itself to decide something already presupposes a lot about the moral values of the government. It is impossible to make decisions in the absence of morality. Give me any decision any government ever made and I'll show you how it was based on moral considerations. The only question is what kind of morals the government is following.

Well, that's what I thought too. No matter how you set up the rules, you're favouring one group - one way of living - over another. You're helping vested interests, or nouveau riche, or lazy poor people - and making a pronouncement over what is better.

I suppose anarchy is the purest way to run a government, but most Libertarians want a police force (paid through a flat tax) that will protect their riches.