Jump to content

Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?


whowhere

  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

And hence I'm justfied in claiming tyranny of the majority! Thank you for acknowledging it.

This is getting to be an absurd argument, and it doesn't even sound like a terrible libertarian argument any more. "Tyranny of the disadvantaged" is probably one of the more idiotic claims. Yes, those poor rich folks, they have to pay taxes on their wealth. It's theft! I tell you, theft!

What gets me the most is I doubt you're even rich. Like I said before, I can understand the wealthy adopting Libertarian notions, but everyone else? I'm not so far from the bottom rung that I can't see how a safety net could save my ass. It certainly saved my ass when my wife got cancer, between my EI and the public medical system, we managed to keep our property, as opposed to losing it to those poor ol' rich folks, so unjustly taxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is getting to be an absurd argument, and it doesn't even sound like a terrible libertarian argument any more. "Tyranny of the disadvantaged" is probably one of the more idiotic claims. Yes, those poor rich folks, they have to pay taxes on their wealth. It's theft! I tell you, theft!

What gets me the most is I doubt you're even rich. Like I said before, I can understand the wealthy adopting Libertarian notions, but everyone else? I'm not so far from the bottom rung that I can't see how a safety net could save my ass. It certainly saved my ass when my wife got cancer, between my EI and the public medical system, we managed to keep our property, as opposed to losing it to those poor ol' rich folks, so unjustly taxed.

Ah that explains it. Your position is based upon self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I'll accept that it is a moral, but I submit that it is the most basic and universally accepted one. It may not have always been accepted, and thus slavery was seen as acceptable, but as society stands today, I would say that it is a universally accepted one. Don't you agree?

I agree.

And do the "fruits of one's labour" include investments ? Is investing a labour or is it gambling ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is a career for too many people. This is what happens when the system drives down costs successfully.

I would submit that it is no one else's fault than one's own if their "career" is an entry level job which pays minimum wage. It only takes a few months or a year to get basic qualifications in some trade or skill that pays substantially more, and even without education it is quite possible to make more than minimum wage (many retail positions in fact pay more than minimum wage, there are still a good number of manual labour jobs which tend to be unionized and pay much more than minimum wage, etc).

There really is no reason to be making minimum wage unless you are a teen on their first job or if you just lost your real job and need a stop gap measure until you can find a new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussions with Renegade, and with Pliny elsewhere are worth looking at, but indeed we do go in circles.

I concede that taxation is "theft" by definition, as it is a forcible seizure of cash. I prefer, though, to think of it as a mandatory "tithe" which the nobility of previous years would feel obliged to pay in order to take care of their vassals.

To me, the best argument for our system is that it works, it gives great wealth to the richest members of our countries - even more than in countries where there is greater disparity between rich in poor, or anarchy. But it's good to keep in mind that all of these systems, including simple prescriptions against theft and even murder are social constructs and not natural to humans.

In fact, we have to use our base urges (such as social shame from the group) in order to defeat OTHER base urges to steal, kill and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit that it is no one else's fault than one's own if their "career" is an entry level job which pays minimum wage. It only takes a few months or a year to get basic qualifications in some trade or skill that pays substantially more, and even without education it is quite possible to make more than minimum wage (many retail positions in fact pay more than minimum wage, there are still a good number of manual labour jobs which tend to be unionized and pay much more than minimum wage, etc).

There really is no reason to be making minimum wage unless you are a teen on their first job or if you just lost your real job and need a stop gap measure until you can find a new one.

Not sure what industry you are in and what bubble you live in but when the bean counters come forth and the corporation is only interested in looking out for the good of their masters you can be sure it will be at your expense and not theirs. There is a conspiracy on the employers part to deskill the work force. They lure people in with grand titles and have them do useless work until they start drifting into the red and cut you loose to pick up a new immigrant to Canada at the half the wage. You have to let the stats speak for themselves. 1 in 10 jobs use to be through employment Agencies in Ontario, that stat became 1 in 4 jobs through Ontario Government Corruption. Employment Agencies are typically looking for experience and education. You don't measure up you are pushed aside. When looking for work in Canada it not 8% unemployment but really 16 or 20 percent because you are competing against new immigrants and others who looking to change up their employment. On that, where is the leverage to get the employer to pay much more than minimum wage? The only time it appears an employer will pay is if there is a threat of unionization, a union, or other regulatory requirement for that occupation. If there isn't, you can be sure the business will come out in them, and they will do everything they can to pay as little as they can. In Ontario there are many Big Big Corporations who use Employment Agencies as a way of business. These Jobs have advertised a pay of 11 dollars for the last ten years. They have not increase this rate even though the minimum wage has gone up 3.40 cents in Ontario. Why will these autoparts supplier not raise their pay rate? Could it be, because the minimum wage rate in Alabama (A huge Auto manufacturing hub in the US) is $7.25. If one fact is certain, you are clueless and lack reasoning faculty.

In anycase, this topic is about how minimum wage is affecting Retail Prices in Canada over the US. Someone thought they were intelligent in stating products come from China and not the US. Not Really, because the US also gets their products from China yet Canada has higher Retail Costs. Why is that? This is in part because the US doesn't have a GST and they have a lower minimum wage. I have stated my position clearly, and I have the stats to support my assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In anycase, this topic is about how minimum wage is affecting Retail Prices in Canada over the US. Someone thought they were intelligent in stating products come from China and not the US. Not Really, because the US also gets their products from China yet Canada has higher Retail Costs. Why is that? This is in part because the US doesn't have a GST and they have a lower minimum wage. I have stated my position clearly, and I have the stats to support my assertion.

Dude...you don't live in the US. Why would you expect retail prices to be similar, regardless of the cause? Prices are different in Mexico too, but I don't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what industry you are in and what bubble you live in but when the bean counters come forth and the corporation is only interested in looking out for the good of their masters you can be sure it will be at your expense and not theirs. There is a conspiracy on the employers part to deskill the work force. They lure people in with grand titles and have them do useless work until they start drifting into the red and cut you loose to pick up a new immigrant to Canada at the half the wage. You have to let the stats speak for themselves. 1 in 10 jobs use to be through employment Agencies in Ontario, that stat became 1 in 4 jobs through Ontario Government Corruption. Employment Agencies are typically looking for experience and education. You don't measure up you are pushed aside. When looking for work in Canada it not 8% unemployment but really 16 or 20 percent because you are competing against new immigrants and others who looking to change up their employment. On that, where is the leverage to get the employer to pay much more than minimum wage? The only time it appears an employer will pay is if there is a threat of unionization, a union, or other regulatory requirement for that occupation. If there isn't, you can be sure the business will come out in them, and they will do everything they can to pay as little as they can. In Ontario there are many Big Big Corporations who use Employment Agencies as a way of business. These Jobs have advertised a pay of 11 dollars for the last ten years. They have not increase this rate even though the minimum wage has gone up 3.40 cents in Ontario. Why will these autoparts supplier not raise their pay rate? Could it be, because the minimum wage rate in Alabama (A huge Auto manufacturing hub in the US) is $7.25. If one fact is certain, you are clueless and lack reasoning faculty.

1. Make better use of paragraphs.

2. Corporations exist to make a profit. To make a profit, they need to at least measure up to but preferably surpass their competitors. To do that they need good employees. Good employees go to whoever offers the best incentives, meaning compensation, benefits, and work environment. Hence the motive for higher wages. Wages are quickly bid up in any sustained period of economic growth when companies need to increase their workforce.

3. Nice job arbitrarily redefining the word "unemployment".

4. You too can be one of the "masters" in just about any major corporation of your choice, for measly prices often starting at a few dollars or a few tens of dollars per share. That means you get a share of their profits.

5. Why should companies raise their wages (which are already above minimum) just because a government decides to mandate a higher minimum wage? Companies will raise wages if it makes economic sense, that is, if they need to create a greater incentive for attracting employees to their company. It's not the company's fault the government implements adverse policies.

In anycase, this topic is about how minimum wage is affecting Retail Prices in Canada over the US. Someone thought they were intelligent in stating products come from China and not the US. Not Really, because the US also gets their products from China yet Canada has higher Retail Costs. Why is that? This is in part because the US doesn't have a GST and they have a lower minimum wage. I have stated my position clearly, and I have the stats to support my assertion.

For some odd reason you think that nationalizing the minimum wage would rein in the increases in minimum wage in Ontario. I would submit that it's much more likely to mean the reverse, Ottawa would legislate the same high minimum wage for the whole country, and then we'd all be just as screwed, not just Ontario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude...you don't live in the US. Why would you expect retail prices to be similar, regardless of the cause? Prices are different in Mexico too, but I don't worry about it.

Yeah, dude, fak off back to an American Forum. We don't Americans on Canadian Forums, hypocrit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And do the "fruits of one's labour" include investments ? Is investing a labour or is it gambling ?

Yes it includes investments. Investment gains are either made using capital from previous investment gains, or for the direct payment for labour. In either case their where there is tracibility to the original labour I would consider them the "fruits of one's labour". Further investments may (or may not) be gambling. A cautious investor will spend some effort to assess where is is makeing an investment before committing funding. With investment there is always some element of risk, so there will be always some element of gambling. No matter, as long as the capital for the investment or gamble is not illicitly obtained (eg through fraud or theft) then I woudl say the fruits of the gamble are also the products of the original labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede that taxation is "theft" by definition, as it is a forcible seizure of cash. I prefer, though, to think of it as a mandatory "tithe" which the nobility of previous years would feel obliged to pay in order to take care of their vassals.

Thank-you MH. I believe that people get hung up on associating taxation with theft because of the negative emotional connotation of the word theft, rather than a variation from the definition. I do agree that some transfer of wealth should occur between rich to poor, not because of a sence of obligation or entitlement, but because it makes rational sense for the rich to do so. The issue I have with taxation as it is now implmented, is it structured as a forcible seizure, and the govenment has virtually unlimited powers to forcibly seize income and property. "Tax the rich" seems to be a popular sentiment by those, just so long as the criteria of "rich" doesn't apply to themselves.

To me, the best argument for our system is that it works, it gives great wealth to the richest members of our countries - even more than in countries where there is greater disparity between rich in poor, or anarchy.

I would question this statement. Most of the most wealthy I know of are in systems of great disparity. Previously Russia, now China and India are emerging nations of extremely high-wealth individuals. The converse of your statement (ie that in societies where there is little disparity betwween rich and poor should produce the greatest wealth for richest members), I can find no evidence of. Do you have any evidience to back your statement?

In fact, we have to use our base urges (such as social shame from the group) in order to defeat OTHER base urges to steal, kill and so forth.

What happens when there is no social shame for certain urges? If the sentiment that "All the rich are bad and so it is ok to steal from them" is prevelant, then unless there are other mechanisms, it easily reinforces rather than curtials base urges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Corporations exist to make a profit. To make a profit, they need to at least measure up to but preferably surpass their competitors. To do that they need good employees. Good employees go to whoever offers the best incentives, meaning compensation, benefits, and work environment. Hence the motive for higher wages. Wages are quickly bid up in any sustained period of economic growth when companies need to increase their workforce.

Good of you to recognize that corporations exist to make a profit. Have you truly come face to face with management of these corporations and tried to negotiotiate without a Union for more money? When you say Good, which types, the ones who smile at you, and then stab in the back, when you are not around? Nice of you to skirt over the existence of Employment Agencies and how they are used to repress working conditions and wages by the Big Corporations.

3. Nice job arbitrarily redefining the word "unemployment".

I suggest you learn what unemployment means in the Government and media sense. It means the Amount of EI paying workers to percentage of those collecting. Once your EI is exhuasted you are not counted in the Unemployment percentage. If you were to include the Immigrants Canada brings in (At least 3 hundred thousand if not more) and the amount of those are not working, not collecting EI or welfare, and those

who find themselves working for Employment Agencies the REAL unemployment Rate would be more 20 to 40 percent. With Unemployment Rate at those levels, where is the leverage for you to negotiote more money?

4. You too can be one of the "masters" in just about any major corporation of your choice, for measly prices often starting at a few dollars or a few tens of dollars per share. That means you get a share of their profits.

Buddy, You know nothing of the stock market. The stock market is full of theives. The corporations may make the profits but they are not obligated to pay those profits out. Your stock could go up or down because of media and speculation. To make your stock worthless, the corporation is able to sell new issues of the stock until it is worthless and watering down your investment position. Not only do corporations have the ability to dilute your investment position with more stock and they are able to dispense of Assets that may have lured you into investing in the first place. I invested in this fuel cell company, to later have this fuel cell company sell off its fuel cell assets making my stock worthless. So, Please, stop making a donkey of yourself.

5. Why should companies raise their wages (which are already above minimum) just because a government decides to mandate a higher minimum wage? Companies will raise wages if it makes economic sense, that is, if they need to create a greater incentive for attracting employees to their company. It's not the company's fault the government implements adverse policies.

Ontario had a huge Autoparts sector. These Autoparts suppliers have operations in both Canada and the US. Many of Canada's Corporations are actually Branch plants of the US corporation. I will repeat myself again. A US corporation will pay the Canadian worker an equivalent wage to the US but that wage will not have the same buying power as a US worker because the Canadian worker has to pay retail prices that are 30 to 40 % higher than the US worker.

For some odd reason you think that nationalizing the minimum wage would rein in the increases in minimum wage in Ontario. I would submit that it's much more likely to mean the reverse, Ottawa would legislate the same high minimum wage for the whole country, and then we'd all be just as screwed, not just Ontario.

I am saying legislate an equal minimum and a maximum minimum wage to the US adjusted to currency fluctuations. There is no reason why the consumer should be susidizing the left do gooders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it includes investments. Investment gains are either made using capital from previous investment gains, or for the direct payment for labour. In either case their where there is tracibility to the original labour I would consider them the "fruits of one's labour". Further investments may (or may not) be gambling. A cautious investor will spend some effort to assess where is is makeing an investment before committing funding. With investment there is always some element of risk, so there will be always some element of gambling. No matter, as long as the capital for the investment or gamble is not illicitly obtained (eg through fraud or theft) then I woudl say the fruits of the gamble are also the products of the original labour.

But isn't that just money spent on the fruit of your labour ? Why shouldn't investments be taxed then ? Should they ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that just money spent on the fruit of your labour ? Why shouldn't investments be taxed then ? Should they ?

I'm not sure what you mean by "money spent on the fruit of your labour".

Investment income should be treated no differnt than employment income. Perhaps neither employment income nor investment income should be taxed.

Curiously, gambling, (ie lotteries) in our system is not taxed.

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here again, dealing with positive rights:

Read this as well from your own link:

Canadian courts have steadfastly maintained that social and economic rights are not rights at all; they are merely policy goals to which Canada aspires.

The sharp distinction drawn by these judges between civil rights and economic/social rights has a long history in the law, which lays stock in the difference between so-called 'negative' and 'positive' rights. Negative rights, such as the right to silence and the presumption of innocence, protect people from the coercive power of the state while positive rights to social assistance or health care require government action and expenditure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you MH. I believe that people get hung up on associating taxation with theft because of the negative emotional connotation of the word theft, rather than a variation from the definition. I do agree that some transfer of wealth should occur between rich to poor, not because of a sence of obligation or entitlement, but because it makes rational sense for the rich to do so. The issue I have with taxation as it is now implmented, is it structured as a forcible seizure, and the govenment has virtually unlimited powers to forcibly seize income and property. "Tax the rich" seems to be a popular sentiment by those, just so long as the criteria of "rich" doesn't apply to themselves.

My general comment about the libertarian point of view is that it is logically consistent. I also think that it makes more sense with richer economies, although we're not rich enough to make it work. I was hanging around my libertarian friends a few months ago, and a friend-of-a-friend was there - who told me he spends a lot of time on political forums and that he was (surprisingly) right-wing. Since the group is basically downtown left-of-centre and quite gay, I expressed surprise at his politics. He looked as though he was in pain, thinking to himself I'm sure: "oh no, now I'm going to have to defend my point of view to this idiot." But when I asked him what kind of right-wing he was, I added "Are you a fan of the Austrian economists, Von Mises, Hayek ?" he perked up.

As a result to the conversations I've had on these boards, we were able to have quite an edifying conversation.

I would question this statement. Most of the most wealthy I know of are in systems of great disparity. Previously Russia, now China and India are emerging nations of extremely high-wealth individuals. The converse of your statement (ie that in societies where there is little disparity betwween rich and poor should produce the greatest wealth for richest members), I can find no evidence of. Do you have any evidience to back your statement?

Basically, I read an article (I no longer have the link) indicating that a disproportionate amount of billionaires come from the US. Ah... here is a link: Billionaire list.

What happens when there is no social shame for certain urges? If the sentiment that "All the rich are bad and so it is ok to steal from them" is prevelant, then unless there are other mechanisms, it easily reinforces rather than curtials base urges.

What happens ? Then the rich, they are stolen from eh ? This is why Robin Hood is a hero of folklore and not a villain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by "money spent on the fruit of your labour".

Investment income should be treated no differnt than employment income. Perhaps neither employment income nor investment income should be taxed.

Curiously, gambling, (ie lotteries) in our system is not taxed.

Gambling isn't taxed in Canada because it IS a tax.

Shouldn't there be a philosophical difference between money you earn yourself, and money you try to invest with ?

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, I read an article (I no longer have the link) indicating that a disproportionate amount of billionaires come from the US. Ah... here is a link: Billionaire list.

It is interesting how you interpret that fact. The US billionaire count seems disporportonate to other large economies, and most would agree that US as a larger disparity between rich and poor then other larger economies.

If your original statement were accuate, you should expect Canada (having a smaller disparity between rich and poor) to have more per-capita billionaires than the US. But it doesn't..

What happens ? Then the rich, they are stolen from eh ? This is why Robin Hood is a hero of folklore and not a villain.

Yes, they are stolen from, and Robin Hood is the hero.

IMV, the resentment toward the rich is more driven by emotional responses of envy than true moral justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambling isn't taxed in Canada because it IS a tax.

I guess it depend upon what your definition of a "tax" is. In many countries it IS taxed.

Shouldn't there be a philosophical difference between money you earn yourself, and money you try to invest with ?

No! Because the money you invest with originated from the money you earned yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting how you interpret that fact. The US billionaire count seems disporportonate to other large economies, and most would agree that US as a larger disparity between rich and poor then other larger economies.

If your original statement were accuate, you should expect Canada (having a smaller disparity between rich and poor) to have more per-capita billionaires than the US. But it doesn't..

Right, but even the US has basic social programs. I'm not saying that their system produces less billionaires, less disparity but I'm saying that if you take a wider view of it, countries with some social structure do well.

Yes, they are stolen from, and Robin Hood is the hero.

IMV, the resentment toward the rich is more driven by emotional responses of envy than true moral justification.

Welcome to the world. Emotional response continues to drive politics in every issue that we care about. Worse, though, is that boredom drives our lack-of-response to many other things like eHealth in Ontario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...