Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?

Mr.Canada · February 25, 2010

I like how when the Republicans were in the White House there was a cry to do everything possible to show our contempt for America but now that a Democrat is in the White House it's very important that we develop deep ties with the Americans.

I'm sure once the Obama is defeated in the next election we'll return to the whole contempt for America stance from the socialists.

In other words hypocrisy is alive and well.

For all you people who claim to dislike Harper why would you want to give him more power?

I don't want this either, we don't need to centralize power Federally like they do in Communist nations. We need to keep power spread out in fact increasing the powers that the provinces nd municipalities have.

For example Mayor Miller in Toronto has stated many times that the cities need more powers and I agree. I find his politics disgusting and agree with pretty much nothing he say's but I do agree with him on this.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Mr.Canada

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

Difficult? Possibly. So what? No one is promised an easy life.

Right. I want to make it easier for those born disadvantaged. That's what I think is fair. Somehow you think it's fair to give more advantages to those born into wealth. I acknowledge that it makes the system more symmetrical, but not better for people IMO.

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

Please explain how it affect others wrt minimium wage. Do you agree that they are entitled to make foolish decisions which affect themselves?

Their families, for example. I think that society has a right to stop people from making foolish decisions that we will have to bail people out of later and we do it all the time.

Yes I know. Perhaps we should not limit it only to certain industries.

We also do it for fast food workers. See the description of this radio piece:

Leonisa Rubis is a very happy young woman these days. She's homesick for the Philippines, but she's making more money than she ever thought possible. She's working at Wendy's, serving combo meals and diet cokes, in Gibson's Landing on the Sunshine Coast of BC. That's why she came to Canada. That's why she was allowed to come to Canada. The first thing she said when she got off the plane - "I am Wendy Worker". But - if things go badly at Wendy's - she can't quit or go to work anywhere else and, at the end of 2 years, she'll be shipped back to the Philippines. She is one of a new breed - unskilled men and women - cleaning hotel rooms, working construction and flipping burgers - who are here as Temporary Foreign Workers.

It's definitely a shift in policy to ship jobs overseas and yet onshore at the same time. You can tell that government is getting into it slowly and trying to keep it quiet, and why wouldn't they ?

Basically every oil patch worker making big $ in Alberta can be replaced by a foreign national on a 2 year visa working for minimum wage now.

Mr.Canada · February 25, 2010

Right. I want to make it easier for those born disadvantaged. That's what I think is fair. Somehow you think it's fair to give more advantages to those born into wealth. I acknowledge that it makes the system more symmetrical, but not better for people IMO.

There is no such thing as disadvantaged. People make choices in life if they make the wrong ones they deserve to suffer for it. Boo hoo, lifes tough get a helmet.

Anyone in this country can go to college or University so don't give us your bleeding heart white liberal guilt trip please.

Thanks.

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

I like how when the Republicans were in the White House there was a cry to do everything possible to show our contempt for America but now that a Democrat is in the White House it's very important that we develop deep ties with the Americans.

I'm sure once the Obama is defeated in the next election we'll return to the whole contempt for America stance from the socialists.

In other words hypocrisy is alive and well.

You're talking about a subset of the population here - mainly anti-American left leaning types. They're not you or me, so don't use "we" when talking about them.

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

There is no such thing as disadvantaged.

There are people born with more advantages than others, and the topic at hand isn't whether we have a system that allows advancement, but whether we should take away the minimum wage and (IMO) allow disparity to increase.

Renegade · February 25, 2010

Right. I want to make it easier for those born disadvantaged. That's what I think is fair. Somehow you think it's fair to give more advantages to those born into wealth. I acknowledge that it makes the system more symmetrical, but not better for people IMO.

Well at least you have started qualifying your post to say that it is only fairness in your opinion. That's a start. No I don't think it is accurate to say that I think it is fair to "give" more advantages to those born to wealth. They already have that advantage. That is what their parents and ancestors strived to get. I think it is fair not to intefere with the advantage their ancestors have given them.

When you say it is "not better for people", I guess it despends upon which people. It is not better for those born without the advantage, it is better for those born with advantage.

In my view trying to equalize wealth at birth, while it may be easier (because money is redistributable), is no different conceptually then trying to equalize other advantages at birth (eg beauty, intelligence).

Perhaps in your "fair" world you would provide free cosmetic surgery for ugly people paid for by a tax on the beautiful

Edited February 25, 2010 by Renegade

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

Perhaps in your "fair" world you would provide free cosmetic surgery for ugly people paid for by a tax on the beautiful

No, I would not. Besides, I see the beauty within. Also, I am a Scorpio who likes long walks on the beach.

Mr.Canada · February 25, 2010

There are people born with more advantages than others, and the topic at hand isn't whether we have a system that allows advancement, but whether we should take away the minimum wage and (IMO) allow disparity to increase.

People are born with or without due to the errors or outright laziness of their parents and grandparents etc. Why didn't they get off their asses to improve life for thier children and childrens children? Why should everyone else have to pay because their whole family tree is full of lazy people.

Smallc · February 25, 2010

People are born with or without due to the errors or outright laziness of their parents and grandparents etc.

And so their children should suffer?

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

There is no such thing as disadvantaged. People make choices in life if they make the wrong ones they deserve to suffer for it. Boo hoo, lifes tough get a helmet.

That the disadvantaged tend to stay that way has been a known phenomenon for centuries. Economic status can be incredibly difficult to overcome. Yes, some exceptional individuals may do the rags-to-riches thing, but most people born at the bottom of the ladder stay there.

Anyone in this country can go to college or University so don't give us your bleeding heart white liberal guilt trip please.

Thanks.

College and university require money, they require the ability to study with a minimum of interference. These things don't just magically appear.

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

People are born with or without due to the errors or outright laziness of their parents and grandparents etc. Why didn't they get off their asses to improve life for thier children and childrens children? Why should everyone else have to pay because their whole family tree is full of lazy people.

Because humans help other humans. It's been that way since before there were humans. Neandertals tended to their sick. You're advocating a society that really has never existed in the hominoids for millions of years.

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

Why should everyone else have to pay because their whole family tree is full of lazy people.

Because it makes for a better society, when you don't force children into poverty because of the mistakes of their parents. Our society gives people a better chance that way.

Michael Hardner · February 25, 2010

And so their children should suffer?

And their grandchildren, and their grandchildren.

It's all natural, you see, as is leaving billions of dollars to your heir to run the economy as you see fit.

Renegade · February 25, 2010

Their families, for example. I think that society has a right to stop people from making foolish decisions that we will have to bail people out of later and we do it all the time.

I see. In many cases when their decisions impact others, those others have willingly entered into arrangements with that individual which lets their lives get impacted. (For example through marriage). In that case, no I don't agree that the state should step in to mitigate the impact of foolish decisions. In other cases where the impact is involuntary, eg children, and the individual is making foolish decisions which impact the children, then that individual is acting irresponsible, and is not living up to commitments and the possible state intervention should be to remove responsiblity for the children.

Since you believe that that "society has a right to stop people from making foolish decisions that we will have to bail people out of later", do you then agree that under that pretext the society has a right to prevent single mother from having kids they cannot afford to take care of?

Also, you never answered the question of if it is ok for people to make "foolish decisions" in which the only impact is to themselves without society's interference.

We also do it for fast food workers.

It's definitely a shift in policy to ship jobs overseas and yet onshore at the same time. You can tell that government is getting into it slowly and trying to keep it quiet, and why wouldn't they ?

Basically every oil patch worker making big $ in Alberta can be replaced by a foreign national on a 2 year visa working for minimum wage now.

Isn't it the responsiblity of domestic labour to ensure they are competitively priced relative to alternatives?

Mr.Canada · February 25, 2010

That the disadvantaged tend to stay that way has been a known phenomenon for centuries. Economic status can be incredibly difficult to overcome. Yes, some exceptional individuals may do the rags-to-riches thing, but most people born at the bottom of the ladder stay there.

College and university require money, they require the ability to study with a minimum of interference. These things don't just magically appear.

Is it really that hard for poor people to figure it out? I was poor for a long time, now I'm not. I'm no genius, many here would agree. I figured it out. If I want to be poor then do nothing and wait around for a handout. If I want to have things and be comfortable latrer in life I need to get off my ass and do something about it as life owes me nothing.

This isn't hard.

Finish high school, this is free. Apply to college, Apply to OSAP or whatever depending on your province. As long as you haven't been convicted of fraud you'll get the money to go to school. If ones home life is unbearable there are plenty of shelters in any city, big or small which can provide shelter for young and old people alike. I've stayed at practically every youth and adult shelter in the GTA so I know what I'm saying. I finished high school while living in one.

While in college people can live on campus if they wish, aside from that the quiet rooms in the Toronto Library system are excellent places to study. Quiet and free access to many books and free internet.

I understand what you're saying and yeah things can suck sometimes but if someone wants it badly enough they will find a way to do it for themselves. It's obvious that many people don't. I can understand poverty being a big problem 40 and 50 years ago with it being very hard to escape but not in recent times. With OSAP and tons of bursuries and grants out there. It's easier then ever to go to school.

I don't see the problem here. Put in the work, chase the carrot, get rewarded. Do nothing, get nothing. Very easy.

Renegade · February 25, 2010

No, I would not. Besides, I see the beauty within. Also, I am a Scorpio who likes long walks on the beach.

Yeah, kind of like I see the potential for wealth within each individual.

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

Is it really that hard for poor people to figure it out? I was poor for a long time, now I'm not.

Were you poor as in "living in the ghetto", or poor as in "lower middle class". When I speak of poor, I'm talking about below the poverty line here, to the point where even basic nutrition cannot always be guaranteed, where children are raised in questionable or even dangerous surroundings.

I'm not terribly interested in personal anecdotes. Anecdotal evidence is well nigh useless when trying to sort out any kind phenomenon. What you're saying is little different than what the British government was saying about the Irish when the Potato Famine hit, but in the end all the Brits demonstrated was a basic lack of empathy, an extraordinary amount of racism (remember, in those days, people referred not just to black or oriental races, but to German races and Irish races) and a general and utter disregard for human life that a few historians have even called a genocide. A million Irishmen died, a million more fled, and the Irish population has never achieved pre-Famine levels.

To my mind, when faced with an underclass that lives below even the most conservative definition of a poverty line, it behooves us as a society to do at least something to try to help them. I agree in general terms that we don't want to just throw money at people with the hope that somehow it will help, I don't particularly like welfare programs that amount to "here's a cheque, and look for work". At the same time, I cannot accept that we simply let people starve, or rely on the good will of churches, which, no matter which way you look at it, simply do not function at the same capacity as they did in Medieval times (in those days, the Church had its own sources of income, often acting effectively as signorial lords).

In particular, it is saddest to see children suffer for the errors of their parents. That's why I feel school lunch programs and the like are so critical. The correlation between good nutrition and cognitive development is very clear.

While I certainly do not advocate a return to the Victorian Poor Laws, which were as much a punishment for being poor as a means of helping the poor, I don't necessarily disagree with work-for-welfare schemes, much like what was done during the Depression. I've met a few welfare recipients who are lazy bums, but most that I have met would love to get work, but have little capacity to do so.

Topaz · February 25, 2010

Since education is so important for the person and the country, why not let All Canadians attend school pass high school with no-pay. The person only pays for rent and personal needs and when they graduate and secure a jobs the government takes it off their income tax.

Mr.Canada · February 25, 2010

TB,

I was poor as in living on the streets of Toronto. From the time I was 15 until I was about 24 or 25. So I didn't just read some article in a newspaper or somewhere else and decide that it sounded good. I have first hand experience with the exact people who are poor. Trust me most of the people living on the streets have no desire to do anything other then look for a way to get enough money to do whatever.

I don't see how you can exclude my personal experience. I lived on the streets and in every shelter in the GTA, not to mention various jails so I think that would qualify me to know what I'm talking about. First hand experience is always better then reading about it it in some form or another. Reading is good but not the same as living it, not even close.

ToadBrother · February 25, 2010

TB,

I was poor as in living on the streets of Toronto. From the time I was 15 until I was about 24 or 25. So I didn't just read some article in a newspaper or somewhere else and decide that it sounded good. I have first hand experience with the exact people who are poor. Trust me most of the people living on the streets have no desire to do anything other then look for a way to get enough money to do whatever.

I don't see how you can exclude my personal experience. I lived on the streets and in every shelter in the GTA, not to mention various jails so I think that would qualify me to know what I'm talking about. First hand experience is always better then reading about it it in some form or another. Reading is good but not the same as living it, not even close.

Okay, firstly, and no insult to you, but some anonymous guy tells me "I lived on the streets when I was kid, and now I'm rich" doesn't exactly compel trust. I'm not calling you a liar, but I've been presented with improbable situations too many times by people on the Internet (I've been posting on the Internet since the early 1990s, when the primary method of doing so was through Usenet groups), so I take such claims with a grain of salt.

But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, anecdotal evidence just plain sucks. It does not represent any kind of reasonable statistical trend, any more than having one guy swallowing a gallon of antifreeze and surviving suggests that everybody can swallow a gallon of antifreeze and survive. To properly assess your claim that simply pulling yourself up by the bootstraps can save the day, we would need to establish that that is factor in the majority of cases of people who live in conditions that we would consider poor or at or below the poverty line.

nicky10013 · February 25, 2010

I like how when the Republicans were in the White House there was a cry to do everything possible to show our contempt for America but now that a Democrat is in the White House it's very important that we develop deep ties with the Americans.

I'm sure once the Obama is defeated in the next election we'll return to the whole contempt for America stance from the socialists.

In other words hypocrisy is alive and well.

For all you people who claim to dislike Harper why would you want to give him more power?

I don't want this either, we don't need to centralize power Federally like they do in Communist nations. We need to keep power spread out in fact increasing the powers that the provinces nd municipalities have.

For example Mayor Miller in Toronto has stated many times that the cities need more powers and I agree. I find his politics disgusting and agree with pretty much nothing he say's but I do agree with him on this.

Showing contempt for America as opposed to America's policies seems to be a distinction you can't/won't seems to understand. I don't think anyone disagrees that the US plays a huge part in global politics/economics. To see Bush destroying both was upsetting. Hopefully Obama can fix it. What we need from the US is leadership, not belligerence.

As for Harper, who has ever argued that he needs more power other than Conservatives?

As for the rest, it doesn't make sense. To compare the Federal Government to a communist state shows how out of touch you are regarding politics.

nicky10013 · February 25, 2010

Is it really that hard for poor people to figure it out? I was poor for a long time, now I'm not. I'm no genius, many here would agree. I figured it out. If I want to be poor then do nothing and wait around for a handout. If I want to have things and be comfortable latrer in life I need to get off my ass and do something about it as life owes me nothing.

This isn't hard.

Finish high school, this is free. Apply to college, Apply to OSAP or whatever depending on your province. As long as you haven't been convicted of fraud you'll get the money to go to school. If ones home life is unbearable there are plenty of shelters in any city, big or small which can provide shelter for young and old people alike. I've stayed at practically every youth and adult shelter in the GTA so I know what I'm saying. I finished high school while living in one.

While in college people can live on campus if they wish, aside from that the quiet rooms in the Toronto Library system are excellent places to study. Quiet and free access to many books and free internet.

I understand what you're saying and yeah things can suck sometimes but if someone wants it badly enough they will find a way to do it for themselves. It's obvious that many people don't. I can understand poverty being a big problem 40 and 50 years ago with it being very hard to escape but not in recent times. With OSAP and tons of bursuries and grants out there. It's easier then ever to go to school.

I don't see the problem here. Put in the work, chase the carrot, get rewarded. Do nothing, get nothing. Very easy.

To qualify for OSAP, essentially you have to be either dependent or your parents have to be making combined under $40,000. My parents make quite a bit but had no intentions of paying anything towards my school so I applied, and just for the fact that they made that much disqualified me outright even though I had no access to that income. A lot of people are turned down who need it. It's not as easy as you think.

bush_cheney2004 · February 25, 2010

Showing contempt for America as opposed to America's policies seems to be a distinction you can't/won't seems to understand. I don't think anyone disagrees that the US plays a huge part in global politics/economics. To see Bush destroying both was upsetting. Hopefully Obama can fix it. What we need from the US is leadership, not belligerence.

Ahem...Obama has continued most of Bush's "belligerance". See Afghanistan.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

nicky10013 · February 25, 2010

Okay, firstly, and no insult to you, but some anonymous guy tells me "I lived on the streets when I was kid, and now I'm rich" doesn't exactly compel trust. I'm not calling you a liar, but I've been presented with improbable situations too many times by people on the Internet (I've been posting on the Internet since the early 1990s, when the primary method of doing so was through Usenet groups), so I take such claims with a grain of salt.

But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, anecdotal evidence just plain sucks. It does not represent any kind of reasonable statistical trend, any more than having one guy swallowing a gallon of antifreeze and surviving suggests that everybody can swallow a gallon of antifreeze and survive. To properly assess your claim that simply pulling yourself up by the bootstraps can save the day, we would need to establish that that is factor in the majority of cases of people who live in conditions that we would consider poor or at or below the poverty line.

Then there's the other side of anecdotal evidence. Have you seen most homeless people on the street? Who would want to hire someone like that? Even a company that does hire for minimum wage. I saw some guy walk into a tims downtown. His pants were so tattered they were barely even there. Thank god he was wearing something underneath. The city provides really good services but how visible are those services really when most people don't have access to information on TVs, Radios, Computers etc? In addition to that, a lot of the homeless population in Toronto face addiction and mental health issues. I'd like to see a homeless guy addicted to heroin quit cold turkey and go out and get a job. I'm sure it's happened but what's the likelyhood. For people to just up and say homeless people are just lazy ignore such a myriad of issues that I can't even take it seriously. Conservatives just construct this image they have of society to fit their own version of reality. It's denial really, denial that their perfect system of capitalism (and their perfect god) could lead to such conditions. It's perfectly illustrated when you present these problems to conservatives and it's blamed on how markets "aren't free enough."

Bahahahahah.

Edited February 25, 2010 by nicky10013