Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?

[nicky10013]

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

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I did say hopefully. Tone is also everything. At least Obama isn't acting like the rest of the world isn't even good enough to eat American turd.

[whowhere]

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.

No, the topic is about being competive with our neighbor the US of A. It is not right for Ontario to have American Employers who will pay an Ontario employee what they are paying their US worker (Mr Americian Employer likely thinks he is being fair). The Ontario Employee of the American Company then proceeds to shop at a Walmart (also an American Company) to spend his hard earned money. This Ontario employee is left scratching his head as to why he is paying 30 to 40 percent more for an item in Ontario he recently bought at a walmart in the US. Then it occurs to him the Ontario Liberals are the one's leading the charge to pillage and plunder his wallet. Minimum wage in the US is 7.25 and in Ontario it is soon to be 10.25. That is a huge difference and not a surprise why Ontario's retail prices are higher.

Get it clear, this is about competive economics. Not some contrast between rich and poor. It's about ensuring Ontario's minimum wage is comparative to the US so Ontario Consumers are enjoying comparitive retail prices to the Americans.

[ToadBrother]

Get it clear, this is about competive economics. Not some contrast between rich and poor. It's about ensuring Ontario's minimum wage is comparative to the US so Ontario Consumers are enjoying comparitive retail prices to the Americans.

Then I'm unclear. WTF does this have to do with the Feds or the other provinces? If you have a problem with Ontario's minimum wage, and you're a resident of Ontario, then make your beef there.

[nicky10013]

No, the topic is about being competive with our neighbor the US of A. It is not right for Ontario to have American Employers who will pay an Ontario employee what they are paying their US worker (Mr Americian Employer likely thinks he is being fair). The Ontario Employee of the American Company then proceeds to shop at a Walmart (also an American Company) to spend his hard earned money. This Ontario employee is left scratching his head as to why he is paying 30 to 40 percent more for an item in Ontario he recently bought at a walmart in the US. Then it occurs to him the Ontario Liberals are the one's leading the charge to pillage and plunder his wallet. Minimum wage in the US is 7.25 and in Ontario it is soon to be 10.25. That is a huge difference and not a surprise why Ontario's retail prices are higher.

Get it clear, this is about competive economics. Not some contrast between rich and poor. It's about ensuring Ontario's minimum wage is comparative to the US so Ontario Consumers are enjoying comparitive retail prices to the Americans.

This continues to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Where is this citation on this magical stat that everything in Ontario is 30-40% higher?

As for the US stealing our jobs, which mcdonalds franchises are going to move to the states and deliver by mail? As I said before, what minimum wage jobs would move to the states. The only thing I can think of is moving garment sewing industry but that would move to Asia rather than Michigan. If you could see beyond your hate for the Liberals, you'd notice that the Americans are losing jobs as well. The US isn't the threat, developing nations are. Most minimum wage jobs are stationary service industry jobs, so tell me...are people going to drive to the states to do their grocery shopping?

The jobs we're losing to globalization aren't minimum wage jobs. Statistically those are the only jobs we're gaining right now. The jobs we're losing are $85/hr auto manufacturing jobs.

[whowhere]

Then I'm unclear. WTF does this have to do with the Feds or the other provinces? If you have a problem with Ontario's minimum wage, and you're a resident of Ontario, then make your beef there.

It's not just Ontario, it's across Canada, minimum wage is out of sync with the US. Income and Income Taxes has always been the domain of the Federal Government. It is only fitting they pay attention to the minimum wages as well.

[ToadBrother]

It's not just Ontario, it's across Canada, minimum wage is out of sync with the US. Income and Income Taxes has always been the domain of the Federal Government.

The Provinces charge their own income taxes too. Constitutionally, income taxes enter into the equation because there's nothing saying "X branch of government cannot pass legislation on this." For labour, however, the constitution is clear, it is purely within Provincial jurisdiction.

It is only fitting they pay attention to the minimum wages as well.

However fitting it may seem to you, it is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. Now the Feds could try to hammer out a deal with the Provinces, as they did with Medicare, but I can't see why the provinces would give up autonomy on labour laws, or some aspect of them, just because Ontario has disadvantaged itself.

In other words, this is an utterly pointless conversation.

[whowhere]

As for the US stealing our jobs, which mcdonalds franchises are going to move to the states and deliver by mail?

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.

[whowhere]

The Provinces charge their own income taxes too. Constitutionally, income taxes enter into the equation because there's nothing saying "X branch of government cannot pass legislation on this." For labour, however, the constitution is clear, it is purely within Provincial jurisdiction.

However fitting it may seem to you, it is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. Now the Feds could try to hammer out a deal with the Provinces, as they did with Medicare, but I can't see why the provinces would give up autonomy on labour laws, or some aspect of them, just because Ontario has disadvantaged itself.

In other words, this is an utterly pointless conversation.

A federal Government has the right to pass laws over Canada. If the province wants to challenge the law in the Supreme Court they can do so. If afterwhich, the province is not satisfied they can choose to elevate it to a court outside of Canada for a decision. The province will be defeated and a high court will rule that is within the Federal Governments right to protect the Interest of Canada over the self interest of a province. All you are doing is blowing air.

[ToadBrother]

A federal Government has the right to pass laws over Canada.

The BNA Act gives the Federal and Provincial governments certain areas of jurisdiction. The Federal government does not have the right to pass Labour laws, save specifically upon Federal employees.

If the province wants to challenge the law in the Supreme Court they can do so.

Which they would, and would win.

If afterwhich, the province is not satisfied they can choose to elevate it to a court outside of Canada for a decision. The province will be defeated and a high court will rule that is within the Federal Governments right to protect the Interest of Canada over the self interest of a province. All you are doing is blowing air.

Where do you people come from? Between you, myata and Mr. Canada, it's like you were all in the same room together and somebody fed you the toxic 'shrooms. You people are stunningly ignorant, and yet so extraordinarily certain of how right you are.

I mean, this last bit I quote is like some sort of fevered LSD political mashup dream. What higher court than the Supreme Court? WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? It's like you live in some other fantasy country that vaguely resembles Canada, but all in all, is some sort of bizarro Wonderland version.

At any rate, let's make things clear; Labour is purely in the jurisdiction of the Provinces, if the Feds attempt, without consultation and agreement from the Provinces (more akin to a treaty between the two levels of government), or without an amendment to the constitution, it will most definitely be struck down in court. This is simple facts. You're notion is so ridiculous that it's not even wrong.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

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?

I see the argument for that, but I think that having children is a right that the state shouldn't interfere with.

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.

Come up with an example, and I'll give you an opinion. For now, it's a theoretical question - which is exciting to Libertarians, I realize - but doesn't help me answer the question.

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

Somewhat. It's also the responsibility of government (in my view, anyway) to maintain the economic engine and make sure that the country is set up for success.

The US did this, to great success, in the 20th century as did Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

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

I also see that. I see possibilities - for great things, and also for ruin - in everyone.

I have known people who went from the bottom to the top, and some who fell down too. In each case it was their fault or their credit, but the ones who fell caused collateral damage all around them when it wasn't necessary.

As society gets richer, the bottom line - the lowest level a person can sink to - should go up. It does naturally, anyway, but society should ensure that it does.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I'm stunned to read this. You went to jail ? What for ? What era was this ? How did you leave the streets ?

[whowhere]

The BNA Act gives the Federal and Provincial governments certain areas of jurisdiction. The Federal government does not have the right to pass Labour laws, save specifically upon Federal employees.

Which they would, and would win.

Where do you people come from? Between you, myata and Mr. Canada, it's like you were all in the same room together and somebody fed you the toxic 'shrooms. You people are stunningly ignorant, and yet so extraordinarily certain of how right you are.

I mean, this last bit I quote is like some sort of fevered LSD political mashup dream. What higher court than the Supreme Court? WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? It's like you live in some other fantasy country that vaguely resembles Canada, but all in all, is some sort of bizarro Wonderland version.

At any rate, let's make things clear; Labour is purely in the jurisdiction of the Provinces, if the Feds attempt, without consultation and agreement from the Provinces (more akin to a treaty between the two levels of government), or without an amendment to the constitution, it will most definitely be struck down in court. This is simple facts. You're notion is so ridiculous that it's not even wrong.

Sorry Pal, the Federal Government is like the supreme Court, they have the final say over Canada. The Supreme Court Can be challenged at the International Court. Welcome to globalization. The only one who is being ridiculous is you with your childish power hording. It is no wonder Canada is a flake and is spineless. I know you are trying to protect your Ontario Liberal Pay raise at the expense of those in Ontario who do real work but you would be better served to reach for the stars rather than develop this liberal entitlement attitude.

[Smallc]

Sorry Pal, the Federal Government is like the supreme Court, they have the final say over Canada.

Go read the Constitution.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry Pal, the Federal Government is like the supreme Court, they have the final say over Canada.

The court has the final say.

The Supreme Court Can be challenged at the International Court. Welcome to globalization.

What does that mean ? We're not sovereign over our own laws ? Why doesn't the World Court overrule dictatorships such as NK then ?

The only one who is being ridiculous is you with your childish power hording. It is no wonder Canada is a flake and is spineless. I know you are trying to protect your Ontario Liberal Pay raise at the expense of those in Ontario who do real work but you would be better served to reach for the stars rather than develop this liberal entitlement attitude.

Are you talking to TB ? If so, I think you're overstating his influence.

[ToadBrother]

Sorry Pal, the Federal Government is like the supreme Court,

No, it's not.

they have the final say over Canada.

No, it does not, save in those areas that are specifically in its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court Can be challenged at the International Court.

Wake me up when that happens. It is purely a domestic issue of division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces. Such a question would never reach that court.

Welcome to globalization.

Which does not alter the question.

The only one who is being ridiculous is you with your childish power hording.

My power hoarding? This is the way the country has worked for nearly 143 years.

It is no wonder Canada is a flake and is spineless.

Yeah, how dare we have a constitution.

I know you are trying to protect your Ontario Liberal Pay raise at the expense of those in Ontario who do real work but you would be better served to reach for the stars rather than develop this liberal entitlement attitude.

I don't even live in Ontario. Are you on some sort of medication?

Edited February 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Are you talking to TB ? If so, I think you're overstating his influence.

Not to mention my province of residence.

[whowhere]

Go read the Constitution.

I do, just before I wipe my ass with it.

[Smallc]

I do, just before I wipe my ass with it.

Obviously you wipe before...some parts must have been obscured.

[whowhere]

The court has the final say.

All the court can do is throw out legislation, afterwhich new legislation can be introduced.

What does that mean ? We're not sovereign over our own laws ? Why doesn't the World Court overrule dictatorships such as NK then ?

The Supreme Court is an instrument of Canada, not an instrument to preserve the power of Ontario. I am saying if Ontario doesn't like a decision made by the supreme court, or Canada's parliament doesn't like the decision of the supreme court it can be elevated to a world court.

Are you talking to TB ? If so, I think you're overstating his influence.

He is acting like he works in Retail. I am saying he should aim higher.

[whowhere]

No, it's not.

No, it does not, save in those areas that are specifically in its jurisdiction.

Wake me up when that happens. It is purely a domestic issue of division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces. Such a question would never reach that court.

Which does not alter the question.

My power hoarding? This is the way the country has worked for nearly 143 years.

Yeah, how dare we have a constitution.

I don't even live in Ontario. Are you on some sort of medication?

Spoken like a true liberal, a flake with no conviction.

[William Ashley]

This whole final say - there is no final say -

1st The Queen is the Executive head of state she commands the courts, the military and is part of parliament the third section the other two being the senate and commons

The governor general is head of government - they may appoint or fire all agents of state - which include agents of the government such as prime minister or other ministers.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1894/0scr23-458/0scr23-458.html

The supreme court is the "highest court of canada" it as well as the superior courts sit representing the queen - the queen has many judicial capacities which are largely unused in history - these reserves including the ability to grant mercy (which can counter sentencing

parliament is the legislative branch - and gives advice if required on how government should be formed - all former privy counselors can give advice to the govnor general on how they ought to perform their duties - the queen and GG may appoint anyone a Privy counselor or queens council however this is usually limited to at some elected members of legislatures who have served in a senior administrative role in government - although it need not be a minister.

Parliament has acts such as the justice act - although the courts have something known as "constitution" which is seperate from teh canadian constitution and is a matter of judicial convention - the government may set legislation on the administration of justice - the supreme court has the power of mandamus and may give court orders - for example if the government breaks the law the courts are obligated to intervene if a case is brought before them - the attorney general who is usually a government minister though has some abilities to intervene in some cases. The govenor general would be able to act on advice of the supreme justice of the court who is likely a Privy councilor though but this would be a "big issue"

there is an order of precidence, and the supreme court ranks above the attorney general.. the PM though ranks above the supreme court, but the GG ranks above the PM etc.. differnet positions have different powers and immunities - if indoubt the QUeen still has the final say in law.

It is likely just a status quo ante situation - there would likely need to be a big scandal to remove or overrule a sitting PM - it can and has been done though. So the convention exists.

The constitution says it best in "God is supreme"

however I think god has it in motion for a reason. If there wasn't a reason why would you be reading it, and why would I had typed it.

Edited February 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Renegade]

I see the argument for that, but I think that having children is a right that the state shouldn't interfere with.

Hmm, what makes having children a right that the state shouldn't intefere with but having property one which the state can (and should according to you) intefere with?

Come up with an example, and I'll give you an opinion. For now, it's a theoretical question - which is exciting to Libertarians, I realize - but doesn't help me answer the question.

It would be impossible to come up with a "pure" example, since it is always a question of degree of effect as I don't know anyone who lives in an environment so isolated that any action couldn't have some potential effect somewhere else. If you make a blanket statement that you believe that the state should intervene to prevent the effects on other or bailing people out, then that is pretext for pretty much any intervention at all. The state can even try to control my thoughts on the pretext that it could influence my actions and that would effect others. IOW, your premis is a recepie to justify complete state control of people's lives.

Somewhat. It's also the responsibility of government (in my view, anyway) to maintain the economic engine and make sure that the country is set up for success.

The US did this, to great success, in the 20th century as did Canada.

A lot will have to do on how success is defined. China too is trying to set itself up for success, but not necessarily with policies that most Canadians would accept as part of a govenment mandate. In any case the lowering of trade barriers has led to a lot of the wealth we now see, I see the lowering of labour barriers as a natural extension.

[Renegade]

I also see that. I see possibilities - for great things, and also for ruin - in everyone.

I have known people who went from the bottom to the top, and some who fell down too. In each case it was their fault or their credit, but the ones who fell caused collateral damage all around them when it wasn't necessary.

As society gets richer, the bottom line - the lowest level a person can sink to - should go up. It does naturally, anyway, but society should ensure that it does.

Society gets richer beause those with potential realize some or all of that potential. Many at the bottom who do not rise by themselves either do not have the potential or for whatever reason do not realize that potential. Tieing the bottom to the gains made by the top, only serves to restrict the top and gives a free ride to the bottom.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Renegade

[Michael Hardner]

Hmm, what makes having children a right that the state shouldn't intefere with but having property one which the state can (and should according to you) intefere with?

Having property amounts to the pursuit of wealth, which is still allowed. We provide wealth through a money system, which can be taxed at percentages to provide for the overall good. This is the system that has provided the best, IMO, way of life for people.

Having children just isn't the same thing. There are circumstances where people should be prevented from having children, but being poor isn't one of them. It's a question of values.

It would be impossible to come up with a "pure" example, since it is always a question of degree of effect as I don't know anyone who lives in an environment so isolated that any action couldn't have some potential effect somewhere else. If you make a blanket statement that you believe that the state should intervene to prevent the effects on other or bailing people out, then that is pretext for pretty much any intervention at all. The state can even try to control my thoughts on the pretext that it could influence my actions and that would effect others. IOW, your premis is a recepie to justify complete state control of people's lives.

The problem with life is that it's not mathematical. I can tell you that the state should prevent people from making bad decisions, and you can come back and say it's a precedent for controlling all of people's lives but it isn't.

Certain lines of logic do not cut through life with geometric precision. If I say "We need to make cocaine illegal because people will make a bad decision to use it" you could take the premise and extend it to government control over all of our lives, sure. But the point is not to control our lives, it's to maximize the opportunity to pursue happiness.

A lot will have to do on how success is defined. China too is trying to set itself up for success, but not necessarily with policies that most Canadians would accept as part of a govenment mandate. In any case the lowering of trade barriers has led to a lot of the wealth we now see, I see the lowering of labour barriers as a natural extension.

Of course, and this is about the values of that society too. Chinese people (using poster BJRE here) don't all seem to mind that there is no democracy in China.

Society gets richer beause those with potential realize some or all of that potential. Many at the bottom who do not rise by themselves either do not have the potential or for whatever reason do not realize that potential. Tieing the bottom to the gains made by the top, only serves to restrict the top and gives a free ride to the bottom.

Those at the top are almost assuredly born into their life. Ensuring that they keep their position is a defacto monarchy. The top has seen the tide turn in their favour over the past 40 years. We need to remember noblesse oblige, and to keep their power in check.

Certainly the momentum is not in favour of the ones at the bottom, if you look at tax rates, and influence of the rich over the last half century or so.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Michael Hardner