Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?

[whowhere]

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.

You have to recognize each province were each colonies onto themselves separate from Canada and they each answered to the the British Monarch via the British Parliament. The last colony to enter Canada was newfoundland. Disputes between the colonies and the British Monarch have been deferred to the international court since 1970's. This means Canada's parliament can Act against each province, if the Province protests they can elevate the matter to the British Monarch or the International Court for their decision. However, Canada's parliament has been established to govern over Canada. In this Governoring as was done by the United States Congress it is within their right to pass reasonable legislation to Protect the interests of Canada as a whole. Having an Unbalanced minimum wage compared to neighboring US states drives up retail costs. If the province (former colonies) feels minimum wage is their sovereign area they can raise the dipute with the British Monarch or the International Court. Ultimately, the province will lose because it would be recognized the Federal parliament does have the right to protect the interests of the whole country.

[GostHacked]

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.

I completely disagree. People can be born into a disadvantage. Not everyone can go to college. Tuition fees are killer. Not only that, it is sad to say that some people simply don't have the brain capacity for college or university.

I was lucky. I went back to school at 30, went into huge debt for school and 10 years later it payed off. But I had a lot of help to get to where I am today. No one does things alone in this world as much as they like to think they do.

People make poor choices because sometimes they don't know better or never knew another option existed. If you make a mistake and want to correct it, are people willing to help them make that change? Is there an avenue to get the help they need to correct the mistakes they made?

[bush_cheney2004]

People make poor choices because sometimes they don't know better or never knew another option existed. If you make a mistake and want to correct it, are people willing to help them make that change? Is there an avenue to get the help they need to correct the mistakes they made?

Then that is their first mistake.....free will doesn't always come with a do-over.

[Michael Hardner]

I completely disagree. People can be born into a disadvantage. Not everyone can go to college. Tuition fees are killer. Not only that, it is sad to say that some people simply don't have the brain capacity for college or university.

I was lucky. I went back to school at 30, went into huge debt for school and 10 years later it payed off. But I had a lot of help to get to where I am today. No one does things alone in this world as much as they like to think they do.

People make poor choices because sometimes they don't know better or never knew another option existed. If you make a mistake and want to correct it, are people willing to help them make that change? Is there an avenue to get the help they need to correct the mistakes they made?

All of this speaks to something called 'a community' which happens locally but in a modern economy is affected by larger forces, including economic forces. A national government can provide a safety net that assures that those at the bottom can progress.

I'm reading about the early days of American pioneers in Appalachia right now, and their communities had to be capitalistic, entrepreneurial AND communal or they would not survive. The communal part of the American spirit is forgotten, IMO, when people insist that the economic winners in society should have no moral obligation to pay.

[Renegade]

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 does appear Michael, that you have made a general statement and then you have layered your own subjective set of values to distinguish interventions you agree with from those you don't.

IMV, your rights to hold wealth are analogous to your rights to have children. You clam that "Having children just isn't the same thing" but you don't justify why. If you want to justify society intervening to remove freedom to choose in order prevent bad decisions, I don't see any difference in the intervention to prevent "bad" decisions people make by becoming a parent. BTW, I don't think the only reason someone shouldn't be a parent is affordability, but it is one.

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.

Even if life is not mathematical, rational logic is. You are trying to dismiss the breaks in your logical sequence by dismissing it as "that's life". I guarantee you that virually any opressive action by the state can be justified by a rationale of interventing to prevent people from makeing bad decsions or acting in their best interest.

In my view it is a dangerous path to follow to allow the state to determine what is a "good" or "bad" decisions and then give it the power to intervene to coerce behaviour.

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.

I find your statement not consistent with either what I have read or what I have experienced. I reacall that I did some interesting stats on the influences of wealth. I can't find that info but here is some relevant info. Unfortunately it is only the cached link: The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy

YOU OR YOUR ANCESTORS?

Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?

Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.

More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."

[ToadBrother]

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

Thank you for revealing just how vapid you really are. I've voted for the Federal Liberals only once in my entire life, thank you very much, and will happily vote Tory again when the religious nut that represents my riding is gone. But if wanting the constitution and the rule of law to be upheld means I'm a liberal, then so be it, call me a liberal, because as I see it, that means I do have conviction. You, on the other hand, have no such thing.

[Michael Hardner]

It does appear Michael, that you have made a general statement and then you have layered your own subjective set of values to distinguish interventions you agree with from those you don't.

My general statement is that society should prevent people from making bad decisions. What decisions is subject to our collective values. We are not robots, after all. There is no program to evaluate our rights and give them a score.

IMV, your rights to hold wealth are analogous to your rights to have children. You clam that "Having children just isn't the same thing" but you don't justify why. If you want to justify society intervening to remove freedom to choose in order prevent bad decisions, I don't see any difference in the intervention to prevent "bad" decisions people make by becoming a parent. BTW, I don't think the only reason someone shouldn't be a parent is affordability, but it is one.

There's no way to justify these things. They're personal values. Note that I don't ask you to quantify the right to property versus other rights either. I respect that you hold individualism, manifested in the right to pursue wealth, in some kind of higher esteem than I do and I can't ask you to give up that value.

I can, however, try to explain why your value will result in a society that is different from ours and why I disagree with your value.

I could come up with a huge list of bad decisions that people should be allowed to make, too. And there may be inconsistencies there too. Feel free to point them out.

Even if life is not mathematical, rational logic is. You are trying to dismiss the breaks in your logical sequence by dismissing it as "that's life". I guarantee you that virually any opressive action by the state can be justified by a rationale of interventing to prevent people from makeing bad decsions or acting in their best interest.

In my view it is a dangerous path to follow to allow the state to determine what is a "good" or "bad" decisions and then give it the power to intervene to coerce behaviour.

A dangerous path ? But that is what we have always done, if you want to take it back to the beginnings of western democracy.

I find your statement not consistent with either what I have read or what I have experienced. I reacall that I did some interesting stats on the influences of wealth. I can't find that info but here is some relevant info. Unfortunately it is only the cached link: The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy

That's an interesting article. I scanned it and will read more later.

20% of the wealthy were born into it. What percentage of poor people were born into poverty ? Social mobility statistics are what we should look at next, perhaps.

[Bonam]

Excellent information there in that article Renegade. Certainly puts the lie to the whole "you have to be born rich" propaganda.

[ToadBrother]

Excellent information there in that article Renegade. Certainly puts the lie to the whole "you have to be born rich" propaganda.

It does? Where exactly does it do that? That's like interviewing people who never went to war about how they managed not to get shot by the enemy.

[Bonam]

It does? Where exactly does it do that?

In the place where it lists all the numbers. Feel free to scroll up.

[ToadBrother]

In the place where it lists all the numbers. Feel free to scroll up.

I read the numbers. This is a rather exclusive list. I'd like to know what the statistical likelihood of someone born into poverty in the United States becoming a millionaire. Asking millionaires how they became millionaires is not very enlightening from a socio-economic perspective.

[Michael Hardner]

Excellent information there in that article Renegade. Certainly puts the lie to the whole "you have to be born rich" propaganda.

You're assuming that rich=millionaire as well.

[Bonam]

I read the numbers. This is a rather exclusive list. I'd like to know what the statistical likelihood of someone born into poverty in the United States becoming a millionaire. Asking millionaires how they became millionaires is not very enlightening from a socio-economic perspective.

Why not? If most millionaires started as middle-class (or perhaps lower), that shows that there is significant mobility from midde-class to "rich". As for "poverty", there is really no excuse to be poor. Go to school (offered for free to everyone), do well, go to college (payed for by student loans if necessary, available to everyone), and you're set to become middle class. If you didn't bother and dropped out instead, it's no one else's fault.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

You're assuming that rich=millionaire as well.

I'd say that's a fair approximation. Or would you say being a millionaire isn't enough to be "rich"? I guess there are so many millionaires now that it's more like the top end of the middle class than really "rich", but I think the point stands for now, being a millionaire is still an above average amount of wealth.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Why not?

Because it's what's called cherry picking, that's why. If I count only the number of cancer survivors, I'm not going to get any kind of a notion of what percentage of people survive cancer.

In other words, the numbers are utterly meaningless from a wider perspective. They give you a breakdown of what socioeconomic classes millionaires tend to come from, which is useful to a certain extent for a certain kind of question, but if I want to figure out how likely it is, say, for a kid form the Projects or a kid from a lower middle class family to become a millionaire, the numbers are worthless.

[Bonam]

Because it's what's called cherry picking, that's why. If I count only the number of cancer survivors, I'm not going to get any kind of a notion of what percentage of people survive cancer.

In other words, the numbers are utterly meaningless from a wider perspective. They give you a breakdown of what socioeconomic classes millionaires tend to come from, which is useful to a certain extent for a certain kind of question, but if I want to figure out how likely it is, say, for a kid form the Projects or a kid from a lower middle class family to become a millionaire, the numbers are worthless.

The numbers tell you a whole lot more than that. For one, knowing the number of millionaires and what proportion of them started as middle class, you can estimate the chance for someone to do so. This is just some basic arithmetic. Secondly, in a society with restricted class mobility, most of the "rich" would be born that way rather than self-made, and the numbers clearly show that that is not the case.

But if you don't like it feel free to post some numbers of your own.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

The numbers tell you a whole lot more than that. For one, knowing the number of millionaires and what proportion of them started as middle class, you can estimate the chance for someone to do so. This is just some basic arithmetic. Secondly, in a society with restricted class mobility, most of the "rich" would be born that way rather than self-made, and the numbers clearly show that that is not the case.

But if you don't like it feel free to post some numbers of your own.

I don't have any such numbers, but I am telling you that your numbers are as useful to the question of the statistical likelihood of members of any group becoming millionaires as it would be to interview only five year cancer survivors to try to determine how many people survive cancer. You're missing the denominator, making the numbers well nigh meaningless for the larger questions.

If you want to measure mobility, you need to give a percentage of people living at the under class, then, feed in the numbers for the number of millionaires from that underclass. Otherwise, you don't really have an answer at all. Beyond that, we'd have to make sure the numbers provided are even rigorously gathered, and these don't really look like numbers from a well-done statistical survey.

Edited February 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

I don't have any such numbers, but I am telling you that your numbers are as useful to the question of the statistical likelihood of members of any group becoming millionaires as it would be to interview only five year cancer survivors to try to determine how many people survive cancer. You're missing the denominator, making the numbers well nigh meaningless for the larger questions.

If you want to measure mobility, you need to give a percentage of people living at the under class, then, feed in the numbers for the number of millionaires from that underclass. Otherwise, you don't really have an answer at all.

number of middle class people = m

number of millionaires = n

proportion of millionaires that started as middle class = x

number of people who rose from middle class to millionaire = xn

chance to rise from middle class to millionaire = xn/m

m and n are easy numbers to find, x is (approximately) given in the article

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

number of middle class people = m

number of millionaires = n

proportion of millionaires that started as middle class = x

number of people who rose from middle class to millionaire = xn

chance to rise from middle class to millionaire = xn/m

m and n are easy numbers to find, x is given in the article

It's not really that easy. First we need to find out how those numbers are gathered. I'm not just going to take those numbers at face value.

[Bonam]

It's not really that easy. First we need to find out how those numbers are gathered. I'm not just going to take those numbers at face value.

It is that easy. The result will have some level of error on it, based on how accurate the source numbers are. But that's how you get the estimate.

Even if the numbers are all off by quite a bit, it wouldn't matter. We only need an approximate result (order of magnitude) to gauge social mobility.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

It is that easy. The result will have some level of error on it, based on how accurate the source numbers are. But that's how you get the estimate.

Even if the numbers are all off by quite a bit, it wouldn't matter. We only need an approximate result (order of magnitude) to gauge social mobility.

Get to it then. This is, after all, your premise, not mine.

[Bonam]

Get to it then. This is, after all, your premise, not mine.

Ok. Estimate for America. Population = ~300 mil. 5% rich, 50% middle class. From article, ~80% of rich are self-made.

n = 0.5*300 mil = 150 mil

m = 0.05*300 mil = 15 mil

x = 0.8

chance to go from middle to rich = xn/m = 0.8*15/150 = 0.08

An 8% chance to rise from middle class to millionaire. I'd say that's pretty solid. You? The 5% and 50% estimates for rich and middle class come from here (look at rightmost column).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States#Academic_models

Again, these are estimates, they can be off by quite a ways and still give a reasonable estimate, hence why that is a good enough source for this purpose.

Edit: fixed arithmetic error

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes ottawa should set a minimum wage. At least 10 per hour. The prvinces should still be free to set their own minimum wage as long as it is above the national standard. Whowhere, your argument is ridiculous. Americans may have a lower min wage but most who work for minimum wage don't even have access to health care. They have to pay out of their own pocket to see a doctor. Canada has huge advantages over America for workers. University in Canada are also exponentially cheaper to attend than in America too. Your assertion that wal-mart and McDonalds are raping us with their prices is ridiculous. I can go into walmart and get a dvd player for 20 bucks. I bought my daughter an electric guitar that came with a practice amp, an electric tuner, a bag and an extra set of strings for 129 dollars. If anything consumer products have become too cheap in Canada, resulting in people not appreciating how much they have. Also making it very difficult to be able to afford to pay anyone a decent wage to create these products. I bought a 5 piece drum set the other day for my 7 year old for 199 dollars. This is a full size kit, brand new, suitable for anyone to use, not some kid's toy either. I remember when buying a television was a major purchase, now people have one in every room of their house and buy them on a whim, like they were picking up a paperback.

[ToadBrother]

Ok. Estimate for America. Population = ~300 mil. 5% rich, 50% middle class. From article, ~80% of rich are self-made.

n = 0.5*300 mil = 150 mil

m = 0.05*300 mil = 15 mil

x = 0.8

chance to go from middle to rich = xn/m = 0.8*15/150 = 0.08

An 8% chance to rise from middle class to millionaire. I'd say that's pretty solid. You? The 5% and 50% estimates for rich and middle class come from here (look at rightmost column).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States#Academic_models

Again, these are estimates, they can be off by quite a ways and still give a reasonable estimate, hence why that is a good enough source for this purpose.

Edit: fixed arithmetic error

A thrifty person in the Middle Class (at least the middle-middle class and upper middle class) could probably, even with the cyclic economic blowout, get to millionaire status in thirty to forty years.

I'm more interested in the people at the bottom rung than those in the middle. It is these people, at least in the short term, that would be most damaged by Libertarian notions.

[Bonam]

A thrifty person in the Middle Class (at least the middle-middle class and upper middle class) could probably, even with the cyclic economic blowout, get to millionaire status in thirty to forty years.

I'm more interested in the people at the bottom rung than those in the middle. It is these people, at least in the short term, that would be most damaged by Libertarian notions.

Clearly the measure for people at the bottom should not be whether they can become millionaires but whether they can get out of poverty. All someone needs to get out of poverty is a job, any job, even a minimum wage job. Reduced taxation stimulates business, creating more jobs, thus bringing more people up out of poverty.