Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?

[Michael Hardner]

Got a link to this calculator?

Look you are not getting taxed at ~50% when earning minimum wage dude. Your gross monthly salary on minimum wage (in Ontario) is ~1600 as I said above. Net after all tax/cpp/ei deductions might be around 1500, not 800.

You're right, that seems wrong. I entered the data into the calculator here:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/pdoc/

[Oleg Bach]

What? America shows just the opposite. By "taking up this mantra", America advanced from a few insignificant colonies to the world's leading superpower in a short time of just 200 years. The "mantra of competition" and free enterprise has brought about the greatest advances in technology, longevity, and standards of living.

Egypt lasted for 4000 years as an empire- because they were based in love and mutual co-operation- not in the reduction of power of others to increase their own power. America is over..it was short term success.

[ToadBrother]

Egypt lasted for 4000 years as an empire- because they were based in love and mutual co-operation- not in the reduction of power of others to increase their own power. America is over..it was short term success.

This has got to be the absurdest thing I ever read. Egypt did persist for a considerable length of time, but went through all kinds of dark periods and periods of retraction. In large part, it persisted because to get to it one had to cross some very inhospitable deserts (which didn't stop groups like the Hyksos from causing serious troubles). In the end, once an enemy appeared on the scene who had both the resources and the drive to take them down, they fell. Alexander the Great spent no great effort in toppling Egypt, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty that followed was completely Hellenic, though it played a bit at being Egyptian.

[Michael Hardner]

Egypt lasted for 4000 years as an empire- because they were based in love and mutual co-operation- not in the reduction of power of others to increase their own power. America is over..it was short term success.

Also sphinxes. Have you ever seen a sphinx ? Not to be trifled with, Oleg. America's problem was simple: no sphinxes.

[Oleg Bach]

Also sphinxes. Have you ever seen a sphinx ? Not to be trifled with, Oleg. America's problem was simple: no sphinxes.

Was the unholy matriarch , Barbara Bush not a sphinx? OKAY- So they matted with their sisters to produce a Horus...I could have sworn that Dick Cheneys daughter matted with herself via some sperm sample donated from Michael Jackson.

[GostHacked]

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

You want to account for inflation and rising costs/wages. Currently my income is as much now as both my parents' income in the 80s. Does that make me richer at all? Hell no! Because of inflation you will find more people moving up in the million dollar category. That would mean something if the value of the dollar was static, but obviously that is not the case.

For middle class it seems that raises and cost of living increases match whatever inflation is going on. However the increases never catch up to the inflation rate, it is always a couple steps behind. Now for the low income people, the cost of living increases are relative to their wages, so the inflation rate quickly outpaces the cost of living increases for low incomes.

[Bonam]

I'm extraordinarily dubious that anyone on minimum wage is going to be saving very much money at all. The $500 figure you give is extremely optimistic for any major urban area in North America (Vancouver, as I recall, is something like $700-$800, unless you want to be living with the hookers and drug dealers). I could see it as more likely that minimum wage could put you in a situation where you could save with, say, a room mate, which is how a lot of the people I know who have lived on minimum wage have lived.

I didn't give the $500 figure. I agree, and pay closer to $700 myself. Nevertheless, from your ~1600/month income on minimum wage, spending just under half of it on housing, you can definitely still save. What's the other $900 per month going to? Food is ~300, phone/internet/electricity another ~100. That's still 500 left, you can use it on entertainment/luxury, or a car, or save up part of it.

You want to account for inflation and rising costs/wages. Currently my income is as much now as both my parents' income in the 80s. Does that make me richer at all? Hell no! Because of inflation you will find more people moving up in the million dollar category. That would mean something if the value of the dollar was static, but obviously that is not the case.

I agree, but we are talking about millionaires "now", not years down the road. At this point (the year 2010) being a millionaire is still well above average in wealth.

Egypt lasted for 4000 years as an empire- because they were based in love and mutual co-operation- not in the reduction of power of others to increase their own power. America is over..it was short term success.

Yes, I can indeed feel the love. What's not to love about a civilization based on the rule of a God-Pharaoh with the entire population little more than his personal slaves.

[whowhere]

What? America shows just the opposite. By "taking up this mantra", America advanced from a few insignificant colonies to the world's leading superpower in a short time of just 200 years. The "mantra of competition" and free enterprise has brought about the greatest advances in technology, longevity, and standards of living.

Yes, the greatest lie ever told. The US a superpower? In your mind. That has been the American story to convince you that they are that. The United States is a power for sure, a superpower not anymore. Perhaps before 1970, the generations that came after single handedly handed the matches to china and gave it the means to usurp the world on all fronts. I could quote chinese stats versus the world but what's the point. China is what it is because of lazy idiots in the United States.

[whowhere]

How? Between school debt, my car, what I'm paying my parents (money they had lent me that I told them I'd pay back) rent, etc, I spend $1250 every month without buying anything.

You must have a nice car.

[whowhere]

Your report states that the child poverty rate in BC is higher than the Canadian average. This has nothing to do with the point I made. The point I made was that as taxes are decreased, poverty will fall. This is confirmed in the report:

By saying this, you would have to agree that having a minimum wage higher than the United States has to inflate retail prices at the grocery store and the gas pump therefore increasing poverty. If this is not logical, someone point out how it is not.

[Alta4ever]

You must have a nice car.

The school debt must make up a vast portion of the payments.

[Smallc]

You must have a nice car.

If you must know, 250 for the school loans, about 90 for my school loan interest, 250 to my parents, 250 for rent (I live in 1 room at a relatives), 275 for my car, 125 for car insurance and registration....

[Bonam]

By saying this, you would have to agree that having a minimum wage higher than the United States has to inflate retail prices at the grocery store and the gas pump therefore increasing poverty. If this is not logical, someone point out how it is not.

Of course it is, but not directly because prices are inflated. That is, people's minimum wages are inflated commensurately with the prices, so if that is all that happened, their buying power would remain the same (though people earning more than minimum wage would lose buying power). However, raising the minimum wage also raises the cost of business without raising profits. That means less business and thus less jobs, which means more poverty.

[Oleg Bach]

Being on the bottom of the scale, it is more and more evident that the buying power of the dollar is way down. Eventually this will spread upwards and those that do not notice they are more poor than ten years ago will notice soon.

[whowhere]

If you must know, 250 for the school loans, about 90 for my school loan interest, 250 to my parents, 250 for rent (I live in 1 room at a relatives), 275 for my car, 125 for car insurance and registration....

275 + 125 = 400! Living large. How about the gas?

[whowhere]

(though people earning more than minimum wage would lose buying power). However, raising the minimum wage also raises the cost of business without raising profits. That means less business and thus less jobs, which means more poverty.

That is the point of this thread, thank you. I am not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage. It has to be a realistic minimum wage and not at the expense of everyone else.

[Oleg Bach]

That is the point of this thread, thank you. I am not saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage. It has to be a realistic minimum wage and not at the expense of everyone else.

Can't take it seriously when a person has led a charmed and comfortable life who makes 200 thousand a year goes on a bout a realistic minimum wage...they expect some to eat Kraft Dinner and hot dogs while they chow down on lobster and beef.

[whowhere]

Being on the bottom of the scale, it is more and more evident that the buying power of the dollar is way down. Eventually this will spread upwards and those that do not notice they are more poor than ten years ago will notice soon.

Corporations and the corporate shirts haven't awaken to their erosion of wealth yet! These corporate elite thought in creating a fiefdom and looking down on everyone while depriving the economics to sustain mortgages, buy cars, and provide for the family at current prices they have shot themselves in the foot. They have awoken the ire of the US Government and they have put the printing press in full operation. When these elite awake they will realize all they have worked for will be for nothing. They thought they were moving two steps forward but the Government have put them all 4 steps back.

[Oleg Bach]

Back in 1970 I could do some semi skilled labor at 15 dollars an hour and had money in my pocket that could buy what I needed..I am totally shocked when I hear there are people out there working for 300 dollars a week 40 later..what the hell is that? Even puttering around on a film set I could make 1400 clear and that was a living wage....Who are these people that expect others to live on nothing? Maybe our bureaucrats who make a good buck..expect the rest to languish in poverty...at one time the feds were taking 100% of my cheaques..I was told I could work it off in about seven year...a tax debt...I asked how can I operate if you take it all? They just laughed.

[Smallc]

275 + 125 = 400! Living large. How about the gas?

That's not much. My car, because of what it is has a high insurance rate, but the payment isn't very high.

[Renegade]

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.

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.

The problem I have is that values are extremely subjective, moreover I don't really see much of a differece between values and morality. I do however see some distinction between rights and morality. I think that society can all agree on basic rights. These rights would be derived from the basic presumption that we own our own bodies and by products of our bodies, such as our labour. I don't see this as a moral question. Limits beyond the establishment and enforcement of rights, fall into the domain of morality.

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

This is the issue I have with your position. You are justifiying your position in that you and I make different "value" (i.e. moral) choices. My position is that moral choices shouldn't come into it because a government shouldn't enforce moral choices.

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.

Because you have this long list and depend upon your value system to determine which ones are permissable or not, you will no doubt run into more inconsistancies. Moreover, the more your choices depend upon a subjective value system, the more others may disagree with your choices becasues everyone may have different value system. We are not homogenous.

My position is more clear in determining what choices are premisable. Bad decisions are always allowed so long as they don't violate the fundamental rights we have agreed on.

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

If you look back on history you will see that there have been numerious disasters which have ensued because of it. The way forward is to severely constrain the role of government to what is minimaly necessary.

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

What I attempted to show, and I believe is that everyone has a shot to succeed in life. I don't even maintain that everyone has the same shot. IMV, all that is required is that people be guranteed a baseline shot, as dictated by their basic human rights, anything beyond that (such as advantages provided by parents) is simply a bonus.

[Renegade]

China is what it is because of lazy idiots in the United States.

... and low labour rates in China.

whowhere I don't understand your premise. You want harmonization with minimium wage rates in the US. But why stop there? Why not harmonize with China and other countries around the world, since surely it has been demonstrated they too are a source of competitive labour?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Renegade

[whowhere]

... and low labour rates in China.

whowhere I don't understand your premise. You want harmonization with minimium wage rates in the US. But why stop there? Why not harmonize with China and other countries around the world, since surely it has been demonstrated they too are a source of competitive labour?

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

[bush_cheney2004]

.... China is what it is because of lazy idiots in the United States.

....so is Canada!

[Michael Hardner]

The problem I have is that values are extremely subjective, moreover I don't really see much of a differece between values and morality. I do however see some distinction between rights and morality. I think that society can all agree on basic rights. These rights would be derived from the basic presumption that we own our own bodies and by products of our bodies, such as our labour. I don't see this as a moral question. Limits beyond the establishment and enforcement of rights, fall into the domain of morality.

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

The next step is where you draw a direct line between the Kool Aid stand on the corner and the international consortium that is manipulating the market on some precious commodity or other.

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

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

This is the issue I have with your position. You are justifiying your position in that you and I make different "value" (i.e. moral) choices. My position is that moral choices shouldn't come into it because a government shouldn't enforce moral choices.

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

Because you have this long list and depend upon your value system to determine which ones are permissable or not, you will no doubt run into more inconsistancies. Moreover, the more your choices depend upon a subjective value system, the more others may disagree with your choices becasues everyone may have different value system. We are not homogenous.

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

My position is more clear in determining what choices are premisable. Bad decisions are always allowed so long as they don't violate the fundamental rights we have agreed on.

If you look back on history you will see that there have been numerious disasters which have ensued because of it. The way forward is to severely constrain the role of government to what is minimaly necessary.

Defining a "disaster" is another example of invoking one's values. Some would say an authoritarian society where one is safe and provided for is superior to, say, a society where one can realize great potential but is more likely to end up in ruin.

What I attempted to show, and I believe is that everyone has a shot to succeed in life. I don't even maintain that everyone has the same shot. IMV, all that is required is that people be guranteed a baseline shot, as dictated by their basic human rights, anything beyond that (such as advantages provided by parents) is simply a bonus.

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

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