Postal Strike Imminent

[Scotty]

Well, that's debatable, since we have amongst the happiest most peaceful lives in existence (recent world polls). Many of us choose to not even take our full allotted vacation.

In point of fact, from what I've read, those who 'choose' not to take their vacations do so mostly because of fear of losing their jobs or promotions or drawing an angry eye from above if they do.

[Smallc]

I suspect by 'every western country' you're thinking 'well, here and in the US'.

Because it's not like there are any other western countries...

No actually.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009-1.png

The GINI coefficient measures wealth disparity. We're in line with all of our peers.

[Smallc]

In point of fact, from what I've read, those who 'choose' not to take their vacations do so mostly because of fear of losing their jobs or promotions or drawing an angry eye from above if they do.

Oh well then, it must be true.

[Shady]

Public workers should have their salaries and benefits indexed to the overall health of the economy and economic growth. Public workers shouldn't be allowed pay raises or benefit raises during slow economic periods of growth or recessions. It doesn't make any sense.

[bloodyminded]

What is your alternative then?

Like I said, I believe some changes should be made, and public debates are hopefully some small part of that. What I didn't do was determine that I had the answer figured out, as you think you have. But an answer is not superior to no answer, not when the proposed answer is lunacy.

[bloodyminded]

Why should someone working as a cashier at Walmart be making any more than that, even if they've worked there since 1986? It's the nature of the job that is important.

I was only stating a fact. Yes, I do think they'e underpaid; you disagree. But neither of us are dealing in some eternal and objective Truth about the Way Things must Be.

(Those capitalist enthusiasts who believe in the "Natural Law" of top-heavy free market economics have unwittingly raised profound philosophical spectres of which they're ill-prepared to tackle. But one can scarcely argue with religious fanatics, now, can one?)

If someone can't rise to anything above being a cashier in 25 years of their life, well, why should anyone expect that they be paid like a professional? Walmart jobs of the kind you are talking about are for students making a living on the side, people between jobs looking for something to fill in til they can find something in their field, people working a second job to bring in a bit of extra money, etc.

No, that's the Economics 101 theory about what such jobs are "for." There was no grand central planning here...which I'd think you would be happy about--so there are no "proper" roles for which jobs serve which perfectly delineated, historical-progressive idealist fanatasy of the capitalist machine that you appear to have worked out under the guidance of pure hypotheticals. Tons of independent adults make their living at such jobs. More than you think. (Your argument that they shouldn't is an entirely separate one.)

Edited to add: I could make more than that per hour just playing computer games and selling virtual currency if I wanted to ;p Friend of mine makes ~$70k/year doing just that.

Yes, and don't the problems with the world always seem to come down to the variation in human beings, the fact that they aren't exactly like those who manage to do relatively better financially? (Always partly through luck, mind, through elements out of their own control.) I don't take that argument too seriously, and frankly consider it self-indulgent and based on a class-warfare mentality.

It's lack of compassionate imagination aside, it's an argument that elides the rather important fact that without the unsuccessful people, there are no successful people. Rather than deriding them you should be thanking them for their integral role in your own relative success. They are crucial to keeping the machine of commerce chugging along as well as it has. (They are also the only clear-cut class who have little to no fault in the economic collapses, incidentally.)

Granted, I don't think you're 100% wrong. I too think that the 30 yr old cashier who has been there for eleven years, and trying to raise her child on $1300/month, should be actively pursuing other options. However, it's more difficult than you think, and can't be relegated to "I did it/could do it; why can't she?" If I thought that was sound reasoning, I would embrace it, using myself as the insipid Horatio Alger example. Instead, I appreciate that there are two worlds: the objective world around us (of which we're still trying to navigate and figure out); and the internal world, which is often far more difficult and treacherous than outside observers might think.

Edited June 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

In point of fact, from what I've read, those who 'choose' not to take their vacations do so mostly because of fear of losing their jobs or promotions or drawing an angry eye from above if they do.

This is a North American trait, I believe. The U.S. is known as "the no vacation nation" and I think Canada follows suit. I don't think it's a healthy way of life for anyone nor beneficial in the long run to employers/companies.

[bloodyminded]

$350 -$600 per month is a lot of money when you are on the low side in private sector....add in the pension and other perks and well.....

Yes, but why summon this large mass of underpaid humanity? They wouldn't agree with your argument; they would think such better jobs are good ones they wished they had, not something that should be eliminated. That notion comes entirely from the professional Business class, is disseminated downwards through a process of making the middle class ideologically aligned with them via fear and resentment of "the government," including all its employees.

It appears to have been an effective propaganda exercise.

Edited June 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

$350 -$600 per month is a lot of money when you are on the low side in private sector....add in the pension and other perks and well.....

Yes, but why summon this large mass of underpaid humanity? They wouldn't agree with your argument; they would think such better jobs are good ones they wished they had, not something that should be eliminated. That notion comes entirely from the professional Business class, is disseminated downards through a process of making the middle class ideologically aligned with them via fear and resentment of "the government," including all its employees.

It appears to have been an effective propaganda exercise.

Yes it's just propaganda that cashiers at wal-mart who make $10-11/hr could do the same job as a "post office clerk" or "ttc token collector" do for $20-$25/hr plus benefits.

Only the chosen ones get to feast on the taxpayers coin in your world. In the "professional Business class" world, everyone is paid a wage determined by their employability and the demand for their services. You don't get to luck out into a unionized public job with 2 to 3 times the compensation of that poor 30 year old cashier you hypothesized trying to raise her child on $1300/mo.

Edited June 3, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bloodyminded]

ame='bloodyminded' date='03 June 2011 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1307121801' post='677621']

Yes it's just propaganda that cashiers at wal-mart who make $10-11/hr could do the same job as a "post office clerk" or "ttc token collector" do for $20-$25/hr plus benefits.

If you can't follow the argument, I'm not going to take the blame for it.

You don't get to luck out into a unionized public job with 2 to 3 times the compensation of that poor 30 year old cashier you hypothesized trying to raise her child on $1300/mo.

"Hypothesized"? So you don't think it's even a reality?

I understand: you think people who make little money are pathetic, mock-worthy morons. Most elitist class-warriors do.

[CPCFTW]

"Hypothesized"? So you don't think it's even a reality?

I understand: you think people who make little money are pathetic, mock-worthy morons. Most elitist class-warriors do.

It's not a reality because it's a person you made up. Of course there are people out there in that situation. It's too bad you want to keep them down by spending our tax dollars on paying ttc collectors and post office workers 'a living wage', rather than letting the private sector generate more high wage jobs and allocating them to the members of the lower class who are the most competent and hardest working. I know you think arbitrarily giving $25/hr to one worker and $10/hr to another is more fair.

Edited June 3, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bloodyminded]

It's not a reality because it's a person you made up. Of course there are people out there in that situation. It's too bad you want to keep them down by spending our tax dollars on paying ttc collectors and post office workers 'a living wage', rather than letting the private sector generate more high wage jobs and allocating them to the members of the lower class who are the most competent and hardest working.

You don't these are the most competent and hardworking. Who are you trying to fool?

[TimG]

It's lack of compassionate imagination aside, it's an argument that elides the rather important fact that without the unsuccessful people, there are no successful people.

Why don't you take that to its logical conclusion: there can be no rich people without poor people.

Our entire society depends on masses of cheap labour that is largely provided by other countries. If we did not have access to this pool of cheap labour we would all be much poorer and would not be able to afford many of the things we take for granted today. Given a chance there are a several billion people out there who would love to have a job that paid walmart wages and benefits.

Now we can justify this disparity by pointing out that trade makes everyone wealthier and this mostly true, however, you can't really make a moral argument that a postal worker deserves to paid more than the market says they are worth while you are drinking a expresso grown by a subsistence farmer in Africa while browsing the web on an iPad assembled by a Chinese migrant worker.

Your idea that we can carve out island in the world and overpay people on that island out of some of idea of 'equity' is hypocritical nonsense. As society we cannot afford to do that as long as we are competing with countries that do not do that.

Yes, I realize that you want to blame everything on those big bad CEOs who pursue profits but nothing any CEO can do will change the fact that there is a massive surplus of labour in the world today and the only thing that stops wages in rich countries from dropping even faster than they already have is inertia.

If we want to maintain our standard of living as a society we need to focus on building a skilled workforce and reducing the amount that we pay for the unskilled labour that keeps the country running. I realize that upsets your ideas of equity but the only alternative is we all get poor together as businesses shutdown because they cannot compete.

Edited June 3, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Why don't you take that to its logical conclusion: there can be no rich people without poor people.

That is self-evidently implied in my post; it's not as if I was skirting around it.

Our entire society depends on masses of cheap labour that is largely provided by other countries. If we did not have access to this pool of cheap labour we would all be much poorer and would not be able to afford many of the things we take for granted today.

Then your argument is with those who otherwise agree with you...those living under the fantasy not that "anyone can be successful" (theoretically true, I suppose, but totally irrelevant as it's not based on the lived reality of human beings), but that everyone can.

If only we lower their wages.

At any rate, I'm more concerned now with the proud snobbery, elitism, and top-down class warrior ethos being bandied about here...this always surfaces in this kind of discussion, I've noticed: folks exposing their intense class consciousness, and adhering to the ancient tradition of despising those who don't make it, financially.

Given a chance there are a several billion people out there who would love to have a job that paid walmart wages and benefits.

Well of course. When your choices suck, lots of ugly things start to look better. Lots of people would "choose" to be slapped around rather than have their genitals electrocuted, too. That doesn't make the slapping around a beautiful thing.

Now we can justify this disparity by pointing out that trade makes everyone wealthier and this mostly true, however, you can't really make a moral argument that a postal worker deserves to paid more than the market says they are worth while you drink a latte grown by a subsistence farmer in Africa while browsing the web on an iPad assembled by a Chinese migrant worker.

I very much sympathize with your view on hypocrisy, but the argument is a self-replicating one, and expands indefinitely. You will not find a single political/economic/moral perspective, by anyone, which would not be laden with hypocritical undercurrents and difficult contradictions. Surely you know that.

Your idea that we can carve out island in the world and overpay people on that island out of some of idea of 'equity' is hypocritical nonsense. As society we cannot afford to do that as long as we are competing with countries that do not do that.

The rot goes deep, is what you're saying, even as you elsewhere call it "fair."

At any rate, nowhere do I call for "equity."

You do. It is your argument, Tim. Equity, using the lowest possible "industry standard" as the model.

Yes, I realize that you want to blame everything on those big bad CEOs who pursue profits

On the contrary, it is an institutionalized matter, obviously. But so are the hard-won labour rights which you think we should legislate out of existence...which would not make things "more fair" but would be--institutionally, as a matter of course--a situation by which a new feudalism was introduced.

I have, repeatedly now, told you that I don't have the answers...but you think you do, and I disagree with your answer.

Interestingly, my disagreeing with TimG not only paints me as an idealist radical, but also underlines my hypocrisy, my skewed morality, and my inattention to global financial interconnectedness.

If we want to maintain out standard of living as a society

But you're not advocating we "maintain our standard of living"; you're advocating that a few people do, fewer still (the very rich) increase theirs more, and that the deserving poor should keep everything trucking along gloriously.

we need to focus on building a skilled workforce and reducing the amount that we pay for the unskilled labour that keeps the country running. I realize that upsets your ideas of equity but the only alternative is we all get poor together as businesses shutdown because they cannot compete.

Sure, well, it's not as if the rise of the safety net, the rise in labour remuneration and dignity and rights, the implementation of soft-socialist amelioratives to capitalism's bad tendencies, correlates at all with the most fantastic explosion of science, technology, travel, communication, practical knowledge, and wealth creation that the planet has ever seen, by a long shot.

You're the one proposing radical structural changes, based on lowest common-denominator rewards for the majority, based on radical Mises-ian hypotheticals about future benefits that is based on zero empiricism.

How is it that I'm the radical, again?

Edited June 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

I've noticed: folks exposing their intense class consciousness, and adhering to the ancient tradition of despising those who don't make it, financially.

Who is despising anyone? My only complaint are unions who exploit government monopolies in order to demand wage and benefit packages that are not reasonable given the current market conditions. I only care because I have pay for the cost of these government monopolies. If I did not have to pay I would not care.

You do. It is your argument, Tim. Equity, using the lowest possible "industry standard" as the model

I think the wage rates should be based on market forces. You basically want to pluck numbers out of the air based on whatever you think sounds good. Maybe you did not use the word 'equity' but that is what you are getting at. Basically, you think it is possible to determine a 'fair' wage without looking at the market. I am saying that is a contradiction in terms. Wages that are not set by the market cannot be fair. The only place where the market breaks down is when there is a monopoly like we have with Canada Post and other government unions.

Sure, well, it's not as if the rise of the safety net, the rise in labour remuneration and dignity and rights, the implementation of soft-socialist amelioratives to capitalism's bad tendencies, correlates at all with the most fantastic explosion of science, technology, travel, communication, practical knowledge, and wealth creation that the planet has ever seen, by a long shot.

All built on a foundation of cheap labour in other countries. No country has ever made itself wealthy on its own. The wealth always depended on being able to trade with countries with much lower standards of living. It was as true during Roman Empire as it is true today. We may not have legalized slavery today because we rely on 'global trade networks' to keep our hands clean.

The social welfare state is a ponzi scheme.

[mikedavid00]

In point of fact, from what I've read, those who 'choose' not to take their vacations do so mostly because of fear of losing their jobs or promotions or drawing an angry eye from above if they do.

This is the reason why my wife, myself, and my brother all stay away from vacations. Then you have to fight with your company to get the vacation money when you don't use it.

Few here on the site actually work in the private sector or understand the Canadian workplace.

The Canadian, non unionized, private sector is a very sad place where there is absolutely no job security, barely any benefits (for instance my wife is about to have our first child and her company does not top up her IE.. basically my wife is taking a huge pay cut to stay at home with the baby. For those who don't know, you basically have to go on general EI benefits when you have a baby. There is no '80% of your paycheck'.. that is a myth). Companies continually 'get worse', go belly up, take away free coffee. My brother just did a contract at a place where there was no kitchenette or microwave at all. And this is white collar pay-scales. These aren't labor jobs.

I could go on forever with stories in the private sector and public sector as I've worked both, but I'd be typing crazy stories from each all day.

None of you guys understand that Canadian work place (no offense but it's true). You guys just read media headlines about this or that. You don't understand just how many immigrants are taking your jobs and destroying the Canadian workplace. You haven't been working with HR sorting through 80 resumes over a job in IT. So many resumes you just can't go through them all. Also getting sent home early is standard in Canada. You ask an American and they never heard of this 'practice' of being sent home early.

The Canadian workplace is a very, very sad place and when someone brought up the vacation thing it struck a chord because that REALLY IS the Canadian workplace. My wife is afraid to use her whole year off of mat leave because we feel it will effect her employment. (and she gets paid very well so please don't assume this is something reserved for lowering paying jobs.. I'm talking about white collar, good paying jobs).

I have this saying; 'The Canadian business culture is really 'scraping at the bottom' when you compare it to the business cultures almost anywhere else in the world'. Work anywhere else and then come back to Canada and you will see just how much a sh*thole business culture we have here compared to anywhere else. Any country.

[Battletoads]

It was so tiny, if it actually existed, that it would have been fairly easily handled had the recession not arrived.

The Cons put us in a deficit in boom times, I don't care how small it was.

[RNG]

I have this saying; 'The Canadian business culture is really 'scraping at the bottom' when you compare it to the business cultures almost anywhere else in the world'. Work anywhere else and then come back to Canada and you will see just how much a sh*thole business culture we have here compared to anywhere else. Any country.

I can't comment on Europe, and there is enough cultural differences that Asia isn't relevant. But I visit a US political forum and in fact, the posters there make exactly the same complaints as you did. It is a function of high unemployment due to the recession. It's an economic cycle, that's all. In Canada we still have better labor laws than the US, so I think your post is a bit exaggerated.

[Battletoads]

I can't comment on Europe, and there is enough cultural differences that Asia isn't relevant. But I visit a US political forum and in fact, the posters there make exactly the same complaints as you did. It is a function of high unemployment due to the recession. It's an economic cycle, that's all. In Canada we still have better labor laws than the US, so I think your post is a bit exaggerated.

The US is pretty much the bottom of the barrel for western 1st world countries, being better than them is meaningless.

[Smallc]

The US is pretty much the bottom of the barrel for western 1st world countries, being better than them is meaningless.

That may be, but we're about equal with pretty much all of our Western European peers, and we're actually ahead of some of them.

[RNG]

The US is pretty much the bottom of the barrel for western 1st world countries, being better than them is meaningless.

I was reacting to MikeDavid00 saying Canada was the bottom of the barrel. Do you want to be a laborer in China or India or Mexico or Venezuela and on and on?

[CPCFTW]

The point isn't who's worse off between countries, the point is the private sector workers are having their wealth transferred to the public sector. Public sector employees take their benefits and pay for granted and think every worker is entitled to that shit. The reality is that the private sector employees are the ones that pay for those benefits while not getting any themselves. There's about 5-10 professions in Canada (think lawyer, actuary, accountant, financial analyst, senior managers, etc.) that get comparable compensation to the public sector. All these professions require multiple degrees, professional designations, or significant work experience and outperformance of peers. In the name of equality, the public sector doles out these wages to high school drop outs working as post office workers and ttc fare collectors.

Edited June 3, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bloodyminded]

The only place where the market breaks down is when there is a monopoly like we have with Canada Post and other government unions.

Oh, christ on a cracker. You don't even believe what you're posting.

If it weren't for the government, this magical, benign entity called "the market" would be awesome, fierce, independent, good for all.

If you're advocting for anarcho-capitalism, why not come out and say it?

It's an awful idea; no doubt you and I would be among the overwhelming majority of peopel living terrible lives of privation. But hey, your ideology wins, and that's the main thing!

All built on a foundation of cheap labour in other countries. No country has ever made itself wealthy on its own. The wealth always depended on being able to trade with countries with much lower standards of living. It was as true during Roman Empire as it is true today. We may not have legalized slavery today because we rely on 'global trade networks' to keep our hands clean.

The social welfare state is a ponzi scheme.

No...you can have cheap labour and zero social safety net. Lots of countries do, and the normal term for them is "failed state."

It's interesting...before the social safety net which you so despise, although it has made most lives better, including your own and that of your family, do you think "the market" was working great and society was a better place to live?

Never mind, a rhetorical question. Your answer, of course, is "no," because you're not a drooling moron.

Edited June 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

This is the reason why my wife, myself, and my brother all stay away from vacations. Then you have to fight with your company to get the vacation money when you don't use it.

Few here on the site actually work in the private sector

Yeah, ok. If by "few" you mean "most of us," then you're correct.

[TimG]

No...you can have cheap labour and zero social safety net. Lots of countries do, and the normal term for them is "failed state."

You completely ignored my point. We depend entirely on these "failed states" for our standard of living. Our society cannot sustain itself without dirt cheap labour from places where the welfare state does not exist. The welfare state is a ponzi scheme for rich people that depends on someone somewhere getting next to nothing. Edited June 3, 2011 by TimG