7 up in Quebecois is 7 UP + $12,000

[bloodyminded]

In Air Canada's own words:

So Air Canada doesn't just follow the laws simply because they are written, but "out of respect for Canada's official language communities." Their words, not mine. When a francophone passenger cannot get service on the airline in one of the official languages of this country, Air Canada, by their own words, is showing disrespect to that community.

And explicitly undermining their own Action Plan and openly stated Business Policy.

Are people responsible for their own behaviour?

Edited July 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Including workplace safety regulations?

Yes. We don't need specific laws to attack negligence.

So the majority of Westerners, including Canadians and Americans, most of whom "diligently subscribe" to the notion of minimum wage, are "socialists"?

Minimum wage hurts the very people it claims to assist. It wholly counterproductive. It runs contrary to basic laws of economics. Advocating for minimum wage doesn't necessarily make someone a socialist, but I've seen enough of cybercoma's comments to comfortably describe him a as a socialist. He has an inherent desire for more government and less business. It's his reflexive bias.

But that's true of the vast majority of individual beneficial traits that help lead to financial success generally. A specific type of environment, networks of the "right" people happening to be part of one's environment/social circles, and other factors quite outside of the entrepreneurial myths to which some people genuflect.

Look, it's really simple. Businesses, such as Air Canada, should not be forced to comply with Canadian bilingualism. It's pure coercion, and it's a tax we all end up paying for, directly or indirectly. Let individuals and businesses decide for themselves.

And as a result of official bilingualism, Francophones benefit, not Anglophones.

[Bob]

In Air Canada's own words:

So Air Canada doesn't just follow the laws simply because they are written, but "out of respect for Canada's official language communities." Their words, not mine. When a francophone passenger cannot get service on the airline in one of the official languages of this country, Air Canada, by their own words, is showing disrespect to that community.

It's just corporate spin to try to put a positive light on something the company is forced to do. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does this need to be spelled out to you?

[cybercoma]

Because if you're as staunch a supporter for free-markets as you propose, one of the biggest harms a company or individual can do is lie. Complete knowledge is one of the most important factors in a free market. If one of the parties lies or uses deception, then they are fundamentally acting against the free market.

[cybercoma]

"It's just corporate spin..."

[bloodyminded]

Yes. We don't need specific laws to attack negligence.

But the primary purpose of safety regulations is not to punish offenses, but to ameliorate the dangers in the first place.

I've worked in a lot of accident-heavy occupations, and the regulations are very helpful.

Even in terms of the businesses (though I flatly reject the idea that their "freedom" to profit is more important than their workers' freedom from injury), it's usually better business sense to have these regulations in place. That many of them had to be forced by law into compliance with safety regulations speaks only of their intransigent, shortsighted stubborness, not to business acumen.

Minimum wage hurts the very people it claims to assist. It wholly counterproductive. It runs contrary to basic laws of economics.

The only test we have for this is the pre-minimum-wage era, and anyone who insists it was better overall is insistently screeching that they don't read books, listen to anybody who isn't an ideologue, and are hostile to history itself.

Advocating for minimum wage doesn't necessarily make someone a socialist

Right, unless, again, most people are socialists.

He has an inherent desire for more government and less business. It's his reflexive bias.

No doubt you and I also differ on how bad socialism is, and to what degree.

But leaving business aside, the Right is profoundly and unequivocally supportive of more and bigger government, on a whole host of issues, from abortion to the death penalty to government spying on the populace to an open hatred for government whistleblowers. The idea that "big government" is specifically and only a matter of taxes and regulations on business is a bizarre chimera invented by the political Right.

And as a result of official bilingualism, Francophones benefit, not Anglophones.

Not for the Anglophones who take the radical step of becoming bilingual.

[Bob]

I don't think we need regulations and the massive associated costs in order to have people protected. It's just a cottage industry that benefits a few people at the expense of everyone else, particularly the stakeholders in the industry. If you abolished all safety regulations tomorrow, I doubt we'd see any meaningful change in injury/accident statistics. This typical anti-business attitude of yours where they need to be forced into behaving responsibly is tiresome. If they are negligent they will be held accountable in courts of law. The same goes for employees and all other stakeholders. We have all sorts of crazy laws regulating scaffolding, dimensions, materials, clothing, safety courses, and on and on and on.

As far as minimum wage goes, it is indisputable that is has the opposite effect on the very people it claims to protect - the lowest wage earners. This is elementary economics, and the date supports it in every research study. Your support for minimum wage laws is another example of how mainstream socialists are ignorant of high-school level economics.

I am not here to represent the right-wing, either. I will not support positions I haven't advanced, as you listed anti-abortion/pro-life movements to increased police powers. Those are red herrings that are irrelevant to the discussion, and we've already gone off topic.

Back to the topic at hand, I've already stated that Francophones are far more likely to learn English in Canada than the other way around due to social/environmental pressures. There is so much more English to be exposed to, and the need for English far outweighs the need for French in a broad sense. Thus, bilingual legislation unfairly benefits Francophones when it comes to candidacy for bilingual-only positions. So the suggestion you made about Francophones being more ambitious, or something to that effect is completely untrue. Imagine we could turn the tables, where 80% of Canadians are now Francophones, and French is largely the "international language", with a 20% minority Canadians being Anglophones, with a few other countries around the world such as French and Belgium and Haiti and Lebanon that have French as a primary language. In that hypothetical you'd see a lot more Anglophones becoming bilingual than Francophones by virtue of social pressures and access.

Don't get me wrong, I can consider many different types of jobs and sectors where bilingualism is ideal, but as far as official governmental policy on bilingualism - it it pure insanity. There are departments and bureaucracies all across the country which are stating bilingualism as a requirement for most jobs - even when there is absolutely no practical need for French for the job. Rather, the demand for French language skills for many of these jobs is simply based on official regulations rooted in bilingual ideology. There are thousands and thousands of examples of this. My point stands, bilingual policy in Canada benefits Francophones, and not the other way around. Are you disputing this simple truth? You can support bilingualism, that's fine, but you can't deny the effect bilingual policy has with respect to benefiting Francophones towards access to these jobs.

[Bob]

Although I would've explained the flaws of minimum wage laws with some other hypotheticals, this video is alright.

Consider a small grocery store, which has a new need for about 15 hours of labour a week, in order to deal with deliveries, stocking, and inventory. Now consider that the grocery store owners have a budget of $75 a week to pay for this new need. Unfortunately, the minimum wage is $7/hour, so now the owners can only pay for about ten and a half hours of labour with their available budget for this need.

This has several negative effects. Let's assume that the owners wanted two people to work concurrently in two shifts of about 3.5 hours each, on Mondays and Thursdays. Unfortunately, Now they cannot afford to do so, so it is likely that one job has been lost, before it's even been created.

You can play with these numbers and see how these effects remain true in small and large examples. Remember that the same thing holds true for massive businesses like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, who have large bases of entry-level low-wage jobs. So the primary effect of minimum wage laws is, necessarily, the killing of jobs.

Now lets assume that the grocery store owners decide to bite the bullet, and still fill their need for an additional 15 hours of labour a week to deal with increased demand, and they pay the $7/hour, effectively bringing them $30 a week over-budget. The business will then need to increase costs in order to recuperate the costs, which can be described as a tax on the consumer. So now the consumer is being taxed in order to pay the workers an artificially inflated salary. And all this occurs when there was a supply of young high-schoolers who wanted some work after school and were willing to work for $5/hour. Remember that this phenomenon remains true at all levels, from the small grocery store example here to the large corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think we need regulations and the massive associated costs in order to have people protected.

What are the massive costs, exactly, associated with standard safety regulations?

It's just a cottage industry that benefits a few people at the expense of everyone else, particularly the stakeholders in the industry.

Boo hoo. Human beings work for you (ev en elitists must recognize they're not mere machine cogs) and you have to make some effort to ensure they don't get too injured. One weeps at the injustice.

This typical anti-business attitude of yours where they need to be forced into behaving responsibly is tiresome.

Avoiding absolute, power-worshipping sycophancy and entrenched, fringe, extremist ideological views is not "anti-business."

If they are negligent they will be held accountable in courts of law.

Automatically? It's axiomatic, then?

And why wouldn't it be more practical, from everyone's perpsective, to enact regulations so that criminal or civil lawsuits, and (more importantly) the risk of injuries themselves is decreased?

You think regulations demanding plastic goggles near cardboard balers, or eyewash stations available near chemical situations, is unreasonable?

Or costly?

The same goes for employees and all other stakeholders. We have all sorts of crazy laws regulating scaffolding, dimensions, materials, clothing, safety courses, and on and on and on.

How much exactly do you even know about such procedures which you claim are "crazy"?

As far as minimum wage goes, it is indisputable that is has the opposite effect on the very people it claims to protect - the lowest wage earners.

It is not "indisputable." And in fact, befitting the realms of strict ideology, there is exactly zero evidence for your claim. Not a bit.

This is elementary economics, and the date supports it in every research study.

Every research study?

Every one?

That's really your assertion?

Such a phenomenon doesn't occur in the hard sciences...and yet it does in Economics?

I think not.

Your support for minimum wage laws is another example of how mainstream socialists are ignorant of high-school level economics.

Again, you mean the majority of people...all a bunch of ignorant socialists.

What world do you live in?

I am not here to represent the right-wing, either. I will not support positions I haven't advanced, as you listed anti-abortion/pro-life movements to increased police powers. Those are red herrings that are irrelevant to the discussion, and we've already gone off topic.

You took it off topic, in the usual formulation, and then get irritated (again in the predictable style) when someone takes you up on your own claims.

You talk about how this sinister entity called "the Left" does this or that; I answered to you (and you don't dispute it) that the Right has exactly and precisely the same issues...if anyhting, in a more overtly authoritarian aspect.

So yes, we're off topic. Good work, as usual.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

I know a thing or two about safety regulations, and I think many of them are silly and wasteful. I don't share your view that businesses and employees must be forced into engaging in safety, as I think they will do so on their own as it is in their own best interests. I don't think that there's been any meaningful improvement in worker safety as a result of safety regulations. With respect to your typical anti-business attitude, where you view businesses as inherently irresponsible unless being forced otherwise, I'll say again that in the absence of safety regulations, employers (and employees) can and would be held to account for negligence negatively affecting someone else.

As far as minimum wage laws go, as I've said, it's indisputable. Minimum wage laws always have the opposite effect of their stated intentions, they harm to poor rather than benefit them. If the majority of people support such laws, as you're suggesting, it's just an illustration of ignorance about basic economics. It's sad, really, and an indictment of our public education system. It's not my problem that you don't know this. By the way, the same is true for many social endeavours, which includes rent controls and labour laws (regulating maximum/minimum work hours, overtime, etc). They all have a broad negative effect, occasionally benefits a select few at everyone else's expense.

As far as the right goes, the right seems to be more concerned with increased social control, although I don't see this phenomenon in the Canadian context. If anything, in the Canadian context it is the left that like to engage in social control and removal of personal freedoms and liberties while claiming that it is in the interests of the collective greater good.

[Bob]

Here's an interesting video (I think from the 70s) illustrating how minimum wage laws really harmed certain poorer black communities/ghettos. There are many other taxes we have nowadays, too, which further restrict the abilities of employers to hire people, such as EI and social security payments.

[bloodyminded]

I know a thing or two about safety regulations, and I think many of them are silly and wasteful. I don't share your view that businesses and employees must be forced into engaging in safety, as I think they will do so on their own as it is in their own best interests.

It already happened that they did not; that's why the regulaitons were instituted in the first place.

Your assertion demands--logically--that they were already in place, so there was no point in regulating it.

That's simply untrue. We can look to some of the sweatshops elsewhere and their conditions to see exactly what it used to be like here.

I don't think that there's been any meaningful improvement in worker safety as a result of safety regulations.

Women are no longer locked into factories, so that they can't escape when the place catches on fire. Miners, though still beset by occasional collapses and explosions, are a lot better off than they used to be...entirely because of union organizing, by the way. Eyewash stations literally save people's eyesight. That's no exaggeration. Heavy stationary machinery (and most mobile machinery) is mandated by law to have emergency stop apparatus--a technology that has long existed, but whose use was up to employers back in the day. Now it's not up to them, and there's no question at all that such a thing has decreased injury to a great degree.

I suspect the list could go on for quite some time.

Even if you have direct examples of some useless safety regulations--which you so far have declined to navigate, though you've asserted it more than once--that doesn't mean that safety regulations are bad as a whole. Hell, there are Canadian laws with which I don't completely agree; that doesn't for a second mean that I think laws are a bad idea!

With respect to your typical anti-business attitude, where you view businesses as inherently irresponsible unless being forced otherwise, I'll say again that in the absence of safety regulations, employers (and employees) can and would be held to account for negligence negatively affecting someone else.

So you've stated three times; and for the third time I respond that it's preferable to everyone--employee, employer, and the tax-funded legal system--to avoid these matters to the best of our ability in the first place.

As far as minimum wage laws go, as I've said, it's indisputable.

You claimed it's indisputable based on the "fact" that "every study," without exception, bore this alleged truism out.

And like I said, I don't believe that's true for a second.

Minimum wage laws always have the opposite effect of their stated intentions, they harm to poor rather than benefit them. If the majority of people support such laws, as you're suggesting, it's just an illustration of ignorance about basic economics. It's sad, really, and an indictment of our public education system.

Now that's theroetically possible, yes. Majorities can be mistaken on sheerly factual matters.

It problematizes your "socialist" theory, however.

So ok, let's look at your ideas, some of which undoubtedly contain reasonable points. For example, minimum wage can be difficult for some businesses, particularly small ones. (It's not "exactly the same" for WalMart, as you claim, but let's leave that aside.) Your point--that a business which might otherwise be able to employ several workers, is forced through elementary finances to only hire one or two, or what have you. A good point; I agree.

But there are of course good and bad points from either perspective. If the employer could hire eight workers for $3/hr rather than three workers for $8/hr, the benefits of this are in some ways quite dubious...for reasons that I don't think need to be spelled out.

Further, in the second video you posted, a few matters seem to contradict much of what you've been saying all along: first of all, the idea that minimum wage jobs are about poor kids "from the ghetto" is a specious one, to specific to apply generally; second, more to the point here, the storeowner says he was paid $1/hr..."which is what I deserved."

And he goes on to say that the current minimum wage is "more than they deserve."

That's not "economics 101," nor is it "the hand of the free market" (though it makes a nod in that direction.)

It is, explicitly, a value judgment on what labour "deserves," which in fact is supposed to be near-anathema to economic theory.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

We don't need regulations to keep women from being locked in factories. That in and of itself is illegal, it's forcible confinement and clearly an example of negligence. You don't need a labour law to prohibit it. Case law would do just fine. Since when were women being locked in factories in Canada, anyways?

I already conceded that some of these safety laws are reasonable, but most are not. And they almost always entail unnecessary bureaucracies which I would equate with "make-work" projects so that Mr. Jean LaFrancois can get a job as a safety inspector, because he is bilingual. I never advocated abolition of all safety laws, just that the majority of them are unnecessary. You are the prototypical example of a person who's been conned into believing that we need the government to ensure safety, as if negligence would be permitted and rampant without the existence of bureaucracies that engage in silliness like food inspection. This is true for matters far beyond mere workplace safety, it's everywhere, from Health Canada's regulations of drugs to agricultural inspections to labour laws defining working hours, and on and on and on.

I'll say another thing about minimum wage laws, and this is echoing Milton Friedman - there is absolutely no positive social benefit of these regulations. Nothing whatsoever. And my example ios particularly true in the context of massive employers like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. The same laws that reduce available employment in the small grocery store example keep out many more employees from places like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. This argument that "they can afford to pay more" is pure ignorance. The corporations run on thin margins, and artificial inflation of minimum wage laws do one of two things - either they limit the amount of available openings for employees, or they transfer the cost to consumers, which is essentially a tax. I know you live in a fantasy world where minimum wage laws only affect the pockets of the wealthy, but you couldn't be more wrong. Those who bear the biggest brunt of the exclusively negative effects of minimum wage laws are the poor and unskilled, who either lose out on employment opportunities or end up paying more for products because labour costs are artificially elevated.

Like I said, there is no question whatsoever that minimum wage laws have exclusively negative affects on society at large. This is a point virtually all economists agree on, including left-wing economists like Stiglitz and Krugman.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

He's not making a value judgement. He's stating that the market rate for a service is what is "deserved". There is a value to all things, including labour, and that value is determined by the market. Intervening with the freedoms of people to engage into contractual relations is where the value judgement is.

And the minimum wage laws, as I've said, predominantly hurt the poor (although I've already explained how they can hurt the rest of us through higher prices for products), who are more likely to have their children work to add additional income to the family. If you set the minimum wage laws above the market rate for certain jobs, you effectively cut off the lowest-skilled seekers of work, of whom a large proportion are teenagers from poorer families. If I am a thirteen-year-old looking for work, and the only work I can offer is valued below the minimum wage, you're cutting me off from the job market, and interfering with my ability to enter into a business relationship with a potential employer.

I'm telling you, this is elementary economics. I am not trying to insult you by calling you ignorant of these matters. But I do think you and many others like yourself are a perfect example of social indoctrination into policies that make no sense when subjected to basic scrutiny. We're not doing a good job in our public education system when simple concepts like this are so widely misunderstood. There's a video on YouTube where all of the 2008 Democratic candidates (Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, and some old white guy with glasses) all enthusiastically support the minimum wage and actually argue for increasing it on a CNN debate. So you're in good company, in a sense, where even high-level politicians share your obliviousness about certain basic concepts of economics.

[bloodyminded]

We don't need regulations to keep women from being locked in factories. That in and of itself is illegal, it's forcible confinement and clearly an example of negligence. You don't need a labour law to prohibit it. Case law would do just fine. Since when were women being locked in factories in Canada, anyways?

It wasn't in Canada, it was in the US. But I've never heard that Canadian safety standards were superior to the American's.

146 people were killed.

Of course locking the doors was illegal, and there wa sone or two indictments for manslaughter.

And...yet again...you think that's just as good as preventing t in the first place? That's just crazy.

According to wikileaks, "The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers."

I already conceded that some of these safety laws are reasonable, but most are not.

I haven't heard you concede it. In a way, you coinceded it without drawing attention to the fact you were conceding anything, starting with

Except for environmental regulations, I oppose all of the social interventions you mentioned [this includes safety regulations]. They all do more harm than good.

Moving on to

I don't think we need regulations

and finally, what might be decoded, if one is feling generous, as a faint concession:

Many regulations are silly and wasteful

From "all," dead stop; to "many."

But ok...what, exactly, are all these wasteful, useless, and costly safety measures?

I never advocated abolition of all safety laws, just that the majority of them are unnecessary.

Not really true.

You are the prototypical example of a person who's been conned into believing that we need the government to ensure safety, as if negligence would be permitted and rampant without the existence of bureaucracies that engage in silliness like food inspection.

I think the government is too authoritarian, actually, which is one of several matters that sets me apart from the political Right....and the self-described "moderates."

But yes, I believe that elected representatives can act in some instances as an important bulwark agaisnt the self-motivated excesses of profit-seeking entities, who have no innate need for social and public responsibility beyond what affects their profit-margins, and the manners in which they are circumscribed by the laws in a democratic state.

That's not a criticism; the mandate of for-profit private entities is as it should be; they have no inherent social responsibilities, and must only only follow the law, and otherwise do as they will to make a profit.

That's not an "anti-business" stance, Bob, by any stretch of the imagination. It's explicitly a pro-business stance.

I'm saying that they aren't trustworthy, in large part because of their central and crucial mandate. So represenatives of the public need to help curb dangerous excesses, like the kind that get people killed or injured for the sake of owners and shareholders.

I'll say another thing about minimum wage laws, and this is echoing Milton Friedman - there is absolutely no positive social benefit of these regulations. Nothing whatsoever. And my example ios particularly true in the context of massive employers like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. The same laws that reduce available employment in the small grocery store example keep out many more employees from places like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. This argument that "they can afford to pay more" is pure ignorance. The corporations run on thin margins, and artificial inflation of minimum wage laws do one of two things - either they limit the amount of available openings for employees, or they transfer the cost to consumers, which is essentially a tax. I know you live in a fantasy world where minimum wage laws only affect the pockets of the wealthy, but you couldn't be more wrong. Those who bear the biggest brunt of the exclusively negative effects of minimum wage laws are the poor and unskilled, who either lose out on employment opportunities or end up paying more for products because labour costs are artificially elevated.

Like I said, there is no question whatsoever that minimum wage laws have exclusively negative affects on society at large. This is a point virtually all economists agree on, including left-wing economists like Stiglitz and Krugman.

Stiglitz changed his tune, but to be fair, an argument could be made that his change was politicized, thanks to his position with Clinton.

OK, let's say you're right about minimum wage; I do think the argument seems plausible that more people would be employed without it.

however, that alters an argument I keep hearing (not from you, maybe): that banishing minimum wage laws will result in higher wages.

All the argunents thus far presented argue the exact opposite...are premised on the opposite, and support it because wages would be lower.

So anyway, what happens without a min. wage, especially in the short and medium term? Millions of people (by no stretch of the imaginaiton a bunch of teens looking for weekend money) dropping from $14 000/yr to...what? $6 000? $3 000?

How is that even feasible?

[bloodyminded]

He's not making a value judgement. He's stating that the market rate for a service is what is "deserved". There is a value to all things, including labour, and that value is determined by the market. Intervening with the freedoms of people to engage into contractual relations is where the value judgement is.

"Deserved" has an automatic moral connotation.

Free market theorists tend to avoid the word, because it is loaded and imprecise. I'm surprised you'd defend it.

If you set the minimum wage laws above the market rate for certain jobs,

What is the "market rate"?

I'm telling you, this is elementary economics.

Yes, part of the "dismal science" which is not physics or biology, and so is placed alongside sociology and English Literature.

I am not trying to insult you by calling you ignorant of these matters.

I know you're not, and I appreciate that. I am ignorant of these matters.

But I do think you and many others like yourself are a perfect example of social indoctrination into policies that make no sense when subjected to basic scrutiny.

Fair enough, but I don't think you should be too quick to single anyone out; we're all recipients of social indoctrination. Without exception. The true sociopath might be exempt, it's an arguable point.

[bush_cheney2004]

It wasn't in Canada, it was in the US. But I've never heard that Canadian safety standards were superior to the American's.

Right....so how did/does the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and resulting New York safety and labor legislation relate directly to conditions in Canada?

[bloodyminded]

Right....so how did/does the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and resulting New York safety and labor legislation relate directly to conditions in Canada?

The discussion has evolved into one about the notion of safety standards, their benefits versus costs, generally. I also mentioned third-world sweatshops.

The factory fire was merely part of a list of incidents which have affected labour-influenced regulations in a larger sense.

at worst, talking about Canada alone would be just as irrelevant as not. I was never referring only to Canada.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

What is the "market rate"?

It's been my experience through contract negotiations that the REAL market rate and the one a company claims is out there are two distinctly different things...

Edited July 21, 2011 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

It's been my experience through contract negotiations that the REAL market rate and the one a company claims is out there are two distinctly different things...

Yeah, I don't know. The usual answer I get is that whatever a human resources hiring manager chooses, on any given day, to offer as a wage...is the "market rate"...so long as it aligns with what the biggest players will pay.

In other words, the market rate is arbitrarily determined by people at or working for the richest entities.

The Hand doesn't look so 'invisible."

[cybercoma]

It's also interesting to note that in some places there are two-tiered wage systems, where students make less than adult minimum wage earners. There's at least one study that has found that increasing the student minimum wage to match the adult minimum wage does not actually create higher unemployment for youth. If the economic theories were true, they should be losing their jobs. They aren't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8446206/Minimum-wage-provides-lift-to-youth-employment.html

The employment rate actually goes up among young, low-skilled workers who become entitled to the higher rate of adult pay in their early twenties, a report suggests.

[Jack Weber]

Yeah, I don't know. The usual answer I get is that whatever a human resources hiring manager chooses, on any given day, to offer as a wage...is the "market rate"...so long as it aligns with what the biggest players will pay.

In other words, the market rate is arbitrarily determined by people at or working for the richest entities.

The Hand doesn't look so 'invisible."

That's the beauty of a collectively bargained agreement...The only thing arbitrary is the binding arb hearing if they play the BS "market rate" game...

And "The Hand" might seem invisible but it always has a way of showing up and getting exposed by the fools who believe in it...

[bloodyminded]

It's also interesting to note that in some places there are two-tiered wage systems, where students make less than adult minimum wage earners. There's at least one study that has found that increasing the student minimum wage to match the adult minimum wage does not actually create higher unemployment for youth. If the economic theories were true, they should be losing their jobs. They aren't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8446206/Minimum-wage-provides-lift-to-youth-employment.html

Interesting.

Further, the disparity itself sounds a little like a sort of mild "social engineering," which those who think we should have a Pledge of Allegiance inform me is anathema.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what they used for the study though. They seem to indicate that youth are more likely to participate more seriously in the labour force when they get rid of the tiered system; however, those not participating do not count towards unemployment numbers. This has always been my gripe with our unemployment stats. People that give up looking because they've lost hope or because they're doing "odd jobs" until the economy seems more hopeful, do not actually count as unemployed. I honestly believe that the true state of unemployment is quite a bit higher than what they say.

[Vineon]

Yes, the greedy and self-interested are surely inspired.

2 birds with one stone.

Certainly wouldn't mind making a bit of money out of making sure our current language legislation is respected.

Something to keep in mind on the odd chance I fly to (or from) western Canada. I haven't had that chance yet. Is it true the Rockies are more beautiful on the Canadian side? Looks like the possibility exists for a paid trip.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Vineon