Abolish All Minimum Wage Legislation

[Renegade]

the natural selection need for survival. anything is better than nothing. which is why people would would work for scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat rather than freeze or starve to death.

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare?

[White Doors]

the natural selection need for survival. anything is better than nothing. which is why people would would work for scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat rather than freeze or starve to death.

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare?

hate to play the devils advocate, but we have homelss people now that do not collect it.

[blueblood]

Then inflation wouldn't go up like crazy,there's always going to be poor people whether they work for 7 bucks an hour or 10 bucks an hour as far as minimum wage goes, the market will readjust to put back the balance. The only problem is that 10 bucks won't mean didly squat anymore. It actually hurts us in the end as our dollar won't be able to buy us things anymore. The only way raising the minimum wage would help out is if people quit spending money too much.

It is very unlikely that an increase in the minimum wage will spark inflation. It is more likely as other suggest that certain small businesses may cut back on employment. You are correct in suggesting the market would adjust. 90 years of history has proven just that fact. Since the minimum wage is playing catchup to the requirements to work for a living wage, it is understandable that the level it is set at will always been seen as floor.

The statement that poor people are spending to much money is limited by the fact that poor people can't spend anymore money then they have. Minimum wage people aren't the ones mortgaged to the hilt, and with 2 new lease vehicles and living day to day eating and paying off the interest on these items. Minimum wage people are spending their earnings on food, rent and a bus ticket and probably trying to save any extra nickels for education.

With regards to your statements of inflation, inflation is always present, but hasn't been a major detrimental factor since the oil crises of the 70s and early 80s. Rapidly rising Energy, Hydro, Gas, Oil etc are major factors affecting inflation. Something far more deadly could occur with the removal of the minimum wage and a decrease in spending as you suggest. Deflation. Something not seen since the dirty thirties.

I base my theory on my min. wage beliefs due to personal experience. For example farmers get X dollars for my grain/canola sales, farmers have to pay Y for lets say fertilizer. Say we have a good year, farmers use fertilizer all the time, the fertilizer company realizes that the farmers had a good year, they can get away with charging more for fertilizer knowing that we're going to buy it anyway. If we have a bad year some guys won't be able to afford much fertilizer and the fertilizer company might not get as much money as it would like, so it drops it's price and takes a little hit on it's profits, making some money is better than no money.

Out in Alberta stuff from what I heard costs an arm and a leg, why, people have money to spend and spend they do. If minimum wage went up to 10 bucks/hour, stuff could possibly go up, retailers won't care about rent and bus passes etc., they'll realize everyone is at least making this much money and will adjust prices in order to net larger profits, that's a problem in itself, 10 bucks an hour could likely be considered poor.

Like I said a low min. wage + low corporate tax rates encourage business growth (low costs), this happened in Ireland, it grew so much that they were competing for workers by offering higher and higher wages, thus making the people of Ireland richer and richer.

It's just a theory, Saturn, Geoffery, and Charles Anthony know a lot about economics and should correct any mistakes I may have made.

[Renegade]

the natural selection need for survival. anything is better than nothing. which is why people would would work for scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat rather than freeze or starve to death.

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare?

hate to play the devils advocate, but we have homelss people now that do not collect it.

And? are you saying that they are instead working for minimium wage or any wage?

[BubberMiley]

In a excellent job seeking market like we have today, there is absolutely zero need for minimum wage legislation.

If there is zero need, there is zero effect. If there is zero effect, why do you care?

[sideshow]

the natural selection need for survival. anything is better than nothing. which is why people would would work for scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat rather than freeze or starve to death.

You managed to ignore the context of the question asked. Let me repeat it and see if it helps. Since welfare is available, why would someone work for less? Isn't welfare better than "nothing" or "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat", and if you agree it is, why would a sane person work for "scraps of wood and garbage peelings to eat" rather than collect welfare?

You are partially correct. I was answering the question outside of the welfare system.

Welfare is better than nothing. But welfare is not 100% accessible, poorly managed on so many levels, and supplies an income in many cases which is really less than minimum wage-which may be a contributing factor in crime, under the table work, people working for less than minimum wage (it happens right now), etc.

But taking welfare our of the equation, and simply answering to the question of abolishing minimum wage legislation, i think that history has shown (time and time again) in Canada and elsewhere, that without minimum (whether wages, or whatever) standards, there will be those that will exploit, and those desperate enough to be exploited. It's unfortunate, but it's simply the case. While there are many many fair and responsible employers, there are also many many that are not.

Interesting reading for those that may want to actually educate themselves rather than spewing Fox rhetoric:

Canadian Working Class History, 2nd edition, MacDowell, Radforth.

@blueblood

I'm not familiar with Irish economics, so I really cant respond to any degree. I would say that there are many factors that affect economic policy that vary between countries so it may be a bit of apples and oranges.

@Charles Anthony

"Please, whether you grew up in a shoe box or I grew up in the hall-way makes ZERO difference in the determination of economic policy."

wrong. it makes every difference because peoples upbringings and experiences shape their views of how things should be done. and since we vote, spend, or work towards differing ways of the country being run, those with one view point will "tug o war" with those of another view point. so ultimately our upbringing will affect economic policy-both how we vote and how we live.

"What makes me more sick is when people impose economic policy when they know ZERO economics."

I couldn't agree more. I think it should be a requirement that all parliamentarians take economic courses that are taught from all "perspectives." Since they spend OUR money, they should at least know the ins and outs.

"- irrelevent.

You are making suggestions for imposing economic policy and you can not defend them."

As stated above, very relevent. My vote, my spending habits, my living style are dictated by my beliefs-which were shaped by my upbringing. How I view economic policy is part of that. And I don't need to defend my beliefs-they are my beliefs as yours are yours. I simply believe that if you look at how history has shaped the country, minimum wage legislation is an important part of raising the living standards of those at the bottom end of the spectrum.

"Can you provide ONE SINGLE reference to a school of economic thought (raging socialist and Marxist theorists included) that support your belief???"

Read the book in my last post. I could refer you to dozens of university textbooks, etc. that I have read/studied, but to be honest its all very accessible information on the net or the library. All you have to do is go looking. I'm not one for "raging socialist and/or Marxist theories" so I really can't comment on them to any degree. And "schools of thought" are just labels- like "conservative" or "liberal". There are good and bad inside/outside all of them.

[Renegade]

You are partially correct. I was answering the question outside of the welfare system.

Welfare is better than nothing. But welfare is not 100% accessible, poorly managed on so many levels, and supplies an income in many cases which is really less than minimum wage-which may be a contributing factor in crime, under the table work, people working for less than minimum wage (it happens right now), etc.

You make the statement that welfare is not 100% accessable and poorly managed. So how accessable is it? Is it 98% or only 10% accessable. If it is 98%, are you advocating that minimium wage legislation be put in place to catch the 2% who don't have access to welfare? If your point is that deficiencies in the welafare system are the reason we have minimium wage legislation, then doesn' it make more sense to resolve those deficiencies rather than advocate solutions such as minimium wage which impose a burden on employer.

Without explicitly saying so, you seem to accept that welfare is an alternative to very low wages. Would it make you more comfortable if we renamed welfare "minimium guaranteed income" and it replaced minimium wage leglislation?

But taking welfare our of the equation, and simply answering to the question of abolishing minimum wage legislation, i think that history has shown (time and time again) in Canada and elsewhere, that without minimum (whether wages, or whatever) standards, there will be those that will exploit, and those desperate enough to be exploited. It's unfortunate, but it's simply the case. While there are many many fair and responsible employers, there are also many many that are not.

But you can't take welfare out of the equation! An economic sytem depends upon people making the best choice among available choices. Welfare is one of those choices. It makes no more sense to take it out of the equation than to state, "But taking all higher paying jobs out of the equation".

-----

It would be apprecited if you can learn to use quotes properly. Your responses to multiple posters are difficult to read otherwise. Thanks

[sideshow]

You are partially correct. I was answering the question outside of the welfare system.

Welfare is better than nothing. But welfare is not 100% accessible, poorly managed on so many levels, and supplies an income in many cases which is really less than minimum wage-which may be a contributing factor in crime, under the table work, people working for less than minimum wage (it happens right now), etc.

You make the statement that welfare is not 100% accessable and poorly managed. So how accessable is it? Is it 98% or only 10% accessable. If it is 98%, are you advocating that minimium wage legislation be put in place to catch the 2% who don't have access to welfare? If your point is that deficiencies in the welafare system are the reason we have minimium wage legislation, then doesn' it make more sense to resolve those deficiencies rather than advocate solutions such as minimium wage which impose a burden on employer.

Without explicitly saying so, you seem to accept that welfare is an alternative to very low wages. Would it make you more comfortable if we renamed welfare "minimium guaranteed income" and it replaced minimium wage leglislation?

To this question I say that I do not have an exact number-suffice it to say, some who should be eligible are not at times, and some (probably a much higher margin-or at least from what I have seen) who should not be eligible are on the dole. I think that minimum wage legislation is exactly that-a minimum amount a worker should/could be PAID for WORK. wages for labour.

Welfare, as I see it, should (but obviously is not because of mismanagement, abuse of people, etc) be a system of income to provide for those within society that cannot work. So for those that are disabled, either physically or mentally, or those that are in a transitional state (perhaps, and I am just throwing out examples here, a beaten housewife that flees with small children, etc.) it should/could provide for their needs. I think that welfare is (or should be) exactly that-welfare to keep those that truly need it from being on the streets.

But taking welfare our of the equation, and simply answering to the question of abolishing minimum wage legislation, i think that history has shown (time and time again) in Canada and elsewhere, that without minimum (whether wages, or whatever) standards, there will be those that will exploit, and those desperate enough to be exploited. It's unfortunate, but it's simply the case. While there are many many fair and responsible employers, there are also many many that are not.

But you can't take welfare out of the equation! An economic sytem depends upon people making the best choice among available choices. Welfare is one of those choices. It makes no more sense to take it out of the equation than to state, "But taking all higher paying jobs out of the equation".

I disagree with your assertion that welfare can't be taken out of the equation. I don't think that welfare should be an "available choice." Welfare should be a social safety net for those that have NO other options. That is what it was (and in theory is still, though not administered as such) originally intended to do.

So having an employer pay a minimum wage for a days labour, should really have nothing to do with those that CANNOT work and rely on a social program such as welfare. The fact that some people abuse welfare and make it an "available choice" rather than working for minimum wage is really not argument that works in favour of abolishing minimum wages-in fact it bolsters it. ie if people work for less than the current minimums there would be MORE incentive to abuse the current welfare system.

As for higher paying jobs, well I think that is really a non-issue in this argument. If the employer is paying their workers "higher" wages, either through individual contracts or collective bargaining, that is their "choice", and a cost of doing business. They obviously have the "choice" right now to pay their workers minimum wage-so why not do it?

-----

It would be apprecited if you can learn to use quotes properly. Your responses to multiple posters are difficult to read otherwise. Thanks

Thanks for correction. HINT: When I use the @ symbol, it means I am responding to a certain posters past quotations. So rather than cut and paste the entire thread of everyone, I save forum space by using the @ symbol.

Tell you what. You show me how to use the quotes properly, and I will show you how to use the spell check (I find it annoying to read the writings by supposedly educated adults that cannot, either through ineptitude or laziness spell properly or use the spell check function).

Thanks dude.

[Charles Anthony]

As for higher paying jobs, well I think that is really a non-issue in this argument.

No. It is a very important issue because your logic makes no sense.

You suggested that if there is no minimum wage, employees throughout the economy would be forced to accept lower wages. The existence of people making more than minimum wage proves that your logic is completely wrong.

Employees get paid what they demand and what employers can supply.

If the employer is paying their workers "higher" wages, either through individual contracts or collective bargaining, that is their "choice", and a cost of doing business. They obviously have the "choice" right now to pay their workers minimum wage-so why not do it?

That is the question I am asking YOU. That question disproves your logic. You are suggesting that without minimum wage every employer will offer only lower wages.

Do you not see your contradiction?

Tell you what. You show me how to use the quotes properly,

Check out this thread:

Using the [ Quote ] Feature

[Saturn]

Ireland in the early 90's had one of the lowest wages in the developed world, that and really low corporate tax rates. These encouraged foreign investment. Now they are richer than us and their country is a better place to live. They now have to worry about competition from Eastern European countries because Irish wages are now too high.

Are you suggesting that we lower wages so that at some point in the future we'll be rich enough to worry about lower wages in Eastern Europe?

[blueblood]

Ireland in the early 90's had one of the lowest wages in the developed world, that and really low corporate tax rates. These encouraged foreign investment. Now they are richer than us and their country is a better place to live. They now have to worry about competition from Eastern European countries because Irish wages are now too high.

Are you suggesting that we lower wages so that at some point in the future we'll be rich enough to worry about lower wages in Eastern Europe?

Going to have to do something, when a country with no natural resources is upstaging us on the international scene as far as wealth goes there is a big problem and it needs to be addressed. Drop the corporate tax rate and "official" min. wage. In Alberta a person doesn't get paid less than 15 bucks an hour for a minimum wage job. Competition is a much better minimum wage setter than gov't policy.

[Saturn]

In a excellent job seeking market like we have today, there is absolutely zero need for minimum wage legislation.

If there is zero need, there is zero effect. If there is zero effect, why do you care?

For ideological reasons. Conservatives like to fight battles that are pretty meaningless but they manage to exaggerate to gargantuan proportions. Like fighting minimum wages at a time that fewer people work for minimum wages than over the last 40 years or so, fighting crime that is at its lowest levels since the late 70s, fighting terrorism which kills about as many people as car crashes in Victoria, and so on. It's just their way to pick on something fairly inconsequential and convert it into something of enormous importance (probably to divert attention from more important issues).

[sideshow]

As for higher paying jobs, well I think that is really a non-issue in this argument.

No. It is a very important issue because your logic makes no sense.

You suggested that if there is no minimum wage, employees throughout the economy would be forced to accept lower wages. The existence of people making more than minimum wage proves that your logic is completely wrong.

Employees get paid what they demand and what employers can supply.

No. The fact that some make more than minimum wage is irrelevant-as they employer and employee have already agreed to a fair wage for the work performed. But with no minimum, the employer can pay anything they want-1 buck an hour, 2 bucks, whatever. And desperate people will do it. I simply don't see by abolishing minimum wage legislation, how it will affect lets say a CN employee working for 25 bucks an hour. Nobody will work there for 2 bucks an hour, so its a non issue in such a case.

If the employer is paying their workers "higher" wages, either through individual contracts or collective bargaining, that is their "choice", and a cost of doing business. They obviously have the "choice" right now to pay their workers minimum wage-so why not do it?

That is the question I am asking YOU. That question disproves your logic. You are suggesting that without minimum wage every employer will offer only lower wages.

Do you not see your contradiction?

No. Because that is neither what I said, or my logic. Many employers will be completely unaffected by an abolishment of minimum wage-one way or the other. If the minimum wage is 8 bucks now, and you were to get rid of it (or raise it for that matter to lets say 10 bucks), and they currently pay 14 bucks an hours and still can't fill the jobs they need to fill, it really is a non issue. So these "above minimum wage paying employers" really have nothing to fear by having a minimum wage. It's only the dark few out there really that will benefit from this. The few that will exploit workers for cheaper than currently provided (which is so low its laughable really) wages really dont need any help from parliament in this matter.

Tell you what. You show me how to use the quotes properly,

Check out this thread:

Using the [ Quote ] Feature

Thanks for that last one.

[Saturn]

Going to have to do something, when a country with no natural resources is upstaging us on the international scene as far as wealth goes there is a big problem and it needs to be addressed.

Indeed. We've simply gotten too lazy because we have natural resources and we can just exploit them. They don't have that luxury, so they actually work for their money. How's that?

Drop the corporate tax rate and "official" min. wage. In Alberta a person doesn't get paid less than 15 bucks an hour for a minimum wage job. Competition is a much better minimum wage setter than gov't policy.

Why do you care? If people don't work for minimum wage, then it doesn't matter. Do you want a minimum wage job but haven't been able to find one because the wages are too high?

[blueblood]

Indeed. We've simply gotten too lazy because we have natural resources and we can just exploit them. They don't have that luxury, so they actually work for their money. How's that?

With the pile of foreign investment in that country due to low wages and low corporate tax rate, the demand for low wage workers was so high that in itself it ended up having to pay higher wages to attract workers, the country got rich. I'd say Alberta has that luxury, the socialist paradise of Quebec doesn't.

Why do you care? If people don't work for minimum wage, then it doesn't matter. Do you want a minimum wage job but haven't been able to find one because the wages are too high?

I'm quite happy where I am. I care for the sake of our economy and national pride. I've stated in here previously about my worries. Look at it this way if I was a company and the tax rate of country A and B was X and the min. wage of country A was y and country B was y - 2, where would I set up shop?

[Saturn]

I'm quite happy where I am. I care for the sake of our economy and national pride. I've stated in here previously about my worries. Look at it this way if I was a company and the tax rate of country A and B was X and the min. wage of country A was y and country B was y - 2, where would I set up shop?

Well, then we are screwed for sure because we can never beat China, India and other developing nations with their $1/hr wages.

[blueblood]

I'm quite happy where I am. I care for the sake of our economy and national pride. I've stated in here previously about my worries. Look at it this way if I was a company and the tax rate of country A and B was X and the min. wage of country A was y and country B was y - 2, where would I set up shop?

Well, then we are screwed for sure because we can never beat China, India and other developing nations with their $1/hr wages.

Ireland pulled her off. Which is why I consider outsourcing the penal system with their $0/hr wages.

[ClearWest]

Drop the corporate tax rate and "official" min. wage. In Alberta a person doesn't get paid less than 15 bucks an hour for a minimum wage job. Competition is a much better minimum wage setter than gov't policy.

Why do you care? If people don't work for minimum wage, then it doesn't matter. Do you want a minimum wage job but haven't been able to find one because the wages are too high?

Exactly! You won't be able to find a job when you're not allowed to work for what you are worth.

Sure, a lot of people in Alberta (for example) work for $15/hr. But let's say their provincial government said "Let's makes sure it stays this way!", so they enact a minimum wage law, making $15 the minimum wage. That's fine and dandy for the people who already value their labour at $15 or more, but those who are working for less than that will soon be out of a job - their companies will go out of business or simply fire them because their labour is not worth paying $15/hr for.

Then, after companies start going out of business, and more people are unemployed and not receiving an income, less money will be fuelling the economy. For example, the people who are now unemployed (thanks to your legislation) will no longer afford to buy bagels from Joe's Bagel Shop. Now Joe is getting less income, he has to let some of his ($15/hr) employees go, possibly even go out of business. Economic downspin.

Get rid of the minimum wage legislation. I can decide how much I want to rent out my labour for - I don't want the government "helping" with things like that. They only make things worse. Their "help" will put the unskilled out of work, and ultimately there will be less goods and services to go around. When there is less of something, the price goes up. Only the rich will be able to afford the things they need and want.

So, congratulations, you're hurting the poor.

[Renegade]

Welfare, as I see it, should (but obviously is not because of mismanagement, abuse of people, etc) be a system of income to provide for those within society that cannot work. So for those that are disabled, either physically or mentally, or those that are in a transitional state (perhaps, and I am just throwing out examples here, a beaten housewife that flees with small children, etc.) it should/could provide for their needs. I think that welfare is (or should be) exactly that-welfare to keep those that truly need it from being on the streets.

So, would you support that the welfare program should be made vastly more restrictive than it is? For example an employable person would not be eligible except for a small transitional period? As it is now, virually everyone is eligible for welfare for an indefinite period.

I disagree with your assertion that welfare can't be taken out of the equation. I don't think that welfare should be an "available choice." Welfare should be a social safety net for those that have NO other options. That is what it was (and in theory is still, though not administered as such) originally intended to do.

I'll agree with you that it should be taken out of the equation when it isn't an available choice for the employable. Maybe it shouldn't be, but the reality today is that it is.

So having an employer pay a minimum wage for a days labour, should really have nothing to do with those that CANNOT work and rely on a social program such as welfare. The fact that some people abuse welfare and make it an "available choice" rather than working for minimum wage is really not argument that works in favour of abolishing minimum wages-in fact it bolsters it. ie if people work for less than the current minimums there would be MORE incentive to abuse the current welfare system.

You seem to ignore the fact that people make logical choices. Despite what your intended use of welfare, its availbility sets a bottom threshold for wages. If the choice is between a job which pays less than welfare and welfare, common senses says that that worker shoudl be on welfare. That is not what I would call "abuse of welfare", it is simply a rational choice.

Moving back to the discussion on minimium wage. There is a market price for labour. That market price is set by how much an employer is willing to offer for that labour and how much an individual is willing to accept. Where the market price is higher than the minimium wage, the miminium wage is irrelevant. However, if the market price is lower than the minimium wage, then that itself is proof that the labour is "worth" less than minimium wage. The real question is if society feels it is inhumane that an individual survives on such a low wage, why does it impose the obligation to make up the difference upon the employer? Why is this not an obligation of society in general?

Do you think it should be illegal for a company to offer volunteer positions, afterall these are jobs with no pay?

Do you think that there are other reasons a person might accept to exchange their labour other than for monitary gain?

Do you not see that as much as minimium wage legislation poses limitation on employers, it also imposes limitations on employees in that it restricts their ability to accept certain jobs?

You show me how to use the quotes properly, and I will show you how to use the spell check (I find it annoying to read the writings by supposedly educated adults that cannot, either through ineptitude or laziness spell properly or use the spell check function).

Since CA has kindly pointed you to instructions on how to use the quote feature, can you reciprocate by showing how to use the spell feature. I know I've been looking for it for a while. Thanks

[sideshow]

@Renegade

"So, would you support that the welfare program should be made vastly more restrictive than it is? For example an employable person would not be eligible except for a small transitional period? As it is now, virually everyone is eligible for welfare for an indefinite period."

My answer would be yes. The system in my opinion is abused for the most part. And part of that abuse is the fault of those administering it. ie the government and its regulations. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your example of an employable person being eligible for a small transitional period is excellent. For instance, I would support short term assistance for someone relocating for employment reasons. This is a helping hand, not a hand out.

"I'll agree with you that it should be taken out of the equation when it isn't an available choice for the employable. Maybe it shouldn't be, but the reality today is that it is."

I guess we have to agree on this. Because of the way welfare is administered, I guess it IS a choice for some people-which personally I find distasteful, but I guess that that is reality.

"You seem to ignore the fact that people make logical choices. Despite what your intended use of welfare, its availbility sets a bottom threshold for wages. If the choice is between a job which pays less than welfare and welfare, common senses says that that worker shoudl be on welfare. That is not what I would call "abuse of welfare", it is simply a rational choice."

I would say that that is a fair statement. So I guess that by abolishing the minimum wage (which is at a higher level than welfare) it would only ENCOURAGE more people to not work and apply for welfare. Not an option in my opinion.

"Moving back to the discussion on minimium wage. There is a market price for labour. That market price is set by how much an employer is willing to offer for that labour and how much an individual is willing to accept. Where the market price is higher than the minimium wage, the miminium wage is irrelevant. However, if the market price is lower than the minimium wage, then that itself is proof that the labour is "worth" less than minimium wage. The real question is if society feels it is inhumane that an individual survives on such a low wage, why does it impose the obligation to make up the difference upon the employer? Why is this not an obligation of society in general?"

My answer to this is that minimum wage is exactly that-the minimum that a person should be expected to survive upon. So if market price is "less" than the minimum that is set, then the product is not worth the labour, thus making it a losing proposition.

It's a bit of a matter of perspective. See, I would highly doubt that ANY employer, large or small, would pay themselves "minimum wage" after expenses. So if they don't expect to live off that, why would/should they expect others to?

As well, those on the right look at it as if the employer is providing employment to the worker, and thus the worker should be grateful and/or subservient to the employer.

But those on the left look at it as if the worker is providing the employer with the labour needed to pad his/her pocket.

So once again its all a matter of perspective.

I see it as more of a ying yang kind of thing. It's definately a tough balancing act though.

"Do you think it should be illegal for a company to offer volunteer positions, afterall these are jobs with no pay?"

No. Volunteering is completely different. Those volunteering are doing it for a sense of satisfaction not survival. Just my opinion here.

"Do you think that there are other reasons a person might accept to exchange their labour other than for monitary gain?"

Well other than drug addicted prostitutes exchanging their "labour" for drug money, or retirees volunteering for personal satisfaction (because work can and is satisfying and provides us with a sense of self worth) I can't think of any circumstances. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

"Do you not see that as much as minimium wage legislation poses limitation on employers, it also imposes limitations on employees in that it restricts their ability to accept certain jobs?"

No. Not at all. If people won't take a job for 6 bucks an hour, they won't take it for 3 bucks an hour.

[Charles Anthony]

It's a bit of a matter of perspective. See, I would highly doubt that ANY employer, large or small, would pay themselves "minimum wage" after expenses. So if they don't expect to live off that, why would/should they expect others to?

You have never heard of a business going out-of-business before.

Comments like this:

But those on the left look at it as if the worker is providing the employer with the labour needed to pad his/her pocket.

are devoid of reality.

So once again its all a matter of perspective.

Indeed it is and your perspective on the matter is exceedingly myopic.

Well other than drug addicted prostitutes exchanging their "labour" for drug money, or retirees volunteering for personal satisfaction (because work can and is satisfying and provides us with a sense of self worth) I can't think of any circumstances. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

You are not being serious in this discussion.

[sideshow]

@CharlesAnthony

Your responses show your right wing bias. You simply cannot look at an argument from any angle than your own narrow, right winged view, so debating and/or discussing an issue with you is really pointless as you refuse to accept that other opinions or views could have merit.

Businesses go out of business-but employers will not live on less than minimum wage to do so. Ever own a business?

Without workers, employers cannot make profit. They NEED workers to provide the labour to make them the profits. This is a simple concept, not "devoid of reality". When is the last time a car built itself on the toyota assembly line making profit for the company?

You accuse me of not being serious in the conversation, yet add nothing other than picking apart the views of others. So if you could in your infinite, non-myopic opinion of greatness enlighten those of us that are so delusional that our opinions are just nonsensical, rubbish, it would be greatly appreciated.

And I was being VERY serious about the prostitute/retiree comment that I made in my last post. Do you have any other examples as you seem to think that people are clamboring and deserving to work for less than poverty wages.

[madmax]

I base my theory on my min. wage beliefs due to personal experience. For example farmers get X dollars for my grain/canola sales, farmers have to pay Y for lets say fertilizer. Say we have a good year, farmers use fertilizer all the time, the fertilizer company realizes that the farmers had a good year, they can get away with charging more for fertilizer knowing that we're going to buy it anyway. If we have a bad year some guys won't be able to afford much fertilizer and the fertilizer company might not get as much money as it would like, so it drops it's price and takes a little hit on it's profits, making some money is better than no money.

Not going to argue basic economics .

Out in Alberta stuff from what I heard costs an arm and a leg, why, people have money to spend and spend they do. If minimum wage went up to 10 bucks/hour, stuff could possibly go up, retailers won't care about rent and bus passes etc., they'll realize everyone is at least making this much money and will adjust prices in order to net larger profits, that's a problem in itself, 10 bucks an hour could likely be considered poor.

Again there is logic to your argument. However, unless the increase is excessive or unjustified which could create even more problems then you suggest, I don't believe the minimum wage suggested federally by the NDP is going to create the situation you describe.

Like I said a low min. wage + low corporate tax rates encourage business growth (low costs), this happened in Ireland, it grew so much that they were competing for workers by offering higher and higher wages, thus making the people of Ireland richer and richer.

It's just a theory, Saturn, Geoffery, and Charles Anthony know a lot about economics and should correct any mistakes I may have made.

No disputing some of the economists thinking here, I think I see left, centre and right, when I read their postings.

If we are going to try the Ireland model, I think Newfoundland would make a good testing ground.

Until then, we have a minimum wage.

[madmax]

Sure, a lot of people in Alberta (for example) work for $15/hr. But let's say their provincial government said "Let's makes sure it stays this way!", so they enact a minimum wage law, making $15 the minimum wage.

Whos talking about $15?

This thread is about Abolishing the minimum wage.

There are ways to do it. Some of them are very bad. Some of them may be more effective, but have not been tried by any Province.

[Renegade]

So I guess that by abolishing the minimum wage (which is at a higher level than welfare) it would only ENCOURAGE more people to not work and apply for welfare. Not an option in my opinion.

That is only an assumption on your part. It may also be true that by abolishing minimium wage would move people off welfware. How you ask?

At least some of the employable people on welfare are probably there because they cannot get even a minimium wage job. By eliminating the minimium wage, more sub-minimium wage jobs would be offered, allowing those on welfare to work, thus offsetting part if not all the cost of welfare.

My answer to this is that minimum wage is exactly that-the minimum that a person should be expected to survive upon.

Who sets this expectation? Is it not society? If it is societys' expectation, shouldn't society pay the price, not the employer?

So if market price is "less" than the minimum that is set, then the product is not worth the labour, thus making it a losing proposition.

It is not up to you or anyone else to decide what a product is worth. That determination is made by what the consumer is willing to pay for. It seems to me devoid of any basic economics to conclude that the worth of the product is based upon the labour. Sometimes it is worth more, sometimes it is worth less.

You are ignorig the fact that employers too have choices. If as the employer I deem the cost of labour too high for me to produce a viable product, I can:

1. Use labour where labour is cheaper.

2. Use alternatives to labour (eg automation)

3. Not produce the product at all.

4. Pass on the cost to the consumer.

You seem to think that employers are forced to use labour and can always pass on the cost to the consumer.

It's a bit of a matter of perspective. See, I would highly doubt that ANY employer, large or small, would pay themselves "minimum wage" after expenses. So if they don't expect to live off that, why would/should they expect others to?

Being an employer is about risk and reward. They take risk if the risk pays off expect reward. Frequently the risk doesn't pay off and so they go bankrupt. Frequently even when not bankrupt they pay themselves no wage in order to grow the business in the hope of future rewards. So your assumption that they would not pay themselves less than minimium wage is devoid of a factual basis. If you want to compare compensation between employer and employee, you should also compare the risk. In most case the risk to the employee is small or none.

As well, those on the right look at it as if the employer is providing employment to the worker, and thus the worker should be grateful and/or subservient to the employer.

But those on the left look at it as if the worker is providing the employer with the labour needed to pad his/her pocket.

So once again its all a matter of perspective.

I see it as more of a ying yang kind of thing. It's definately a tough balancing act though.

In your comments you neglected to address a key point of the argument. I will restate it for you:

The real question is if society feels it is inhumane that an individual survives on such a low wage, why does it impose the obligation to make up the difference upon the employer? Why is this not an obligation of society in general?

No. Volunteering is completely different. Those volunteering are doing it for a sense of satisfaction not survival. Just my opinion here.

So what you are saying is that there are only two kinds of jobs, ones that offer a sense of satisfaction and ones undertaken for suvival. You are saying that there is no possibility that I may undertake a job and give up partially monetary compensation in order to increase my level of job satisifaction? That's what your saying right?

How about if I'm retired, and I like looking after kids for a couple of hours a day it gives me job satisifaction. Can I charge $2 hour to defray my expenses or is that not allowed in your world?

Well other than drug addicted prostitutes exchanging their "labour" for drug money, or retirees volunteering for personal satisfaction (because work can and is satisfying and provides us with a sense of self worth) I can't think of any circumstances. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Let me list a few other examples for you:

1. As a trade I may build up experience and learning. I am willing to take a low wage job because to me the experience I get is more valuable than the pay.

2. I may already have a means of survival (existing wealth or another job) and am taking the job part-time because I enjoy it.

3. I may enjoy the prestge of the job (eg being a model) or any other benefits and may value it over monetary compensation.

In your examples above, I doubt that a drug addicted prostitute would give a damn about minimium wage laws, however hopefully you see that there are multiple circumstances where labour can and should be offered below a threshold.

No. Not at all. If people won't take a job for 6 bucks an hour, they won't take it for 3 bucks an hour.

No, who said they won't take a job for 6 bucks an hour? They aren't even offered a job at 6 bucks an hour because their skills are only worth 3 bucks an hour. What your doing is preventing them from taking $3/hour jobs which are in line with the worth of their skills.