Abolish All Minimum Wage Legislation

[August1991]

Since governments believe that legislating a minimium wage is a way to eliminate poverty, perhaps they should enact legislation that every business generates an ROI of at least 10%. That way they can eliminate business bankrupicies and ensure each business is profitable.

Such is the logic of minimum wage legislation. To be more specific, it is as if the government said that it is illegal to lend money to an unprofitable firm.

The reason politicians like minimum wage legislation is because it doesn't cost the government anything. This is an "off-budget" policy. It amounts to a hidden tax. Politicians can force a few poor people to transfer a little bit of money to a few other poor people and this has no effect on the government budget. I'm astonished that anyone "progressive" would advocate such a policy.

The logic of minimum wage legislation is the logic of a peasant. "Poor people have low wages. Make the wages higher." Such logic ignores unintended consequences.

So small communities, one industry towns, the employer should be free to pay starvation wages.....the town, the society de damned?

...Welcome to the 19th century

If people in a small town suffer such a lack of choices, then a minimum wage would seem the least of their problems.

M. Dancer, you raise a really good point though. Poverty is the lack of choice or alternatives. I'm not sure how minimum wage laws increase people's choices.

[madmax]

I'm not sure how minimum wage laws increase people's choices.

So what choice are you offering?

[August1991]

And that is why minimum wage legislation is necessary. Because in the absence of it, we would see employers offer less, people work for less, and the poor would become more poor, and the employers would simply use the "savings" to pad their pockets further.

This is the "race to the bottom" argument. The fear is that workers will compete themselves down to a wage of the bare minimum of existence.

How to answer that? Do you really believe that workers have so little to offer that their wage could fall to nothing?

The workers are not competing in a fist-fight; they're competing for a wage. I would hope that workers compete to the lowest wage possible. Everyone else is also competing to offer the lowest price possible too. (Gas stations advertise their prices with signs two meters high.) There's a fundamental difference between competition and price competition. [Les deux concepts se distinguent quelque peu mieux en français: la compétition et la concurrence.]

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.

As has been noted, we can't take welfare out of the equation. And I'm not suggesting that we do. Indeed, I'm arguing that if we want to help the working poor, a minimum wage is not the best way to do it. Welfare is - if welfare means transferring money to people in difficult circumstances.

But sideshow, you raise another idea - exploitation. To me, exploitation means not being free to choose a better alternative. Exploitation means someone is forced to accept less.

Is that the case of anyone in Canada? And if the agenda is to give someone pride, is a minimum wage law the best way to achieve that?

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).

At $7 per hour, the minimum wage is possibly irrelevant to many people. If provincial governments change the minimum wage to $10 per hour, it's not.

But this debate is broader. If we want to help people to have a better life, is a minimum wage law the best way to achieve that?

[ClearWest]

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?

Perhaps you should read the rest of my post. I was posting in response to Saturn who seemed to think that the minimum wage legislation was harmless - I explained how it could indeed be quite harmful, and gave an example.

[sideshow]

Wow, lots to answer.

@August 1991:

I do believe the "race to the bottom" theory. In fact it is not a theory, but a proven fact. Just look at what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when northamerica was devoid of "minimum wages". People fought long and hard to work for the least amount. And they suffered.

Now I am not an economist, so I really cant throw facts and figures and blah blah blah out there. I can tell you that I have been educated in working class history and do know that when there wasn't regulations in place to provide minimums (and this includes everything from welfare, cpp, ei, wages, wcb, human rights, etc.) peoples living conditions in general were not as good as today. I am not naive enough to believe that these are the ONLY reason why things are better-but they play a HUGE part in it.

Your thoughts on exploitation I can respect. But I disagree with them. I think that there should be a floor for how little ones labour could be paid. And who sets that floor? Like every other aspect we deal with, I am personally comfortable with government setting it. Some aren't, but then they can vote at the ballot box for those that will set the floor more to their liking.

See I also believe in a ceiling. I think there should be a maximum wage to be paid as well. And this shouldinclude how much profit an employer can make. If an employer is (for sake of argument) employing one individual, and paying this guy 30 k a year, yet brings in 1 million a year in profit for himself, then he is obviously not paying the worker what he is worth. So why should two symbiotic parts to the whole (ie people that are working together to make a living and a profitable one at that) have such disparaging wage differences (im sure i will get a few alberta blasts on this one.....)?

@Renegade:

Im not sure how someone on welfare cannot get a minimum wage job. And Im not being sarcastic. Do you have an example for me? I can then respond.

The government sets the expectation of what is the minimum a person should/could live on. And if the employer is expected to "pay" for it-cost of doing business. No different than the government regulates pretty much everything like when you can drive your vehicle, where you can drive it, how many hours a trucker can drive it, where you can park it, how much your taxes are, when you pay them buy, how much you pay for tariffs, your utility costs, and the list goes on and on and on. This is just one of many regulations that employers need to contend with if they want to do business. And most manage to do it.

In fact, even in the historically minimum wage jobs areas, employers are paying higher, so its almost becoming a non issue period.

"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."

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. But a product is made by materials and labour. And if those labours and materials cannot add up to a base in which the consumer will ultimately pay higher than that base (ie the profit zone), then the product is not worth its cost (which would put us into a number 3 (yours) scenario.

And then the employer has the choices you outlined above. So they may outsource offshore, they may attempt automation (not always, or even usually a cost advantage), leave the market, or raise prices which depending on the product, consumers may or may not pay.

I think that the lack of employment for an employee is very much a risk-as much so as the risk to the employer. See at the end of the day, both will be without an income. So the risk is divided and shared. As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it. Some may for short time frames defer a raise, or live a bit on savings, but for the vast vast majority, the hardships they face (and there hardships, the least of them not the stress), are less than their employees-when dealing with the financial aspect.

So of to sort of answer your question about employer liability, I guess my point would be that since employers are given the privilege to set up business in Canada, and have the right to make profits, they must then adhere to guidelines. Environmental, labour related, whatever. So as a price of doing business, they must have some checks and balances to keep them operating in a fashion which is acceptable to the majority of canadians (as evidenced at the ballot box).

I guess the debate could be changed to "should minimum wage be lowered (or raised), and that would throw another big fat fly into the soup.

"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?"

No I cant disagree with your assertions. I don't know the mindset of all people. Perhaps I didn't think that one through.

"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."

Your examples are flawed. Trades people, those with existing wealth and models arent working for less than minimum wage-and wouldnt. So it really is a non issue.

My point on the prostitute, was not so much about the minimum wage laws, but an example of people working for whatever they can given desperation. I could have used the example of the 7 year olds working for carrots for 12 hours a day in the mine and having their limbs blown off, etc. circa 19th century, but i thought that the prostitute analogy would hit home a little more.

and who should set the wage rates for worker? the employer? well we know that his only thought is how much more profit can he make himself. it would have nothing to do with worth,as much as greed.

A little right love in of reading can be found:

"The Principles of Scientific Management" by Fredrick Taylor.

Actually a very interesting read and gives a nice perspective from the formations of the "speed up" crowd.

[Charles Anthony]

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

Prove it.

What do you think happens the day before a business closes? Are the employers still making profit?

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.

Yes, I have ALL examples. They can all be summarized thusly: the fact that it must be made illegal to pay people below a certain wage proves that there are people who would accept a lower wage. Behold again: people are already willing to work for less than $10 an hour now.

No different than the government regulates pretty much everything like when you can drive your vehicle, where you can drive it, how many hours a trucker can drive it, where you can park it, how much your taxes are, when you pay them buy, how much you pay for tariffs, your utility costs, and the list goes on and on and on.

The bitter truth is that you are right. The legitimacy of minimum wage is the same as the legitimacy of all "government" action.

As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it.

Why will you not believe it?

There is so much nonsense on this thread.

I agree.

It makes me warm and fuzzy to know that my vote is equal to the vote of each contributor.

According to some of the logic presented, we should raise the minimum wage to $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 an hour.

[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?

Perhaps you should read the rest of my post. I was posting in response to Saturn who seemed to think that the minimum wage legislation was harmless - I explained how it could indeed be quite harmful, and gave an example.

So are you suggesting to abolish it or not?

[Posit]

The bottom line:

There would be no need for minimum wage legislation if employers paid a wage that was above the poverty level. The facts is that even with minimum wage legislation employers try to circumvent fair wage practices and in doing so keep a whole segment of the working poor in our society.

[madmax]

What do you think happens the day before a business closes? Are the employers still making profit?

That depends on the business. Yes some businesses will make a huge profit by closing. I know of many business people whom do quite well closing businesses, reopening under another name, and doing it all over again. The business is trashed, but they personally are laughing all the way to the bank.

Other people, may not be as entreprenuerial. .

The bitter truth is that you are right. The legitimacy of minimum wage is the same as the legitimacy of all "government" action.

That is correct. And you are going to have government for the rest of your life.

As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it.

You better believe it. You may not have seen it. But don't think that the person taking no wage isn't receiving any benefit from such a noble gesture. It is prevalent in small business, particularly when starting up.

Charles:

It makes me warm and fuzzy to know that my vote is equal to the vote of each contributor.

According to some of the logic presented, we should raise the minimum wage to $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 an hour.

Who's talking nonsense now.

[Renegade]

sideshow, you have again neglected to address the key issue I put forward. I will put it forward for the third time and request a response. Without one, I will assume you cannot address the key issue and only wish to skirt it. Here it is again:

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?

Im not sure how someone on welfare cannot get a minimum wage job. And Im not being sarcastic. Do you have an example for me? I can then respond.

People both on welfare and off welfare do it all the time. They just do it illegally. It's called working under the table. For example a mother may not be able to take a minimium wage job outside her home because she has her own kids to look after. Should she be able to offer her own services as a babysitter for $5/hour looking after other kids? People do this all the time. What I'm pointing out to you is that for this mother the job benifit is more than $5/hour. It is also the beneift of being able to stay home with her own child.

The government sets the expectation of what is the minimum a person should/could live on. And if the employer is expected to "pay" for it-cost of doing business. No different than the government regulates pretty much everything like when you can drive your vehicle, where you can drive it, how many hours a trucker can drive it, where you can park it, how much your taxes are, when you pay them buy, how much you pay for tariffs, your utility costs, and the list goes on and on and on. This is just one of many regulations that employers need to contend with if they want to do business. And most manage to do it.

Yes I agree with you. The government regulates much of our lives. But that is just a statement of fact, not a justification of why it should be so. It would be seem your justification is "the government regulates so much already, so they should regulate this too". A pretty weak argument IMO.

In fact, even in the historically minimum wage jobs areas, employers are paying higher, so its almost becoming a non issue period.

With this one statement you have shown all the contraditions in your own argument. You have previously stated that employers will pay as little as possible. Now you concede that even in areas where employers previously paid the minimium, they sometimes in fact do pay higher. Why do you think that is given your previous statement that they are not "exploiting" the fact that they can legally pay a lower wage.

Since you concede that it is becoming a "non-issue", then doesn't that mean minimium wage legislation is also a "non-issue". So if it is a "non-issue", why do you care about removing such a minimium? Your argument at this point is full of holes.

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. But a product is made by materials and labour. And if those labours and materials cannot add up to a base in which the consumer will ultimately pay higher than that base (ie the profit zone), then the product is not worth its cost (which would put us into a number 3 (yours) scenario.

I don't know how much economic theory you have taken, but if you have, you are ignoring a lot of it. The consumer is not one person. There is not a single magic price that a consumer would pay. Consumer demand follows a curve. Some people will be willing to pay an artificially high price. The price is artificial because the government by intefering with the price of labour will also affect the price at which the supplier is willing to offer the goods for. Artificially high prices are bad for the supplier of the resource (labour), the employer, and ultimately the consumer. I don't really have the patience to explain to you why, but basic economics should tell you that this is true.

I think that the lack of employment for an employee is very much a risk-as much so as the risk to the employer. See at the end of the day, both will be without an income. So the risk is divided and shared.

The risk for the employee is not the same as for the employer. For the employee who is being paid every two weeks, his only risk is the maximium two weeks of labour he has expended and not yet been paid. The employee is never guaranteed a long term income stream. Neither is the employer, however also the employer also has invested capital (usually substantial) which is at risk. Business failure is common so the loss of invested capital is a real and substantial risk. I have said from the start that the employee faces some risk, but it is far outweighed by the risk of the employer.

As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it. Some may for short time frames defer a raise, or live a bit on savings, but for the vast vast majority, the hardships they face (and there hardships, the least of them not the stress), are less than their employees-when dealing with the financial aspect.

Clearly you lack business experience and you are speaking from ignorance. Have you ever started your own business, worked in a start-up, acted as a financial officer or operating officer? I'm concluding that your view of the business world is based upon your lack of experience in it.

So of to sort of answer your question about employer liability, I guess my point would be that since employers are given the privilege to set up business in Canada, and have the right to make profits, they must then adhere to guidelines. Environmental, labour related, whatever. So as a price of doing business, they must have some checks and balances to keep them operating in a fashion which is acceptable to the majority of canadians (as evidenced at the ballot box).

Hmm another weak argument. "The majority must support it so that must make it right.."

Your examples are flawed. Trades people, those with existing wealth and models arent working for less than minimum wage-and wouldnt. So it really is a non issue.

Perhaps you misunderstand the examples. Of course in society as-is trades people, models, aren't working for less than minimium wage because they aren't allowed to. When I speak of learning a trade, I mean learning a trade skill. Let me expand further. I have a full time office job, however I would like to acquire some skills in home renovation such as plumbing, so as to be more handy at home. I would like to apprentice myself to a professional plumber on weekends. To make it inducing to the plumber I would offer to work for free or $2/hour to get the experience. BTW, this is not a made up example. I would really do this but am prevented from doing so for a lot of different reasons including minimium wage rules.

As for the existing wealthy, they already do so. It is called volunteering. Heard of it?

-and wouldnt.

How do you know?

My point on the prostitute, was not so much about the minimum wage laws, but an example of people working for whatever they can given desperation. I could have used the example of the 7 year olds working for carrots for 12 hours a day in the mine and having their limbs blown off, etc. circa 19th century, but i thought that the prostitute analogy would hit home a little more.

Why people want to take the job is irrelevant. For as many examples which you give, which you deem "unacceptable", I can give examples which are "acceptable" and reasonable. You have not shown why you or the government on your behalf should be the custodian of what is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" motivation.

and who should set the wage rates for worker? the employer? well we know that his only thought is how much more profit can he make himself. it would have nothing to do with worth,as much as greed.

The market. Again your response displays a startling lack of basic economic theory. The employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. If they could we'ed all be working for $1/hour or less. The greed works both ways. The employer's "greeds" dictates that he get the lowest price for the labour, the emplolyee's "greed" dictates that he get the highest possible price for his labour.

[sideshow]

The bottom line:

There would be no need for minimum wage legislation if employers paid a wage that was above the poverty level. The facts is that even with minimum wage legislation employers try to circumvent fair wage practices and in doing so keep a whole segment of the working poor in our society.

I think that you summed up the argument perfectly here. I couldn't add anything to make the point more clear.

[Renegade]

The bottom line:

There would be no need for minimum wage legislation if employers paid a wage that was above the poverty level. The facts is that even with minimum wage legislation employers try to circumvent fair wage practices and in doing so keep a whole segment of the working poor in our society.

I think that you summed up the argument perfectly here. I couldn't add anything to make the point more clear.

You guys have ignored everything that's been stated haven't you? Should we also set a minimium price for steel, energy, and other raw materials, so that mafactureres pay a "fair" price, just in case the seller is so desperate they sell it for too low a price? I have no patience to repeat the entire argument for those who's view is so narrow that they refuse to see the complete picture.

[sideshow]

sideshow, you have again neglected to address the key issue I put forward. I will put it forward for the third time and request a response. Without one, I will assume you cannot address the key issue and only wish to skirt it. Here it is again:

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?

In my opinion, the obligation is on the employer. If they want to make money, then they have to willing to follow some rules. Like no dumping antifreeze into our water system, paying people a minimum wage, paying taxes, etc. It is all part of the economic game. As an employer is part of society, I think that this is their societal part to play. It always astounds me why people think that simply because some provides a job for someone else, they should be able to do whatever they want.

Im not sure how someone on welfare cannot get a minimum wage job. And Im not being sarcastic. Do you have an example for me? I can then respond.

People both on welfare and off welfare do it all the time. They just do it illegally. It's called working under the table. For example a mother may not be able to take a minimium wage job outside her home because she has her own kids to look after. Should she be able to offer her own services as a babysitter for $5/hour looking after other kids? People do this all the time. What I'm pointing out to you is that for this mother the job benifit is more than $5/hour. It is also the beneift of being able to stay home with her own child.

Breaking the law is wrong. Working under the table is stealing. By both the employer and employee. No different than stealing anything else. So the argument is moot.

The government sets the expectation of what is the minimum a person should/could live on. And if the employer is expected to "pay" for it-cost of doing business. No different than the government regulates pretty much everything like when you can drive your vehicle, where you can drive it, how many hours a trucker can drive it, where you can park it, how much your taxes are, when you pay them buy, how much you pay for tariffs, your utility costs, and the list goes on and on and on. This is just one of many regulations that employers need to contend with if they want to do business. And most manage to do it.

Yes I agree with you. The government regulates much of our lives. But that is just a statement of fact, not a justification of why it should be so. It would be seem your justification is "the government regulates so much already, so they should regulate this too". A pretty weak argument IMO.

All I can say here is that I agree with government regulation. You may not, but I do. So if that is a weak argument from your point of view that is a fair statement on your behalf.

In fact, even in the historically minimum wage jobs areas, employers are paying higher, so its almost becoming a non issue period.

With this one statement you have shown all the contraditions in your own argument. You have previously stated that employers will pay as little as possible. Now you concede that even in areas where employers previously paid the minimium, they sometimes in fact do pay higher. Why do you think that is given your previous statement that they are not "exploiting" the fact that they can legally pay a lower wage.

Since you concede that it is becoming a "non-issue", then doesn't that mean minimium wage legislation is also a "non-issue". So if it is a "non-issue", why do you care about removing such a minimium? Your argument at this point is full of holes.

Because the minimum is still the floor. Without a floor, in tough times, employers WILL exploit workers-and have. We just happen to be in a period where this discussion is coming up, because of relatively low unemployment, lots of work out there, and employers are at a "disadvantage" at the moment and having to pay higher than the minimums to retain employees. But the minimum is exactly that-the minimum. And are there for when times are toughest.

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. But a product is made by materials and labour. And if those labours and materials cannot add up to a base in which the consumer will ultimately pay higher than that base (ie the profit zone), then the product is not worth its cost (which would put us into a number 3 (yours) scenario.

I don't know how much economic theory you have taken, but if you have, you are ignoring a lot of it. The consumer is not one person. There is not a single magic price that a consumer would pay. Consumer demand follows a curve. Some people will be willing to pay an artificially high price. The price is artificial because the government by intefering with the price of labour will also affect the price at which the supplier is willing to offer the goods for. Artificially high prices are bad for the supplier of the resource (labour), the employer, and ultimately the consumer. I don't really have the patience to explain to you why, but basic economics should tell you that this is true.

I don't agree with this. Prices for pretty much every product seem to be pretty much the same across the board. Gas, televisions, bedroom sets, clothes, etc. If you go into any store, and walk across the street, the prices are very similar. There are "deals" here and there, but all things created equal, goods tend to be worth roughly the same. And when prices are artificially high, whos fault is it really? I mean look at gas. We hear about a fire at a refinery, and prices jump 10/litre the next day. Gas prices drop in the middle east, and it takes 3 months to hit the pumps-and then jumps right back up. Somebody is setting some kind of price hike, and it has nothing to do with minimum wages.

I think that the lack of employment for an employee is very much a risk-as much so as the risk to the employer. See at the end of the day, both will be without an income. So the risk is divided and shared.

The risk for the employee is not the same as for the employer. For the employee who is being paid every two weeks, his only risk is the maximium two weeks of labour he has expended and not yet been paid. The employee is never guaranteed a long term income stream. Neither is the employer, however also the employer also has invested capital (usually substantial) which is at risk. Business failure is common so the loss of invested capital is a real and substantial risk. I have said from the start that the employee faces some risk, but it is far outweighed by the risk of the employer.

Tell this to the workers at Hersheys that are losing their jobs. Where do they go to make the same wage in their town? What happens to their pensions after 25 years of contributions? I think that the impact to employees is much more profound than you think. And time and time again, we see that creditors, employers and others get paid first-employees get paid last. So how often does the employer walk away from the business and the employee end up losing their last paycheck? Lots.

As for 'taking no wage to grow the business' kind of argument-bah. Never seen it, dont believe it. Some may for short time frames defer a raise, or live a bit on savings, but for the vast vast majority, the hardships they face (and there hardships, the least of them not the stress), are less than their employees-when dealing with the financial aspect.

Clearly you lack business experience and you are speaking from ignorance. Have you ever started your own business, worked in a start-up, acted as a financial officer or operating officer? I'm concluding that your view of the business world is based upon your lack of experience in it.

LOL! Attacking the person to discredit the theory is a great political tactic. Yes, I have owned my own business. It was moderately successful but was not what I wanted so I closed it. I have also had the opportunity to be a financial officer for a small organization. The books were always balanced and the bills were always paid. As well, while I have only taken limited economic training, my major in university was human resource management.

So of to sort of answer your question about employer liability, I guess my point would be that since employers are given the privilege to set up business in Canada, and have the right to make profits, they must then adhere to guidelines. Environmental, labour related, whatever. So as a price of doing business, they must have some checks and balances to keep them operating in a fashion which is acceptable to the majority of canadians (as evidenced at the ballot box).

Hmm another weak argument. "The majority must support it so that must make it right.."

Exactly. Majority rules. I don't agree with all of the laws, regulations, etc. in this country, but the majority (through the ballot box and our elected representatives) makes the rules. The people have spoken and the people are never wrong. Who should decide the fate of this great great country we call Canada? The minority?

Your examples are flawed. Trades people, those with existing wealth and models arent working for less than minimum wage-and wouldnt. So it really is a non issue.

Perhaps you misunderstand the examples. Of course in society as-is trades people, models, aren't working for less than minimium wage because they aren't allowed to. When I speak of learning a trade, I mean learning a trade skill. Let me expand further. I have a full time office job, however I would like to acquire some skills in home renovation such as plumbing, so as to be more handy at home. I would like to apprentice myself to a professional plumber on weekends. To make it inducing to the plumber I would offer to work for free or $2/hour to get the experience. BTW, this is not a made up example. I would really do this but am prevented from doing so for a lot of different reasons including minimium wage rules.

As for the existing wealthy, they already do so. It is called volunteering. Heard of it?

I find it hard to believe that you have trouble finding a plumber that would be able to pay you minimum wage to work.

One of my brothers owns his own business. He employs approximately 25 people. He starts his employees off at around 12 per hour and over a course of about two years as they progress, get better at what they do and become reliable, he moves them up slowly to about 20 per hour.

He has an incredibly hard time finding people to work for these wages. So if you cant find someone to pay you 6 bucks an hour (or whatever the minimum is where you are) I don't know what the problem is. Because from what I understand, skilled plumbers are making like 30 per hour and companies still cant get enough of them. So to "apprentice" someone for 6-8 per hour, seems like a bargain to me.

As for volunteering, yes it happens. But does it happen in for profit environments? I know where I work we have volunteers, but we are not a for-profit entity.

-and wouldnt.

How do you know?

My point on the prostitute, was not so much about the minimum wage laws, but an example of people working for whatever they can given desperation. I could have used the example of the 7 year olds working for carrots for 12 hours a day in the mine and having their limbs blown off, etc. circa 19th century, but i thought that the prostitute analogy would hit home a little more.

Why people want to take the job is irrelevant. For as many examples which you give, which you deem "unacceptable", I can give examples which are "acceptable" and reasonable. You have not shown why you or the government on your behalf should be the custodian of what is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" motivation.

The government should be custodian because every ship has to have a captain. With 30 million plus people in the country, someone has to be in charge and set the rules. So we vote, and send our elected representatives to the capital to make these decisions. What they deem acceptable or unacceptable should be done on our behalf. If we dont like the outcome, we go back to the ballot box.

and who should set the wage rates for worker? the employer? well we know that his only thought is how much more profit can he make himself. it would have nothing to do with worth,as much as greed.

The market. Again your response displays a startling lack of basic economic theory. The employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. If they could we'ed all be working for $1/hour or less. The greed works both ways. The employer "greeds" dictates that he get the lowest price for the labour, the emplolyee's "greed" dictates that he get the highest possible price for his labour.

Exactly. And that is why minimum wages are so important. This is (in part) WHY the employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. And that is why minimum wage legislation is so important. Because just like a dog with no boundaries, an employer (and for that matter an employee) will run wild in the absence of restrictions.

[Saturn]

Could posters here trim their posts a bit? It's difficult to navigate a page long post of quotes of quotes.

Some of the arguments I saw here:

1) Employers don't set wages, the market does. If employers set wages, we'd all be working for $1.

Correct. Small town of 500, one employer (manufacturing operation employing 50) aside from the owner operated general store and gas station and the 1 postal worker. You would be working for $1 even if the employer could pay $30 and remain profitable. Your other option would be to sell your home for $1 and go off to TO to pay $1500/mth rent and work for $10/hr. Nothing wrong with your logic - the market will set the wage. But the market sucks.

2) 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?

It is an obligation of society in general. The employer is part of society, not some independent party on the Moon. Both the employer and the rest of society should ensure that no worker goes hungry.

3) Minimum wages force businesses into bankruptcy.

Possible. But so what? A business that cannot afford to pay minimum wage and remain profitable is a bad business. It's not the job of workers to donate their time and keep inefficient businesses afloat. If your business becomes unprofitable when you pay $8/hr, I hate to break it to you but your business is junk and if you cannot improve it, it's time you put it out of its misery. Inefficient junk businesses are of no benefit to the economy (and society).

4) Minimum wage legislation is costs governments nothing. The government is screwing employers.

Incorrect. The absence of minimum-wage legislation means that more people end up on the welfare rolls. This will cost governments quite a bit of money, which in turn means that it will cost both businesses and workers money. Businesses benefit greatly from government imposed rules and regulations that allow them to raise funds more efficiently, to operate in a peaceful environment and not worry about their property, to be able to recruit from a healthy stock of capable employees, etc. Clearly, business is expected to provide something in return, namely reasonably well paying jobs.

Finally, no labour is worth less than $9-$10/hr in Canada. Most businesses paying less than $10/hr are very profitable and can easily afford to pay workers a living wage. Those that cannot afford to do so, are not businesses to begin with - they are corpses that sentimental owners don't want to recognize as such.

[sideshow]

LOL! Renegade, feel free to take your pail and shovel and leave the sandbox. Though I don't agree with your assertions I can understand how you may feel the way that you do.

Sorry Saturn. I took the lazy way out again. With the compiling arguments its getting a bit cumbersome to keep quoting others responses and then responding.

[blueblood]

1) Employers don't set wages, the market does. If employers set wages, we'd all be working for $1.

Correct. Small town of 500, one employer (manufacturing operation employing 50) aside from the owner operated general store and gas station and the 1 postal worker. You would be working for $1 even if the employer could pay $30 and remain profitable. Your other option would be to sell your home for $1 and go off to TO to pay $1500/mth rent and work for $10/hr. Nothing wrong with your logic - the market will set the wage. But the market sucks.

Come now, A small town of 500 has a few more things than that. If people are willing to work for 1 dollar an hour why not pay that amount, the owner has a right to make money too. If another manufacturing thing came to that small town and started taking employees, then the manufacturer would have to up wages to keep his workers employed/attract new ones. This actually happened in my town, a big company was about to set up shop manufacturing oil rigs, the car dealerships and the equipment dealerships were scared to death because they'd have to pay higher wages in order to compete. Something like a 7 dollar an hour raise. 10 to 17. Farmers can't find farmhands to work because the oil rigs are taking them away with their higher wages. Why should the employer be punished for making a profit? If the employer is paying 1 dollar an hour, the employees are going to say forget it and work somewhere else. It's a fine line the employers have to play with, they have to keep them happy at a reasonable cost.

2) 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?

It is an obligation of society in general. The employer is part of society, not some independent party on the Moon. Both the employer and the rest of society should ensure that no worker goes hungry.

By the same token I believe that the rest of society should ensure that there is a balance that keeps the employer still able to keep the employee happy, that the employer can still make a profit, while the consumer can still afford to do business with the said company. The free market does this.

3) Minimum wages force businesses into bankruptcy.

Possible. But so what? A business that cannot afford to pay minimum wage and remain profitable is a bad business. It's not the job of workers to donate their time and keep inefficient businesses afloat. If your business becomes unprofitable when you pay $8/hr, I hate to break it to you but your business is junk and if you cannot improve it, it's time you put it out of its misery. Inefficient junk businesses are of no benefit to the economy (and society).

In times of recession I think that this is true. Nowadays especially out west, you won't have a business long if you are only willing to pay 8 bucks an hour, the employees will go somewhere else and your caught. I think that in recession having a sky high min. wage is bad news. Let the market set the min. wage.

) Minimum wage legislation is costs governments nothing. The government is screwing employers.

Incorrect. The absence of minimum-wage legislation means that more people end up on the welfare rolls. This will cost governments quite a bit of money, which in turn means that it will cost both businesses and workers money. Businesses benefit greatly from government imposed rules and regulations that allow them to raise funds more efficiently, to operate in a peaceful environment and not worry about their property, to be able to recruit from a healthy stock of capable employees, etc. Clearly, business is expected to provide something in return, namely reasonably well paying jobs.

Point taken. I can see why if we have welfare then we have to have min. wage. But the market should set it. If the businesses are only paying 1 dollar an hour, the guy is going to say screw it I'll go on welfare I make more there, the business in turn suffers. That's why most businesses pay out quite a bit more than welfare as they have to compete with it for people.

[ClearWest]

1) Employers don't set wages, the market does. If employers set wages, we'd all be working for $1.

Correct. Small town of 500, one employer (manufacturing operation employing 50) aside from the owner operated general store and gas station and the 1 postal worker. You would be working for $1 even if the employer could pay $30 and remain profitable. Your other option would be to sell your home for $1 and go off to TO to pay $1500/mth rent and work for $10/hr. Nothing wrong with your logic - the market will set the wage. But the market sucks.

Wow, that's some cheap real estate. I'd buy it up in a second.

If only a bit more than 50 people are employed in this town, then what are the other 450 people doing living there? Are they all on government welfare? This situation would not happen in a normal free market economy.

2) 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?

It is an obligation of society in general. The employer is part of society, not some independent party on the Moon. Both the employer and the rest of society should ensure that no worker goes hungry.

Society is an ugly word - it implies that we all have the same goals and the same brain (Sig hail to you too). We don't. This obligation is wrong - I wish I could say it was unconstitutional, but, heh, good ol' Trudeau didn't think we needed property rights.

3) Minimum wages force businesses into bankruptcy.

Possible. But so what? A business that cannot afford to pay minimum wage and remain profitable is a bad business. It's not the job of workers to donate their time and keep inefficient businesses afloat. If your business becomes unprofitable when you pay $8/hr, I hate to break it to you but your business is junk and if you cannot improve it, it's time you put it out of its misery. Inefficient junk businesses are of no benefit to the economy (and society).

In a way that's like holding someone by the throat so it's difficult for them to breathe - then you say "People who can't breathe are of no benefit to society".

Do you believe in subsidizing industry? You may not, but I'm just curious because many people with your line of thinking do - and that seems to go against everything you just said.

4) Minimum wage legislation is costs governments nothing. The government is screwing employers.

Incorrect. The absence of minimum-wage legislation means that more people end up on the welfare rolls. This will cost governments quite a bit of money, which in turn means that it will cost both businesses and workers money. Businesses benefit greatly from government imposed rules and regulations that allow them to raise funds more efficiently, to operate in a peaceful environment and not worry about their property, to be able to recruit from a healthy stock of capable employees, etc. Clearly, business is expected to provide something in return, namely reasonably well paying jobs.

(Bolding added) To the contrary. It is the presence of minimum wage legislation which will increase the number of people on welfare. Minimum wage makes it illegal for people to work for less than (for example) $10 - now if the market value of their labour is worth less than that, either they'll soon be out of a job and on welfare.

Finally, no labour is worth less than $9-$10/hr in Canada. Most businesses paying less than $10/hr are very profitable and can easily afford to pay workers a living wage. Those that cannot afford to do so, are not businesses to begin with - they are corpses that sentimental owners don't want to recognize as such.

When I was starting out in the work force, I was more than happy to take a $6/hour job. Unskilled labour isn't worth very much - especially when they have to train you on the job. But once you become valuable to the company, usually due to your experience on the job, they will often raise your wage in order to keep you on. Eventually, you should be able to use your experience to move on and get an even better paying job. They need to make themselves worth more - not go to the government to force a wage increase.

[Saturn]

Neither of you make much sense at all. In a "normal free market economy" minimum wages would not be necessary - the market would provide optimum levels of salaries and the market would serve its purpose - to the benefit of society. Minimum wages are necessary because perfectly efficient free markets are fiction. In the real world, many markets aren't very efficient at all - like in that small town (there are plenty of them in Canada btw, you don't have to live in one to know it). A market failure does not give your greedy ass or anyone else's a cart blache to exploit that failure to the detriment of society. When a failed market does not serve its purpose, outside intervention is necessary. That's where minimum wages come in.

[blueblood]

In a failed market, where does the money for paying the workers a minimum wage come from? If the costs are too high, the employer will either close up shop or make cuts. I can't expand my outfit past 2000 acres because I couldn't hire someone good full time at a competitive rate and stay profitable. Hence I limit myself to what I can do. An employer has to make profits or there is no point in doing business, that's just human nature. Just remember if a business has to shut down it's employees make NO wage. If a recession hit with ridiculous minimum wage laws in place, we'd be on the path for some big trouble.

[madmax]

You guys have ignored everything that's been stated haven't you? Should we also set a minimium price for steel, energy, and other raw materials, so that mafactureres pay a "fair" price, just in case the seller is so desperate they sell it for too low a price?

Anti dumping Laws.

[madmax]

Well, I had to ask some minimum wage people their opinion of abolishing the minimum wage.

Seems to be a disconnect between those whom believe in free markets and invisible hands, and those whom work at minimum wage.

[Saturn]

In a failed market, where does the money for paying the workers a minimum wage come from? If the costs are too high, the employer will either close up shop or make cuts. I can't expand my outfit past 2000 acres because I couldn't hire someone good full time at a competitive rate and stay profitable. Hence I limit myself to what I can do. An employer has to make profits or there is no point in doing business, that's just human nature. Just remember if a business has to shut down it's employees make NO wage. If a recession hit with ridiculous minimum wage laws in place, we'd be on the path for some big trouble.

What is your fascination with free markets? If anyone in this country should be afraid of our "free markets", it's farmers. Chances are that if farmers were left to the "free market", you'd be farming 0 acres, not 2000.

It's easy for you talk about free markets when some poor minimum-wage guy is getting screwed by them. But if farmers are getting screwed, it's "Farmers feed cities!" and we'll drive our tractors on the highway and to Parliament until someone insures that we are protected from the free markets. Sorry buddy, things doesn't work that way. It's either free markets for all, or intervention when the free markets are getting people screwed for all. Take your pick and stick to it. Consistently.

[blueblood]

In a failed market, where does the money for paying the workers a minimum wage come from? If the costs are too high, the employer will either close up shop or make cuts. I can't expand my outfit past 2000 acres because I couldn't hire someone good full time at a competitive rate and stay profitable. Hence I limit myself to what I can do. An employer has to make profits or there is no point in doing business, that's just human nature. Just remember if a business has to shut down it's employees make NO wage. If a recession hit with ridiculous minimum wage laws in place, we'd be on the path for some big trouble.

What is your fascination with free markets? If anyone in this country should be afraid of our "free markets", it's farmers. Chances are that if farmers were left to the "free market", you'd be farming 0 acres, not 2000.

It's easy for you talk about free markets when some poor minimum-wage guy is getting screwed by them. But if farmers are getting screwed, it's "Farmers feed cities!" and we'll drive our tractors on the highway and to Parliament until someone insures that we are protected from the free markets. Sorry buddy, things doesn't work that way. It's either free markets for all, or intervention when the free markets are getting people screwed for all. Take your pick and stick to it. Consistently.

Those guys are wasting their time, I can assure you I don't participate in that nonsense. I don't collect CAIS, I'm making it. This biofuel thing raising prices is doing more for us than any handout ever will. Gov't rules regarding supply are beneficial as it helps out in the market. Biofuel is helping with the longtime flooded market. By creating a free market, we all win. I'm a business man, I adjust with the times.

[Saturn]

Those guys are wasting their time, I can assure you I don't participate in that nonsense. I don't collect CAIS, I'm making it. This biofuel thing raising prices is doing more for us than any handout ever will. Gov't rules regarding supply are beneficial as it helps out in the market. Biofuel is helping with the longtime flooded market. By creating a free market, we all win. I'm a business man, I adjust with the times.

So you are doing wonderfully well but you cannot afford to hire anyone. Also, gov't rules help you out in the market but the "free" market is making everyone win. Do you read your own posts?

[blueblood]

Those guys are wasting their time, I can assure you I don't participate in that nonsense. I don't collect CAIS, I'm making it. This biofuel thing raising prices is doing more for us than any handout ever will. Gov't rules regarding supply are beneficial as it helps out in the market. Biofuel is helping with the longtime flooded market. By creating a free market, we all win. I'm a business man, I adjust with the times.

So you are doing wonderfully well but you cannot afford to hire anyone. Also, gov't rules help you out in the market but the "free" market is making everyone win. Do you read your own posts?

I'm doing well, but after it's all said and done, it wouldn't make economic sense for me to hire someone, I don't need to be a bajillionaire, I'm happy where I am. The gov't created a market to market our grain in biofuel, something the greenies out east want as well. This market creates jobs and boosts the economy. The gov't can help out businesses other than throwing money at them. Look at the oil patch, the gov't dropped the corporate tax rate and it's booming out there, they set the rule that the tax is to be lower.