$16 living wage?
Here is an excerpt of yesterday's article from the Star: (http://www.thestar.com/article/538716)
"
Forget dreams of a $10 minimum wage lifting thousands of workers out of poverty. A couple raising two young children in the GTA would each need to earn at least $16.60 an hour to have a decent quality of life, says a new study to be released today. A single parent with one child would need to earn $16.15 an hour.
Ontario's minimum wage is $8.75. It will rise to $10.25 in 2010.
Employers and government must look beyond minimum wages towards the concept of a living wage that allows workers to raise healthy, happy children; enjoy recreation, culture and entertainment; and participate fully in modern life, says the study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
And living wages should be part of the broader effort to address poverty in Ontario and Canada, including poverty among employed people, the report adds.
"There's a big difference between having enough to survive and having enough to participate in the life of the community" said economist Hugh Mackenzie co-author of the report. "The living wage is the income threshold a family has to cross to avoid being marginalized."
The living wage described in the report is still more than $5 an hour less than the 2007 average of $21.70 an hour for the area, said John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council.
"We're not talking luxury," he said yesterday. "We're talking about an income that allows your kid to go to a movie or to the dentist before their teeth rot. It's about being able to afford to buy your 80-year-old grandmother a birthday present. Pretty basic stuff."
Any thoughts?
editing.
Absolutely right.
I am surprised that anyone can live under 20$ per hour in the GTA.
Pinocchio and his friends on Bay Street might agree to $16 per hour 10 or 20 years from now. I think in the mean time, minimum wage needs boosting somewhere $10 dollars an hour or above as of yesterday, and all incomes below poverty boosted in additional ways through child tax credits or income supplements for seniors etc. And all those mechanisms have to be indexed to inflation, or there is no point in feigning concern for the poor and their children.
When we discuss a living wage it is not just about dollars per hour. It is the whole spectrum of things that affect our ability to live and participate in society. We need to be working on affordable housing, national daycare, educational and training programs, access to proper food (and the list goes on).
Raising the minimum wage is just part of the puzzle.
I think it was Whigs n' Tories who managed to stall enactment of Irish corn laws while a few million more people died of the economic long run there, too.
Viva La Revolución
Pinocchio and his friends on Bay Street might agree to $16 per hour 10 or 20 years from now. I think in the mean time, minimum wage needs boosting somewhere $10 dollars an hour or above as of yesterday, and all incomes below poverty boosted in additional ways through child tax credits or income supplements for seniors etc. And all those mechanisms have to be indexed to inflation, or there is no point in feigning concern for the poor and their children.
Yes, we have already established that the NDP is not offering anything substantive beyond the absolute minimum that the great majority of employers in Toronto already pay, and that they have no real interest in confronting this issue in a way that would have any meaningful effect. My sense was the reaction to the NDP offer of $10 an hour for working stiffs was met with a collective shrug, and had little impact therefore on voting paterns in the last provincial election.
It was a gimmick that fell flat. People are generally not interested in gimmicky election stunts like that.
Ya we know, there's no child poverty or homelessness in Bates McGuilty's Toronto either. Pinocchio's Bay Streeters voted themselves 25% more as of last year and 0% for the poor today, tomorrow, and the year after that. There's only one thing worse than a talking 22% wooden Bay Street puppet, and that's a sock puppet to a wooden Bay St. puppet.
Viva La Revolución
I find this particularly interesting because I do make exactly $16 per hour. According to the Toronto Star article, a single parent with one child would need to earn $16.15 an hour.
Now, I'm a 25-year-old unmarried (and childless) woman, with few expenses. At the risk of boring everyone with my budget, I have fairly inexpensive rent ($600), a student loan ($400), a train pass ($200), Internet and phone expenses ($60), and food, VISA payments, etc. etc, leaving me with a few hundred dollars a month, which either goes into savings or leisure.
However, throw a child into that mix, I don't know if there's any way I could survive on $16 per hour, while being able to feed and clothe a child, without assistance.
I chose to live quite a ways away from Toronto, knowing that I likely couldn't afford it on my own, which has reduced my expenses quite a bit, so I find it hard to believe that a single parent in the GTA could scrape by on $16.15.
jrose, thanks for this article. I like the idea of looking at "a living wage", which helps to fully round out that people in poverty are you know, actual human beings. I'm guessing the CCPA took the lowest possible figure, to put the idea in people's heads and to make it palatable to those who would object to the "lavish" lifestyle of going to the movies with one's child once in a while.
(hey, no more rolleye smilie. Cueball got his wish!)
Pinocchio and his friends on Bay Street might agree to $16 per hour 10 or 20 years from now. I think in the mean time, minimum wage needs boosting somewhere $10 dollars an hour or above as of yesterday, and all incomes below poverty boosted in additional ways through child tax credits or income supplements for seniors etc. And all those mechanisms have to be indexed to inflation, or there is no point in feigning concern for the poor and their children.
Yes, Viva la Revolucion...when do you think Cubans will make anywhere near a living wage, as defined by the study?
<>What mechanism would keep cost of living the same in a jurisdiction
where the minimum wage is raised by over 50%? What effect would that
have on the wages of workers who have spent 10 - 15 years in the
workforce to get to a similar or only slightly higher level of wage?
What does Living Wage say about how that jurisdiction will handle the
inevitable in-migration of workers from nearby jurisdictions, thereby
creating increased demand on housing and services? Isn't housing in
Alberta already an excample of what upward pressure on wages does to a
jurisdiction?
Now, I'm a 25-year-old unmarried (and childless) woman, with few expenses. At the risk of boring everyone with my budget, I have fairly inexpensive rent ($600), a student loan ($400), a train pass ($200), Internet and phone expenses ($60), and food, VISA payments, etc. etc, leaving me with a few hundred dollars a month, which either goes into savings or leisure.
Take-home is $2000 a month, then? That's not bad at all, but I can easily see how someone making less is all of a sudden down to $1500, $1200 take-home and trying to pay rent in a large city.
And the only answer right-wingers have is to wag their finger in the single mother's face and tell her she should get married and live like it's 1955.
Only....
In 1955 it was economically possible for a single wage-earner to support a family. These righties seem to have forgotten that little fact.
That's never stopped 'em before from flapping their gums about how immoral it is to raise a child on one's own. I must roll my eyes now.
Right, DrConway, about $2000 per month, which perfectly covers my rent, student loan, and ther expenses, without having to dive into my savings too often. But there's the difference -- I was able to move back home for a year and a half and save, save, save, meaning that I have a backup plan during those months where I have unexpected expenses (or buy a few too many pints at the bar). I'm not complaining. I live a very comfortable lifestyle, within my means.
I do however live in a city with affordable rent, which is becoming increasingly rare, and I don't have any dependents (not even a pet!), which would make it very difficult to pay rent in a large city.
To be a young gal, with relatively few strings attached, $16 is great and far better than the wages I made working retail, but I have my doubts that I could survive off it forever, especially once I move out of the confines of the city I'm in now.
My current experience of the past 18 months is a rapid decline in private sector wages. Wages are falling to levels people might be familiar making in the 80s or 90s.
People with skilled trades, or re educated, working in the same city in Ontario are watching wages plumment to $14. A Mechanical Engineer with 10 years exp, $44,000 and a Bsc with 10 years experience to supervise 10 people in Quality Control, $47,000.
Licenced Industrial Mechanics are getting between $14 and $18, same for many millrights etc.
I am watching as places of all kinds are suggesting nothing less then 25% pay cuts and the elimination of benefits, and reductions to vacation time.
Essentially many wages are going below $30,000.
While there has always been low paying jobs, and places, there are plenty more of them today with few places offering higher wages. And the pressure is on to reduce wages more.
Perhaps most concerning to me, is watching the disconnect of many public sector workers, who do not seem to have any grasp of what is happening outside their comfy atmospheres. Life is good. I have to admit I know of a few very strong Private Sector Union shops where this disconnect is just as strong, but it doesn't appear as oblivious as those I meet in the Public Sector.
$16 an hour is higher than most companies pay in my region and I am watching as a company that pays $16 is telling their workers to take a $4 pay cut.
Besides that, the temp agencies have kept wages artificially low for the person working for a living. The low wage that one receives through a temp, proves to other employers that people will work for less, alot less.
It is not unusual for me to watch as people who have lost their jobs in the past year, work for 40% to 50% of their previous wages. $9 is common and $11 is high.
The wages of newer jobs in the GTA is not that much better. I can't imagine how anyone is making ends meet with higher rent or housing costs.
The downward pressure on wages has been occuring through some very good times. I expect wages to fall more, alot more, down to minimum wage for many, as unemployment reaches new levels and any extra money is scooped up by Temp agencies.
Pinocchio and his friends on Bay Street might agree to $16 per hour 10 or 20 years from now. I think in the mean time, minimum wage needs boosting somewhere $10 dollars an hour or above as of yesterday, and all incomes below poverty boosted in additional ways through child tax credits or income supplements for seniors etc. And all those mechanisms have to be indexed to inflation, or there is no point in feigning concern for the poor and their children.
Yes, Viva la Revolucion...when do you think Cubans will make anywhere near a living wage, as defined by the study?
Counter-question: When, do you imagine, that half of Canadian women will have incomes of more than $20,000 a year? $20,000 is a king's ransom in Cuba, but here in Canada it's not enough to live well on. $20,000 is subsistence income in Canada, one of the largest countries in the world with unparalleled natural resource wealth siphoned off to the imperial master nation 24-7.
When will 80% of women in Canada break the $40,000 dollar a year barrier?
When will nearly 10.5 million men and women in Canada earn more than $20,000 dollars a year?
Brian Baloney (and Chretien and Manley, too) promised Canadians unspeakable prosperity and "jobs! jobs! jobs!" if Canadians were to trust them with phony-baloney majority governments in 1988 and 1993, 1997 and so on. The original Pinocchio didnt tell these colossal lies.
About ten years post-collapse of the Communist regime in Cuba. Until then? Grinding poverty for all (except for the party big wigs, of course)...
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
About ten years post-collapse of the Communist regime in Cuba. Until then? Grinding poverty for all (except for the party big wigs, of course)...
36 million food insecure in the USA
Capitalism is a monumental failure
Capitalism is a monumental failure
Let’s take your number as correct for purposes of this discussion. That means that about 90% of the USA population is NOT “food insecure”.
But, because there are SOME Americans who are “food insecure”, it would be better, in your eyes, for ALL Americans to swap places with the Cuban so that ALL would be equally thrown into grinding poverty.
Equality at all costs.
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
My observation of Cuba was that no one was food insecure.
The fat cats in Cuba are not the Party brass, it's the tour operators. I rented a room from the director of pediatrics of the regional hospital in Santiago who made more from that than his day job.
I would expect that if Sven had his way with Cuba it would quickly look more like Haiti than it looked like Canada. Not that Sven would want that, but that would be the consequences of what he would do. Similarly to the consequences of not regulating mortgages in the US.
Because the Cuban people cannot manage individual freedom like Canadians can?
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Capitalism is a monumental failure
Let’s take your number as correct for purposes of this discussion. That means that about 90% of the USA population is NOT “food insecure”.
That's more than three times the population of Cuba who are food insecure in the USA.
U.S. Opposes Right to Food at World Summit
Capitalism is a monstrous ideology
Because the Cuban people cannot manage individual freedom like Canadians can?
No, because the total wealth in the society would grow much more slowly than the maldistribution. You might also note from my posts above that I am not a fan of the repressive aspects of Cubal (just something to consider when snarking).
It wasnt Fidel who ducked flying shoes in Baghdad recently. Apparently the torture wasnt as bad under Saddam.
American woman gonna mess your mind Kiss my ass, Uncle Sam
The Unified Theory of Babble (all threads ultimately lead to the USA) is, once again, shown to be true.
______________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, is it your belief that the government of Cuba is responsible for more poverty than the Embargo?
Is it fair to compare the economic conditions of Cuba to that of Canada? The land and resources per capita is much less in Cuba than in Canada. Canadian settler society has artificially inflated its wealth with stolen resources and land. Wouldn't a more acurate comparison be of one of the many Indigenous communities that Canada has blockaded into a reserve while putting up trade embargos on any form of economic activity that offends capital?
I think that blaming Castro(s) for the economic conditions in Cuba is a bit like blaming Phil Fontaine for economic conditions on some reserves. Just like Castro, Fontaine is better off than most of the people he claims to represent and the policies of both men might not be what would come from the grassroots. Just like Castro people question Fontaine's democratic legitamacy. But it would look foolish for someone to blame Fontaine and the 'AFN regime' for poverty in Indigenous communities, no?
I will start by saying that I agree with giving everyone a living wage in which they can participate fully in life including sending kids for lessons and sports. I think everyone has a right to live not only exisit.
That being said I have a quesiotn -who would make up the difference in wage? I ask this because a friend of mine owns a small store and if he had to pay the employees $16 he would go out of business.
I am not very knowledgeable in the theories of economics but just on an intuitive level it has made me think.
If it is the businesses have to pay more we as a society would have to be willing to increase the amount we pay for everything ( which I would be more than willing to do because I don't "sell anything, buy anything or process anything" for a living ) but those who are making this wage also now need to pay more for what they are buying as well so then wouldn't the amount they need to cover even things like the basics go up? So again they would need to increase the wage?
I see the circular nature of the pay system in backing up bad pay systems- walmart pays almost nothing which means employees have to shop there because it is the only place they can afford which in turns helps to keep them in business so they can continue paying less.
Is there an equalizing period where it all works out where people are paid fairly AND can afford to live on their wage or can that only be done through tax equalization through the government or can it not be done at all?
If his business is that marginal he should have fewer employees, pay those few he has to have better, and work more himself.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"If his business is that marginal he should have fewer employees, pay those few he has to have better, and work more himself.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
That would cause great unemployment. It would also cause a far greater workload for the remaining employees.
Why not just make it $100/hour and be done with it?
________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Why not just make it $100/hour and be done with it?
It was tried with executive pay for amateur golfers who double as CEO's and bankers on Wall Street and the Fed and realized they arent worth it.
The financial genies and politicos are realizing, once again, who really earns and spends the money in keeping the capitalist contraption limping along at home, and it isnt the relative handful of incredibly greedy people hoarding money they take from society.
Why not just make it $100/hour and be done with it?
Questions like this miss the point: how does one construct a business where you pay full-time employees a living wage? That should be your starting point; not glib dismissals and apologies for the capitalist status quo. How can you dismiss human dignity?
With that in mind, I have a question, but it's from a position of limited economic knowledge. Presumably, the living wage would be for full-time, self-supporting employees. It doesn't make much sense to pay, say, high-school kids working pat time the same wage, does it? Or university students either. What would be the policy for paying both kinds of workers and how do you evaluate those kind of wages?
Why not just make it $100/hour and be done with it?
Questions like this miss the point: how does one construct a business where you pay full-time employees a living wage? That should be your starting point; not glib dismissals and apologies for the capitalist status quo. How can you dismiss human dignity?
With that in mind, I have a question, but it's from a position of limited economic knowledge. Presumably, the living wage would be for full-time, self-supporting employees. It doesn't make much sense to pay, say, high-school kids working pat time the same wage, does it? Or university students either. What would be the policy for paying both kinds of workers and how do you evaluate those kind of wages?
At age 16 and 17, while in high school, I also was a supervisor at a Subway restaurant. Had the much older staff I was supervising been making more than me per hour for less responsibility, I would not have been very happy.
No kidding. Equal pay for equal work. It's none of anyone's business why a teenager is working. If they're doing the same work as a 30 year-old, they should be paid the same as that 30 year-old.
They used to use that same reasoning for paying married women less than men doing the same work - well, they don't HAVE to work. Their husbands are the real breadwinners. The men need more money than the women because they have families to support.
This may have nothing to do with the topic. The government is quick to inject billions into the Auto sector.
What about the people working and living below the povery level. What about all the homeless.
If he has that many employees that it would cause "great" unemployment, then he is not such a "small" business. All in all, it sounds like a excuse to have higher profit margins, by exploiting the workers working for an unlivable wage.
My parents were business owners, and they had seasonal employees, the minimum wage at that time in SK was 1.77 per hour. All their seasonal employees got 8/hr, plus tips, and this was at a time when 8/hr was unheard of in Canada for service industry people. However, they recognized these employees needed to have a livable wage, to carry them through until the next season, and that was more important to my parents, than my parents having higher profit margins and a huge savings account, when modest profits were still acheived. It is social justice in action.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
If he has that many employees that it would cause "great" unemployment, then he is not such a "small" business. All in all, it sounds like a excuse to have higher profit margins, by exploiting the workers working for an unlivable wage.
My parents were business owners, and they had seasonal employees, the minimum wage at that time in SK was 1.77 per hour. All their seasonal employees got 8/hr, plus tips, and this was at a time when 8/hr was unheard of in Canada for service industry people. However, they recognized these employees needed to have a livable wage, to carry them through until the next season, and that was more important to my parents, than my parents having higher profit margins and a huge savings account, when modest profits were still acheived. It is social justice in action.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
yes, but how would they have reacted if the government came in and told them that theyhad decided a liveable wage was 10$ an hour and that they had no choice but to pay this?
I did not mean that that that one small business would cause great unemployement, but that if all small businesses were forced into this, it would cause greater unemployment in Canada as a whole.
I did not mean that that that one small business would cause great unemployement, but that if all small businesses were forced into this, it would cause greater unemployment in Canada as a whole.
And I call BS on that statement of unemployment, because people would not have to be working 2-3 jobs in order to survive, so the extra jobs would be freed up for others seeking employment, and please do see the statement above about that excuse being used for women entering the work force. Profit margins are made from the backs of the employees, not the business owners, and thus excessive profits belong to the employees, not the owners.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
http://tinyurl.com/3p2uw3
This links to fact sheets prepared by CCPA. As noted (and confirmed in other papers) minimum wage increases have little effect on employment levels. That is a Fraser Institute myth and when it comes to quality work, the CCPA trumps the Fraser Institute every day of the week.
At age 16 and 17, while in high school, I also was a supervisor at a Subway restaurant. Had the much older staff I was supervising been making more than me per hour for less responsibility, I would not have been very happy.
I'll bet you couldnt have been very happy knowing that most 16 and 17 year-olds don't have the same cost of living that "much older" Canadians do. Or as a 16 and 17 year-old at the time, perhaps you werent aware of such things.
The focus shouldn't be on the minimum wage as the chief solution. Other solutions are as important and may be more targeted. If we provided adequeate levels of affordable housing, universal daycare, reasonable public transit, the contribution needed from wages would be a lot less.
Catchfire: "Presumably, the living wage would be for full-time, self-supporting employees. It doesn't make much sense to pay, say, high-school kids working pat time the same wage, does it? Or university students either. What would be the policy for paying both kinds of workers and how do you evaluate those kind of wages?"
In fact, the mininum wage for "Students under 18 and working not more than 28 hours per week during the school year or working during a school holiday" is currently $8.20 per hour rather than $8.75. This kind of differential minimum wage strikes me as inappropriate for a couple of reasons.
(1) I think that Michelle is right that it's none of anyone's business why a teenager is working. Some teenagers support themselves. Some adults don't. Many many university students support themselves (in response to Catchfire's suggested lower minimum wage to university students).
(2) The main argument for a lower minimum wage for students or teenagers or whatever is presumably that they don't need the money as much. But there are all sorts of people who have quite different financial needs: on the high end, for example, people with large families, people who are taking care of their elderly parents, people taking care of siblings, people taking care of friends; on the low end, single people with no dependents and no disabilities; people who have inherited assets; people who have wealthy and generous relatives. I do not think that it would be workable to have different minimum wages for each of these categories. This would force employers to engage in needs-testing, and would give them an incentive to hire employees, e.g., without children. Rather than differential minimum wages, we should have social programmes in place that make having children, or elderly parents who need care, etc., less onerous.
England has a graduated minimum wage. Canada has the two old line party system in Ottawa.
Well, in terms of your calculations:
1) Generally, when making the calculations for a living wage, debt payments aren't factored in, since each individual has different debt structure.
2) If you had a child, you would be paying less taxes and would also get a small monthly payment, however this doesn't do much to offset daycare and other costs of having a child.
However, if those are student loans. it brings up another huge problem in Canadian society. In order to get a job that pays decently above minimum wage, so that we can participate fully in society, we need to go to post-secondary. To do this, we need to pay large sums of money which often leaves us with a great debt.
The oddest thing is that while some of the cost of going to school is tax deductible, it's only deductable in the year that we go to school, which in most cases, is a year we aren't earning very much.
I think a first step would be to make student loan payments tax deductible. But, given the reality, North Americans need to get used to the idea of not leaving home as soon as they turn 18. Many other cultures around the world stay at home with their parents until they are either married, or they buy their own home.
I think a first step would be to make student loan payments tax deductible.
In Manitoba, unused post-secondary tuition rebates can be carried forward up to 20 years. The maximum lifetime rebate is $25,000 (equivalent to a 60% rebate on tuition fees of $41,667). (source)
If a living wage is the minimum amount necessary to provide a person with a basic income, then how would it be fair to say that a 15 year old kid living with her parents needs $16 per hour AND that a 17 year old single mom living on her own with two kids also needs $16 per hour? Either one of those workers is being paid too much (the 15 year old) OR the other is being paid too little (the 17 year old)...if the concept is to ensure that a person gets a basic income to cover their needs...because these two hypothetical workers' respective living needs are DRASTICALLY different.
________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
No kidding. Equal pay for equal work.
Well, I don't think it's 'no kidding', I'm just trying to channel the spirit of a 'living wage'--which is not a dollar figure, but is based on how workers can enjoy life--thus, if you have support, 16$ is not a 'living wage', is it? I might also suggest, tentatively, that 'equal pay for equal work' is a capitalist concept; although I certainly appreciate how it has helped minority wage rights in the past. But shouldn't we be concerned about what people can make of a wage rather than what labour is 'worth'?
However, I will easily concede the point that it's likely not the employer's business what a worker does with her money. I'm only playing with the concept.
This makes much more sense to me as to why my 'theory' doesn't work. Ideally, social programmes would solve this problem of different needs, and employers couldn't possibly do this discrimination for the state. But then, toward this point, if such programmes were in place, a 'living wage' probably wouldn't exist as the same concept, right?
If an individual wants to shovel the neighborhood driveways and sidewalks as a full-time job, would the neighbors be required to pay that individual at least $16 per hour? Which would mean the 85 year old living down the street who couldn't afford that would have to (1) shovel the walks herself, (2) let the walks go unshoveled, or (3) find someone who would do it for her for free.
____________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
It's not a bad question, but are you asking it knowing that a) such an individual is i) a teenager or worse and ii) making less than minimum wage anyway and b) in a socialist paradise there would be no need for driveways because public transit would be i) free and ii) convenient and c) the neighbourhood would find some way to shovel her walks free regardless because believers in a living wage have i) compassion and ii) more free time.
Would anyone care to quantitatively define "excessive profits" versus "reasonable profits"?
_____________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Making enough profits to send your child to a private school and and fully funded PS education while giving yourself the capabilities to live in a warm climate 1/2 the year when retired, and of course equivalencies to those factors, is excessive IMV, and is done at the expense of workers.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Would anyone care to quantitatively define "excessive profits" versus "reasonable profits"?
Excessive profits are had when a country shovels billions of dollars into the hands of a tiny number of elite while over 36 million Americans continue to be food insecure.
Military profits when economy falters How are the services taking advantage of a declining job market? More recruits and higher retention
Kids Learn that Killing Is Fun at the Army's Lethal New Theme Park
What is a recession.. when the rich go broke and the prices go down.. so the not rich could afford more things.. We think money matters in life nd in the end it don't.. When we have the freedom to build where we want rather than those who buy land with money hoard the land.. then those who are willing to work for themselves will benefit.... We have such a dependancy on money that we forsake life and what matters in life ... As long as governmental laws accomodate the use of money and only the use of money we will never get out of this stink hole...
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Follow the dream you have in your heart and don't let someone else's fears stand in your way.....Gypsy
I seem to recall BC introducing some kind of reduced minimum wage around 2000 or 2001 (a "training wage" I believe). It allowed employers to pay employees new to the work force (not to the job) less money for the first 6 months or maybe a certain number of hours worked.
(Nevermind what I remember, here is a link: http://www.tru.ca/news/past01nov26/storiesnov26/wage.html)
Anyway, I think it was designed so that younger employees would be paid less. Of course, if an adult had never worked and then got a job, it would apply to him/her as well.
Not sure if is still around. Huge backlash ensued of course.
Equal pay for equal work indeed. Anything short of that is unacceptable. I think there has been a similar debate on Babble about this before. Canada will never be communist; while social programs are necessary, I don't think paying people according to their situations/needs instead of according to the work done would ever fly here. If I found out some of my colleagues were getting paid more because they have more children or less because they have rich spouses I would be pretty peeved. The government can attempt to equalize things through tax credits/progressive tax rates/responsive social programs (public daycare, please!).
Summer, the B.C. $6 an hour "training wage" for the first 500 hours of employment is still with us. It does not only apply to younger workers and the chief beneficiaries continue to be the MacDonalds and Wal-Marts of the world (although the propaganda in favour always centres on the "mom and pop" retail stores that existed before pushed out by 7-11 and Macs. The issue calmed as we experienced relatively good employment levels. The "need" for a "training" wage was displaced by the "need" for a mass expansion in the number of temporary foreign workers.
We will soon see a "switch back" I'm sure as the exploiters seek ways to take advantage of the growing number of unemployed.
The capitalists have learned that in order to depress wages and benefits, they must be "flexible" in their approach even if their reasoning for a new approach is contradictory and counter-intuitive.
At age 16 and 17, while in high school, I also was a supervisor at a Subway restaurant. Had the much older staff I was supervising been making more than me per hour for less responsibility, I would not have been very happy.
I'll bet you couldnt have been very happy knowing that most 16 and 17 year-olds don't have the same cost of living that "much older" Canadians do. Or as a 16 and 17 year-old at the time, perhaps you werent aware of such things.
Of course I was aware of those things. I grew up below the poverty line and not only had to purchase any clothes, school supplies, piano lessons etc. that I wanted while in high school - I was saving this money for university. I knew my parents had nothing to give me and did not want a massive student loan. Why should someone in the type of situation I was in make less money? I was not paying for food, but I was doing more work and taking on more responsibility than other co-workers who were older.
I think wages have to be based on work and I do not believe a janitor should make the same as a doctor. Raising the minimum wage to ensure it is a "living wage" is a good idea, however I am little wary of who would design such a definition. Is it based on what it costs a single male to live, or a mother to four children? I would prefer a somewhat more reasonable minimum wage, with additional social programming and benefits for those with higher living costs (ie children, prescription drugs, northern or rural areas, etc.).
Guess you do not understand the basics of health care Ghislaine.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
As to the question of why different jobs have different wage rates:
The different wages people make in different occupations has to do with a lot of factors, but the most important is their bargaining power and ability to demand higher wages. For some workers this results from working their butts off to fight for better wages and working conditions through their union; for others, it comes from class privilege and the idea that some jobs are 'just more important than others'.
I used to work in a grocery store (not so) many years ago, which was in a upper-middle-class suburb (I commuted in). I always thought it was bizarre how the (relatively) wealthy yuppie scum who made far, far more than I did had to come into the store to buy food (something I would consider essential to life, and thus pretty damn important), and despite that, I still made a lot less money than them. If we actually set wages based on how important the job was, the following people would be the richest: farmers and food workers, healthcare providers (which would mean the nurses and aides and not just the doctor), and educational workers.
The following would be the poorest: corporate executives. Of course, that might be a value-judgment on my part on how much value they actually contribute to society.
Guess you do not understand the basics of health care Ghislaine.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Do you mind explaining why you think this?
At age 16 and 17, while in high school, I also was a supervisor at a Subway restaurant. Had the much older staff I was supervising been making more than me per hour for less responsibility, I would not have been very happy.
I'll bet you couldnt have been very happy knowing that most 16 and 17 year-olds don't have the same cost of living that "much older" Canadians do. Or as a 16 and 17 year-old at the time, perhaps you werent aware of such things.
Of course I was aware of those things. I grew up below the poverty line and not only had to purchase any clothes, school supplies, piano lessons etc. that I wanted while in high school - I was saving this money for university. I knew my parents had nothing to give me and did not want a massive student loan. Why should someone in the type of situation I was in make less money? I was not paying for food, but I was doing more work and taking on more responsibility than other co-workers who were older.
Yes, I grew up in a time when it was possible for young people with a summer job paying minimum wage to pay for a year of university tuition. That's not the case anymore, and it's especially hard for kids in small towns without a university or college close to their parents' home. With Canadians paying highest interest rates in the world on student loan debt, the reality is that there are two very different price tags for an education in Canada: one for those who don't need student loans and quite another for those who do.
In a chapter entitled Doctors & Dishwashers of his web essay, U.S. economist Dean Baker said that if free traders in his country really did believe in free markets, then allowing global competition for medical doctors in the U.S. would save U.S. health care about $80 billion a year. Canada has a shortage of family doctors, and I think there is a certain protectionism of higher paid professions occurring in Canada for political reasons as well.
i think the government needs to study poverty in canada. Take a look at the LIM (low income measure) before and after tax. take a look at the market basket measure numbers. This is a big country with different prices all over the place. Consider someone in iqualit... gotta fly all their stuff in there. What is "poverty level" in the GTA? what is it in Middleton, Nova Scotia? I think stats has the math to calculate a poverty level, but we're dragging our heels on making policy.
As a health care professional I understand the vital importance of Janitors/cleaning staff, who are well paid and properly trained. I also understand just who does the majority of the work that Drs get paid the big bucks for.
I also understand that people like to think there are jobs that are more important than others, and thus are able to keep phoney classism alive.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
As a health care professional I understand the vital importance of Janitors/cleaning staff, who are well paid and properly trained. I also understand just who does the majority of the work that Drs get paid the big bucks for.
I also understand that people like to think there are jobs that are more important than others, and thus are able to keep phoney classism alive.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
If you had a heart attack on a place, who would you rather be riding with a doctor or a janitor?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
That there is a definite difference in value between some professions.
When we discuss a living wage it is not just about dollars per hour. It is the whole spectrum of things that affect our ability to live and participate in society. We need to be working on affordable housing, national daycare, educational and training programs, access to proper food (and the list goes on).
Raising the minimum wage is just part of the puzzle.
So you're saying as long as capitalism sets the cost of survival then minimum wage along cannot be an effective means of dealing with poverty?
Very succinct and so obvious I'm surprised someone has to write it down, but good point :-)
Nope, how often do you have a heart attack compared, to how often you come in contact with bacteria and molds, and other germs that have the power to seriously affect your health?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Nope, how often do you have a heart attack compared, to how often you come in contact with bacteria and molds, and other germs that have the power to seriously affect your health?
Ya, who do we want disinfecting hospitals and public places against dangerous uberbugs and bacteria? Do we want nurses to shove brooms up their derrieres and do double duty, or would janitors be better suited for that?
Or do we even want fly by night private enterprisers cutting corners and paying low wage slaves to do slip-shod job of wiping and cleaning and doing a so-so job of mopping floors in a ward where someone's grandmother is recovering from pneumonia or surgery? Surgery saves lives and even kill the odd time. But what's the point if the hospital recovery ward is a bug factory? But since neoliberalism and cutbacks of the Reagan-Bush era in the U.S., multivaccinal resistant TB and other newer goodies have made a comeback. Are HMO execs and insurance company CEO's and CFO's worth as much as a doctor or nurse or even a janitor who does their job well? This is just one example. Capitalist economies around the western world have loads of room for efficiency and fairness.
I will start by saying that I agree with giving everyone a living wage in which they can participate fully in life including sending kids for lessons and sports. I think everyone has a right to live not only exisit.
That being said I have a quesiotn -who would make up the difference in wage? I ask this because a friend of mine owns a small store and if he had to pay the employees $16 he would go out of business.
I am not very knowledgeable in the theories of economics but just on an intuitive level it has made me think.
If it is the businesses have to pay more we as a society would have to be willing to increase the amount we pay for everything ( which I would be more than willing to do because I don't "sell anything, buy anything or process anything" for a living ) but those who are making this wage also now need to pay more for what they are buying as well so then wouldn't the amount they need to cover even things like the basics go up? So again they would need to increase the wage?
I see the circular nature of the pay system in backing up bad pay systems- walmart pays almost nothing which means employees have to shop there because it is the only place they can afford which in turns helps to keep them in business so they can continue paying less.
Is there an equalizing period where it all works out where people are paid fairly AND can afford to live on their wage or can that only be done through tax equalization through the government or can it not be done at all?
With the amount of money taken by the parasites at the top, there's simply not enought left to go around to feed the rest.
Fantastical utopianism can be an irritant when people are discussing practical solutions.
As to the question of why different jobs have different wage rates:
The different wages people make in different occupations has to do with a lot of factors, but the most important is their bargaining power and ability to demand higher wages. For some workers this results from working their butts off to fight for better wages and working conditions through their union; for others, it comes from class privilege and the idea that some jobs are 'just more important than others'.
I used to work in a grocery store (not so) many years ago, which was in a upper-middle-class suburb (I commuted in). I always thought it was bizarre how the (relatively) wealthy yuppie scum who made far, far more than I did had to come into the store to buy food (something I would consider essential to life, and thus pretty damn important), and despite that, I still made a lot less money than them. If we actually set wages based on how important the job was, the following people would be the richest: farmers and food workers, healthcare providers (which would mean the nurses and aides and not just the doctor), and educational workers.
The following would be the poorest: corporate executives. Of course, that might be a value-judgment on my part on how much value they actually contribute to society.
It's not just about what's important, it's also about how many people can do the job.
If there were thousands of neurosurgeons in Canada rather than dozens they would not be paid as much. I worked in grocery stores as well, I did simple physical work and I don't think I deserved $25/hour as you seem to have.
Redacted.
If there were thousands of neurosurgeons in Canada rather than dozens they would not be paid as much. I worked in grocery stores as well, I did simple physical work and I don't think I deserved $25/hour as you seem to have.
U.S. economist Dean Baker says that global competition among lowly skilled workers is encouraged by free trade agreements and driving down labour wages. But it's not so for higher paid professions and driving up the cost of health care by tens of billions of dollars in just one example.
Fidel,
It`s easier to maintain quality standards for cashiers than it is for neurosurgeons or mechanical engineers.
Fidel,
It`s easier to maintain quality standards for cashiers than it is for neurosurgeons or mechanical engineers.
I think that cashiers and the millions of human beings who donate their precious time to low wage philanthropy are not asking for an equivalent surgeon's compensation. But the reality of our increasingly neoliberalizd economies is that the price of bread and milk and rent never seem to go down. Surgeons and doctors in general belong to some of the strongest unions going. Lowly paid workers need representation, too, and that's the government's job, especially when there have been 170 repressive pieces of labour legislation passed across Canada since 1982.
I think it depends so much on even more than the place & the time.
for example, in San Francisco, if you have access to safe & free public housing, and health care through work, $10 an hour can be a living wage.
If you have to pay for rent or a mortgage, I would say you need $100K a year to live in SF - unless you still live in a 4-bedroom apartment you rented 20 years ago, and still pay only $900 a month rent.
One work-around to the claim of businesses that they can't afford to pay a living wage, is to use a Negative Income tax that gives people earning $10 an hour the extra $6 an hour - and then tax the wealthy folks to pay for it.
In Alberta, it sounded like the cost of living was pretty high. But it sounds like a lot of people are losing their jobs, and rents are falling. So maybe $20 an hour would be a living wage for a single person there, $35 an hour for someone supporting a family.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://LASIK-Flap.com ~ Health Warning about LASIK Eye Surgery
I think it depends so much on even more than the place & the time.
for example, in San Francisco, if you have access to safe & free public housing, and health care through work, $10 an hour can be a living wage.
If you have to pay for rent or a mortgage, I would say you need $100K a year to live in SF - unless you still live in a 4-bedroom apartment you rented 20 years ago, and still pay only $900 a month rent.
I was in Mountain View just outside San Jose, and most of the people I worked with were renting apartments. Junior people to the job and area were commuting anywhere from an hour to two hours one-way. I must say it was a pleasant drive most of the time even with the heavy traffic. San Fran was a madhouse as far as I was concerned, although not like driving in and around Seattle, a total madhouse for someone like me used to small town life in Northern Ontario.
Or do we even want fly by night private enterprisers cutting corners and paying low wage slaves to do slip-shod job of wiping and cleaning and doing a so-so job of mopping floors in a ward where someone's grandmother is recovering from pneumonia or surgery? Surgery saves lives and even kill the odd time. But what's the point if the hospital recovery ward is a bug factory? But since neoliberalism and cutbacks of the Reagan-Bush era in the U.S., multivaccinal resistant TB and other newer goodies have made a comeback. Are HMO execs and insurance company CEO's and CFO's worth as much as a doctor or nurse or even a janitor who does their job well? This is just one example.
Exactly fidel, hospitals have seen an increase in deadly baceteria since they "privatized" cleaning staff. And so has sociuety at large.
Cleaning staff and janitors are our front line defense in keeping easily commicated diseases under control. Their pay and due respect should reflect that. However, too many people are too concerned with believing they are "better than" to look at things realistically.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
New West enacts Canada’s first living wage law
"New Westminster has taken a stand for working families today by setting this powerful precedent,” said Dave Tate of BC ACORN, one of 40 organizations that lobbied for the bylaw.
Living wage bylaws set a wage "floor" above the minimum wage for workers who work directly for the city, for firms that receive contracts from the city, and firms that receive economic development money from the city.
"Once the policy is implemented, all direct and indirect workers (contract workers, etc.) performing work on City premises will earn a wage no lower than $16.74," Tate said in an email.
Three cheers for New Westminster!
Three cheers for Councillor Jaimie McEvoy who steered this through Council. Jaimie is a former Deputy Chair of the Canadian federation of Students.
I dont view this as good news. For the most part this is going to benefit the public sector worker. For a private sector worker, it likely means some combination of higher tax or user fees for public service, lesser actual service as money is spent on workers and not maintaining or improving the service provided, or higher tax burdens/debt crisis down the road if the government chooses to borrow money (run a deficit).
I read the whole thread not knowing how old it was but one of the posts made a lot of sense - that public sector workers are forging ahead with demands that can't be met without huge burdens being placed on private sector workers, who are experiencing decreases in pay and job security.
The private sector is the productive side of the economy. It generates the money to support the public side (which is ultimately a luxury). The problems we have now with decreasing living standards should be addressed by investing in improving the productive capacity of the country. That would be the best idea, IMO. Then take increased tax revenue to pay for greater services and higher pay for public sector workers. Or we can have legislation that mandates higher minimum wage across the board.
The idea that public sector workers see increases or even lesser declines than private sector workers really grates. Private sector workers (the REAL workers) get less from employers but get to pay more tax/fees or get less service to maintain or increase public sector employees. That sucks.
Help the real workers improve their lot and then we can see about the government types. Or draw a level playing field. But public sector employees should not be seeing benefits that those who pay their salaries don't.
So this is great news for those who happen to work for the government or firms that get city contracts. Everyone else not so much.
I dont view this as good news. For the most part this is going to benefit the public sector worker. For a private sector worker, it likely means some combination of higher tax or user fees for public service, lesser actual service as money is spent on workers and not maintaining or improving the service provided, or higher tax burdens/debt crisis down the road if the government chooses to borrow money (run a deficit).
I read the whole thread not knowing how old it was but one of the posts made a lot of sense - that public sector workers are forging ahead with demands that can't be met without huge burdens being placed on private sector workers, who are experiencing decreases in pay and job security.
The private sector is the productive side of the economy. It generates the money to support the public side (which is ultimately a luxury). The problems we have now with decreasing living standards should be addressed by investing in improving the productive capacity of the country. That would be the best idea, IMO. Then take increased tax revenue to pay for greater services and higher pay for public sector workers. Or we can have legislation that mandates higher minimum wage across the board.
The idea that public sector workers see increases or even lesser declines than private sector workers really grates. Private sector workers (the REAL workers) get less from employers but get to pay more tax/fees or get less service to maintain or increase public sector employees. That sucks.
Help the real workers improve their lot and then we can see about the government types. Or draw a level playing field. But public sector employees should not be seeing benefits that those who pay their salaries don't.
So this is great news for those who happen to work for the government or firms that get city contracts. Everyone else not so much.
Higher wages are sometimes seen as the problem by people on the street. People will say it leaves others behind and how does the system create jobs when wages are high. That's what they think and they are concerned about such things. Actually higher wages are paid by different sectors. Government, unions, big corporations will pay better. They have deep pockets. In addition skilled and professional people are codled. Businesses will protect their key people to protect themselves. You're unlikely to hear of a profession paying minimum wage because of supply and demand. So higher wages are a feature of different sectors of the economy and the government boosting it's minimum wage to $16 would be just part of the system. Focusing on one small groups' advantage is not all that productive.
The problem is the low wage sector in Canada. A lot of the concern about the capitalistic system is the fact there's low wages around. Going forward there should be economic growth which will tighten the labour market and raise the defacto minimum wage, raise it to Alberta pre-recession levels. The country should be able to get rid of most of it's less than $12 an hour employers; that is to downsize McLabour. A $12 wage is not good but the current wage for McLabour is, like, $8.
You can also legislate a higher minimum wage. The main economy effect would be to slow growth. This is possible in a country with an aging population and labour shortages. Economic growth based on low wages is actually dysfunctional.
There's a broad angst about low wages in Canada. Back in July of 2002 there was a wave of recognition of the low wage problem in Canada on the streets. People began commenting about it; it was topical. Low wages are very pervasive today and affect people through friends, family, work associates and more troubling themselves. This cuts across class issues to family. This angst is still going on here in 2010. I calll myself a "job activist" and take an interest in this angst. I'm have some recognition, am known in Parliament. I have to tell you that of the various leaders in Parliament it's Bob Rae only that gets that the low wage problem is troubling people, time has come. A possible scenario is Bob Rae steps in as Ignatieff falters and has a public brawl about the economy with what's his name, the Prime Minister. The Parliament is hung, people could care a less, but a brass knuckles heavy weight fight with the leaders might change the current policital scene.
Did you stumble into the wrong discussion forum doodle21?
"Real Workers?" WTF
Paging Unionist.
Come on, Caissa. If a company can't afford to pay its employees a wage possible to live off, then that's their right. This is America, and the last time I checked, America was still a democracy. I don't know where these rights to feed oneself, to clothe oneself, to house oneself and to mental and physical welfare came from, but my guess is probably Russia.
Why not just legislatively mandate a minimum wage of 50 bucks an hour and call it a day.
Could someone let Catchfire know that he left his computer on and someone is posting from his Babble account?
Apparently, according to Doodle, it is the form that the business takes that is important in america not the work being preformed. So an HMO providing health care is a business and therefore part of the "productive" free enterprise economy. A government run Health Care Authority like we have in BC (they are totally modeled on American HMO's) is a drain on "real" workers.
Its simple, nothing is productive or worth doing unless Wall Street gets a major cut.
Why not just legislatively mandate a minimum wage of 50 bucks an hour and call it a day.
The dollar amount is based on the goods needed to eke out a basic life. It isn't $50 bucks, because $50 bucks isn't the calculation. I recently attended a talk by Seth Klein. He looks for opportunities to make his presentation to business audiences. The common comment he gets is yes the calculation makes sense, but my business cannot afford the cost or increased wages. His quick answer is to ask them to instead support government programs that will lower the rate (affordable housing, daycare, education). As I pointed out upthread focussing on wages is only to look at one side of the problem.
Also, I hate falling back to enlightened self interest as a justification (we should be doing this even if it isn't putting money in our pocket), but take a look at the costs of poverty and you will find that poverty is costing us far more. It is in the interest of cold blooded capitalists to ensure that people are living productive and healthy lives if only because they are less of a draw on the system.
Why not just legislatively mandate a minimum wage of 50 bucks an hour and call it a day.
Because that would impose on someone's freedom to sell a kidney to feed their family.
Let us not forget that Cuba fought the americans and by and large chose their revolution. Let us also not forget that the CIA and other agencies have been eternally screwing with these countries behind the scenes. One only has to look at USA's virulent anti-communism stance and constant aggression and wars to understand why Fidel and cuba is the way it is.
Too many people also put too much faith in human beings, most human beings on planet earth are garbage, this is why the world takes so long to change. If people really gave a rats ass about other people and gave it serious effort the world would be a lot different.
The left suffers from an enlightenment view of humanity that science shows to be wrong, I just looked at some of the videos on socialistproject.ca and some of the left are clearly deluded about the nature of large groups of humanity. Human beings are animals, and as animals they are fundamentally self-interested and predatory. The history of humanity is a testament to our tribalism and our bloodthristyness, in that human beings generally speaking will sacrifice the common good and others as long as it doesn't personally effect their lifestyle.