babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Gap between the Rich and the Rest
May 10, 2007 - 11:39am
Even if the minimum wage is increased, thereby slightly reducing profits as the thinking goes, expect inflation to rise accordingly, as the stock market seeks to gain back what it loses through paying out a living wage to workers. Even a $10.00 rise in BC as the story remarks upon doesn't measure up to being a living wage in a locale like BC. No corporation should be allowed to pay the workers anything less than what it takes for a single income earner to rise above the poverty index for the respective region. It should be federally mandated that the minimum wage across the country be pegged above the regional or provincial poverty line, with fines levied against trangressor corporations. This should be among the top demands of the voter for politicians seeking election.
[ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]
I agree. Also, along with mandating a minimum wage above the poverty line we need to protect small businesses that may not be able to pay such wages but do provide a necessary service to their communities and an alternative to the giant corporations. Such protection can be in the form of wage support payments to these companies to make up the difference between what they can afford and still stay solvent, and the fair wage.
More small companies means more employment and more choice and local control in our economy. Supporting employment in this sector through taxes on the big corporations would be good for most local economies, even if it meant Wal-Mart had to raise its prices to cover taxes. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
I agree. Of course, actually paying the minimum wage should be a given, eh? Problem is, even the Manitoba NDP Provincial Government is paying less than minimum wage to its own "temporary" workers. Elections Manitoba made the news ... because their staff isn't covered by the recently improved minimum wage laws in Manitoba. In general, agricultural workers get the same lousy deal. And I'm quite sure that Liberal and Conservative regimes are no better and probably worse. Where the hell are the Communists when you need them?
Election workers earning less than minimum wage.
Existing laws aren't even enforced. Too many loopholes. What chance of improving these partially worthless laws anyway?
[ 16 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Okay, but if we look at the Saskatchewan and Manitoba government web sites, we see that minimum wages in those provinces are pegged somewhere between Alberta's min wage and Ontario's min wage. And it's for a good reason. Alberta and Ontario are significantly larger economies than the middle prairies. I think workers in small market economies are more vulnerable to job loss if those governments attempt to make their labour more expensive in direct comparison with two larger adjacent markets.
The federal and Ontario NDP is taking the correct approach by attempting to lead the way for higher min wages in Canada's largest labour markets first and foremost. If you prefer more giveaways of valuable public utilities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then don't vote NDP.
Canada's non-unionized low wage workers need for the largest possible union to begin representing their cause for a lowest common denominator for a living wage. Outside of tweaking provincial taxes here and there, I think provincial governments have little power in affecting even provincial economies let alone the national economy.
Canada's non-unionized low wage workers need for the largest possible union to begin representing their cause for a lowest common denominator for a living wage. In Cuba the government is the people's union, and the mice in Canada need to stop electing "black and white cats" in Ottawa with less than 24 percent of the eligible vote. The issue in Canada is democracy itself.
The issue of enforcing existing laws just deserves more support - in addition to a vast number of improvements that could be made.
Supplemental: Socialists and other progressives should call for something like "Citizen Enforcement Teams" . Such teams could "snitch" on employers that cheat workers out of their proper wages, etc. and get bonuses if employers are sent to jail for gross violations, etc. It would improve our "democracy" beyond voting for some politicians that promise all sorts of things but don't actually make democracy any better - by permanently increasing citizen involvement.
Why wait for socialism? It will never come if one adopts that attitude.
[ 16 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Supplemental: I just noticed that you don't have Personal Messages (PMs) activated. When did that happen?
[ 16 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
I don't believe this is correct as stated. Let us say that rape is a serious problem in country "C".
Let us further say that 65% of reported rapes are prosecuted.
Is this an argument for having NO rape law whatsoever? Does this state of affairs make the rape law as it is enforced "worthless"? Or does it simply call for more vigorous enforcement of the existing law?
I typed "partially worthless" or at least that's what my first, not second, comment states. This was all in relation to Slumberjack's suggestion that there be a federally mandated minimum wage with real penalties and fines for violators. My concern was with those who are completely excluded from protection by such laws, like Elections Manitoba "temporary" workers, agricultural workers, and others. The net should be cast wider; that was my point.
I'm not in favour of abolishing minimum wage laws because some people aren't protected by them. It's not just more vigorous enforcement of existing laws but also the expansion of applicability of the existing laws to those who aren't protected by them.
What we need is a way to increase the value of lower incomes while at the same time reducing higher ones.
This would entail either stabilizing costs by bringing them down by cutting profits and upper incomes, or by giving the lower levels a leg up by taxing the rich much more to provide an increased in socially subsidized services, and income supplements to wage earners below a certain level either directly or through wage subsidies.
No, I think people are certainly free to criticize the NDP. But that implies that I am free to be critical of your criticisms, doesn't it?. And as I was saying, Manitoban's are free to exercise democratic choice as they see fit. But again, there are consequences for every democratic action, and every selloff and giveaway of the common good in Manitoba results in fewer and fewer economic levers of control for the next NDP government. You either believe in the hocus pocus of self-regulating markets or you don't, and I take it that you don't, because you're disappointed with the NDP's lack of desire to intervene in what is now a provincial economy with increasing vulnerabilities to external market forces and foreign control by non-elected multinational CEO's, their shareholders, "hot money", and a cabal of global financiers.
Imagine a newly-elected Marxist government attempting to govern over a private enterprise, deregulated neo-Liberalized economy. And they've got four years until the next election to make it work. I think what you'd end up with is a situation similar to Haiti or Venezuela with a CIA-led coup to reverse democratic choice in this same decade.
[ 16 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
There a number of countries, from Britain to France to Australia and New Zealand that all have higher minimum wages than Canada, anywhere from $11 CDN to almost $15 CDN an hour.
The UN has chided Canada for owning some of the worst rates of child poverty among richest nations.
Next to the U.S., again a comparison of richest countries, Canada owns the second largest low wage, lowly-skilled and non-unionized workforce as a percentage of total jobs.
Canada is already losing good paying manufacturing jobs, about a quarter million since 2003 and mainly from Ontario and Quebec. Very few of them paid minimum wage.
Corporate profits are unprecedented in Canada. We're exporting cheap energy and raw materials to the U.S. at a frenzied pace.
Student loan debt is also unprecedented in Canada at over $20 billion dollars. Canada didn't accumulate $20 billion dollars in national debt between WWI and 1974.
[ 17 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
I have no problem whatsoever with doubting such assumptions.
If corporations are forced to pay out a higher wage, thus impacting upon profit, they will make up their losses through other means. I think it's a reasonable assumption that general costs would creep up to offset any losses in market share. It would be unreasonable to believe they would accept lower profitability as part of the cost of doing business. In capitalist driven economies, increased disposable incomes appear to be one of the factors that cause price increases, due to the fact that there would be more demand for commodities such as food, fuel, housing, etc. Even if the demand due to more disposable incomes were confined to just one commodity such as food, this would create upward pressure in other sectors such as transportation, fuel costs, production costs, etc. I believe any move towards addressing the rich/poor gap in today's conditions would only bring lasting benefit to the poor if comprehensive social policy became the overriding factor in government decisions. With the massive growth and profit we see in the market, the long promised trickle down effect that was supposed to lift all boats with the rising tide has been proven time and time again to be delusional.
A lot of conservatives and right-wingers take the approach that there exists only some sort of absolute measure of poverty - the boss's perspective - and utterly reject the very important relative aspects of social inequality. Some people have 2 cars, a house, RRSPs, a guaranteed indexed pension and regular trips to the Carribean and others cut back on meals to pay the rent. It's a social time bomb.
Yet these are the same people who say that the "pie" cannot get bigger by "magic" and denounce as "selfish" any and all efforts to lessen the differences in income, etc. in the population. That's when we usually hear about rising tides. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
So, sure, in Calgary, for instance, you can make $15 an hour working at Burger King. But try to find a place to live that doesn't require that you make at least $25 to afford.
That's the thing about this variation on Reaganomics (good call, Fidel, you're exactly right). The people who spout it don't realize that the problem is disparity in numbers, not real numbers.
Damn, that's amazing, I'll take your word for it. So let's say you work 45 hours a week, but we pretend there are only 4 weeks in a month. That's a salary of 2700 a month, subtract taxes and let's say 2000 a month.
Looking at craigslist calgary, I estimate 1200 for an apartment, or 600$ for a room. Yikes!
So, it definitely lifts the tides of the people who already live there. The typical fast food worker is a kid living with his parents, so it's not an issue. If you're moving to Alberta to work at Burger King, then it's an issue. But even after renting a room, you'd still be better off.
I still remember how brutal it was to try and make some money as a student without skills in Montreal. I was desperate for cash and wanted to work 60-70 hours a week... I could hardly even find 30 hours a week, and it would be minimum wage with a lot of the rest of the labour code contravened.
You can have economic growth faster than inflation, we've been doing it for most of a century.
Yeah. Some businesses such as fast foods and other convenience based industries where workers are not supported by gratuities are hugely profitable and will simply pass the cost on to the consumer.
I doubt the consumer will fade away and leave these multinational fast food corporations in dire straights because their cafe grande frapperino or faux healthy greaseburger costs $4.75 rather than $4.50.
Most of these jobs are secondary jobs where the worker contributes to family income and shared expenses or lives with parents or shares accomodation with others.
While I agree that minimum wages must rise,it is also incumbent upon government to alter the tax structure to benefit those who survive on minimum wage without benefit of a family support structure.A guaranteed income that is determined by family income.
Contrary to the scaremongering of the chamber of commerce and the hospitality industry,raising the minimum wage results in increased direct spending by recipients.
False. Right now, the provincial government is trying to get people with disabilities through the back door to do all the low-paying, no-advancement type of work ... regardless of their education, skills or aspirations, or even ability to work.
It is fine to discuss the need for an increase in the minimum wage, but the whole labour market needs a good review. There are too many "bad jobs" out there, and not enough people to fill them that can afford to work for such low wages. Because of this gap, people with disabilities are feeling pressured to take jobs, any job, even if they can't work ... because disability incomes have increased only 5% in the past fifteen years, while the cost of living has gone up about 30 - 35%.
So if the bulk of new jobs created are burger-flipping or serving people at Walmart, then why should they be paid less than what people used to earn bolting cars or fridges and stoves together at an assembly plant ?. Unless prices for basic necessities like housing and food come down and in-line with today's McWages, then why should workers expect less compensation for donating 40 hours of their lives per week to McCapitalism ?. Local economies aren't going to be very prosperous if everyone has less and less money to spend on local McServices.
Rather than less money one should think of it as less buying power. If both the amount of wages and costs go up no ground is gained.
What people on the bottom require is more buying power in relation to those on top which means that rather than just inflating everything we need to close the gap between top and bottom.
Raising low wages would be most effective if at the same time prices were frozen.
One problem with raising some wages and freezing prices is that small operators get squeezed out when their costs exceed their income.
The trick is to take money from the top of the pile and put it in at the bottom. This can be done by increasing taxes on profits and higher incomes and using the revenue to provide more services to everyone, and by subsidizing wages at the small business level.
The fact that some people working full time do not make enough to survive on is directly linked to the fact that other are making too much.
I keep hoping that this thread will die, but it won't.
The vast majority of those who are in poverty will not be helped by an increase in the minimum wage. A slightly-less-vast majority of those who will be helped by a minimum wage increase are not in poverty.
I've spent quite a bit of time researching this issue, and no-one has come up with any evidence to suggest that increasing the minimum wage will have anything more than a symbolic effect on poverty:
When the minimum wage bites
When oh when will progressives stop believing that meaningless symbols are worth wasting time and energy on?
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]