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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
And you will no doubt have noticed that the link makes many, many references to other sources. I'm not promoting my ideas; I'm summarising the work of experts in the field.
This last point appears to suggest that progressives seeking minimum wage raises are focused on this "symbol" alone in alleviating poverty. And I don't believe that's true. For example, the Washington-based EPI says that regular minimum wage as well as the earned income tax credit are parts of the overall effort to fight poverty.
Next to the U.S., Italy and Mexico, Canada has one of the lowest minimum wage rates among richest nations. And these same countries rank similarly when it comes to child poverty, a national disgrace for such a rich country relying increasingly on exporting raw materials and energy to prop up "the GDP", another meaningless symbol.
And it's now the State of Maryland that has the highest minimum wage in North America. The First Right to a Living Wage State
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Edited to cut out unnecessary personal crap of my own.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Wage hikes don't Have to lead to inflation, Jerry, we don't have to shop at stores that jack up prices nor do we have to allow companies to lay off workers everytime they demand decent wages, nor do wage increases in one particular sector have to affect prices everywhere. Not like the thousand percent hikes given by CEOs to themselves as a reward for all their brave downsizing. The profit margins are still there, if we don't keep looking for more-infinitum first.
Governments can even step in and impose price but not wage controls, reverse of what Bill Bennett got away with twenty something years ago. Or worker owned cooperatives could be encouraged in vital insdustries. Foreign investment can be damned if they'll only invest in low wage low tax ghettos. We don't have to buy Their crap either. We have enough in our own backyard already. Wouldn't be easy or risk free, but could be done if the knowledge and will was there.
It is an interesting admission though about the lack of competition out there --at least among our conservative members here- that some companies just wouldn't undercut others that way for more business, not anymore, despite all the "free market" nostrums our society has by and large swallowed. What's good for them is good for Everyone they say, but somehow, what's good for us Isn't. Sorry but some things are exactly how they seem, of that I have no doubt anymore.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Gee, that's funny. Every time you trot out this canard, I remind you, patiently, that the movement for raising the minimum wage is not about ending poverty (it won't and can't), but about limiting exploitation of labour - the same as the movement for reduced work time, the right to refuse unsafe work, etc.
Poverty can only be ended by ending exploitation and wage labour altogether, and in the meantime it can be mitigated by the ever-expanding provision of needed commodities and services free of charge on the basis of social decision and requirement (housing, education, health care, child care, ultimately food and clothing...).
Your straw man must be feeling awfully threadbare by now.
Not at all. Social production should expand to meet the needs of all. The gap as such has nothing to do with it. We're not fighting over some fixed pie. The problem is who controls the means of production, and therefore the distribution of the fruits of production.
Could you explain this to those who try to sell the minimum wage as an anti-poverty measure?
You know what Stephen? I'd like that. One thing I was wrong about was unfairly saying you were conservative about everything which isn't true, you have supported property taxes over working taxes, criticised overly high CEO "compensation" and agreed with some progressive environmental iniatives. Just for the record. I actually think there's more things we could agree on if we could discuss these things more thoroughly sometime. That would be nice too. Ciao.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
And just to clarify things for everyone, I am in favour of policies that reduce poverty and inequality. When I disagree with the general babble consensus, it's not because I disagree with the policy goal. It's that I don't see how it can be achieved with the policies being proposed.
Sure, but maybe I'll just refer them to some of my posts on this and related subjects, rather than repeat myself:
On the wrong way to fight poverty
Entrenching poverty by replacing social programs with a GLI, similar to Harper's phoney baby bonus
More of the same
More on how GLI or GAI can't solve poverty
jrootham and unionist list some basic goals of raising the minimum wage: Avoid starvation, limit exploitation, limit competition among workers ("race to the bottom")
Aim of minimum wage movement:
Again:
Further down:
Stephen and unionist again:
Further down:
And so on, endlessly.
1. Once banks are nationalized, service charges can be completely elimnated.
2. Once air travel is nationlized, prices can be dramatically reduced.
3. Once elctricity, phone, internet, and cable tv are nationalized, prices can be reduced. Once cell phone service is nationalized, the cost of cell phone service can be reduced to the same price as land lines.
4. Once BC ferries is brought back within the full control of the BC government, fares can be reduced.
5. Public transit fares can be reduced.
6. The government can build large numbers of social housing units with affordable rents.
7. Tuition can be reduced, and eventually eiminated. In the meantime, student aid can be increased, and can be fully converted to grants.
8. Medicare can be expanded to cover all medical services, so that nobody has to pay any medical costs out of pocket, ever.
At the same time, corporations should cease to exist as legal entities, the stock market abolished. Then there should be limits set on the maximum wage that any employee may earn, and the maximum profit that any company may accrue. Eventually, these privately owned companies can be nationalized as well, so that everything is publicly owned.
Of course, this requires electing governments that will implement this economic strategy, and the far more progressive taxation system necessary to implement it. None of the currently electable political parties, not even the NDP, are up to this task. We also can't expect this economic plan to function if implemented under the current departmental structure in ottawa, or the current ministerial structure in the provinces. The nationalized economy must be democratic, or it will be bureaucratized as it was in the Soviet Union; where choice was restricted, and where equality was not given much, if any, consideration.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Yes we are, and our solutions should start with that premise. A present population the planet has about 2ha of productive land to support each person. When one uses more than that someone else gets less. Canadians use over 7ha on average, Americans over 9ha.
Efficiencies may reduce the amount of land required, but the pie still remains fixed and if population grows faster than efficiencies can keep up the average living standard goes down.
Conversely as the population goes down the amount of available resources per person goes up. Barring intervention from outer-space the amount of resources on this planet are a fixed pie.
Minimum wage increases to be most effective must come from reducing profits and higher wages, not through increasing overall costs. If we just give some more without giving some less we are basically treading water.
We can come up with all sorts of methods of achieving this, but the fundamental fact remains, the answer to poverty is through reducing the concentration of wealth and redistributing it more equitably throughout society.
Air travel is a luxury now subsidized by the environment. Why would we want to encourage more of it? Unless, of course, we may be talking about dirigibles?
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
One of my points exactly. I would include excess wages and salaries along with excess profits.
But no matter how you look at it, we are still dividing a fixed pie, not baking a bigger one. Applying more efficiencies and a better division of resources does not increase the pie size, it only makes its exploitation more effective.