Gap between the Rich and the Rest
Thu, 2007-05-10 11:39
#1
Gap between the Rich and the Rest
Thu, 2007-05-10 11:39
#2
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?sh_itm=53058f7c745ff95e983ccc3b334f8... West[/url]
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 ]
Thu, 2007-05-10 13:30
#3
quote:
Even if the minimum wage is increased....
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]
Thu, 2007-05-10 19:04
#4
Anything outside a big box franchise operation could be considered small business by comparison. Worst thing is the non-union nature of many of these occupations, which both large and small businesses take advantage of. There are many things that can be done to improve the lot of the average low income earner in addition to a wage hike. The holiday pay scheme for example, coupled with the part time nature of many occupations deprives workers of paid time off and other benefits that collective labour has rightfully earned. The worst abusers of the low wage workers seem to be the employment agencies, which many corporations exclusively use to fill their workforce requirements. The agencies then skim profits from the hourly wage of the worker. The corporations using this type of worker are completely absolved of any responsibility to the employees, while the agencies consider it contract work, extending for the most part no benefits other than the skimmed salary. It's disturbing to realize that the established unions have grown too comfortable with what they have gained for themselves to bother with taking up the plight of large segments of the less advantaged workforce. It falls to government then as the only viable mechanism to address these issues in a comprehensive manner. We see in Alberta where the profits from big oil are so large that wages are generally higher, however we also see the domino effect throughout the local economy, especially in affordable housing and the higher all around cost of living when compared to a region with typically lower wages. This of course worsens even more the situation of people still working in the traditionally low income service sectors, especially in urban areas where more and more people are calling the street their residence. Capitalism is a giant self licking lolypop that doesn't share.
Wed, 2007-05-16 11:18
#5
I think it's part of an overall concerted effort on several fronts to maintain a lower class in Canada. If low wages are the rule for a quarter of the working population, it makes it that much more difficult to not only pay down enormous student debt burdens, low wage economy combined with outrageous post-secondary costs reduces class mobility. [url=http://www.straight.com/article-87401/dragged-down-by-debt][b]Like Davin Fox[/b][/url] of British Columbua. Before it used to be that students from lower income families were simply kicked in the ass with debt for pursuing higher education in Canada. Aspiring students like Davin Fox are not only saddled with impossible debt burdens, they have nothing to show for their efforts. Economists understand that if you raise the price or tax on something, the result is less purchasing of an item or less of a certain activity within the economy. And I think it's being done to protect students from upper middle and upper class families from having to compete with everyone else for the best jobs in this country. U.S. economist [url=http://conservativenannystate.org][b]Dean Baker[/b][/url] explains this same political agenda happening in the U.S. today.
Wed, 2007-05-16 11:34
#6
N.Beltov
quote:
Slumberjack: 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.
I agree. Of course, [b]actually paying the minimum wage should be a given,[/b] eh? Problem is, [b]even the Manitoba NDP Provincial Government is [i]paying less than minimum wage to its own "temporary" workers.[/i][/b] 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?
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitobavotes2007/story/2007/05/11/mbv-election... workers earning less than minimum wage. [/url]
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 ]
Wed, 2007-05-16 11:56
#7
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I agree. Problem is, even the Manitoba NDP Provincial Government is [i]paying less than minimum wage to its own workers.[/i] [/b]
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.
Wed, 2007-05-16 12:07
#8
N.Beltov
It's important to remember that "good" laws are worthless if they aren't enforced or only selectively enforced. A legal requirement to pay all workers more than the poverty level, as Slumberjack has suggested, doesn't mean much - [i]even if implemented[/i] - when the current laws aren't even enforced by a prairie social democratic regime, e.g.. The Alberta Conservative regime has recently made the news by a story about how they will import specific workers from outside Canada - workers who have less rights than "normal" Canadians - whose conditions will undoubtedly be much worse than that of other workers.
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 ]
Wed, 2007-05-16 12:25
#9
This is the state of democracy in Canada. Manitoban's can protest the NDP's diminished influence over small and increasingly privatized provincial economies by voting against or abstaining, but we know that would produce an unintended result. It wasn't the NDP who sold off the most profitable provincial utility to friends of the conservative party. And it won't be the NDP who hands off Manitoba Hydro to wealthy friends of the conservative party. Voters have to realize that switching governments like that is to push in an opposite political and ideological direction altogether. If voters in Manitoba truly desire neo-Liberal capitalist results, then why do they vote NDP so often?. Democracy doesn't work in this respect.
Wed, 2007-05-16 12:37
#10
N.Beltov
I don't get it Fidel. Are you saying that all criticism of the NDP, whether from the left or the right, benefits the Conservatives and therefore should be rejected?
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 ]
Wed, 2007-05-16 13:02
#11
quote:
It's important to remember that "good" laws are worthless if they aren't enforced or only selectively enforced.
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?
Wed, 2007-05-16 13:20
#12
N.Beltov
quote:
jeff house: 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.
Wed, 2007-05-16 13:42
#13
Minimum wage laws by themselves won't fix our problem as long as prices and higher incomes also raise along with the minimum wage. In fact if the raises are a percentage of income rather than a flat rate it only makes the situation worse.
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.
Wed, 2007-05-16 13:42
#14
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I don't get it Fidel. Are you saying that all criticism of the NDP, whether from the left or the right, benefits the Conservatives and therefore should be rejected?[/b]
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 ]
Wed, 2007-05-16 17:45
#15
A higher mandated minimum wage will no doubt drive up the cost of living across the board. The market will swiftly react with inflationary pressure to regain the balance in its favour. A host of other problems will arise as well, including more offshore manufacturing, a rise in the unemployment level, which would in turn create the conditions for higher personal taxation as government takes its place in the chain reaction. There is no long term solution in a capitalist market economy which would ensure fairness to the low income worker. However, the cards have been stacked too heavily in favour of the corporations and this can only be addressed at the federal level by a government that is willing to act. In Canada's case, nationalization of all natural resources would be an essential step. Instead of a mandated minimum wage which corporations have to pay out, the massive profits from natural resources can be used for the benefit of the population through a guaranteed income adjustment designed to supplement the low wage earner above the poverty index and bring them away from the food bank lines, or in many cases, the shelters or sidewalks. Other things such as wider access subsidized housing, drug benefits, etc should also form part of the package. A nation which uses the power of its natural resources in this manner, instead of virtually giving it away in return for a miniscule percentage which is the case now, could go a long way to addressing poverty. Ultimately, this would not contain inflation through supply and demand pressure. Unbridled capitalism will continue to be the fly in the ointment. Maybe capping profit margins to a respectable level, instead of the obscene levels they are now at, with any excess above the cap flowing into government treasuries to offset the financial pressures on the low wage citizens would help. This would of course have to be in conjunction with some measure of tax breaks for corporations to maintain the juggling act to a level that provides for some growth. I'm not sure there's a jurisdiction on the planet that's been able to manage something along those lines effectively.
Thu, 2007-05-17 01:44
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]A higher mandated minimum wage will no doubt drive up the cost of living across the board. The market will swiftly react with inflationary pressure to regain the balance in its favour. A host of other problems will arise as well, including more offshore manufacturing, a rise in the unemployment level, which would in turn create the conditions for higher personal taxation as government takes its place in the chain reaction. [/b]
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 ]
Thu, 2007-05-17 04:19
#17
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
A higher mandated minimum wage will no doubt drive up the cost of living across the board.
No doubt?
I have no problem whatsoever with doubting such assumptions.
Thu, 2007-05-17 05:48
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]No doubt?I have no problem whatsoever with doubting such assumptions.[/b]
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.
Thu, 2007-05-17 07:30
#19
N.Beltov
I like Jerry West's evisceration of that right-wing platitude about "rising" tides.
quote:
West: Regressive economists who make a living apologizing for the rich will tell you that making people wealthy is good because a rising tide raises all boats. They obviously do not understand the tides or they wouldn't push that metaphor. Tides, as we know, rise in one place as they drop in another. Some boats go up while others go down.
Thu, 2007-05-17 11:54
#20
Sounds like "rising tides" is just another variation on Reagan's trickle down mythos ?. Raygunomics still sux
Thu, 2007-05-17 12:06
#21
N.Beltov
The "rising tides" metaphor is habitually used as a way to silence and mock those who want to reduce the obscene differences in wealth in society.
A lot of conservatives and right-wingers take the approach that there exists [b]only[/b] some sort of [i]absolute measure[/i] of poverty - the boss's perspective - and utterly reject the very important [b]relative[/b] 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]
Fri, 2007-05-18 02:38
#22
Besides, those who advocate the "rising tides" theory are too stupid to understand that the rising tides also take inflation with it.
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 $25 to afford.
That's the thing about this variation on Reaganomics (good call, Fidel, you're exactly right). The people who spout it don't realize that the problem is disparity in numbers, not real numbers.
Fri, 2007-05-18 06:19
#23
15 dollars an hour to work at Burger King?
Damn, that's amazing, I'll take your word for it. So let's say you work 45 hours a week, but we pretend there are only 4 weeks in a month. That's a salary of 2700 a month, subtract taxes and let's say 2000 a month.
Looking at craigslist calgary, I estimate 1200 for an apartment, or 600$ 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.
Fri, 2007-05-18 07:50
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]No doubt?I have no problem whatsoever with doubting such assumptions.[/b]
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.
Fri, 2007-05-18 08:07
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Besides, those who advocate the "rising tides" theory are too stupid to understand that the rising tides also take inflation with it.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.[/b]
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.
Fri, 2007-05-18 14:07
#26
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]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..[/b]
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%.
Sat, 2007-05-19 01:30
#27
I think that the west has been shedding good paying manufacturing jobs for a long time, and most of the growth has been in service sector. And let's face it, the writing is on the wall for widget-based capitalism based on energy-intensive processes and oil byproducts.
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 09:46
#28
quote:
Fidel:
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 10:21
#29
Yes, good points, Jerry. Our neo-Liberal neo-Cons voluntarily gave up the power to control wages and prices and requiring banks to have reserves of cash for an all-in-one anti-inflation tool: jigging interest rates alone. Some smart guy, an economist no less, once said that a dynamic economy requires various tools to deal with what is a multi-level problem. But raising and lowering interest rates alone allows them to punish the entire economy all at once instead of the actual source of inflation. I think it was accidentally on purpose. Some of the comments I've read compare the interest rate alone solution with using a sledge hammer to set a finishing nail.
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:06
#30
*sigh*
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:
[url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/11/when_the... the minimum wage bites[/url]
When oh when will progressives stop believing that meaningless symbols are worth wasting time and energy on?
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:13
#31
Three things. Repeating yourself has nomore impact than anyone else doing so. Linking to your own website is not generally considered as solid proof or unbiased sourcing. Linking to your website every chance you get, however, could be seen as shameless self promotion by others here.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:29
#32
I'm not going to apologise for linking to my summary of the literature; one of the reasons I started the blog was so that I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself on issues like this that come up again and again.
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:51
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b][url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/11/when_the... the minimum wage bites[/url][/b]
quote:
So what have we learned from all this?- No-one has been able to find any evidence to suggest that increasing the minimum wage has a measurable effect on reducing poverty.
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.
quote:
Peggy Nash, the NDP MP for Parkdale-High Park, hastens to say her private member's bill to raise the minimum wage to $10 for workers in banking, transportation, telecommunications and other sectors covered by federal labour law is no panacea.[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/170794][b][i]"It's just a start,[/i][/b][/url]
a renewed effort to get people talking about why a G-8 nation tolerates so much poverty and suffering," Nash says. "And with luck, it will encourage provincial governments to raise their minimum-wage levels."Minimum wages affect relatively few people directly, but tend to lift incomes for tens of millions of people earning above the minimum wage since general wage levels move in tandem with them. "When you raise the minimum," says Nash, "you lift everyone, directly or indirectly," outside the Far North, at $8 an hour.
But the highest minimum wage in North America is Washington State's $9.33 (Canadian). In Israel, the minimum wage is $5.55 (Canadian).
And it's now the State of Maryland that has the highest minimum wage in North America. [url=http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/apr/13/beyond_minimum_wage_... First Right to a Living Wage State[/b][/url]
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:16
#34
Good luck in the future convincing real workers that inflation and investment are Their problem, not their now vastly overpaid bosses or the jobs lost to countries with wages so low we couldn't Possibly "compete" without causing a total collapse in our own pricing structure. Who'd buy all the crap then, who'd pay all the rent? Questions like that are strangley never asked by "the experts" anymore. Marxes' prediction was right, except that the hoped for solidarity among urbanized workers has been diffused again by all the "outsourcing" guys like you cheered on. Good move.
Edited to cut out unnecessary personal crap of my own.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:26
#35
JW: "If both the amount of wages and costs go up no ground is gained."
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 ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:29
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]
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:[/b]
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:31
#37
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
[b]
What people on the bottom require is more buying power in relation to those on top ...[/b]
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:36
#38
Take of yourself, Erik. This is one of those issues that comes up fairly often; we can get back to it later.
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:40
#39
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
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.
Could you explain this to those who try to sell the minimum wage as an anti-poverty measure?
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:43
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Take of yourself, Erik. This is one of those issues that comes up fairly often; we can get back to it later.[/b]
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 ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 18:03
#41
А la prochaine.
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.
Sat, 2007-05-19 20:47
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Could you explain this to those who try to sell the minimum wage as an anti-poverty measure?[/b]
Sure, but maybe I'll just refer them to some of my posts on this and related subjects, rather than repeat myself:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001502&p... the wrong way to fight poverty[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001502&p... poverty by replacing social programs with a GLI, similar to Harper's phoney baby bonus[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001506&p... of the same[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001506&p... on how GLI or GAI can't solve poverty[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001506&p... and unionist list some basic goals of raising the minimum wage: Avoid starvation, limit exploitation, limit competition among workers ("race to the bottom")[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001581&p... of minimum wage movement:[/url]
quote:
The movement to raise the minimum wage has nothing to do with poverty. It is aimed at raising the floor on exploitation of workers by employers, and reducing the detrimental effects of competition among workers for available jobs.Poverty is not primarily an issue of employment, and it cannot be addressed in any significant way by increasing the minimum wage. The appropriate means of addressing it include (but are not limited to) full employment policies aimed at those who can work, generous social assistance of various types for those who cannot, child care, health care, pharmacare, low-cost housing, and providing as many essential goods and services as possible free of charge.
Whenever poverty is mentioned as one of the reasons to hike the minimum wage, someone will pipe up and refute that argument. Better to just drop it. Why not confine them to the old bogeyperson that "higher wages kill jobs". It looks better on them!
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001582&p...
quote:
Minimum wage legislation is not about providing minimum needs to household units. It's about putting a lower limit on how far employers can exploit labour. Providing for people's needs requires a whole lot more than wages in a progressive society. It requires public delivery at no (or nominal) charge of all kinds of necessary goods and services, such as education, health care, child care, and housing, plus readily available job and skills training, plus full employment policies, as well as generous programs for those who are unable to work or who have finished working. Please don't mix up minimum wage legislation with solving the poverty problem. There is absolutely no connection.
Further down:
quote:
quote [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] riginally posted by Southlander:
[b]What about a graduated pay scale where people over a certain age earn $10? Then the 2/3 living with parent/s arn't forced out of a job.[/b]Uhh no. Wouldn't employers just love to pay some workers less because they're younger, or because they're not the only wage-earner in their family. Dangerous thoughts like these come from the theory that minimum wage legislation is about averting poverty. It's not. If a billionaire's daughter gets a job at McDonald's, she should get her $10.00 just all the older and more "needy" types.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=001596#0... and unionist again:[/url]
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b] It astonishes me that anyone who claims to be progressive would want to sell the minimum wage as 'the' issue. As anti-poverty measures go, increasing the minimum wage is pretty much useless: most people who earn minumum wage are not in poverty, and most people who are in poverty don't earn minimum wage.[/b]Stephen is correct (we seem to have this running dialogue every time). Those who promote minimum wage legislation as an "anti-poverty" measure are on the wrong track. Minimum wage legislation is a protective measures - like maximum hours, minimum vacations, right to refuse unsafe work, notice of technological change - aimed at reducing the exploitation of workers, whether the worker happens to come from a wealthy household or an impoverished one. It's also designed to tell employers what standards of abuse our society will not permit them to descend beneath.
I'd be more sanguine in supporting Stephen's argument's about minimum wage not being a solution to poverty, if he were a little more enthusiastic about supporting increasing the minimum wage for all the right reasons. Sadly, he still buys into the "job-killer" neurosis, albeit in a more sophisticated fashion. So, while we are both right, we must agree to differ!!!
Further down:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b] An earned income tax credit would be much more effective in reducing poverty.[/b]An increase in the minimum wage would be paid for by employers.
An earned income tax credit would be paid for by everyone.
Why should everyone have to pay for employers to be required to pay a decent minimum fair wage according to non-Third World standards to Canadian workers?!
The employers want to hire labour, they should pay for it - and not below $10.00/hour.
And so on, endlessly.
Sat, 2007-05-19 21:00
#43
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
If we suppose that this ratio held in 2005, then we can use the fact that 4.3% of workers earned minimum wage and that the employment rate was 62.7% to find that the proportion of people in the bottom two deciles who are minimum wage workers is about 4%. The vast majority of those in poverty would not benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
But Stephen, there are people not earning minimum wage ($7.25) who are not earning $10.00 an hour. Anyone earning from $7.26 to 9.99 an hour will also benefit, but remains unaccounted for in your figures.
Sat, 2007-05-19 23:09
#44
Left Turn
To really solve the growing wage gap between the rich and the poor, we need to overhaul our economy. We need to pull out of NAFTA, and then we need to gradually nationalize our economy. Once sectors of the economy are nationalized, the government can provide all workers in those sectors with wages that put them above the poverty line. Other measures can be taken in nationalized sectors of the economy to stretch incomes further.
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 ]
Sun, 2007-05-20 09:57
#45
quote:
Unionist:
We're not fighting over some fixed pie.
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.
quote:
Left Turn:
2. Once air travel is nationlized, prices can be dramatically reduced.
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?
Sun, 2007-05-20 16:10
#46
It depends on what you mean by "fixed pie". Wages are arbitrary and there are economies that can be applied. What has to be looked at more closely is how excess profits can be redirected back to where they rightfully belong and are needed, how the leverage gained by globalized capital can be countered effectively, and how any savings or gains made by the average consumer/producer can be redirected to more useful, less wasteful economic activity. Just cutting back isn't good enough by itself if factories end up idling and stores end up empty, noone will accept that either. Those are all tough questions that need more objective research by everyone concerned. There has to be better ways that haven't been tried yet.
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sun, 2007-05-20 18:06
#47
quote:
EriKtheHalfaRed:
What has to be looked at more closely is how excess profits can be redirected back to where they rightfully belong and are needed....
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.
Sun, 2007-05-20 18:37
#48
Well that's also one of My points exactly, Jerry, so who's arguing with who here? Or is it whom? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]