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"
...excessive profits...
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.
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.
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.
Do you mind explaining why you think this?
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"
Do you mind explaining why you think this?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?
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"
If you had a heart attack on a place, who would you rather be riding with a doctor or a janitor?Uh, and your point would be what?___________________________________________________________ "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 :-)
That there is a definite difference in value between some professions.
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"
That there is a definite difference in value between some professions.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[IMG]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.
Ya, who do we want disinfecting hospitals and public places against dangerous uberbugs and bacteria?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 become the first city in Canada to pass a "living wage" bylaw, effectively raising the minimum wage paid by the municipality."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.
‘Living wage’ mandate in D.C. sends Walmart running
Walmart said Wednesday it would abandon three planned stores in Washington, D.C. and consider stopping the construction of three others over a so-called “living wage” bill.
“Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction,” Walmart spokesman Steven Restivo said in a statement. “This was a difficult decision for us — and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents — but the Council has forced our hand.”
The Large Retailer Accountability Act was passed in the D.C. Council by a 8-5 vote on Wednesday. If signed by Mayor Vince Gray, it would require retailers that make more than $1 billion per year and occupy at least 75,000 square feet to pay employees at least $12.50 per hour, minus benefits. Stores with collective bargaining agreements would not be effected by the law.
The Council was apparently unmoved by Walmart’s threats to pull out of the city.
Double win!
As a DC resident, this is not "unfortunate news" that they are not going to build a million more walmarts.
This Act is great, but also hilarious in that bad way where the words "if you make over 1 billion a year" and "you need to pay your worker $12.50/hour" is sad that is has to be said.
Should those corporate heads read this: Should there be a Maximum Wage?
McDonald's Can't Figure Out How Its Workers Survive On Minimum Wage
In what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill gone haywire, McDonald's recently teamed up with Visa to create a financial planning site for its low-pay workforce. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the thing seems to have been literally incapable of imagining of how a fast food employee could survive on a minimum wage income.
As ThinkProgress and other outlets have reported, the site includes a sample budget that, among other laughable assumptions, presumes that workers will have a second job.
I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if this has been addressed already but it seems to me that it's pretty hard to calculate what a living wage is if you don't know what rent is in any given city. I think minimum wage should be tied to rent costs.
Living wage is always calculated wrt rent (and food prices, and transport, and other amenities) and varies from city to city accordingly.
I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if this has been addressed already but it seems to me that it's pretty hard to calculate what a living wage is if you don't know what rent is in any given city. I think minimum wage should be tied to rent costs.
I was thinking about something that economist Richard Wolff said. He contends that maintaining the capitalist system, with some "tinkering," does not work and that we have to make the economy more democratic. I think minimum wage and rent controls tie into this. As the minimum wage rises, so does inflation, and companies raise their prices to maintain the same profit margins as before. As for rent controls, in Manitoba landlords make it around them by claiming they need to do renovations. Not to mention how the real estate industry has driven the price of shelter much higher than what it should be considering what people actually make. Let's also remember that some provinces like Ontario are so big with major variations in the cost of living between different sizes of communities, for example between Toronto or Kenora. So in this question, how do we create an economy with democratic control over such things as our wages and providing shelter?
Thanks for the info.
I don't know if folks have seen this:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/livingwage2013
It's the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives living wage initiative. (Actually, they are one part of the Living Wage Campaign.) When this year's numbers were released, Vancity increased their base rate to match it ($19.62), across the province. On the CCPA site, you can calculate for your specifics.
