babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Raise the minimum wage, then index it to inflation

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Raise the minimum wage, then index it to inflation
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2007 07:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First of all, the minimum wage should be $10. No doubt about that.

But after it's raised to the current liveable level right now, not today's liveable level three years from now, they need to index it to inflation.

We should index the minimum wage

quote:
An estimated 22 per cent of Canada's work force belong to the "working poor." If they were all in one place, they would populate a city the size of Toronto. So they're an impressive segment of the economy, both as workers and consumers. And it could make us ask: In a country where so many CEOs and professional athletes make more in a year than most of us do in a lifetime, why are both federal and provincial leaders politically paralyzed when it comes to liberating the working poor?

The reasons they give are as out of date now as they were when they were used to oppose the minimum wage act of 1937. One is the spectre of unemployment because raising the minimum, we're warned, will eliminate jobs. That might be enough to scare us all unless we ask what employers will do without all the people who do the drudgery work for them. Is the economy going to carry on if 22 per cent of the workers are just out on the street?

There's no real common sense in another form of the same argument. We're told that all the mom-and-pop enterprises will be hit if the minimum goes up and they have to lay off the people they can barely afford to pay now. But that leaves out the massive number working at the minimum rate for national chains and big companies like the one that hired me for 34 cents an hour when, at age 16, I was not protected by the minimum wage act. It also ignores how most employers will do now what they've been doing any time the minimum has been raised in the past 70 years. That is, add the increase into their prices.

Why not? Why should the rest of us make the working poor pay for our bargains? Let's face it. Those vacuous reasons are nothing more than rationalizations for continuing injustice in a human-rights society.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 24 August 2007 08:06 AM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We're told that all the mom-and-pop enterprises will be hit if the minimum goes up and they have to lay off the people they can barely afford to pay now.

Most people who work for "mom-and-pop" enterprises don't get any health care or pension etc. A raise in the minimum wage would go a long way for some people, especially for single mothers.


From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2007 08:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yep. And as they say, what will happen is what always happens when the minimum wage goes up: prices will go up a bit, that's all.

Personally, I don't mind paying a few cents or even a buck more for something if it means someone who is currently being paid starvation wages gets a raise.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, Michelle, still trying to destroy the Canadian economy. Ever heard of globalization? Don't we need looser rules to allow more temporary foreign workers to keep wages down? Shouldn't we instead ban unions and stop people from having such unrealistic expectations? Why help single mothers; there not my kids!

I'll be back - just need to check the "Sayings of Conrad Black" on the National Citizens Coalition website again....I'm sure there was also a Fraser Institute study on the issue....


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 08:45 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Michelle: And as they say, what will happen is what always happens when the minimum wage goes up: prices will go up a bit, that's all.

In a back issue of This Magazine Bruce Gillespie has a good piece dealing with this issue. Gillespie quotes U of M Prof. Norman Cameron in pointing out that the price increases are not necessarily across the board.

quote:
But Norman Cameron, an economics professor at the University of Manitoba, cautions against assuming those increases are across the board. “This only affects parts of the economy that employ minimum-wage workers, who are 10 percent of the labour force at most,” he says. “It’s not going to affect the health, education, manufacturing, transport or wholesale sectors.”

So, while the canny consumer will notice price jumps at service sector businesses—such as coffee shops, department stores and fast-food restaurants—those increases won’t have a dramatic effect on the cost of living as a whole. At most, it might translate into an increase of one-half of one per cent, Cameron says. And because increases to the minimum wage usually “trickle up” as employers try to keep their pay rates proportional, other low-income workers often aren’t burdened by an increased cost of living.


Furthermore, in very competitive sectors, higher costs are not automatically passed on:

quote:
It also isn’t a given that businesses will automatically push their higher labour costs on to consumers, especially in the highly competitive service sector, says Charles Beach, an economics professor at Queen’s University and editor of Canadian Public Policy. “It depends partly on the degree of competition,” he says. “If you’re close to going out of business, then you really can’t push your prices much higher.” As well, he says most businesses only pass on about two-thirds of their labour costs to consumers.

However, the big problem with current minimum wages levels is that the purchasing power has been eroded by inflation. For example,

quote:
The minimum wage was as high as $9.97 in 1976 (in 2007 dollars, based on the Toronto area consumer price index).

And I can vouch for that. I made less than $2000 over that summer and was able to pay for my college schooling, run my car, live off campus, pay for food, and so on. I made $3.68/hr (minimum wage) that summer.

The claim is also sometimes make that increasing the minimum wage is a job "killer". This is contradicted by the evidence, however.

quote:
Studies of actual experience with minimum wage changes find employment impacts are either nonexistent or negligible. Why?

˘ The impact of minimum wages is so small relative
to that of other changes in the economy that
no impact is evident comparing before-after
employment levels.

˘ Most minimum wage employment is in industries
that serve local markets. As a result, individual
employers will not be at a cost disadvantage
relative to competitors when minimum wages
increase.

˘ Studies designed to isolate the impact of minimum wage changes from other changes (state-tostate comparisons in the United States) find no difference in employment patterns between states in which minimum wages increased and states in which minimum wages did not increase.


CCPA: Minimum Wage Fact Sheet

This Magazine piece by Bruce Gillespie


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 24 August 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why not? Why should the rest of us make the working poor pay for our bargains? Let's face it. Those vacuous reasons are nothing more than rationalizations for continuing injustice in a human-rights society.

This is true. The BC Federation of Labour campaign calls for an increase to $10.00 now and then incremental raises to $11.00 and then index it.
http://www.bcfed.ca/issues/minimum_wage

quote:
Our Solution
To ensure that no worker in B.C. lives below the poverty line, the B.C. Federation of Labour is calling for a three-step increase in the minimum wage:

An immediate increase to $10 combined with the elimination of the $6 training wage;
A subsequent increase to $11 per hour one year later; and
An indexing formula, so that like our provincial politicians, those earning the minimum can be assured of an annual increase in pay.




It makes sense to me. Small 'mom & pop' operations are not a valid case. Most of those operations are run by the owners who have their children help when they are old enough. But the bottom line for me is that if you cannot afford to pay another person the minimum he/she needs to survive then you're not ready to expand and should stay working in the store yourself. I don't buy the argument that they can't afford it. Larger corporations and chains can easily afford a $10.00 minimum wage right now and several jurisdictions in the U.S. have proven already that it has little impact on local businesses. It also increases local spending since most of those workers live and buy locally. A fair minimum wage is good for the local economy.

From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 24 August 2007 09:36 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
An estimated 22 per cent of Canada's work force belong to the "working poor."

This may be true, but it may lead people to vastly overestimate the effectiveness of the minimum wage as an instrument for reducing poverty.

Increasing the minimum wage has no measurable effect on poverty

quote:
[E]ven if the effects on employment are small, that doesn't mean it'll do much to reduce poverty. It's instructive to play around with a few numbers here. In a study using Canadian data from 1993, Nicole Fortin and Thomas Lemieux find that 26.4% of minimum wage workers were from households in the bottom two income deciles (there's no official poverty line in Canada, so I'm using that). That's an over-representation, so an increase in the minimum wage that doesn't affect employment will have a progressive redistributional effect. That's a good thing, but the effect will be very small. 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.

Fortin and Lemieux did find a 'spillover' effect on people who are earning just over minimum wage, but it was about as significant as the employment losses. The two effects - spillover and employment loss - are small, and essentially cancel each other out.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 24 August 2007 09:46 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Fortin and Lemieux did find a 'spillover' effect on people who are earning just over minimum wage, but it was about as significant as the employment losses. The two effects - spillover and employment loss - are small, and essentially cancel each other out.


Would I then be logically justified in assuming that the net effect of raising minimum wages is to raise the incomes of those earning minimum wages by the amount of the increase?

So we are looking at a small positive benefit for society?

Given the relative ease of increasing the minimum wage (not that it's easy, but the alternatives are really hard) that sounds like a solid justification for doing it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 09:49 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Prof. Gordon is in the habit of regurgitating the argument re minimum wages and poverty so it's probably a good idea to regurgitate one of the better worded replies...

quote:
unionist: 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 working people. 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.

More social programs to transfer wealth from the rich to the less well off - that's what's needed to attack poverty. But we live in a society whose dominant ideology supports the opposite.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633

posted 24 August 2007 09:57 AM      Profile for Free_Radical     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a question about tying wages to inflation . . .

Since increasing wages are one of the factors that drive inflation, wouldn't this carry the danger (though I'd imagine it would be very slight) of a cycle of ever-increasing inflation?

Inflation increases, so wages go up,
Wages go up and inflation increases,
Inflation increases . . . &c.


From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 10:00 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beltov, in the larger scheme of things, you are of course correct. I don't see this as being about a menu of choices, though. Expanding social programmes and enhancing the "social wage" and increasing minimum wages are not mutually exclusive. Neither are nationalising key economic sectors and enhancing social programmes.

I would agree though that focusing on the minimum wage to the exclusion of the other work can be self-defeating.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 24 August 2007 10:17 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Free_Radical:
I have a question about tying wages to inflation . . .

Since increasing wages are one of the factors that drive inflation, wouldn't this carry the danger (though I'd imagine it would be very slight) of a cycle of ever-increasing inflation?

Inflation increases, so wages go up,
Wages go up and inflation increases,
Inflation increases . . . &c.


Well old age pensions are tied to inflation and the world hasn't come to an end.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 24 August 2007 10:31 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Would I then be logically justified in assuming that the net effect of raising minimum wages is to raise the incomes of those earning minimum wages by the amount of the increase?

So we are looking at a small positive benefit for society?

Given the relative ease of increasing the minimum wage (not that it's easy, but the alternatives are really hard) that sounds like a solid justification for doing it.


Add a couple of 'very's before small, and you pretty much have it. It's essentially meaningless.

And better alternatives are not hard: the US and Quebec already have an earned income tax credit. Why not focus energies on that instead?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 10:59 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The EITC is no more a single solution to poverty than increasing the minimum wage is. Stop trying to mislead people.

The spending patterns of poor people that have to wait for a tax credit at the end of the year (if they are literate and able to actually fill out a tax return) is very different from spending patterns based on getting the money in your hands with a regular pay check. This can have a great effect on the actual benefit of any tax credit.

quote:
The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) combined with the minimum wage helps to reduce poverty, but the EITC is not a replacement for a minimum wage increase. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a popular federal anti-poverty program and an important piece of the ongoing strategy to make work pay. One reason for the EITC's popularity is that it is based on family income and is therefore well-targeted to poor families. In addition, it encourages work because the wage subsidy increases with earnings until it reaches the maximum credit level. The EITC and minimum wage work in tandem to raise a family's income. The effectiveness of the EITC in raising the incomes of the working poor above the poverty line therefore depends, in part, on regular increases in the minimum wage. This is because the EITC and the poverty threshold both rise each year to reflect increases in the cost of living, but the federal minimum wage does not. The EITC alone is not enough to keep a family above the poverty line, and a minimum wage worker gets further away from the poverty line each year the minimum wage is not increased.

If the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 by 2009, these two policies would work in tandem to raise the income of a family with one full-time minimum wage worker above the 2007 poverty line of $17,170 for a family of three. A proposal that sets annual increases to the federal minimum wage to adjust for changes in the cost of living would ensure that the combination of full-time work and the EITC would always keep this family above the poverty line.


Minimum Wage FAQ

Tax Credits or Minimum Wages? We need Both.

There are, according to the author of the above article, two groups that support tax credits over an increase of the minimum wage.

quote:
Many business owners and their lobbyists prefer the EITC because they’d rather not have a higher minimum wage crimp their operating costs and profit margins. Their message to Congress: If you want to help low-wage workers, use the tax code and leave us out of it.

The other group is as follows:

quote:
Policy analysts like the tax credit’s more precise targeting of beneficiaries and lack of market interference. The EITC is based on family income, not wage levels, so low-wage workers in higher-income families don’t qualify for it. This is a legitimate preference, but it’s no reason to discount the importance of setting a national wage floor.

The minimum wage is more than an anti-poverty program. It’s Congress’ declaration that market forces won’t be allowed to drive wages down to a pittance, no matter what the low-wage earner’s income. To judge a minimum wage solely by how effectively it targets recipients is to overlook a key reason for the policy. And, for the record, most of the gains from the wage increase do, in fact, go to working families in the bottom 40 percent of the income scale.



From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 24 August 2007 01:49 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Policy analysts like the tax credit’s more precise targeting of beneficiaries and lack of market interference. The EITC is based on family income, not wage levels, so low-wage workers in higher-income families don’t qualify for it. This is a legitimate preference, but it’s no reason to discount the importance of setting a national wage floor.

I rather think it is. Something like 70% of the people who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are not in poverty, and something like 95% of those who are in poverty would not benefit.

quote:

The minimum wage is more than an anti-poverty program. It’s Congress’ declaration that market forces won’t be allowed to drive wages down to a pittance, no matter what the low-wage earner’s income.

So what? No-one is giving points for style here.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 24 August 2007 01:55 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Stephen, you may understand economics but you don't understand politics. Style points are what politicians live on.

Getting the minimum wage bumped helps implement other policies, small successes in politics assist in building the constituencies for larger wins.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 August 2007 01:56 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As far as I can tell, the only reason for anybody to support a minimum wage increase to specifically ten dollars is because we have ten fingers. I think that's a very poor way to manage economic policy. Instead, maybe we should do some investigations, and I don't think it'd be that hard, of what would be a fair number for a minimum wage worker at forty hours a week to live on. That would also include the possibility that minimum wage should vary in different jurisdictions, i.e. not necessarily the same in high-rent Montreal as in Sherbrooke, perhaps.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I certainly have better justification than "ten fingers? ten dollars!"


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 August 2007 02:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I rather think it is. Something like 70% of the people who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are not in poverty, and something like 95% of those who are in poverty would not benefit.

I read that: of the Canadians who do have a job, close to one in four earn less than $10 dollars an hour. So there are lots of poor people who could be helped out with a higher min wage and updated regularly as well as EITC's for "working poor" families with wage earners earning from minimum wage on upward to low income cutoffs .

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 24 August 2007 02:04 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Well, Stephen, you may understand economics but you don't understand politics. Style points are what politicians live on.

Only if they're lacking in integrity.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 24 August 2007 02:26 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
...the price increases are not necessarily across the board.

No, not necessarily, but I would imagine there is still a ripple effect. I make more than minimum wage because my work is worth more than the minimum, so if it went up then I would demand a raise too.

How will unions take it if their members don't get a raise at least equivalent to the raise in minimum wage?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 August 2007 02:53 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

No, not necessarily, but I would imagine there is still a ripple effect. I make more than minimum wage because my work is worth more than the minimum, so if it went up then I would demand a raise too.


Good luck on that if you're non-union.

quote:
How will unions take it if their members don't get a raise at least equivalent to the raise in minimum wage?

Collective bargaining come contract nenewal time.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 03:00 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...and someone thinks that raising the minimum in bargaining is a problem? Give me a break!

Everyone I deal with does valuable work. The further from the shop floor though, the less valuable. Is the wage pyramid up side down?


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 03:02 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should add, only the Christian Labour Association would agree to less then minimum wages. They would be very concerned with the employer's profit and lifestyle.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 03:02 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In regard to Gir's question - Speaking of ripple effects, an increased minimum wage will likely help to put pressure on increasing the wages of those who are paid just above the minimum wage.

As near as I can tell, none of the opponents of a minimum wage increase here have tried to argue against setting a livable floor for wages. They've simply ignored the point and argued, for example, that because increasing the minimum wage doesn't, by itself, end poverty, that's it's therefore a worthless exercise. This just seems dishonest to me. It's a curious sort of arguing that circumambulates around the wage floor argument like a cat walking around a pool of water.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 03:20 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beltov, can I add - what is wrong with workers starting negotiations from a point of a liveable wage?
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 03:26 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's nothing wrong with that. However, what's usually done in negotiations is that they start from the current wages and work either up (or down) from there. It's never a complete vacuum. Even the circumstances leading up to a first collective agreement includes a period during which wages are frozen, partly to prevent unscrupulous employers from using sudden wage changes to influence voting on union certification, etc..

A living wage ought to be indexed to inflation, however.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 24 August 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beltov, entirely true.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710

posted 24 August 2007 03:36 PM      Profile for bruce_the_vii     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I call myself a jobs activist and a main thrust of my concern is a better minimum wage.

In Toronto employers have to pay about $10 an hour to get staff that shows up everyday already. Below that and you get very high turn over. The coffee shops and that are almost exclusively immigrant women and they seem to be more stable.

In Calgary tightened labour market has lead to a $11 - $12 minimum wage. This would be possible in many Canadian cities with just-in-time immigration.

When there's job losses from an increase in minimum wage the customers move down the street and create other jobs. However a high minimum wage would slow economic growth, which is mostly in small businesses.

I've talked to 1000s of people and everyone is concerned about low wages. There's a broad feeling that the 1% or 2% inflation a better minimum wage would entail is fair.

I advocate a $12 minimum wage in cities. If mimimum wage was $12 at full employment the actual wage for a person that stayed with a company might go up to $13. A two worker couple that did some over time would earn $57k a year.

Economic growth is mostly in small businesses and they payless. Thus this preoccupation with growth by economists is actually backward. Actually a contracting population would get rid of small businesses and produce higher per capita income.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I keep hearing this bullshit about how minimum wage is okay as it is because many people who make minimum wage are students and dependent on families, etc. (Remember when the same argument used to be made for paying women like shit? In fact, I'm hearing some of that even now, that minimum wage jobs are often "a second income". We know what that's code for.)

It makes me bitter as shit, because I lived for four years on minimum wage. And I wasn't a high school teenybopper and I wasn't a "second wage" and I wasn't some kid. I was young, but I was trying to live on it, and it was fucking hard, pretty near impossible. I had to get roommates and move in with my boyfriend to make it work. And I busted my ass for 40-50 hours a week.

Don't bloody tell me that because some minimum wage jobs are held by people who "don't need to work" or are a "second income" or are "just teenagers looking for pin money" that this makes it okay to pay people who are doing a full day's work a non-liveable wage. EVERY FUCKING PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE ON THEIR WAGES. Every fucking person. No wife should have to be dependent on her husband financially if she's working full-time. No 18 year-old adult who is working full-time should have to depend on begging from family members in order to live - it's undignified, and unfair. No 14-17 year-old should be exploited by an employer who is paying them dick shit for their hard labour.

This argument that somehow people who live with their family or have other wage earners in their household don't deserve more than minimum wage really fucking pisses me off. The reason I had to go back and live with my parents a couple of times during my young slave wage years is because I was financially desperate. All it takes is one emergency and you're screwed. And not everyone has a hubby or mommy and daddy to take them in when that happens.

God this pisses me off. Such a goddamned specious argument.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 24 August 2007 03:50 PM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
EVERY FUCKING PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE ON THEIR WAGES.


YES!

I think in Australia they at take your age into consideration when deciding on your wage. I'm not sure on this but I recall a friend of mine having to work down there and she said she made a decent wage.


From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 August 2007 03:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
In Calgary tightened labour market has lead to a $11 - $12 minimum wage. This would be possible in many Canadian cities with just-in-time immigration

We've got 30 million people in the second largest country in the world with a gazillion more natural resources at our disposal than Libby's has beans. And between our two old line parties and our increasingly foreign-owned economy, there is labour market slack. Imagine we had half a billion or a billion people ?. Our stoogeocrats wouldn't how to deal with it. Canada is one of the few developed nations without a national housing strategy with one the lowest affordable housing stocks in the first world next to just the U.S. and New Zealand. And it's quite a bit warmer in NZ than here for camping outside in winter. It's a good thing we don't have China's or even Japan's population here. There'd be riots in the streets for a lack of basic infrastructure and means while our valuable energy, fossil fuels and oceans of timber flow south for good.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 24 August 2007 03:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I keep hearing this bullshit about how minimum wage is okay as it is because many people who make minimum wage are students and dependent on families, etc. (Remember when the same argument used to be made for paying women like shit? In fact, I'm hearing some of that even now, that minimum wage jobs are often "a second income". We know what that's code for.)

It makes me bitter as shit, because I lived for four years on minimum wage. And I wasn't a high school teenybopper and I wasn't a "second wage" and I wasn't some kid. I was young, but I was trying to live on it, and it was fucking hard, pretty near impossible. I had to get roommates and move in with my boyfriend to make it work. And I busted my ass for 40-50 hours a week.

Don't bloody tell me that because some minimum wage jobs are held by people who "don't need to work" or are a "second income" or are "just teenagers looking for pin money" that this makes it okay to pay people who are doing a full day's work a non-liveable wage. EVERY FUCKING PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE ON THEIR WAGES. Every fucking person. No wife should have to be dependent on her husband financially if she's working full-time. No 18 year-old adult who is working full-time should have to depend on begging from family members in order to live - it's undignified, and unfair. No 14-17 year-old should be exploited by an employer who is paying them dick shit for their hard labour.

This argument that somehow people who live with their family or have other wage earners in their household don't deserve more than minimum wage really fucking pisses me off. The reason I had to go back and live with my parents a couple of times during my young slave wage years is because I was financially desperate. All it takes is one emergency and you're screwed. And not everyone has a hubby or mommy and daddy to take them in when that happens.

God this pisses me off. Such a goddamned specious argument.


The point about the EITC is that it's aimed at those who need it. People who are in your former situation would be helped. So would people who earn a decent hourly wage, but aren't able to get enough hours to get by.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 August 2007 03:57 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You might want to have a look at the .pdf file from the CCPA that outlines an age group breakdown of those on minimum wage. This provides evidence to substantiate your own personal hardship and experience.

Minimum Wage Fact Sheet

quote:

45% of full-time wage earners aged 15–24 are low-paid.

Low-wage employment is prevalent among full-time
workers in other age groups as well:

˘ 16.3% in the 25–34
age group
˘ 13.1% in the 35–44
age group
˘ 12.0% in the 45–54
age group
˘ 14.4% in the 55–64
age group


Furthermore, this is not a temporary condition for many people.

quote:
47%
47% of workers who were lowpaid in 1996 were still lowpaid in 2001.

27% of men and 72% of women who were low-paid
in 1996 were still low-paid in 2001.


Anyway, have a look. You'll also see how the data substantiates the claim that women and visible minorities fare much worse than men, etc.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 August 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And it all boils down to owning one of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 24 August 2007 05:54 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Only if they're lacking in integrity.


Actually, no. Style points are how politicians get elected. Integrity (or at least its appearance*) gets you lots of style points.

*The least risky way of getting the appearance is to actually have it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 25 August 2007 08:02 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

It makes me bitter as shit, because I lived for four years on minimum wage. And I wasn't a high school teenybopper and I wasn't a "second wage" and I wasn't some kid. I was young, but I was trying to live on it, and it was fucking hard, pretty near impossible. I had to get roommates and move in with my boyfriend to make it work. And I busted my ass for 40-50 hours a week.


Seems to me that your work was worth more than what should be considered "minimum" no matter what number that happens to be and no matter than the costs of living are. How would you feel if you were there busting your ass but some idiot "teenybopper" who didn't do much work and showed up late every day got paid the same amount as you because everyone deserves to be able to make a decent living on their own wages?

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457

posted 25 August 2007 09:10 PM      Profile for CUPE_Reformer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by munroe
quote:

I should add, only the Christian Labour Association would agree to less then minimum wages. They would be very concerned with the employer's profit and lifestyle.



munroe:

"Exemptions should be minimized and more workers protected by the Employment Standards Act."

Ontario employment standards (Time for Change)

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]


From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 August 2007 01:03 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
How would you feel if you were there busting your ass but some idiot "teenybopper" who didn't do much work and showed up late every day got paid the same amount as you because everyone deserves to be able to make a decent living on their own wages?

I've never known anyone to get away with that kind of behaviour at work unless they're well connected in some way to the owners of the means.

And, has anyone ever noticed how busy those kids can be flipping burgers, cleaning restrooms, making change and generally doing it all with a broom sticking out of their arses for eight hours ?. I think a lot of those kids work way too hard for low wage McPhilanthropy. Those scabby outfits should be donating something to the cost of post-secondary ed now that it's a pay through the nose deal.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 August 2007 03:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's for sure. If they've hired an "idiot teenybopper" and they're letting them get away with doing nothing and showing up late for work every day, then you've got an idiot boss.

Certainly no place that I ever worked when I was an "idiot teenybopper" or an adult would ever have put up with that kind of slacking off. They'd have been fired.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710

posted 26 August 2007 04:41 AM      Profile for bruce_the_vii     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stephan Gordan seems to be concerned about minimum wage increases fixing poverty. I read one statistic, which I don't quite recall, on how income of single mothers improved with the economic recovery. The point being single mothers will go out and take an entry level job rather than being stuck in the mean circumstances of welfare. Single Moms are a pretty sad case but improvement at the bottom seems to help.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710

posted 26 August 2007 04:46 AM      Profile for bruce_the_vii     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see the arguement that 16 year olds on their first job couldn't be paid less. The point isn't that they aren't trying hard rather that they make mistakes, have attitudes and may not be socialized. A lower wage for them would give employers a reason to hire them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 August 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
I don't see the arguement that 16 year olds on their first job couldn't be paid less. The point isn't that they aren't trying hard rather that they make mistakes, have attitudes and may not be socialized.

But they are paid less. Nobody earns less than teenagers other than maybe the adults I see in the neighborhood delivering newspapers and advertisement flyers on foot.

The way I see it is this. If other rich countries can afford to pay higher lower-end wages than here and deliver on EITC for poor families and deliver on political promises to reduce child poverty and fund national daycare programs and have national affordable housing strategies, then what are the bozos in Ottawa doing to earn their pay besides nothing ?. I didn't vote for them, and neither did more than 76 percent of eligible Canadian voters in last year's election vote for Steve Harper or his illegitimate government.

As a socialist, I think we have to build a sense of inclusion which has been dismantled over the years by phony majority governments. We need to raise standards for all working Canadians through social pay in the form of: socialized health care, unemployment insurance benefits for the other 60-65 percent of unemployed who were made ineligible in the recent past by Liberal governments with Tory support, higher minimum wages, pensions, and higher welfare rates for Canada's most vulnerable citizens.

Global Economic Competitive Growth Index It's simple, we shift to the right politically and become even less competitive than we were.

[ 26 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca