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   » idea: minimum wage

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: idea: minimum wage
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about this:... rather than increase the minimum wage, obligate employers to contribute money into a goverment regulated stock portfolio account (similar to an rrsp) which would be controlled by the employee and could be cashed out say every 5 years. (the lower the income, the greater the contribution)

It would force the average Canadian to get into 'the game' and in turn have a say in corporate behavior. The program could be seen as a national 'finacial health' program.


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 November 2006 04:53 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like a "defined contribution" pension plan.

No substitute for a decent wage.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 04:55 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
but you could cash out every 5 years.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great idea. Only problem is, when I was making minimum wage, all the forced savings in the world wouldn't have helped with my immediate, pressing financial concern - not having enough money to pay rent and buy groceries.

Savings are a great idea, but it's not a solution to the fact that people making minimum wage can't pay their living expenses on it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
even earning $30 - $40 per hour doesn't seem to cut it. (an hourly wage of any sort is kind of degrading) you know that cost is just being passed on to the costumer which is probably you and me.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 30 November 2006 05:18 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't mind paying a bit more for goods if it means that the people selling them to me get to eat and have a roof over their heads.

And that's all it really would be is a bit more.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But if more of us owned shares in the corporations that employed us...then we could collectivly decide how much to put towards profit and how much to put towards wages.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 30 November 2006 05:31 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think your idea of the influence shareholders have on the corporations they own is not based in reality.

Personally I'll focus my attention on democratic structures where relative power is not determined by relative wealth. Like democratically elected governments.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 30 November 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
But if more of us owned shares in the corporations that employed us...then we could collectivly decide how much to put towards profit and how much to put towards wages.

I own shares in the company I work for because they give me one for every 3 I buy and also because I'm getting some miniscule part of the profit back. I'm under no impression that this makes the board of directors think about me - especially since each of them owns at least 100 times what I do.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 05:50 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
considering how much cash is currently invested by pension plan administers into corporations todays worker (citizen) is more involved in corporate behavior than we may care to accept.

this delegation of corporation control away from the individual needs rebalancing.


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 30 November 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

I own shares in the company I work for because they give me one for every 3 I buy and also because I'm getting some miniscule part of the profit back. I'm under no impression that this makes the board of directors think about me - especially since each of them owns at least 100 times what I do.


But what % of the company do you and all of your fellow empoyees own?

From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 30 November 2006 06:08 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I work for a large upstream O&G company. I'd estimate that the current non-executive staff own about .001% of the outstanding shares. Maybe up to .01 but that would be a stretch.

And the company buys shares for us as part of our benefit package.

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 30 November 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The biggest issue is that companies that employ lots of people at lower wages have share values that would prelude employees from obtaining enought shares to become a shareholder voice.

Look at Wal-Mart. The close was $46 per share at close today. The percentage of shares held by insiders and 5% owners is 41%.

At those prices and ratios, it would be next to impossible for current employees to have a voice.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 30 November 2006 07:04 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
But if more of us owned shares in the corporations that employed us...then we could collectivly decide how much to put towards profit and how much to put towards wages.

Actually, there are business models where employees own and manage their own companies. What's neat about that set-up is that employees have a much better idea of where their company profits are going, and have more opportuinities to direct those profits as they see fit.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 November 2006 07:35 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This thread is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are employed by small businesses, many of them unincorporated, and the ones that are incorporated are not publicly-traded.

The idea that the most vulnerable and oppressed members of the working class ought to be compelled to invest money in their employers as an alternative to receiving a decent wage is so offensive to any progressive-minded person that it could only be the brainchild of a malignant troll.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 November 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
even earning $30 - $40 per hour doesn't seem to cut it. (an hourly wage of any sort is kind of degrading) you know that cost is just being passed on to the costumer which is probably you and me.

An hourly wage is "degrading"? What would be ennobling - a weekly wage?

And what (pray tell) is wrong with a cost of production (in this case labour power) being "passed on to the customer"? You think a customer should get a discount? Who would make up the difference?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2006 08:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
even earning $30 - $40 per hour doesn't seem to cut it. (an hourly wage of any sort is kind of degrading) you know that cost is just being passed on to the costumer which is probably you and me.

Um, yes it does. I earn considerably less than that, and I'm not doing too badly now financially. When I was earning minimum wage, I could barely afford to live. It's just basic economics. When I bring home $2400 a month, I can pay my rent and eat and clothe my child. When I bring home $1000 a month, I can't. It's just that simple.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 01 December 2006 12:33 AM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
This thread is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are employed by small businesses, many of them unincorporated, and the ones that are incorporated are not publicly-traded.

The idea that the most vulnerable and oppressed members of the working class ought to be compelled to invest money in their employers as an alternative to receiving a decent wage is so offensive to any progressive-minded person that it could only be the brainchild of a malignant troll.


The concept I was considering was for employers to invest into a workers registered savings plan. And, as with an rrsp, the owner of the plan (the worker) can invest in just about anything.

Putting a little aside for any sort of savings is tough at any income level. Owning stocks and bonds, adjusting your portfolio to increase its offshore holdings etc... strikes me as a behavior of the bourgeois. A destructive behavior. Destructive because it is an economically important behavior that is left in the hands of too few individuals, that collectivly, have not enough power,influence or will, to actually control the corporate beast.

Raising minimum wage by 1 or 20 dollars would, in the grand scheme only add zero or move a decimal point around. If the entire population were to ultimatly, collectivly and equally share finacial influence (and understand that they have such influence) over the market, it would then be possable to address the social shortcomings of the current situation. "They" would become "Us"


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 December 2006 05:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:

"They" would become "Us"

The worrisome part - if anyone actually paid serious attention to your panacea for more than a nanosecond - is that "Us" would become "Them".


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 01 December 2006 07:20 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, there are business models where employees own and manage their own companies. What's neat about that set-up is that employees have a much better idea of where their company profits are going, and have more opportuinities to direct those profits as they see fit.

Westjet has this type of setup do they not? I beleive the majority share holders are employees.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 December 2006 09:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Minimum wage is wage slavery as it is now. Real slaves didn't have the added stress of figuring out how to pay the rent and feed the kids every month. Min wage in Australia's food serving industry is about $11 bucks CDN an hour today, and contrary to Milton Friedman's predictions about unemployment, Aussie's choose to work and employers agree to pay them.

They had no min wage laws in Pinochet's Chile, and unions were banned. Guess what happened next.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 15 December 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

The worrisome part - if anyone actually paid serious attention to your panacea for more than a nanosecond - is that "Us" would become "Them".


Well, my friend, it is worrisome but if we are to move into the power we should not be weak in spirit.


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 December 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:

Well, my friend, it is worrisome but if we are to move into the power we should not be weak in spirit.


I would never accuse any proponent of this intoxicating vision of "instant wealth for all" of being "weak in spirits".


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  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