• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

1) You can't see that there is no reason in fact or theory for his claim.
No one can because he did not present any.

Some here may see a reason without him presenting it. Others, such as yourself, may see no such reason, so it makes sense for you to ask for one. But you didn't merely point out he didn't back up his claim and ask why he thinks what he does. You claimed that he is wrong, which is an assertion of your own that you are not backing up. You are therefore just as on the spot as he is. Congratulations.
 
The primary cause is people having children before they have built their careers up. Blame the parents, not society.

Who your parents are matters an awful lot.

DBqWJ6jUIAAhbyH.jpg

Link

Genes.jpg


Link

C_57stSUAAQ_r-7.jpg


Link

C_VjKm_UQAACtkg.jpg


Link

C-soUxbVwAAAMnV.jpg


Link

CoQFmV8VUAACThC.jpg


Link

C8H83SyVwAEYafy.jpg


Link
 
You keep repeating this bit about underpaying. If they are paying the free market rate they are not underpaying.
Which they're not, because there's nothing "free" about the labor market. It's already skewed very strongly in favor of employers who have disproportionate influence on prices.

The minimum wage is how workers at the lowest end of the pay scale tip the balance back to a more even footing.

They are paying what the work is worth.
They are paying what THEY have decided the work is worth. The workers disagree with that decision, and the minimum wage is what happens when the workers WIN the argument.

UBI doesn't solve all problems, but it does cover the same issue minimum wage is said to cover
Not by itself it doesn't. Basic Income in the absence of a minimum wage is functionally equivalent to systems of poverty that already exist and have existed in the past. If you don't actually have to pay your workers more than a few pennies for their work, then that's exactly what you'll pay them. The historical examples of Peonage and Sharecropping demonstrate this clearly enough.

More importantly, even WITH the minimum wage, a form of basic income already exists in the Welfare system. TANF/SNAP provides a form of Basic Income for workers earning minimum wage already, and clearly demonstrates the limitations of that combination. Strip the minimum wage from that combination, and TANF/SNAP basically becomes a Beggar's Pension.

The higher minimum wage actually accomplishes what TANF/SNAP/UBI cannot: it creates access to income high enough to eventually escape from poverty. UBI doesn't provide that, it only provides a level of income high enough to SURVIVE poverty, but doesn't gaurantee eventual liberation from it. A minimum wage does, since long-term employment also implies the accretion of work experience and skill and thus the value of the worker's labor -- and therefore his income -- will increase over time.

Why do you want to make people entirely reliant on these very companies that you claim are cheating them now?
They're ALREADY reliant on those companies. Minimum wage just prevents (some of) the cheating.

So what? Adjust Basic to a level where people can get by. Some will choose that route and others will work for more money, set at a rate employers are agreeable to pay...
In any economic that includes basic income but no minimum wage, the rate employers would most prefer to pay is always exactly "zero."

UBI covers basic income; enough to survive on, and no more. Why is that a problem?
Because we already have that in the form of welfare.

Are you, by chance, unaware of the laundry list of social problems that continue to exist in poor communities DESPITE access to welfare assistance?

While living on mere UBI they could also go to school to get training for higher paying jobs.
They can already do that with welfare.

Why do you suppose that isn't already happening?
 
Because all of society isn't the cause of that particular problem. Just penny-pinching companies that do everything they can to fuck their workers. The solution should be targeted at the cause of the problem, not at the entire society in which the problem broadly exists.

The primary cause is people having children before they have built their careers up.
"People having children before they have built their careers up" has literally NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the the median income for American workers failing to keep pace with inflation over the past forty years.

Blame the parents, not society.

I don't blame society. I blame cheapskate companies that don't pay their workers a fair wage.

And I can tell you from experience that companies that are being run so incompetently that they can't afford to pay their employees a decent rate are certainly better off being forced out of the market by those who CAN afford it. When a company goes out of business, there are always a half dozen competitors there to pick up the demand. Most of them will be happy to hire new employees to meet it.

It is a snide way of asking "How do you arrive at such silly positions?"

By calling it "Crapola", you're taking a position that it is wrong and crap.
Well it IS wrong, and it IS crap. The question is "What exactly is this wrong crap based on?"
 
And I can tell you from experience that companies that are being run so incompetently that they can't afford to pay their employees a decent rate are certainly better off being forced out of the market by those who CAN afford it. When a company goes out of business, there are always a half dozen competitors there to pick up the demand. Most of them will be happy to hire new employees to meet it.

If you really believed that, then I imagine you would not favor a government imposed minimum wage. After all, as you note, there are competitors waiting to pick up those workers who refuse to work below a certain minimum. Indeed, those workers may be doing this right now, without the nanny state interfering in their voluntary arrangements with their employers.
 
And I can tell you from experience that companies that are being run so incompetently that they can't afford to pay their employees a decent rate are certainly better off being forced out of the market by those who CAN afford it. When a company goes out of business, there are always a half dozen competitors there to pick up the demand. Most of them will be happy to hire new employees to meet it.

If you really believed that, then I imagine you would not favor a government imposed minimum wage. After all, as you note, there are competitors waiting to pick up those workers who refuse to work below a certain minimum.
That's not what I "noted" at all.

I said there are competitors waiting to pick up workers whose employers REFUSED TO PAY THEM above the minimum, particularly after the employer goes out of business and leaves his competitors with a bigger share of the market.

Simple example: When Radio Shacks all around Chicago started going out of business, their employees started looking for new jobs. Sales at Best Buy, Target, Walmart and even Walgreens electronics all spiked as Radio Shack stores closed (though not as much as you'd expect since online retailers picked up a lot of the slack). The result was that all of those stores went on hiring drives that also coincided with the summer boom.

If Radio Shack was in such a fragile state that it could have been driven out of business by a minimum wage increase, its competitors and niche competitors still would have absorbed all of its customers anyway, and would in turn have absorbed some of its former employees to meet that increased demand. And the new workers would come into their new jobs at rates at or higher than minimum for all the companies that AREN'T going out of business because of the minimum wage.

In reality, NO business ever goes out of business just because the price of wages increases. If you're in such financial trouble that a 30% spike in payroll is going to put you into bankruptcy, the minimum wage is the LEAST of your problems.
 
Workers shouldn't be expected to subsidize a failing business by working for low wages. Especially if Managers are still collecting their high salaries, perks and bonuses while the business is struggling.
 
No one can because he did not present any.

Some here may see a reason without him presenting it.
Of course, he had a reason - that is obvious. Otherwise, he would not have posted it.
[
Others, such as yourself, may see no such reason, so it makes sense for you to ask for one. But you didn't merely point out he didn't back up his claim and ask why he thinks what he does. You claimed that he is wrong, which is an assertion of your own that you are not backing up. You are therefore just as on the spot as he is. Congratulations.
Some here saw, that unlike LP, I did back it up in my response to you. Others, such as yourself, may not read the actual content posts, so it makes sense for you to make an ass out of yourself by making claims with no basis.
 
They are paying what the work is worth.
They are paying what THEY have decided the work is worth. The workers disagree with that decision, and the minimum wage is what happens when the workers WIN the argument.

The work is worth whatever both the employer agrees to pay and the employee agrees to work at. If the government steps in and forces a different number, they are forcing one party to subsidize the other beyond what the work is actually worth.

UBI doesn't solve all problems, but it does cover the same issue minimum wage is said to cover
Not by itself it doesn't. Basic Income in the absence of a minimum wage is functionally equivalent to systems of poverty that already exist and have existed in the past. If you don't actually have to pay your workers more than a few pennies for their work, then that's exactly what you'll pay them.

Only if they will agree to work at that rate. They are not forced by the employer to take the job.

The higher minimum wage actually accomplishes what TANF/SNAP/UBI cannot: it creates access to income high enough to eventually escape from poverty. UBI doesn't provide that, it only provides a level of income high enough to SURVIVE poverty, but doesn't gaurantee eventual liberation from it. A minimum wage does, since long-term employment also implies the accretion of work experience and skill and thus the value of the worker's labor -- and therefore his income -- will increase over time.

Neither UBI or minimum wage guarantees eventual liberation from it. Why are you equating minimum wage to long-term employment? Are unskilled minimum wage jobs not especially vulnerable to lay-off and automation?

Working a minimum wage job over a long term will mostly give people experience at working that minimum wage job. You are not guaranteed any transferable skills or any hope of advancement. It won't necessarily give them the education or other tools that they need to move up the ladder to higher paying and more rewarding work. And while they are occupied working for the minimum wage (or working generally - again minimum wage doesn't equate to long-term employment), they indeed won't have much free time to get better educated, even if education is highly subsidized or even free.

On UBI they need not work and provided we don't put a money barrier in their way to education, they can get that needed education and re-enter the workforce at a higher level.

In any economic that includes basic income but no minimum wage, the rate employers would most prefer to pay is always exactly "zero."

Yes, and the rate the employees would most prefer to receive is "infinite". The actual market rate is what the two agree on.

The problem with that is that the worker is more desperate to sell labour than the employer is to buy it, due to cost of living, so the employer can exploit this imbalance of bargaining power and get the worker to agree to very low wages. That changes with UBI. If UBI is sufficient to pay the cost of living for the employee, then the employer has to pay enough to entice the worker to work for him. In some dirty or unpleasant jobs, that rate could actually turn out to be quite high. It may even be high enough to eliminate or drastically modify some dangerous jobs and force employers to find safer alternatives, helping the health and safety of workers.

The real downside of UBI, and I am surprised nobody has brought this up yet, is on the negative impact it has on competition between companies. It means less successful but fun to work for companies will survive longer than they maybe should, as more successful companies pay higher taxes to support the UBI, including the UBI being paid to the workers of the less successful company (who may decide to work for very little because they enjoy the job so much). That would be an interesting aspect to explore, if we had any actual conservatives on here making the case.

Are you, by chance, unaware of the laundry list of social problems that continue to exist in poor communities DESPITE access to welfare assistance?

The same laundry list exists despite the existence of the current minimum wage as well. You say increase minimum wage, but that leaves out the unemployed as well as those being cheated illegally by employers. UBI would be an overhaul, increase, and broadening of what is now called welfare to make it universal. It would cover everybody regardless of who they work for or if they are working. Universal health care would do the same for health care. I see no reason why employers should be solely responsible for either of these things. Do you?

While living on mere UBI they could also go to school to get training for higher paying jobs.
They can already do that with welfare.

Why do you suppose that isn't already happening?

Some would say because they are lazy, but I would say because education is too expensive and welfare as you now have it isn't enough to make it doable. Education should be subsidized heavily, and ideally it should be free for all citizens, especially if it is vocational and likely to create a workforce benefiting all of society.
 
Last edited:
The primary cause is people having children before they have built their careers up.
"People having children before they have built their careers up" has literally NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the the median income for American workers failing to keep pace with inflation over the past forty years.

Not much maybe, but nothing whatsoever? You live in a system without UBI where raising children is expensive. Raising children is also time consuming. A single mother with 4 kids (and no UBI) is going to have to work, minimum wage or not. And minimum wage or not, she is going to have no free time to educate herself and position herself so that her labour is worth much. She will have minimal time to spend raising her kids, so they may be more likely to grow up without the life skills and work skills they need to escape the cycle of poverty your country is so famous for. She will be stuck at the arbitrary over-market rate your government forces employers to pay her, if they comply and pay her that, and if they hire her or keep her working for them at all.

No, you need an actual UBI, paid to all as a right, and funded through taxes on all increasing based on profit and income. We are all responsible to lift us all up, not just those who decide to hire somebody.
 
Last edited:
The idea that employers should be solely responsible or especially responsible for ensuring employees have a living income, reminds me of courts forcing all child support payment responsibility onto men who give some support to single mothers because they showed an "intention to support the child". It is amazing how quickly family courts will pounce on such men, instead of evening the burden out over all of society through taxes.

Both cases show the rest of us avoiding our share and dumping it all on one individual. And this is unfair.
 
The idea that employers should be solely responsible or especially responsible for ensuring employees have a living income, reminds me of courts forcing all child support payment responsibility onto men who give some support to single mothers because they showed an "intention to support the child". It is amazing how quickly family courts will pounce on such men, instead of evening the burden out over all of society through taxes.

Both cases show the rest of us avoiding our share and dumping it all on one individual. And this unfair.

They're really not remotely similar.
 
Of course, he had a reason - that is obvious. Otherwise, he would not have posted it.
laughing dog said:
1) there is no reason in fact or theory for that claim

Yeah... ok...

Some here saw, that unlike LP, I did back it up in my response to you.

Your only backing was a personal attack against LP, which is exactly what LP called you on. We're still waiting for you to contribute anything on topic.
 
laughing dog said:
1) there is no reason in fact or theory for that claim

Yeah... ok...

Some here saw, that unlike LP, I did back it up in my response to you.

Your only backing was a personal attack against LP, which is exactly what LP called you on. We're still waiting for you to contribute anything on topic.

the word 'reason' has more than one definition. Can you tell the difference? Post one uses the word 'reason' as a stand in for 'motive'. Post two uses it as meaning "Sense or logic".

Also there was nothing personal about it, attacking a claim by calling it crap=/=a personal attack. Get it together, man!
 
I support UBI, and I think it is the best way of reaching more equal economic footing for all, and has the possibility of nearly eliminating poverty in any society in which it might be enacted. This thread, however, demonstrates the case of the perfect standing in the way of the good. There is very little chance of UBI being enacted in Canada, much less the USA, any time soon. That is simply the political reality we currently have to deal with. Minimum wage, on the other hand, has already been enacted in most civilized countries, and it is simply a matter of increasing MW to a rate that makes it good enough as a substitute until UBI can gain the political traction to become a reality. If we refuse to raise the MW because there is a better idea out there, when there is no chance of that better idea coming to fruition any time soon, then the perfect has become the enemy of the good.
 
Minimum wage, on the other hand, has already been enacted in most civilized countries, and it is simply a matter of increasing MW to a rate that makes it good enough as a substitute until UBI can gain the political traction to become a reality. If we refuse to raise the MW because there is a better idea out there, when there is no chance of that better idea coming to fruition any time soon, then the perfect has become the enemy of the good.

Fair enough, but we also need to not allow the "Good" to derail the better, as we saw in the US with Obamacare. And pushing up minimum wage, especially as fast as Wynne is trying to do it, has negative impacts that come along wit the positive, that she has failed to account for, which is what I was saying in the OP. I want to know what she will do to protect against these issues. Ontario's economy is already precarious. We're not Alberta.
 
Minimum wage, on the other hand, has already been enacted in most civilized countries, and it is simply a matter of increasing MW to a rate that makes it good enough as a substitute until UBI can gain the political traction to become a reality. If we refuse to raise the MW because there is a better idea out there, when there is no chance of that better idea coming to fruition any time soon, then the perfect has become the enemy of the good.

Fair enough, but we also need to not allow the "Good" to derail the better, as we saw in the US with Obamacare. And pushing up minimum wage, especially as fast as Wynne is trying to do it, has negative impacts that come along wit the positive, that she has failed to account for, which is what I was saying in the OP. I want to know what she will do to protect against these issues. Ontario's economy is already precarious. We're not Alberta.

I don't know a lot about the economy of Ontario, but you could be right. I think it would be better for Canada as a whole to increase the MW, that way any issue with business simply moving to another province would be avoided, though I don't think I have seen you articulate that as a reason for disagreeing with this MW increase. Phasing in the new MW to give business time to adjust is also a good idea when the increase is substantial, and I think 30% is substantial. As others have noted, automation is happening, regardless of what happens with the MW, because it isn't about pay, it is about efficiency. Those unskilled jobs that pay MW are going to be the first targets of automation as well, and once again this is regardless of whether the MW is increased, or not. It is just that the simpler the job, the easier it is to automate that job.
 
laughing dog said:
1) there is no reason in fact or theory for that claim

Yeah... ok...

Some here saw, that unlike LP, I did back it up in my response to you.

Your only backing was a personal attack against LP, which is exactly what LP called you on.
Wrong on both counts. First, there was no personal attack against LP - I attacked his claim. On the otherhand, you have engaged in personal attacks. So, congratulations on your hypocrisy.

Second, I did back it up in a subsequent post. On the otherhand, you have simply engaged in personal attacks and straw men claims.
We're still waiting for you to contribute anything on topic.
In MW discussions, there is little to contribute and certainly little you would appreciate. There is no such thing as an economic policy that does not improve the situations of some people while worsening the situation of others. Whether the cost in terms of the worsening of the situation of some is worth the benefits to the others is a matter of social and personal preferences, not of some over-riding standard. For some, the potential loss in hours and/or jobs is worth the increase in earned income to those who receive the increase. For others, it is not.

Injecting pie-in-the-sky proposals like UBI into a discussion of a real economic policy is a meaningless exercise. UBI does not exist now. Nor is it likely to be put into action in the near future. Judging a MW increase against a non-existent and currently impossible standard does nothing to address whatever issues and problems the MW increase is supposed to alleviate. It is nothing but a pointless distraction.
 
The primary cause is people having children before they have built their careers up.
"People having children before they have built their careers up" has literally NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the the median income for American workers failing to keep pace with inflation over the past forty years.

We have been over this again and again.

The problem is that as technology becomes more pervasive in the workplace more skilled workers spend less of their time on low skill tasks. This increases the value difference between skilled and unskilled workers.

Wages reflect this. High skill workers do better in this climate, low skill workers do worse. However, the median is below the mean so it's moving farther away from the mean.

Short of very heavy-handed intervention in the labor market (which would cause all sort of crap as companies tried to work around it) this can't be avoided.

Employers used to value brawn. Now they much more value brains and skills.
 
"People having children before they have built their careers up" has literally NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the the median income for American workers failing to keep pace with inflation over the past forty years.

We have been over this again and again.

The problem is that as technology becomes more pervasive in the workplace more skilled workers spend less of their time on low skill tasks. This increases the value difference between skilled and unskilled workers.

Wages reflect this. High skill workers do better in this climate, low skill workers do worse. However, the median is below the mean so it's moving farther away from the mean.

Short of very heavy-handed intervention in the labor market (which would cause all sort of crap as companies tried to work around it) this can't be avoided.

Employers used to value brawn. Now they much more value brains and skills.
None of which you have tied to people having children before their careers are tied up either logically or with data.
 
Back
Top Bottom