Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

[Crazy Eddie]

But why are you equating paying enough to meet the employee's cost of living with acting responsibly?

Because suppression of wages -- even accidentally -- causes a short-term benefit to a business but long-term damage to the economy as a whole. In that sense it is similar to the act of dumping industrial waste in public waterways: it may save you some money from having to dispose of it, but it causes a lot of long term damage to the ecology and to the community nearby.

Why is this ultimately the employer's responsibility rather than all of society's?

Because it is the responsibility of businesspeople to conduct their business responsibly. "All of society" isn't running his business for him. We can't force a businessman to devote all of his resources to curing cancer, but we CAN pass laws that prevent him from selling products that CAUSE cancer.

You are still arguing to absolve others from their share by painting the employer as being irresponsible if she doesn't take 100% of it.

If I am running a business, I am responsible for the conduct of my business. I can't absolve myself of that responsibility and pass it on to everyone else; I can't do things that cause damage to the rest of society and then say "Yes, I dumped those chemicals in the river, but it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to clean it up." If I am going to buy and sell in the community, then I have a responsibility to make sure my buying and selling aren't causing problems, and if it is my choice to do open a business, then there are certain things I know I am responsible for and no one else is.

It's not a dodge of responsibility at all. If you make a choice, you accept the consequences of that choice. "All of society" doesn't choose to open businesses.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If I am running a business, I am responsible for the conduct of my business. I can't absolve myself of that responsibility and pass it on to everyone else; I can't do things that cause damage to the rest of society and then say "Yes, I dumped those chemicals in the river, but it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to clean it up." If I am going to buy and sell in the community, then I have a responsibility to make sure my buying and selling aren't causing problems, and if it is my choice to do open a business, then there are certain things I know I am responsible for and no one else is.

It's not a dodge of responsibility at all. If you make a choice, you accept the consequences of that choice. "All of society" doesn't choose to open businesses.

The employer did not cause the cost of living of the employee. All of society did.

The employer should not be held responsible to pay the cost of living of the employee. It should be totally irrelevant to the employment contract. The employer is not the employee's parent. The employer does not own the employee as a slave.

The wage the worker works for is what the worker and employer mutually decide is enough for the employer to pay and enough for the worker to work for.

There is uneven pressure due to the cost of living of the employee. The employer did not cause that pressure, but I do see your point of wanting legislation to work against that pressure. UBI is the ideal way, and it also helps the unemployed.

But if you refuse to put in UBI (leaving the unemployed hanging), and insist on pushing for minimum wage instead, then why set it at an arbitrary rate? Why not make an actual attempt to figure out what the price of labour is where the employer will stop hiring employees? That would be an attempt at determining the true worth of the labour without duress.

For some jobs that rate will be higher (for some maybe a lot higher) than the current minimum wage and for others it will not be. Where it isn't, a forced increase is forced charity. Forcing the employer to pay for health insurance is also forced charity, whereas this cost should be spread through all of society.

And yes, you are avoiding responsibility for the rest of society if you merely push forth that employers are defacto responsible for the cost of living of employees without any such analysis. The idle rich, companies with fewer employees, and the rest of us do not pay our fair share if the employer is made to pay 100%.

 

[LordKiran]

If I am running a business, I am responsible for the conduct of my business. I can't absolve myself of that responsibility and pass it on to everyone else; I can't do things that cause damage to the rest of society and then say "Yes, I dumped those chemicals in the river, but it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to clean it up." If I am going to buy and sell in the community, then I have a responsibility to make sure my buying and selling aren't causing problems, and if it is my choice to do open a business, then there are certain things I know I am responsible for and no one else is.

It's not a dodge of responsibility at all. If you make a choice, you accept the consequences of that choice. "All of society" doesn't choose to open businesses.

The employer did not cause the cost of living of the employee. All of society did.

The employer should not be held responsible to pay the cost of living of the employee. It should be totally irrelevant to the employment contract. The employer is not the employees parent. The employer does not own the employee as a slave.

The wage the worker works for is what the worker and employer mutually decide is enough for the employer to pay and enough for the worker to work for.

There is uneven pressure due to the cost of living of the employee.

The employer did not cause that pressure, but I do see your point of wanting legislation to work against that pressure. UBI is the ideal way, and it also helps the unemployed.

But if you refuse to put in UBI (leaving the unemployed hanging), and insist on pushing for minimum wage instead, then why set it at an arbitrary rate? Why not make an actual attempt to figure out what the price of labour is where the employer will stop hiring employees? That would be an attempt at determining the true worth of the labour without duress.

For some jobs that rate will be higher (for some maybe a lot higher) than the current minimum wage and for others it will not be. Where it isn't, a forced increase is forced charity. Forcing the employer to pay for health insurance is also forced charity, whereas this cost should be spread through all of society.

And yes, you are avoiding responsibility for the rest of society if you merely push forth that employers are defacto responsible for the cost of living of employees without any such analysis. The idle rich, companies with fewer employees, and the rest of us do not pay our fair share if the employer is made to pay 100%.

Something of a red herring. Wages should naturally be reflective of what is required for people to live in their respective area. This isn't the case when wages are manipulated from the top down. You didn't have this problem 200 years ago because the closest you had to globe spanning conglomerates were nation-backed trade companies. But times change, dynamics change, and it falls to you to change with them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wages should naturally be reflective of what is required for people to live in their respective area. This isn't the case when wages are manipulated from the top down.

Mandating a minimum wage is manipulating wages from the top down, yes. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Elixir]

The employer did not cause the cost of living of the employee. All of society did.

The employer should not be held responsible to pay the cost of living of the employee.

Right, and to continue with your logic - all of society (taxpayers) should be held responsible, since that's what caused the excessive cost of living.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The employer did not cause the cost of living of the employee. All of society did.

The employer should not be held responsible to pay the cost of living of the employee.

Right, and to continue with your logic - all of society (taxpayers) should be held responsible, since that's what caused the excessive cost of living.

Correct. And that is where UBI comes in. Well, that and the fact that we all benefit from society without extreme poverty.

The employment contract should then be simply about trading labour in exchange for money at the new market rate (which would increase dramatically when people don't need the job to survive).

 

[LordKiran]

Right, and to continue with your logic - all of society (taxpayers) should be held responsible, since that's what caused the excessive cost of living.

Correct. And that is where UBI comes in. Well, that and the fact that we all benefit from society without extreme poverty.

The employment contract should then be simply about trading labour in exchange for money at the new market rate (which would increase dramatically when people don't need the job to survive).

So who's going to pay for UBI? If it's going to be the wealthiest people then I have to ask why you're so against mandatory wage increases on principle when the effect is roughly the same but with even less bureaucratic control in the end? Wage increases would only require government mandates using powers that already exist. Why would you call for government expansion to accomplish something which can pragmatically be resolved much simpler and more cheaply using alternative methods that already exist?

I don't get you...

 

[Elixir]

Right, and to continue with your logic - all of society (taxpayers) should be held responsible, since that's what caused the excessive cost of living.

Correct. And that is where UBI comes in. Well, that and the fact that we all benefit from society without extreme poverty.

The employment contract should then be simply about trading labour in exchange for money at the new market rate (which would increase dramatically when people don't need the job to survive).

Bold added - I think that's the nut of it. That FACT is what seems to escape the trickle-down advocates. Or - they don't give one flying fuck about what benefits society, as long as the get richer.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it does not change the meaning of your position. No one said it did. It simply means your position has no real point in current practice. If and when UBI is adopted, then your position makes practical sense. Until that time, it is simply wishful thinking.

Again, you are not making sense.

Your inability to comprehend a post does not necessarily mean it does not make sense.

My only other point was to ask why employers should take ultimate responsibility for employees meeting their cost of living.

Because your question about employers is misleading. Mandating a minimum wage is not saying that employers SHOULD take ultimate responsibility for their employees meeting their cost of living. It is simply a tool to help employees meet their cost of living.

You are not addressing either with your statement that UBI isn't likely to happen soon.

Actually, if you thought about it, it does address the 2nd question (see above).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So who's going to pay for UBI?

Everyone, through taxes, on an increasing scale with income. Yes, most of it will be paid by the rich; all of the rich.

If it's going to be the wealthiest people then I have to ask why you're so against mandatory wage increases on principle when the effect is roughly the same

It wont' be the same. Putting all responsibility on employers leaves the idle rich and those operating companies with fewer employees out of paying their fair share. It also fails to cover the unemployed. It also leaves room for employers to do dishonest things and screw over employees.

Wage increases would only require government mandates using powers that already exist.

UBI would use the currently existing tax system and be put through as a negative tax (or a tax credit to all).

Why would you call for government expansion to accomplish something which can pragmatically be resolved much simpler and more cheaply using alternative methods that already exist?

Because it can't be, especially with automation ramping up more and more and more and more people becoming unemployable.

And also, I have no aversion to expanded government to accomplish something vital. I also support universal health care and quite a lot of regulations you don't now have. I also support a bigger space program. Does it surprise you that a person such as myself who supports UBI would be to your political left?

I don't get you...

You can't afford me.

 

[Elixir]

I don't get you...

You can't afford me.

...but he could, if the rich paid their fair share, amirite?

 

[LordKiran]

Everyone, through taxes, on an increasing scale with income. Yes, most of it will be paid by the rich; all of the rich.

If it's going to be the wealthiest people then I have to ask why you're so against mandatory wage increases on principle when the effect is roughly the same

It wont' be the same. Putting all responsibility on employers leaves the idle rich and those operating companies with fewer employees out of paying their fair share. It also fails to cover the unemployed. It also leaves room for employers to do dishonest things and screw over employees.

Wage increases would only require government mandates using powers that already exist.

UBI would use the currently existing tax system and be put through as a negative tax (or a tax credit to all).

Why would you call for government expansion to accomplish something which can pragmatically be resolved much simpler and more cheaply using alternative methods that already exist?

Because it can't be, especially with automation ramping up more and more and more and more people becoming unemployable.

And also, I have no aversion to expanded government to accomplish something vital. I also support universal health care and quite a lot of regulations you don't now have. I also support a bigger space program. Does it surprise you that a person such as myself who supports UBI would be to your political left?

I don't get you...

You can't afford me.

So rather than take money from people who don't need it to give to people who do, you're going to spread the burden so that the poor pay themselves and so the middle class shrinks even more? Sounds pretty stupid.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So rather than take money from people who don't need it to give to people who do, you're going to spread the burden so that the poor pay themselves and so the middle class shrinks even more? Sounds pretty stupid.

Oh I can play that game too..... So... You don't want the idle rich and companies that don't hire employees not to pay their share, along with yourself not paying your fair share to help those worse off than yourself. And you want the employed to benefit at the expense of the unemployed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If I am running a business, I am responsible for the conduct of my business. I can't absolve myself of that responsibility and pass it on to everyone else; I can't do things that cause damage to the rest of society and then say "Yes, I dumped those chemicals in the river, but it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to clean it up." If I am going to buy and sell in the community, then I have a responsibility to make sure my buying and selling aren't causing problems, and if it is my choice to do open a business, then there are certain things I know I am responsible for and no one else is.

It's not a dodge of responsibility at all. If you make a choice, you accept the consequences of that choice. "All of society" doesn't choose to open businesses.

The employer did not cause the cost of living of the employee. All of society did.

The employer is responsible for making sure his actions do not cause harm to society; WHY his actions might cause harm is irrelevant.

"It's not my fault asbestos causes cancer" is not a defense for exposing your employees to it on a regular basis. Nor is "all of society" responsible for your choice to expose your employees to a notoriously toxic substance.

The employer should not be held responsible to pay the cost of living of the employee.

Of course he should. Just like he should be responsible for the health of his employees if they're exposed to hazardous materials while they're working for him.

The wage the worker works for is what the worker and employer mutually decide

You can keep saying that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Workers DO NOT have that kind of power to negotiate wages with their employers; minimum wage workers definitely don't.

But if you refuse to put in UBI (leaving the unemployed hanging), and insist on pushing for minimum wage instead, then why set it at an arbitrary rate?

Why the "instead" there? Nobody's suggesting a minimum wage without basic income. I've said again and again that it's the other way around: a basic income without a minimum wage is not going to solve the problem and would probably make matters worse. Minimum wage is important to solving this problem, minimum wage plus basic income would be doubly helpful. But the minimum wage is a mechanism to keep the pay rate in the labor market from bottoming out; you can't sustain Basic Income without it.

Why not make an actual attempt to figure out what the price of labour is where the employer will stop hiring employees?

Because there is no rate where "employers will stop hiring employees." Workers are hired because labor is needed, not simply because it is affordable.

And yes, you are avoiding responsibility for the rest of society if you merely push forth that employers are defacto responsible for the cost of living of employees

They're not responsible for the cost of living. They're responsible for what they're paying their employees. If they don't pay them a fare wage, they are acting irresponsibly. It doesn't matter WHY they are not paying them a fair wage, you can blame that on anyone you like (society, the shareholders, the invisible hand, whatever). If the wages are low enough that the median income is not keeping up with inflation, that is a problem.

The idle rich, companies with fewer employees, and the rest of us do not pay our fair share if the employer is made to pay 100%.

Nobody's asking anyone to pay "their fair share." The minimum wage is about to make sure the lowest income earners aren't receiving LESS than their fair share.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So... You don't want the idle rich and companies that don't hire employees not to pay their share

You avoided this question before. I'm asking again: what makes you think the "idle rich" have anything to do with the working poor? The idle rich aren't the ones suppressing their wages.

I'm also not sure what "companies that don't hire employees" have to do with this either, since THEY aren't suppressing wages at all (they don't PAY anyone those wages, so who cares?)

It also doesn't seem logical that businessmen who already pay higher than a living wage would have to pay extra money to subsidize cheapskate businessmen who avoid doing so. The responsibility for the problem should rest squarely on the shoulders of those who caused it.

And "increased cost of living" is not actually a problem that needs to be solved, the fact that the wages of the lowest earners are failing to keep up with it is the problem. THAT problem is solved by raising the minimum wage.

And you want the employed to benefit at the expense of the unemployed.

The minimum wage places no expense whatsoever on the unemployed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I've already pointed out more than once, MOST businesses would not be affected by a minimum wage increase since they are already paying their employees significantly higher than minimum. Those CLOSE to the old minimum or even new minimum might suddenly find it easier to request a pay raise or transfer to another employer at a higher rate, but that wouldn't be an immediate effect, and the increase in consumer buying power is likely to offset it.

No. As the change ripples through the system it will drive up the wages of those making more than minimum wage. That's what the proponents are actually after anyway--very few are actually only making minimum wage.

That makes me wonder if your primary concern is actually poverty.

I do not recall ever suggesting that my primary concern is poverty. Lack of economic mobility and an anemic labor market is my primary concern, and increased poverty is a symptom of those two things, among other factors.

And you're trying to treat the anemia by bloodletting.

It's as simple as acknowledging the fact that removing the minimum wage would have a very negative effect on the labor market whether Basic Income is implemented or not; since Basic Income has not been implemented, isn't going to be implemented, and even if it IS implemented won't be fully funded to levels high enough to make it work, "should" isn't worth a damn thing.

Given the low numbers of people working at minimum wage it would be hard for removing it to have a big effect.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course he should. Just like he should be responsible for the health of his employees if they're exposed to hazardous materials while they're working for him.

Money is not a hazardous material. The employer is paying the employee money. That is hardly analogous to having the employee breathe toxins.

The wage the worker works for is what the worker and employer mutually decide

You can keep saying that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Of course it is true. Nobody puts a gun to the head of the employee and makes them work for the employer. This is not slavery. This is an agreed upon wage. The employee is free to decline and walk away.

But the minimum wage is a mechanism to keep the pay rate in the labor market from bottoming out; you can't sustain Basic Income without it.

Sure you can. You just tax the rich more to fund UBI. And with basic needs met through UBI, the employee is no longer willing to work for low wages. Minimum wage isn't needed then.

Why not make an actual attempt to figure out what the price of labour is where the employer will stop hiring employees?

Because there is no rate where "employers will stop hiring employees." Workers are hired because labor is needed, not simply because it is affordable.

That isn't true. If it were, then UBI would mean infinite wages for all workers. At a certain price point employers won't hire employees, either because they can't afford to or because they can automate or because the job really wasn't essential
(like an usher or gas pump guy or store staff to answer questions and help find items etc) or for whatever other reason.

They're not responsible for the cost of living. They're responsible for what they're paying their employees. If they don't pay them a fare wage, they are acting irresponsibly.

Who decides what a "fair wage" is and how is it determined? As I said above, why not make an effort to figure out what it would actually be, thereby minimizing the pressure workers feel to take jobs (because otherwise they will starve) and and minimizing the decline in workers being hired because due to the increased cost of labour?

UBI is the better alternative, but if you are insisting on Minimum Wage, then make it an actual fair wage, and not an arbitrary one forced by government or based on cost of living. "Living wage" as a basis makes no sense at all and runs directly into the forced charity I was referring to above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You avoided this question before. I'm asking again: what makes you think the "idle rich" have anything to do with the working poor? The idle rich aren't the ones suppressing their wages.

I didn't see you ask this before. I have explained this above though.

The idle rich and the rich companies who do not hire anybody benefit from the society they operate in. You are only failing to see their responsibility because you are declaring wages unfair for not paying enough to support cost of living of employees. When the employer pays any more than they otherwise would for the labour in a fair open market, they are paying MORE than their fair share. UBI creates that fair open market. An attempt to determine the actual value in pushing through a minimum wage would be an attempt to estimate the same.

Same goes for health care. Universal Single Payer health care exists where I live. It is paid for by taxes on everyone, and especially on the rich, which means all of the rich and not just those who hire employees. It is a much fairer system than in the USA where employers are forced to pay for health insurance for their employees, including health issues that have absolutely nothing to do with work.

The minimum wage places no expense whatsoever on the unemployed.

It discourages employers from hiring the unemployed and creates more unemployed once minimum wage raises enough to reach the tipping point for that particular job.

 

[DBT]

Not so, incomes have been stagnating for years, thus decreasing incomes through erosion of purchasing power, yet the unemployment rate was not higher before incomes eroded away. During the same period, executive salaries have been rising by leaps and bounds and the rich have been getting richer. The only losers have been those at the lower end, which has also been encroaching into the middle class. The aim should be address this growing disparity between incomes without raising unemployment levels in the process. It has been done in the past, so it is doable however much some employers love to wail and gnash their teeth over pay increases for employees but not management.

You're totally off target here, this isn't a rebuttal at all. You're not addressing the point.

I don't think so. There is very little evidence that unions raise unemployment levels, at least not significantly. There is good evidence that unionized workplaces generally offer better pay and conditions. The pay and condition in blue collar industries was achieved through unionism, but has been eroding away due to many factors, which include falling membership and laws that heavily penalize strikers...and of course, apathy.

 

[barbos]

Why would you call for government expansion to accomplish something which can pragmatically be resolved much simpler and more cheaply using alternative methods that already exist?

Because it can't be, especially with automation ramping up more and more and more and more people becoming unemployable.

I agree, but minimum wage increase can bring automation and eventual UBI sooner