Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

If there are individuals out there that don't want to work, then why do we as a society feel compelled to force them to work?

Technically, unless you have a child support order against you, no one is forced to work. The issue is what role does the taxpayer have in supporting the people who don't want to work.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Not in any way that is significant.



A minimum wage is telling two parties (individuals or groups), that they are not allowed to do something to which they both consent, and which is doing no physical harm to anyone else.

How does that boot taste?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Not in any way that is significant.

A minimum wage is telling two parties (individuals or groups), that they are not allowed to do something to which they both consent, and which is doing no physical harm to anyone else.

It's well established that there is a clear power imbalance between employer and employee. Laws exist to protect employees from being taken advantage of.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

Technically, unless you have a child support order against you, no one is forced to work. The issue is what role does the taxpayer have in supporting the people who don't want to work.

I get that it's in the context of UBI that we're talking here. To play devil's advocate here, if this individual will collect UBI regardless of whether or not they work, why do I, as a working individual care? What difference does it make to my tax bill? I get that moral obligation to not leach off of society, etc. But truly, does it matter?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's well established that there is a clear power imbalance between employer and employee. Laws exist to protect employees from being taken advantage of.

I understand the reasoning people use to justify minimum wage.

It does not change the fact that it prevents two adults from pursuing an activity to which they both consent.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I understand the reasoning people use to justify minimum wage.

It does not change the fact that it prevents two adults from pursuing an activity to which they both consent.

Is it really consent if you're alternatives are starving and dying? Sounds a lot more like coercion to me.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It seems as though there's some misunderstanding of my post above.

As a reminder, this post was a response to Weitz' post from earlier claiming that the average household income in Calgary of $100-$140k is enough to be able to afford "average" things.

So I did some quick math to show that the average family that earns about $120k per year would have a very difficult time purchasing a whole bunch of "average" things. Yes, they can purchase a $350k home and a $15k car. They can find a cheaper daycare (though I have yet to find anything in this city much lower than the average). That's not the point though. The point is that if a family, making average income set out to purchase a regular 3 bedroom detached home, 1 new vehicle (though most families need 2 vehicles if they live in the suburbs) and put their two children in daycare, they would have a very rough time. In order to make it work, they would need to cut out some of those fairly "average" things and find cheaper, less desirable alternatives.

For the record, I do agree with a lot of the sentiment around here. Nobody "needs" a new Rav4. Nobody needs a $512k home. My wife and I make a fairly decent sum of money that would be considered well above average. Yet we live in a 2 bedroom condo with our 2 kids and drive a 12 year old Toyota. We're happy knowing that we dont have to struggle and live paycheque to paycheque.

Maybe the majority of people shouldn't own a detached home in the burbs where they "need" two depreciating assets to get around

you dont even believe this to be true as you make more than the average and yet consciously decide to live in smaller than average housing using an older than average vehicle

The planet cant support 6 billion people living an average 2 car single detached home life and the quicker more people realize that and stop spouting this idea that we should all have and want that kind of extravagance the better

The last few generations had it real good, and while its inconvenient we missed that boat, it's like a person with terrible spending habits suddenly deciding to budget: its gonna feel bad at first as you adjust to the life you actually can afford instead of what you idealized or are used to, but you gotta rip the bandage off eventually

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I get that it's in the context of UBI that we're talking here. To play devil's advocate here, if this individual will collect UBI regardless of whether or not they work, why do I, as a working individual care? What difference does it make to my tax bill? I get that moral obligation to not leach off of society, etc. But truly, does it matter?

The size of your tax bill is dependent on how much tax others are paying. If we're guaranteeing people a $3k/month, then payments are fixed. The issue becomes who is paying for those payments.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is it really consent if your alternatives are starving and dying? Sounds a lot more like coercion to me.

It’s exploitation, but as you can see some people are ok with that sort of thing.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Maybe the majority of people shouldn't own a detached home in the burbs where they "need" two depreciating assets to get around

you dont even believe this to be true as you make more than the average and yet consciously decide to live in smaller than average housing using an older than average vehicle

The planet cant support 6 billion people living an average 2 car single detached home life and the quicker more people realize that and stop spouting this idea that we should all have and want that kind of extravagance the better

The last few generations had it real good, and while its inconvenient we missed that boat, it's like a person with terrible spending habits suddenly deciding to budget: its gonna feel bad at first as you adjust to the life you actually can afford instead of what you idealized or are used to, but you gotta rip the bandage off eventually

I agree and you're proving my point.

If the average family can't realistically afford average things then that invalidates Weitz' argument.

The question is, though, is that ok? What does that say about our economy when regular stuff at average prices are now considered luxuries for the top earners?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I get that it's in the context of UBI that we're talking here. To play devil's advocate here, if this individual will collect UBI regardless of whether or not they work, why do I, as a working individual care? What difference does it make to my tax bill? I get that moral obligation to not leach off of society, etc. But truly, does it matter?

The hope is that all individuals will collect UBI and enough of them are ambitious enough to work beyond UBI to contribute more in taxes to continue supporting UBI, and pick up the slack for those that don't "want" to work.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by you&me

The hope is that all individuals will collect UBI and enough of them are ambitious enough to work beyond UBI to contribute more in taxes to continue supporting UBI, and pick up the slack for those that don't "want" to work.

Another issue is how much of that work being done would be on the books and taxed. In the event of a UBI, we'd see a lot more side hustles paid for in cash.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by blankall

Another issue is how much of that work being done would be on the books and taxed. In the event of a UBI, we'd see a lot more side hustles paid for in cash.

True... Which is why I'd be open to a higher consumption tax...

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is it really consent if your alternatives are starving and dying? Sounds a lot more like coercion to me.

That's a false dichotomy.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I agree and you're proving my point.

If the average family can't realistically afford average things then that invalidates Weitz' argument.

The question is, though, is that ok? What does that say about our economy when regular stuff at average prices are now considered luxuries for the top earners?

But what I'm saying is what you say is average is actually rich people stuff, and just because everyone signs themselves up for a lifetime of neverending debt to have material objects that dont actually contribute to an individual's overall happiness doesnt mean that it's a bad thing that this is getting out of reach for people - they never should have been able to reach it in the first place

It seems like you're somewhat on my wavelength on the practical side of this, so let me ask you why it's a bad thing that people are actually forced to live within their means? The faster people divorce themselves of the idea u need to own multiple vehicles to fill the garage in your gigantic detached home that's spacious enough to stage all the material stuff you bought on on an impulse with credit doesnt actually contribute to a happy and fulfilling life the better, no?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I agree and you're proving my point.

If the average family can't realistically afford average things then that invalidates Weitz' argument.

The question is, though, is that ok? What does that say about our economy when regular stuff at average prices are now considered luxuries for the top earners?

If the average family can’t afford average things then why are those things average? People are over-extending themselves with cheap credit to live beyond their means and the market is responding by raising the average cost. If people stopped buying $500k houses the cost of housing would drop.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by stone hands

But what I'm saying is what you say is average is actually rich people stuff, and just because everyone signs themselves up for a lifetime of neverending debt to have material objects that dont actually contribute to an individual's overall happiness doesnt mean that it's a bad thing that this is getting out of reach for people - they never should have been able to reach it in the first place

It seems like you're somewhat on my wavelength on the practical side of this, so let me ask you why it's a bad thing that people are actually forced to live within their means? The faster people divorce themselves of the idea u need to own multiple vehicles to fill the garage in your gigantic detached home that's spacious enough to stage all the material stuff you bought on on an impulse with credit doesnt actually contribute to a happy and fulfilling life the better, no?

I sort of am on the same wavelength. But I also believe that there's something fundamentally wrong with our economy. I believe that our salaries have been artificially deflated and are divorced from reality.

For example, my single mom was able to purchase a newer, but modest 3 bed room home in a premium lake community and purchase a 3 year old sedan while working full time in retail. This was on her own, only 25 years ago.

That exact same home is now worth north of 450k. The fact that 2 professionals would struggle to make a life in my childhood home work is a bit insane.

Originally Posted by edslunch

If the average family can’t afford average things then why are those things average? People are over-extending themselves with cheap credit to live beyond their means and the market is responding by raising the average cost. If people stopped buying $500k houses the cost of housing would drop.

No, that's not the case. If everyone is rushing out to purchase a $350k home, then that would suddenly push the price of that home up to $512k.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Without the collective action of going on strike, strike pay is essentially the same concept as EI and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone suggest EI gives workers leverage to negotiate better wages.

Anecdotally, I also don’t think I’ve ever met a person who went on strike because they would get strike pay but that’s beside the point.

EI is a bad analogy here, because you have to get laid off to receive it. It might be functioning as a disincentive to lockouts, but we'd need it to go away to see that.

The strike pay analogy wasn't so much about going on strike to receive strike pay, but about strike pay giving workers the ability to sustain longer and stronger collective actions.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's a false dichotomy.

I don't think you understand what the term means. I never said those were the only two options. I'm asking you, for the people who do accept low wages in order to ensure basic survival, do you consider that consensual?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I sort of am on the same wavelength. But I also believe that there's something fundamentally wrong with our economy. I believe that our salaries have been artificially deflated and are divorced from reality.

For example, my single mom was able to purchase a newer, but modest 3 bed room home in a premium lake community and purchase a 3 year old sedan while working full time in retail. This was on her own, only 25 years ago.

That exact same home is now worth north of 450k. The fact that 2 professionals would struggle to make a life in my childhood home work is a bit insane.

No, that's not the case. If everyone is rushing out to purchase a $350k home, then that would suddenly push the price of that home up to $512k.

Can I give my too many degrees causes low pay argument again? Everyone's favorite GirlySports argument.

Plus salary freezes! There are no cost of living freezes!