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

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh. So now you get to choose where they live because it determines how much you pay them?

What if they live in a Condo on Riverside Avenue? Are you going to pay your dishwasher ~$70K a year?

Thats what it costs him to live! You cant tell him where and how to live, but you're responsible for his wage!

Yep that's what it means

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I know the idea sucks that maybe you shouldn't be able to hand everything down, but alternatively that money could go back to society, so everyone has a more level playing field.

Yeah, it's essentially a political poison pill because almost every parent wants to provide their children with a better life than they've had. That said, if we had a society where a certain level of comfort and survival was guaranteed to everyone, would this be as much of a concern to parents?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not so much that it's an empty political platitude as it's a hard to implement concept due to how our government and labour legislation currently works. Cost of living and wage concerns pretty clearly vary based on where you live, so having legislation that tries to set a single standard for an entire province is extremely inefficient and outdated.

I also don't think you're going to see much impact from increasing minimum wage in cities such as Vancouver unless governments actually get serious about real estate speculation. And why would they do that when a surging real estate market artificially boosts the sitting government's economic metrics?

Well said.

I know this is going to sound 'Soviet Socialist' but we need affordable housing.

Take authority of what you can control.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Yep that's what it means

I don’t think that would work in real life.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well said.

I know this is going to sound 'Soviet Socialist' but we need affordable housing.

Take authority of what you can control.

I was thinking you could set up "economic zones" and legislate wages for businesses who operate in those based on the costs of living in those zones. This might also have some positive affects on climate change, as it would hopefully limit commuting.

The problem you run into there is again with the speculation issue. Small business are going to be unfairly punished and pushed out if population density increases and housing costs continue to rise. The last thing anyone wants to see is an urban core overrun with chain restaurants and H&Ms.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's how generation inequality accumulates though. Lets pretend you started at the basic average of life. Through your hard work, you accumulate advantages you can pass on to your children. They may do the same, advancing your family.

Now take someone who wasn't average, and started mcuh lower. Maybe they are disadvantaged by race, or a physical disability, or unforeseen sickness midway through life. Their children grow up in worse schools, live farther from good jobs, and maybe have to work instead of getting an education.

Your child ends up with benefits, while the other child does not. Your child lives in a bigger home you helped pay for, got a solid education that helps with a higher paying job etc. Eventually it concentrates wealth, just like the landlords of old living in castles. Is that fair, just because of who they were born to?

I know the idea sucks that maybe you shouldn't be able to hand everything down, but alternatively that money could go back to society, so everyone has a more level playing field.

Yeah, I see that. Maybe this is one of those turning points where a person starts to get more conservative as they get older? I'm 45. I like to save. My kids are teenagers. We've been saving for their university since they were born. Maybe a guy starts to want to "protect what's his" to the detriment of others.

If you look at buying financial security for your offspring as just another thing you can choose to buy...like maybe the guy next door buys a $60k boat and an $80k F-150 to pull it with, but I just float around on a pool noodle and drive my older truck and use the same capital to invest in my kids' future. How are you going to get a guy like me on board with wanting to claw my money back on my death?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, I see that. Maybe this is one of those turning points where a person starts to get more conservative as they get older? I'm 45. I like to save. My kids are teenagers. We've been saving for their university since they were born. Maybe a guy starts to want to "protect what's his" to the detriment of others.

If you look at buying financial security for your offspring as just another thing you can choose to buy...like maybe the guy next door buys a $60k boat and an $80k F-150 to pull it with, but I just float around on a pool noodle and drive my older truck and use the same capital to invest in my kids' future. How are you going to get a guy like me on board with wanting to claw my money back on my death?

FFS, I forgot how old I am for a bit. I'm actually 44 (not that it matters).

[indes]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I was thinking you could set up "economic zones" and legislate wages for businesses who operate in those based on the costs of living in those zones. This might also have some positive affects on climate change, as it would hopefully limit commuting.



The problem you run into there is again with the speculation issue. Small business are going to be unfairly punished and pushed out if population density increases and housing costs continue to rise. The last thing anyone wants to see is an urban core overrun with chain restaurants and H&Ms.

People would immediately shop in a zone with lower wages, thus lower prices. Why go for a 25$ burger when you can get the same thing for 12$, next zone over.

Raising minimum wage faster than inflation isn't the answer. If we want to give everyone a basic standard of living it needs to come through taxation and subsidies. Make under a certain amount? Here's your free phone plan, here's a rent top up, here's food stamps etc.

At the very least this would give us the data and analytics to make informed decisions. Or we can just keep blathering about how everyone needs a minimum of 25$.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, I see that. Maybe this is one of those turning points where a person starts to get more conservative as they get older? I'm 45. I like to save. My kids are teenagers. We've been saving for their university since they were born. Maybe a guy starts to want to "protect what's his" to the detriment of others.

If you look at buying financial security for your offspring as just another thing you can choose to buy...like maybe the guy next door buys a $60k boat and an $80k F-150 to pull it with, but I just float around on a pool noodle and drive my older truck and use the same capital to invest in my kids' future. How are you going to get a guy like me on board with wanting to claw my money back on my death?

Ya, it absolutely goes against human behaviour. I don't really know how you make it work in a manner that your efforts gets trasfered to your children without also causing unfairness to perpetuate. We clearly aren't that interested in it, otherwise we'd be transferring wealth globaly to bring everyone to the same standard, and I'm not sure anyone is ready to do that. But at the same time society will fail if wealth concentrates to much, and generational wealth transfer occurs unfettered.

If someone like you chooses to work harder, you may spend less time with your family, so in a way you have traded those dollars earned for less family time, and your children suffered a bit. Someone else chooses to work less, and have more family time. I agree that then you should be able to pass that on, because your children payed for it, in a way. It's not really a straight forward thing you can quantify.

I don't know a solution, but one day we are going to need one. Perhaps just taxing obscene wealth transfers, so anything over a certain threshold is taxed higher. You never get full equality, but then you can pass some benefits down. And scooter transfers are charged full inheritance tax.

[RichieRich]

Whilst there's no doubt that costs of living have increased, it cannot be discounted either that the North American society (and likely others) has become an insane consumer of goods based mostly upon wants rather than needs. There is planned obsolescence with so so many goods too. Advertising has convinced so many that they need their daily coffee, internet subscriptions, data packages, tv packages, bigger better TV's and electronics every couple of years, heck throw in "starter" homes that "need" upgrades and eventually larger homes, same with vehicles... where does it end? Why don't we have conversations and education around the opportunity costs of so many non-essential goods and services?


So in our world rife with expectations where the answer is always more more more, it's easy to be convinced (either externally or internal dialogue) that the answer is always that we are being underpaid and someone is grossly profiting. Why is the answer that those richer/wealthier than ourselves somehow have an unfair advantage and hence "DESERVE" to be taxed more heavily? that's another whole thread I suppose...
In any case, some jobs have been deemed unskilled, or have lower level of importance assigned to them, or require different levels of life-experience and/or education. It's why I expect to get paid more than many other fields... at the cost of job uncertainty though.

Logically compensation will range immensely according to type of job but also general cost of living in a particular area. Should a coffee barista need to be paid less working in Airdrie or more working in downtown Banff where making ends meet is much harder? What about owners expectation of profit and margins?
Although AB minimum wage is ~$15/hr... that's an immense amount of money to a teenager/student living at home. But to a single parent it's barely enough. There's no "right" or "easy" answer, and I certainly don't want to go the socialist route of "a job for everyone, no pay for over/under performance, same pay regardless of job" as that's quickly racing to the bottom. Continuously aggressively raising minimum wage is also a race to the bottom for most starting business' who may not be able to afford staff or have the endurance to themselves work 80 hour weeks.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by indes

People would immediately shop in a zone with lower wages, thus lower prices. Why go for a 25$ burger when you can get the same thing for 12$, next zone over.

I think that really depends. I live and work in downtown Victoria and as such I don't own a vehicle because I don't need one for my commute. Due to not having a vehicle, I also shop, eat, socialize, etc. almost exclusively in downtown Victoria because the effort required for me to get to a Costco or Walmart isn't worth the savings.

Also, wouldn't that cause the businesses in the current zone to lower their prices to compete with the next zone over? Obviously their profit margins would be smaller and some businesses would leave for cheaper zones, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If some of these businesses leave for cheaper zones, it inevitably makes those other zones more economically viable and thus desirable to live in.

I do think you'd initially need to provide some kind of economic subsidy to small businesses in desirable zones to keep them economically competitive and not have a complete corporatization of downtown cores.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, I see that. Maybe this is one of those turning points where a person starts to get more conservative as they get older? I'm 45. I like to save. My kids are teenagers. We've been saving for their university since they were born. Maybe a guy starts to want to "protect what's his" to the detriment of others.

If you look at buying financial security for your offspring as just another thing you can choose to buy...like maybe the guy next door buys a $60k boat and an $80k F-150 to pull it with, but I just float around on a pool noodle and drive my older truck and use the same capital to invest in my kids' future. How are you going to get a guy like me on board with wanting to claw my money back on my death?

If taxes and policy were used to cover the cost of your kids' university and provide your kids with a decent minimum standard of living, would that change your spending habits?

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well said.
I know this is going to sound 'Soviet Socialist' but we need affordable housing.
Take authority of what you can control.

I've always been confused as to what constitutes "affordable housing".
Because to some that might mean a reasonable purchase price. or rent.
but reasonable is very relative to ones incomes and free cash flow.
free cash flow is tied to needs and choices.
some people don't think medications or treatments are choices, but are needs.
Is it reasonable to expect everyone to want to buy a place to live? are they capable of what that entails? does it meet their needs? are they picky about their neighbors, or does nobody want to be their neighbor?

So, to me, affordable housing means making some base assumptions on family needs (ie based on # of people and any medical issues), then setting the rental rate at something that's demographic/geographically acceptable, and then policing accordingly?? but does that lead towards socialism/communism again?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If taxes and policy were used to cover the cost of your kids' university and provide your kids with a decent minimum standard of living, would that change your spending habits?

I do like the principle for sure. Let me think about it.

I'm concerned my thoughts are going to a more selfish place where I want them to be better off than average and not just part of the herd struggling and toiling away. I know that sounds pretty sh$%ty, which is why I want to think for a bit and maybe see some other responses.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Whilst there's no doubt that costs of living have increased, it cannot be discounted either that the North American society (and likely others) has become an insane consumer of goods based mostly upon wants rather than needs. There is planned obsolescence with so so many goods too. Advertising has convinced so many that they need their daily coffee, internet subscriptions, data packages, tv packages, bigger better TV's and electronics every couple of years, heck throw in "starter" homes that "need" upgrades and eventually larger homes, same with vehicles... where does it end? Why don't we have conversations and education around the opportunity costs of so many non-essential goods and services?


So in our world rife with expectations where the answer is always more more more, it's easy to be convinced (either externally or internal dialogue) that the answer is always that we are being underpaid and someone is grossly profiting. Why is the answer that those richer/wealthier than ourselves somehow have an unfair advantage and hence "DESERVE" to be taxed more heavily? that's another whole thread I suppose...
In any case, some jobs have been deemed unskilled, or have lower level of importance assigned to them, or require different levels of life-experience and/or education. It's why I expect to get paid more than many other fields... at the cost of job uncertainty though.

Logically compensation will range immensely according to type of job but also general cost of living in a particular area. Should a coffee barista need to be paid less working in Airdrie or more working in downtown Banff where making ends meet is much harder? What about owners expectation of profit and margins?
Although AB minimum wage is ~$15/hr... that's an immense amount of money to a teenager/student living at home. But to a single parent it's barely enough. There's no "right" or "easy" answer, and I certainly don't want to go the socialist route of "a job for everyone, no pay for over/under performance, same pay regardless of job" as that's quickly racing to the bottom. Continuously aggressively raising minimum wage is also a race to the bottom for most starting business' who may not be able to afford staff or have the endurance to themselves work 80 hour weeks.

I do understand that sentiment, but I also feel like that's now an outdated idea that's no longer in line with reality.

When a decent home in Calgary is now worth at least $500k, a new vehicle is at least $40k, child care costs around $1200 per child, internet and phone plans are astronomically high. It becomes close to impossible to purchase just the basics on minimum wage. Heck, a two income household making average income can't afford the average cost of things.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I do like the principle for sure. Let me think about it.

I'm concerned my thoughts are going to a more selfish place where I want them to be better off than average and not just part of the herd struggling and toiling away. I know that sounds pretty sh$%ty, which is why I want to think for a bit and maybe see some other responses.

That's actually a pretty damning indictment of our current economic system, and I don't blame you at all for still harbouring concerns. If someone had told you 30 years ago that your childrens' university and basic needs would be taken care of, you'd bet pretty good money on them coming out pretty far ahead in the long run, regardless of how much wealth you left them. The fact that that is no longer enough to provide you (and probably the majority parents) with a high-level of optimism towards their chances of prosperity really speaks to how much we've mucked this whole thing up, IMO.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, it absolutely goes against human behaviour. I don't really know how you make it work in a manner that your efforts gets trasfered to your children without also causing unfairness to perpetuate. We clearly aren't that interested in it, otherwise we'd be transferring wealth globaly to bring everyone to the same standard, and I'm not sure anyone is ready to do that. But at the same time society will fail if wealth concentrates to much, and generational wealth transfer occurs unfettered.

If someone like you chooses to work harder, you may spend less time with your family, so in a way you have traded those dollars earned for less family time, and your children suffered a bit. Someone else chooses to work less, and have more family time. I agree that then you should be able to pass that on, because your children payed for it, in a way. It's not really a straight forward thing you can quantify.

I don't know a solution, but one day we are going to need one. Perhaps just taxing obscene wealth transfers, so anything over a certain threshold is taxed higher. You never get full equality, but then you can pass some benefits down. And scooter transfers are charged full inheritance tax.

Yeah, I think a transfer tax that hits anywhere close to what "normal" people could obtain will be a political non-starter. I also think its unfair and penalizes hard workers like Sliver.

Also, Canada has a deemed disposition of all your assets on death. The very rich are generally rich based on appreciated assets (stocks, businesses, real estate) and the pay capital gains taxes on it when they die.

That is already better than the US system. In that system your heirs actually get to adjust the cost basis of all your assets to their value on death. And only the super rich pay estate taxes. So most US estates pay no capital gains tax nor any estate tax.

[Muta]

I see the gap between the economic classes becoming so big, and the disparity so (optically) unrecoverable, people will start eventually start taking that wealth back by force. It won't happen for a while yet, but it's not that far off either... and it won't be pretty.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I do understand that sentiment, but I also feel like that's now an outdated idea that's no longer in line with reality.

When a decent home in Calgary is now worth at least $500k, a new vehicle is at least $40k, child care costs around $1200 per child, internet and phone plans are astronomically high. It becomes close to impossible to purchase just the basics on minimum wage. Heck, a two income household making average income can't afford the average cost of things.

What things though? Average family income in Calgary is roughly (most recent I could find is 2016) $140,XXX. Median (in 2018) was $102,XXX. That seems more than enough to buy average things?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I do like the principle for sure. Let me think about it.

I'm concerned my thoughts are going to a more selfish place where I want them to be better off than average and not just part of the herd struggling and toiling away. I know that sounds pretty sh$%ty, which is why I want to think for a bit and maybe see some other responses.

Sliver do you know that your kids want your money?

I am at the point where my parents (mid-80's) and my MIL (mid-70's) are openly talking about how much money they will be leaving behind. They are saying things like "Well we can't do X because we want to leave you money".

The message from my wife and I is, #### no. Spend what you have on yourselves. There is no and there shouldn't any expectation that my parents leave me any $.