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

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by blankall

And up until recently, dual income houses were equally as rare, with most women staying home.

That depends what you would consider "recently" and your socioeconomic class.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

True, and I’m not going to argue against raising taxes on the rich, but unfortunately raising their taxes isn’t going to address low wages and worker exploitation.

If you spend the revenues on a UBI, it could.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Communism, as practiced, isn't even socialism. It's just government control-ism. I mean, what's the Chinese social security structure? Nothing. They have more wealth inequity than the US does.

China isn't and example "communism, as practiced". China is a fascist state that calls itself communist. If you want to look at a non-theoretical example of a communist country, look at Cuba. They are quite egalitarian (supreme leader notwithstanding).

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Anybody working full time (40 hours per week) should be paid a living wage by their employer. Anybody disagree with that?

Haven't read the thread yet, but I'd do you 1 better, and say the conversation shouldn't be some much structured around a living wage, but around where people should land on the hierarchy of needs to be a mobile and functioning member of a society.

For example in Alberta to have a chance a both maintaining gainful employment, and improving your productivity over time time, you need access to;

Food
Shelter
Transportation
Communication
Education
Rest and Relaxation
The ability to repopulate at minimum at a 1:1 ratio
Child Care...

Start to put a price on all of those things monthly

Groceries for 2 ~$600 - $800
Housing for 2 ~$1200
Bus Passes $200
Phone & Internet $150
Continuing Education $200
Child Care $1000
Some form of Entertainment $?

You are looking at ~$3600 after tax, ~ $4500 pretax, which is getting into the $28 - $30 / hour range there. Anything less, and you are basically playing from behind on even seeing any advancement in life, unless you have a partner, no kids, help from mom and dad....

[edslunch]

I keep seeing $1000 or more for daycare. Why isn’t the $10 a day thing being raised as a huge issue?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah I’m thinking we see violent revolution sooner than later.

I’m surprised we don’t see more frequent extreme reactions to the current economic and environmental disasters that are developing. Assassinating CEOs, blowing up corporate buildings, disrupting production for massive polluters/tax evaders etc. The extreme left are kinda slackers. Antifa get a lot of press and fear mongering from the right but they don’t do much except some lame protests/riots at G20 events.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by #-3

Haven't read the thread yet, but I'd do you 1 better, and say the conversation shouldn't be some much structured around a living wage, but around where people should land on the hierarchy of needs to be a mobile and functioning member of a society.

For example in Alberta to have a chance a both maintaining gainful employment, and improving your productivity over time time, you need access to;

Food
Shelter
Transportation
Communication
Education
Rest and Relaxation
The ability to repopulate at minimum at a 1:1 ratio
Child Care...

Start to put a price on all of those things monthly

Groceries for 2 ~$600 - $800
Housing for 2 ~$1200
Bus Passes $200
Phone & Internet $150
Continuing Education $200
Child Care $1000
Some form of Entertainment $?

You are looking at ~$3600 after tax, ~ $4500 pretax, which is getting into the $28 - $30 / hour range there. Anything less, and you are basically playing from behind on even seeing any advancement in life, unless you have a partner, no kids, help from mom and dad....

Not to discount what you're saying, but just some push back on the numbers like the other poster:

600-800 in food for 2 people for one month is outrageous and something that should be cleaned up for someone looking to stretch their dollar farther. For reference we are anywhere from 350-450 per month in food for 2

[blankall]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Trickle down economics gets a bad wrap because it doesnt work and it defies basic logic

The reason people consider communism a non-starter is because human nature is too greedy and individualistic for it to work,people are always gonna want more than their neighbors especially if they perceive like they earned it

...however proponents of trickle down economics use the complete opposite logic that individual stakeholders who receive more profits will part with them willingly is just asinine, especially in an economic system that succeeds because of the individual quest for wealth. Additional profits has always and will always not only mean those increased profits go directly to the stakeholders(as the system is designed), but that these stakeholders now have an expectation of a baseline of growth from it

It makes for some good rhetoric(a rising tide does indeed lift all boats), but doesnt work in practice

It doesn't defy logic. For example, if you give a tax break to a corporation, and they move their production facilities into your jurisdiction, as a result of that tax break, then the workers they employ benefit.

Saying that cutting taxes at the top never works is no different than saying socialist policies never work. There are circumstances where both work, and problems only arise when people speak in absolutes.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blankall

It doesn't defy logic. For example, if you give a tax break to a corporation, and they move their production facilities into your jurisdiction, as a result of that tax break, then the workers they employ benefit.

Saying that cutting taxes at the top never works is no different than saying socialist policies never work. There are circumstances where both work, and problems only arise when people speak in absolutes.

No that absolutely doesn’t work. Corporations get cities to fight each other by lowering corporate taxes to unsustainable rates. Th companies then hold municipalities hostage to cripple their economies and leave if they don’t join the race to the bottom. Having cities fight to lower corporate taxes is bad. All it does is push salaries lower and create job uncertainty.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Not to discount what you're saying, but just some push back on the numbers like the other poster:

600-800 in food for 2 people for one month is outrageous and something that should be cleaned up for someone looking to stretch their dollar farther. For reference we are anywhere from 350-450 per month in food for 2

I'd also argue that housing for two plus a child for $1,200.00 per months is pretty low. By the time people are having kids, they should be at least looking for ownership, which is going to put them in the $2,000+ range.

A lot of people are also looking at Calgary as the standard here. While prices are low, so are job opportunities. If Calgary's unemployment rate fell to levels like those in Vancouver/Toronto, you'd also see a massive rise in the cost of living. It's not good enough to say people should live in a place that's cheaper and have a lower cost of living, they also need to have a job....or in the our society two in their household.

The fact that Calgary has such a high cost of housing, considering its unemployment rate is pretty staggering, and the true cost of living will only be revealed once the employment market in Calgary picks up again.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No that absolutely doesn’t work. Corporations get cities to fight each other by lowering corporate taxes to unsustainable rates. Th companies then hold municipalities hostage to cripple their economies and leave if they don’t join the race to the bottom. Having cities fight to lower corporate taxes is bad. All it does is push salaries lower and create job uncertainty.

This is literally the exact logic that people who say socialist policies don't work apply. A "race to the bottom" only occurs when absolute policies are applied.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you spend the revenues on a UBI, it could.

It could also further stagnate wages.

[you&me]

I'm still not convinced that UBI won't exasperate the labour supply problems we're seemingly seeing as a result of CERB.

Rather than straight UBI, I think I'd rather a something like a smaller UBI, say $350/week and a higher personal tax exemption that works out to a tax-free take home similar to a healthy UBI...

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'm still not convinced that UBI won't exasperate the labour supply problems we're seemingly seeing as a result of CERB.

Rather than straight UBI, I think I'd rather a something like a smaller UBI, say $350/week and a higher personal tax exemption that works out to a tax-free take home similar to a healthy UBI...

Is there any proof that cerb is causing the labour shortage? I've seen (which to be fair could be false info) that states that discontinued covid benefits are seeing the same issues with labour shortages as states who have kept them going.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

And up until recently, dual income houses were equally as rare, with most women staying home. Now dual income households are the norm, with two incomes unable to provide what one income did a generation ago.

But one income back them didn’t really provide what two incomes do today. It provided a house (obviously real estate costs are the big difference), but otherwise not what we would consider a middle-class lifestyle. One car for the family, not two or three. Family vacations in a station wagon, not flights to the Mayan Riviera. Even look at Flames games. Good mid-bowl tickets ran $30 in the mid-eighties ($67 today). Why so low? Because that 40 year old engineer or accountant who bought the ticket was likely the only salary-earner in the household, and he had to cover a mortgage, car, food and clothes for three kids, etc on a single salary. $67 was the limit of what he could afford for a big night out.

The dual-income, two professional family unit has created a whole new class of consumer and new middle-class standards. Spending on children’s activities has quadrupled. Spending on home renovations has increased by multiples as well. That’s the real class divide we don’t like to talk about: professional-class couples in enduring marriages vs working-class people in temporary partnerships. Marriage is the essential signifier of middle-class today and the two-professional family the winners of the modern economy. It isn’t just the one-percent who are pulling away, but the 20 per cent (who I expect account for many of the posters on this forum).

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is there any proof that cerb is causing the labour shortage? I've seen (which to be fair could be false info) that states that discontinued covid benefits are seeing the same issues with labour shortages as states who have kept them going.

That's why I said "seemingly". To be completely honest, I really don't follow these trends closely, so I don't know if there have been any studies to link CERB to a labour shortage.

That said, I have a pretty good idea what younger me would have done if I could have got $2k a month without having to work... And I also know what younger me would do if I could get ~$1,400 a month (i.e. $350/week UBI) and then not pay income tax on another ~$2k a month by working... At that, I'm just pulling a random number from my butt, but ~$3,400 per month seems like a reasonable tax-free / UBI amount to me - happy to hear reasons to adjust.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is literally the exact logic that people who say socialist policies don't work apply. A "race to the bottom" only occurs when absolute policies are applied.

Uh huh. So go on then explain how socialism is race to the bottom. Because the scenario I explained is supported by fact and literally thousands of examples.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Very quick math here.

$120,000 salary = $7700/month after tax
Average 3 bedroom detached home = $512,000 = $2200/month
Property taxes = $250/month
Average new vehicle = $40,000 = $600 lease
Child care for 2 children = $2400
Bills including TV, internet, phone, heat, water, sewage, etc. = $700
Grand total of $6150, leaving the family with just over $1500 per month for groceries, gas, savings, gym memberships, RRSPs, RESPs, paying off student loans and other debt.
That's about $350 per adult, per 2 week pay period for "discretionary" spending.

Sure.... it's doable. But it doesn't leave much room for daily coffee and avocado toast.

What ends up happening in a situation like this is things get cut out. Maybe the kids stay with their grandparents instead of daycare. Or maybe the family keeps driving their 15 year old beater. Or maybe they just say "fk it, we'll just keep accumulating debt, because what's the point?"

And this is in Calgary, where things are relatively cheap. Imagine living in Toronto or Vancouver, where average incomes are about 80% of what they are here and housing and child care are twice as expensive. No matter how many new TVs and vacations you tell yourself you won't purchase, it's not going to make any difference whatsoever.

What a ridiculous budget you're expecting here. If you've still got two kids that need full time daycare, to the tune of $2400, then there's no f'ing way you should be buying a $500,000 house, and a new car. Neither of those are necessities.

You can go and claim the other extreme of a 15 year old beater, but that's just you, expecting that you get handed your life on a platter. I somehow managed to raise my kid in a half duplex, with a 10 year old vehicle, and further managed to find a dayhome that was only $600/mo., and now suddenly, a few years later, I've got extra money in my account, making not much more than half your salary.

Seriously, you're spending your hard earned money on expensive glue, and I'd like a sniff, because it seems like it's the good stuff. Instead of the good glue, I learned to fix a few things on my own, and went without the flat screen and PS4 in the bedroom. Funny how money can be saved when you're not wasting it on wants and instead of using it on needs.

I seriously can't get over how insane your post is. As though a $500,000 detached house is a god given right. STFU and earn it. My kid's RESP has a fair amount (not full), my mortgage is well on it's way to being paid, and my vehicle is a little older. Boo hoo. Someone owes me something.

That said, I agree with the living wage part of the thread, just not this lunatic that thinks that being a newlywed means the right to two kids, a half million dollar house, and a $600/mo car payment. 1 less kid, 33% less house, and 50% less car somehow makes the math work pretty easily. In other words, get your #### together.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'll take your word on how it was conceived, but the whole idea when it was implemented was to help the rich.

Literally everything every party or group in power will introduce is to help the rich. Depending on the party in power will depend on what group of “rich” people they will help. And will depend what crumb they will throw out to make people think they are actually helping the lower income folks.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Not to discount what you're saying, but just some push back on the numbers like the other poster:

600-800 in food for 2 people for one month is outrageous and something that should be cleaned up for someone looking to stretch their dollar farther. For reference we are anywhere from 350-450 per month in food for 2

I said groceries, Shampoo, Toilet Paper, Cleaning Supplies..... They start to add up. I also in my head include fast food / snacks, anything replacing day to day eating requirements. But I exclude a nice dinner out that falls under entertainment in my head.

I'd be pretty surprised if you actually measure it and still find you are under $450. You are essentially claiming you spend $2/meal (2 people = 6 meals / day x 30 days = 180 meals / month, then you add snacks, hygiene and cleaning suppliers).


$1000 / month daycare is actually pretty cheap by current standards, we can talk about $10/day when it actually happens (also are we arguing that it would be better if employers don't pay a wage covering basic needs, because the welfare state should pickup the slack, because I think there a few socialists on this board that would be all over that).