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

[RockLicker]

Aaaand go!

[Misterpants]

Care to start us off so we can sing along?

[RockLicker]

I just want the oil thread back.

[Sliver]

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

[rubecube]

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?

Also, wage theft by an employer should be treated in the same manner as an employee stealing from their place of work (i.e. criminal charges).

[RockLicker]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Also, wage theft by an employer should be treated in the same manner as an employee stealing from their place of work (i.e. criminal charges).

Absolutely. As a kid, my first job (aside from the farm) was working at a gas station where the owner would deduct any tank shortages off the kids paycheque that shift when the till was reconciled. Of course there was no top up when the tank was over. Was the most petty, disgusting way to steal a few bucks from kids who didn't know any better. Screw that old bag.

[blankall]

The Western World is at a stage of economic crisis. Wages have clearly fallen below where they should be, and the cost of living continues to rise. The issue with simply raising employees salaries is that many small businesses are already stretched thin. It's great to have major corporation pay out of their billions of dollars of profits to help their employees. When you're raising wages across the board and expect a mom and pop restaurant to pay a dishwasher $50k/year plus benefits, it's another matter.

At the end of the day, the gap between rich and poor has become so extreme, and it will get worse as we stare down the incoming wave of inflation.

This is a horribly complex issue that I don't know the answer too. A few reforms I think could be helpful:

1. Increase the tax base by limiting small corporations. The point of lessening the tax rate for corporations was to help out small businesses and allow businesses to carry over funds year over year. It wasn't to have every CEO set up a personal corporation and avoid taxes.

2. Taxes on principal residences. Obviously this is going to be controversial. The principal residence exemption was meant to allow people to sell their properties and move to a new one without paying tax. You could simply allow a roll over to deal with this, where tax is deferred as long as a new property is purchased. The current gap between generational wealth is just too extreme. The exemptions weren't meant to provide people with 7 figure exemptions, while everyone else rents.

3. Economic reforms to encourage local small businesses. These businesses are the lifeblood of any society and all that stands between a society and total corporate domination. We have a system where that seems to give more breaks to larger businesses, while punishing the smaller ones.

4. Steps have to be made to deal with the intergenerational wealth issue. Is not just an issue of wealth between generations but also social mobility. The wealth of your parents should not be determinative of your own wealth.

[undercoverbrother]

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?

Every ####ing day I battle with my company over this very topic.

Every time we have someone leave for better pay, I bring in new efficiencies to combat the staff shortage in the hopes of utilizing the salary monies of the exited staff to raise the remaining staffs compensation.

It upsets me to no end.

[Locke]

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?

My only disagreement is that this is just an empty political platitude.

What does that actually mean?

[Misterpants]

I'm curious to know what people think will be the tipping point for wealth inequality in Canada and the U.S. or if people will just sit with it in perpetuity? The last couple of years mass protests and insurrections have shown the tip of the iceberg of what could potentially happen if people mobilize in great numbers. At what level of inequality do people finally get tired of Jeff Bezos going to the moon and just divvy up his stuff while he is in space?

[lazypucker]

I remember one of the minimum wage jobs that I had years ago, the owner purposely set the clock on the wall to be 15 min ahead. So when anyone showed up at the correct time, he would point at the clock and said that the person is 15 minutes late and deduct 0.25 hour off the wage.

But then when people left their shifts when the clock reached the top of the hour, the owner will point at the same clock again saying that this clock is 15 minutes ahead and tell the staff they still have 15 minutes left in the shift.

So the guy is skimming off 15 minutes free labour everyday from everyone...

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Western World is at a stage of economic crisis. Wages have clearly fallen below where they should be, and the cost of living continues to rise. The issue with simply raising employees salaries is that many small businesses are already stretched thin. It's great to have major corporation pay out of their billions of dollars of profits to help their employees. When you're raising wages across the board and expect a mom and pop restaurant to pay a dishwasher $50k/year plus benefits, it's another matter.

At the end of the day, the gap between rich and poor has become so extreme, and it will get worse as we stare down the incoming wave of inflation.

This is a horribly complex issue that I don't know the answer too. A few reforms I think could be helpful:

1. Increase the tax base by limiting small corporations. The point of lessening the tax rate for corporations was to help out small businesses and allow businesses to carry over funds year over year. It wasn't to have every CEO set up a personal corporation and avoid taxes.

2. Taxes on principal residences. Obviously this is going to be controversial. The principal residence exemption was meant to allow people to sell their properties and move to a new one without paying tax. You could simply allow a roll over to deal with this, where tax is deferred as long as a new property is purchased. The current gap between generational wealth is just too extreme. The exemptions weren't meant to provide people with 7 figure exemptions, while everyone else rents.

3. Economic reforms to encourage local small businesses. These businesses are the lifeblood of any society and all that stands between a society and total corporate domination. We have a system where that seems to give more breaks to larger businesses, while punishing the smaller ones.

4. Steps have to be made to deal with the intergenerational wealth issue. Is not just an issue of wealth between generations but also social mobility. The wealth of your parents should not be determinative of your own wealth.

Can you expand on this one a bit? I get it in principle, but my wife and I are planning and working really hard to give our kids a leg up. Like, I could have a bigger/better house and newer cars if I wanted, but my financial goals are more directed at my kids. I want to help them buy their first houses, pay for their university educations, and just generally help them move forward in life moreso than making things materially better in my own.

I look at any wealth my wife and I accumulate as familial wealth, since you can't take it with you. I'm planning and hoping we can start some generational wealth in my family for my kids and their kids by making really long-term decisions now versus just decisions that affect me until I'm 85, say. I wouldn't want a system where I'm incentivized to buy a new car to just blow my money over saving, growing and transferring wealth from one generation to the next.

Like, I want to buy my kids and future grandkids more financial security. Some people rather travel and live in a huge house. I don't want to take a tax kick to the nuts because of how I'm choosing to spend my money.

Could be I just don't get what you mean, though.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Locke

My only disagreement is that this is just an empty political platitude.

What does that actually mean?

It means that you put in your 40 hours at x job and receive enough compensation to pay the average cost of living where you reside

In a practical sense, whatever prevents the current paradigm of lower class people being required to have multiple jobs and rely on government assistance to afford the above - however that ends up looking

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Locke

My only disagreement is that this is just an empty political platitude.

What does that actually mean?

I think it can have a concrete answer.

What is the poverty line? Wages have to be above that.

Anybody working full time should be able to afford to rent an apartment, have a cell phone, eat, pay electricity/gas/water, live within a one-hour commute of work, afford a bus pass, basic wardrobe, etc. You don't need a car, plane vacations, brand name clothes, etc.; but you should be able to live a very basic and not-unhealthy life if you are working full time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I'm curious to know what people think will be the tipping point for wealth inequality in Canada and the U.S. or if people will just sit with it in perpetuity? The last couple of years mass protests and insurrections have shown the tip of the iceberg of what could potentially happen if people mobilize in great numbers. At what level of inequality do people finally get tired of Jeff Bezos going to the moon and just divvy up his stuff while he is in space?

US Wealth Inequality has already jumped the shark. Its insane.

We dont have the same issue here in Canada, but its probably coming.

When Economic times are good there is usually lots of money to go around and everyone is doing well.

But when you're a nation that has historically been a 'Resource-Based Economy' and the current trend and Government is attempting to kill that element of the economy....I think its safe to assume that problems are coming.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by stone hands

It means that you put in your 40 hours at x job and receive enough compensation to pay the average cost of living where you reside

In a practical sense, whatever prevents the current paradigm of lower class people being required to have multiple jobs and rely on government assistance to afford the above - however that ends up looking

In a practical sense, it would mean mandating that the minimum always matches the average, which in turn would keep pushing up the average. So, yes, it truly is nothing but a political platitude.

[iggy_oi]

If only there were some mechanism that addresses low wages, income inequality and class warfare that could be made more easily available to exploited workers.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Can you expand on this one a bit? I get it in principle, but my wife and I are planning and working really hard to give our kids a leg up. Like, I could have a bigger/better house and newer cars if I wanted, but my financial goals are more directed at my kids. I want to help them buy their first houses, pay for their university educations, and just generally help them move forward in life moreso than making things materially better in my own.

I look at any wealth my wife and I accumulate as familial wealth, since you can't take it with you. I'm planning and hoping we can start some generational wealth in my family for my kids and their kids by making really long-term decisions now versus just decisions that affect me until I'm 85, say. I wouldn't want a system where I'm incentivized to buy a new car to just blow my money over saving, growing and transferring wealth from one generation to the next.

Like, I want to buy my kids and future grandkids more financial security. Some people rather travel and live in a huge house. I don't want to take a tax kick to the nuts because of how I'm choosing to spend my money.

Could be I just don't get what you mean, though.

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.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by stone hands

It means that you put in your 40 hours at x job and receive enough compensation to pay the average cost of living where you reside

In a practical sense, whatever prevents the current paradigm of lower class people being required to have multiple jobs and rely on government assistance to afford the above - however that ends up looking

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!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

My only disagreement is that this is just an empty political platitude.

What does that actually mean?

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?