Should Gov't. be sticking it's nose into minimum wage regulation?

[Tonington]

Couldn't a little insurance be substituted for Socialism?

That's what socialized medicine is...we all pay into the plan to spread the risk out so that no one person is ever left with bills they can't afford. The rest of the safety net works in the same fashion.

The well known example is in the US, where ants declare personal bankruptcy because the bills to keep them alive and working become to much, and then they can't support their families anyways. And then demagogues/politicians/partisans in the media call them grasshoppers. A kick in the teeth while they're down. What nice folk some ants are, ehh? Not.

 

[JLM]

That's what socialized medicine is...we all pay into the plan to spread the risk out so that no one person is ever left with bills they can't afford..

You're 95% right ...................... Insurance = Socialism - a sh*tload of bureaucrats.

 

[Machjo]

Do we have too much Gov't. regulation in our lives? Could the employee and market place do a more effective job of establishing minimum wage? Does Gov't. regulation simply ensure parity between good and poor workers?

I don't think the issue is one of too much regulation, but rather of quality regulation. Personally I like some of John Stuart Mill's ideas with regards to the democratization of the economy along a kind of social corporatist model. Such a model does not conflict with market processes by imposing artificial price floors or ceilings except for the purpose of trying to achieve particular objectives.

Thus, while giving workers voting and administrative rights in a company for example would be perfectly acceptable, a government-imposed minimum wage would be out of the question unless it intends to force the lower-paid into unemployment to achieve a particular objective, such as forcing the unemployed to seek help from the government, whereby the government could then force them back to school for example, or if there was some other objective of the sort so as to protect the poor from excessively low wages.The modern concept of imposing a minimum wage with the intent that it would directly push salaries up is ludicrous. All it does is price the poorest out of the market. So while we can certainly debate the value of the minimum wage as a means of forcing the lower paid out of employment and into government-paid job-training programmes, the idea that a minimum wage on its own will push salaries up has been proven by economists as old as Adam Smith to be unsuccesful as it interferes with market equilibrium prices. And since the modern rhetoric is precisely this latter argument, it therefore has no basis in economic reality and thus only hurts the poor.

Sounds like socialism to me.

No money? No, that's not socialism; that's prehistory.

 

[Tonington]

You're 95% right ...................... Insurance = Socialism - a sh*tload of bureaucrats.

There is as much bureaucracy in corporations, especially tightly regulated industries, as there is in government. The only difference is with government run plans like we have here in Canada, your premiums aren't driven by the marginal cost curves like private enterprise, so there's no worry about profit maximizing prices.

Profit isn't always the best motive...but I like to think of it this way; one net to cover everyone (Medicare), and smaller nets to patch up the holes that inevitably form (your Blue Cross, Sun Life, etc.).

 

[Machjo]

By the way, could we not help the poor in a more fiscally conservative manner? For instance, seeing that the poor take more of the brunt of inflation than the rich do, and seeing that the rich pay more in taxes already anyway, why not jus use that money to pay off the national debt.

First off, it would help curb inflation, which would help the poor especially seeing that they can't hedge against inflation like the rich can.

Secondly, paying off the national debt would hep to push interest rates down. Seeing that the rich are most likely to benefit from high interest rates on money they've lent to others, an the poor are likely to benefit from lower interest rates on money they've borrowed, it would seem to make sense that, just like inflation, keeping interest rates low also helps the poor.

Thirdly, a minimum wage followed by inflation simply negates itself out anyway, not to mention that in the initial stages it would price some of the poor out of the market. So, rather than raising the minimum wage, how about simply democratizing the workplace so as to let workers and employees negotiate fair wages among themselves, and then adopting a fiscally conservative 'tax-and-axe' policy so as to balance the government budget and in so doing benefit the poor by controlling inflation ad interest rates?

The only real socialism I could truly support would be in the field of education. After all, we all have an obligation to ensure our neighbour has a chance to learn how to fish. No one should starve owing to lack of education or skills. That said, beyond that, it ought to be free market all the way except to protect the public from unscrupulous behaviour such as drugs, prostitution gambling and such.

 

[Ariadne]

Logic Model?

Are the benefits of workman's comp being questioned because they offer a re-education package and many don't want to participate?

 

[Machjo]

Logic Model?

Are the benefits of workman's comp being questioned because they offer a re-education package and many don't want to participate?

Is this question referring to my post above. I'm just asking because I don't see the relationship very clearly.

 

[Ariadne]

Yes, the Logic Model focuses on objectives.

"Personally I like some of John Stuart Mill's ideas with regards to the democratization of the economy along a kind of social corporatist model. Such a model does not conflict with market processes by imposing artificial price floors or ceilings except for the purpose of trying to achieve particular objectives.

Sounds like workmen's comp:
"such as forcing the unemployed to seek help from the government, whereby the government could then force them back to school"

 

[gopher]

If you want government out of business, why not demand that it stop subsidizing industries such as oil and the military?

 

[JLM]

If you want government out of business, why not demand that it stop subsidizing industries such as oil and the military?

How would you suggest paying for the military?

 

[petros]

How the hell do you survive in BC on $8.00 an hour when all the other western provinces are at or around the $10 an hour mark? Grow dope or do other crimes?

How would you suggest paying for the military?

Get Japan to pay for it like they are right now.

why not just use that money to pay off the national debt

If you pay off the debt you have to create more debt to have money. These days money is created from debt not backed by resources or labour as in the past.

 

[JLM]

How the hell do you survive in BC on $8.00 an hour when all the other western provinces are at or around the $10 an hour mark? Grow dope or do other crimes?


.

It wasn't too many years ago that there was no problem surviving on $8 an hour - actually $2 an hour, but then the financial geniuses started giving everyone raises. This nonsense can stop now or in the future when it gets even tougher. :smile:

 

[gopher]

How would you suggest paying for the military?

Let it pay for itself without government pay outs. We would not have any wars if the government would stop sticking its nose in foreign affairs. Since these wars are not necessary just issue military bonds to finance the unneeded military. Too bad Washington, Madison, or Jefferson aren't here or they would tell you the same thing.

Other industries thrive without government handouts. The military and oil interests can do the same.