Welfare pays more than work in most states

[Machjo]

Machjo, you can't live on less than minimum wage, you can't even live well on minimum...how can you not see that?...you want to take away what they currently have, why? Why are you making the poorest share the wage...that is backwards, totally and completely backwards...punish your lowest paid workers and spread the 200 dollars out amoungst 5 instead of two...

Makes no sense at all...none.


if you are desparately trying to feed your kids on that and pay your rent you aren't going to threaten anyone, in fact you are just happy to have the job...

and that is the sad part, not any different than slavery


you live on $8.00 an hour then and spread the rest of your pay out among the others ...let us know how it goes

You're not looking at the big picture though. How is social security any better? I'm for raising government spending for skills training for the unemployed along with reasonable assistance while there. I'm for school lunches. I'm for increased school days so as to save parents money on summer camp while also giving the kids a better education. And I'd even be prepared to pay higher taxes to help pay for that. The idea there is to raise people's skills, education, etc. so as to make employers want to hire them at a higher wage as is the case in Sweden. raising the minimum wage is a quick fix.

How about this. Let's try an experiment. In one province, the minimum wge is eliminated. In another province, we raise the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour. and let's have another province at the current minimum wage.

Feel free to disagree with me, but I'd be willing to bet, all else being equal, that:

In the province that eliminates the minimum wage, those earning minimum wage may or may not experience a wage reduction, while those who are unemployed may or may not increase their chances of employment. Should unemployment drop, government might be able to afford more generous social security for those who are still unemployed. Overall though, while some of the already employed might suffer, some unemployed might benefit, with more benefit than harm overall. But the above woudl be the trend at least.

In the province that raises the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour, unskilled workers lose their jobs, while those working at the new minimum wage might even witness a slight wage increase but more work. Those who could otherwise have earned slightly below the minimum wage (e.g. 19.00 per hour) are now forced onto social assistance, resulting in a significant drop in quality of life.

In the province that does not change it, it would stay the sameas now.

We could of course throw in a fourth province that would lower the minimum wage so low as to fall below the equilibrium price for anyone, thus having the same impact as in the province that removes the minimum wage since that minimum wage would be redundant anyway.

If the theory goes that raising the minimum wage is good and has no negative impact, why not raise it, right?

Well you are never too old to learn:

A wage slave is a business slang term that describes someone who is completely dependent on wages earned from a job in order to secure and maintain the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. Typically, this individual has no other types of financial assets that are earning some sort of return that can be called upon in the event that there is an interruption in employment. One school of thought also holds that a true wage slave feels trapped into a particular job, holding the perception that he or she would be unable to secure another position that would pay as well or even better than the current position.

While many people utilize wages and salaries as their main means of income, the wage slave has no other source of financial resources to call upon in an emergency. There are no stock holdings to generate periodic dividends, nor certificates of deposit earning interest with a local financial institution. Often, the wage slave does not have any type of insurance benefits that help to offset lost wages in the event of an illness or a prolonged period of unemployment. Unless the individual remains employed and works daily, the flow of income stops and his or her ability to maintain the current level of lifestyle is adversely impacted.

And how does raising the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour benefit him if he has no sellable skill (the most likely reason for the low wage)? Why not send him to school instead so as to make him more attractive to employers. Instead of superficial bandaid solutions, why not deal with the root of the problem?

In Regina McD's and the other pay 13 beans an hour and imports permit workers from the Philippines and India. Minimum wage is $10.15

That is an extra $480 above minimum per month.

$24960 gross per year which is enough to score a mortgage.

If everyone there earns more than minimum wage, then it's redundant, isn't it, which proves my point that the minimum wage is always either redundant or harmful.

 

[JLM]

All of which leads to a burning question..................Whose responsibility is it to ensure a person earns a liveable wage?

 

[Sal]

You're not looking at the big picture though. How is social security any better?

It's not!

I'm for raising government spending for skills training for the unemployed along with reasonable assistance while there.

That's great for the person who was immature in high school and dropped out and now "sees the light and just needs an opportunity...wonderful for him/her. Great idea. Love it.

Now...what about the larger group of people who are on Social Assistance and incapable of training for a higher level of job. I would say a good 60% of them are NOT employable. Not everyone is employable.

I'm for school lunches.

Me too when necessary.

I'm for increased school days so as to save parents money on summer camp while also giving the kids a better education.

Yeah I can go here.

And I'd even be prepared to pay higher taxes to help pay for that.

Me too if the scum sucking politicians don't reroute it into their own pockets or whatever lobby group supports them.

The idea there is to raise people's skills, education, etc. so as to make employers want to hire them at a higher wage as is the case in Sweden. raising the minimum wage is a quick fix.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand who is going to work at Timmies and serve your coffee and your heart killer burgers that we live on? Not kids, they are in school. Those places are small gold mines they won't be closing down anytime soon even though health-wise it is like eating pure poison.

How about this. Let's try an experiment. In one province, the minimum wge is eliminated. In another province, we raise the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour. and let's have another province at the current minimum wage.

And the province with no minimum wage suddenly starts paying people $8.00 an hour. Really? You really need help with this one to figure it out...really?

Feel free to disagree with me, but I'd be willing to bet, all else being equal, that:

In the province that eliminates the minimum wage, those earning minimum wage may or may not experience a wage reduction, while those who are unemployed may or may not increase their chances of employment. Should unemployment drop, government might be able to afford more generous social security for those who are still unemployed. Overall though, while some of the already employed might suffer, some unemployed might benefit, with more benefit than harm overall. But the above woudl be the trend at least.

No.

In the province that raises the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour, unskilled workers lose their jobs, while those working at the new minimum wage might even witness a slight wage increase but more work. Those who could otherwise have earned slightly below the minimum wage (e.g. 19.00 per hour) are now forced onto social assistance, resulting in a significant drop in quality of life.

No

In the province that does not change it, it would stay the sameas now.

It would stay the same everywhere except where minimum wage was dissolved...there wages would drop and the poorest of the poor would suffer the most.

We could of course throw in a fourth province that would lower the minimum wage so low as to fall below the equilibrium price for anyone, thus having the same impact as in the province that removes the minimum wage since that minimum wage would be redundant anyway.

If the theory goes that raising the minimum wage is good and has no negative impact, why not raise it, right?

I do not think this is the direction to go starting by cutting away from the poorest first.

And how does raising the minimum wage to 20.00 per hour benefit him if he has no sellable skill (the most likely reason for the low wage)? Why not send him to school instead so as to make him more attractive to employers. Instead of superficial bandaid solutions, why not deal with the root of the problem?

who flips the burgers, who serves your coffee...what about drug addicts, mums with babies, alcoholics, mentally ill, etc

All of which leads to a burning question..................Whose responsibility is it to ensure a person earns a liveable wage?

You are asking a question which involves social conscience, moral and ethical obligation and also involves the level to which the society has evolved. Some societies still stone women if they get raped and a chicken is worth more than a female child other societies such as Sweden take care of their people.

Draw a line in the sand and watch everyone hop onto a side.

You need a new thread bud.

 

[DaSleeper]

What is needed is Mike Harris' much maligned "workfare".......

 

[JLM]

Has our society reached a point where there is simply too big of a ratio of "dead wood" to be sustainable over time?

 

[Sal]

Has our society reached a point where there is simply too big of a ratio of "dead wood" to be sustainable over time?

see the answer above that I gave ya

 

[Machjo]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand who is going to work at Timmies and serve your coffee and your heart killer burgers that we live on? Not kids, they are in school. Those places are small gold mines they won't be closing down anytime soon even though health-wise it is like eating pure poison.

With more skilled workers, fewer would be working at Timmies, resulting in a natural increase in raises there, not because of artificial minium wage.

And the province with no minimum wage suddenly starts paying people $8.00 an hour. Really? You really need help with this one to figure it out...really?

Not unless we have a quality safety net. If it gets too low, people would natrually jump ship and go for government programems to raise their skills. Sweden has never had a minimum wage and yet still has a fairer redistribution of wealth than Canada. How is that?

I do not think this is the direction to go starting by cutting away from the poorest first.

But of course the rich would pay more tax for the skills training and social assistance programmes, so essentially there is still a redistribution of wealth here.

All of which leads to a burning question..................Whose responsibility is it to ensure a person earns a liveable wage?

Everyone's... including the person himself.

 

[captain morgan]

A wage slave is a business slang term that

Oh, wage slave... Here I thought that you were talking about slavery (which isn't a slang term)

What is needed is Mike Harris' much maligned "workfare".......

The left will thump their chests in how this suggestion violates the rights of those on social assistance

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Is it any surprise that an institute that is basically the mouthpiece for some of the richest Americans is finding that the poor have it too good?

Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David H. Koch, Ed Crane,[104] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[105] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares.[104][105] Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen’s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[106] Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."

 

[captain morgan]

Is it any surprise that an institute that is basically the mouthpiece for some of the richest Americans is finding that the poor have it too good?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Funding_and_structure

The alternative is to eliminate any form of assistance... What exactly are you looking for?

 

[Sal]

Oh, wage slave... Here I thought that you were talking about slavery (which isn't a slang term)

we're speaking of the minimum wage here...that's what the thread is about.....wages, welfare....

and that's all you got out of that whole thing and the only angle you can argue is on the word slave?

seriously?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The alternative is to eliminate any form of assistance... What exactly are you looking for?

No it's not, the alternative is creating a just system from the top down, corporate welfare vastly outweighs social welfare. When Wall Street went belly up in 2008 through sheer incompetence, the US government bailed it out with massive assistance, $700 billion in one go.

Maybe if the system was allowed to work the way it was meant to and billionaires stopped forming policy that keeps wages so low then people wouldn't feel forced to follow their bad example to just keep their head above water. It's not the poor lobbying the state and federal governments to get their interests met, it people like the Kochs and they've already shown by their actions how they feel about working people and their need for living wages by backing politicians who attack workers rights.

How about major American companies that get subsidies to eliminate jobs in the US.

Congressman Sanders on US Corporate Welfare Giveaways

The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal!

For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

The damage being done at the top is far more serious than that at the level of social assistance.

 

[gore0bsessed]

"Livable wage' is a moving target, hence the reason that each province has their own minimums... You're welcome to raise that minimum to whatever amount you like, but don't b*tch when the numerous small businesses react via increasing prices and/or down sizing.

The irony here is that it will hurt most the very people that you are looking to accommodate.

McDonalds isn't a small business.

Point is; a 'livable wage' is relative to the economy in which you locate yourself.

No sh1t..

 

[Sal]

With more skilled workers, fewer would be working at Timmies, resulting in a natural increase in raises there, not because of artificial minium wage.

supply and demand...okay

Not unless we have a quality safety net. If it gets too low, people would natrually jump ship and go for government programems to raise their skills. Sweden has never had a minimum wage and yet still has a fairer redistribution of wealth than Canada. How is that?

yes there has to be a net in place first. Ideally our goal should be to make everyone as self sufficient as is possible according to their ability and then factor in there will be a percentage who will be capable but lazy.

But of course the rich would pay more tax for the skills training and social assistance programmes, so essentially there is still a redistribution of wealth here.

Just getting the very rich to pay taxes at all would be good. Once the system got going it would be self sustainable.

Everyone's... including the person himself.

yes

 

[JLM]

and then factor in there will be a percentage who will be capable but lazy.

That's the easiest segment to deal with..........provide an opportunity and then let them make the choice!

 

[captain morgan]

we're speaking of the minimum wage here...that's what the thread is about.....wages, welfare....

and that's all you got out of that whole thing and the only angle you can argue is on the word slave?

seriously?

The thread is about many things, welfare primarily.

.. And if you're going to draw parallels between slavery and wages, be prepared to answer the questions, otherwise, invoking strong terms like slavery have no place in this conversation

No it's not, the alternative is creating a just system from the top down, corporate welfare vastly outweighs social welfare. When Wall Street went belly up in 2008 through sheer incompetence, the US government bailed it out with massive assistance, $700 billion in one go.

Just society, eh? Can you define that?

... I didn't think so.

That's a nice flowery term that doesn't mean much of anything as that definition varies wildly from one person to the next, so let's explore that concept a bit then.

By 'just society' - do you mean a society founded on equality? You know, equal treatment, equal opportunity to succeed (or fail), equality in terms of societal responsibilities?.. How about something as simple as equality in terms of taxes?

One might believe that the core concepts would apply to the above - excepting of course, in your skewed interpretation.

So, until you can come up with some form of description of 'a just society' - it's just empty words.

McDonalds isn't a small business.

... And?

Because they are a big company, that somehow qualifies them in having a different set of economic rules applied to them?

No sh1t..

No answer, yet again.

Is your solution to raise minimum wage to what the average income is?.... Sure, knock it up to 40 or 50k a year.. See how that affects the cost of a trip to gas up or the grocery store.

Ironic though as those increased costs will nail the min wage earners in a proportionate manner and leave them no further ahead.

.... But I'm certain that you'll still be beating your chest about the inequities in life.

Just getting the very rich to pay taxes at all would be good. Once the system got going it would be self sustainable.

This should make you feel a little better. From one of Canada's largest unions no less.

"Canada's income tax system is very progressive: it charges a higher rate from those who earn high incomes. The top 2% of Canadians - those who earn over $100,000 per year - pay 26% of all income taxes. The bottom 60% - those earning less than $25,000 per year - pay only 8% of all income taxes. Any across-the-board income tax cut will deliver most of the cash to those who need it the least."

http://www.caw.ca/en/services-departments-income-taxes-by-income-level.htm

 

[JLM]

Just getting the very rich to pay taxes at all would be good. Once the system got going it would be self sustainable.

Umm!! That has a tendency to backfire.

 

[petros]

Probably pay less at the Starbucks on Robson and Thurlow. Starter houses in YVR proper (from what I recall) are around $600K.

Point is; a 'livable wage' is relative to the economy in which you locate yourself.

Condos are around $110-$125 in Coquitlam. Waaaay cheaper than here.

 

[JLM]

Condos are around $110-$125 in Coquitlam. Waaaay cheaper than here.

Are those them leaky bastards that were built in the '80s?

 

[petros]

Are those them leaky bastards that were built in the '80s?

Shiny new high rises and cluster or whatever they are called.

210-1045 Howie Av Coquitlam Apartment/Condo For Sale
$134,900 | 1 Bedrooms | 1 Bathrooms | 613 sq.ft. | MLS® V997786

If they were that cheap here I'd buy my kid one yesterday.