Alflives Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, gurn said: So if it is all about acquiring wealth, survival of the fittest as you put it, how come it is ok to steal money with the stroke of a pen; but everybody gets pissy about a mugger taking wallets with the help of a baseball bat? What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, Alflives said: What's the difference? Exactly my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: I'd be far more interested in at least seeing a trial experiment done with guaranteed income vs raising the minimum wage. That in conjunction with stronger labour laws etc. this is one of the issues being discussed in the Federal NDP leadership race I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, stawns said: this is one of the issues being discussed in the Federal NDP leadership race I believe. Included with those labour laws, I'd like to see some move to have basic health benefits etc be required for certain thresholds of hours, age etc. Take some of the cost incentive away from part time jobs (one of the main reasons for part time work growth vs full time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 24 minutes ago, Heretic said: The problem is, people there (over seas) contribute ZERO to our economy, and the people here displaced, cause a drain on our economy - collecting EI, not paying back into the system in the way of taxes as they used to, not spending as much on goods and services, etc...etc...all just so that some big corporation can save about $250,000 dollars in expenses. That may seem like a lot, but to them, it's peanuts. So it has nothing to do with "quality" as you say at all - the person who replaced me is just as qualified as I am, though their ability to communicate effectively is much lower (English language barrier, Canadian culture). I get what you are saying, and agree with your 1st paragraph, although the 250K estimate is way too low if you are actually talking a big corporation. Top of my head for where I work, that 250K savings can be seen in a couple projects, or many millions over the year. Communication is very important, IMO, and that is something that leads to quality issues. Not having them onsite also limits the quality and timeliness of getting the work done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: Included with those labour laws, I'd like to see some move to have basic health benefits etc be required for certain thresholds of hours, age etc. Take some of the cost incentive away from part time jobs (one of the main reasons for part time work growth vs full time). agreed completely. My federal vote is up in the air and I want to see this country start taking back from corporations and the top 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Included with those labour laws, I'd like to see some move to have basic health benefits etc be required for certain thresholds of hours, age etc. Take some of the cost incentive away from part time jobs (one of the main reasons for part time work growth vs full time). I can see where you are going with this, but part of the problem with Obamacare down here is the hours threshold. As a result, we too are seeing more and more part-time jobs. If you put an age threshold on, then you will see less hiring of older employees, since they would now cost more. Earlier, you raised up guaranteed income. How would that work? I say that not as being critical of the idea (at least, not yet ), but to understand the workings of the proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 12 minutes ago, Kragar said: I can see where you are going with this, but part of the problem with Obamacare down here is the hours threshold. As a result, we too are seeing more and more part-time jobs. If you put an age threshold on, then you will see less hiring of older employees, since they would now cost more. Earlier, you raised up guaranteed income. How would that work? I say that not as being critical of the idea (at least, not yet ), but to understand the workings of the proposal. read the book, or do some research into a book called "F--K Work", though it's a little more extreme than what is being proposed by some of the fed NDP candidates. It advocates actually enforcing tax law on corporations. Even a minute tax, actually enforced, would be billions of revenue.......money that would be used to reinforce a minimum income standard of some kind........maybe $40 000, or whatever would be determined to be a liveable income. Citizens would be be given a supplement to make sure they hit that income number. That's my interpretation of it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 17 minutes ago, Kragar said: I can see where you are going with this, but part of the problem with Obamacare down here is the hours threshold. As a result, we too are seeing more and more part-time jobs. If you put an age threshold on, then you will see less hiring of older employees, since they would now cost more. Earlier, you raised up guaranteed income. How would that work? I say that not as being critical of the idea (at least, not yet ), but to understand the workings of the proposal. Yeah, I'm not sure how exactly that would work, clearly some homework would need to be done but a 16 year old kid working 16-20 hours a week doesn't necessarily need/deserve benefits where as a 26 or 46 year old working 24-32 hours a week does/should. Have to draw a line somewhere Guaranteed income I'm sure you could Google to get a clearer idea but the basic premise is that everyone is guaranteed a basic level of income. Tie it in to the income tax system and it basically does away with welfare at the same time. Obviously the more income you make, the more you end up paying back in taxes similar to how it works now. Googles up this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/minimum-income-hugh-segal-ontario-budget-1.3740373 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 4 hours ago, inane said: That's a great ideal, world isn't that simple anymore. Yeah you're right. Its easier then EVER to earn additional income through side hustles/small businesses with the emergence of internet and social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Yeah, I'm not sure how exactly that would work, clearly some homework would need to be done but a 16 year old kid working 16-20 hours a week doesn't necessarily need/deserve benefits where as a 26 or 46 year old working 24-32 hours a week does/should. Have to draw a line somewhere Guaranteed income I'm sure you could Google to get a clearer idea but the basic premise is that everyone is guaranteed a basic level of income. Tie it in to the income tax system and it basically does away with welfare at the same time. Obviously the more income you make, the more you end up paying back in taxes similar to how it works now. most of what I know about guaranteed income comes on the back of actually making corporations pay some tax, even if it's much less than they should be. Even at significantly less than 10%, the revenue would be massive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCanuck Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 having a minimum wage that high just means costs of goods go up by 50 to 100%. So in the end its meaningless anyways cause theyll still be stuck in poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 20 minutes ago, Kragar said: I get what you are saying, and agree with your 1st paragraph, although the 250K estimate is way too low if you are actually talking a big corporation. Top of my head for where I work, that 250K savings can be seen in a couple projects, or many millions over the year. Communication is very important, IMO, and that is something that leads to quality issues. Not having them onsite also limits the quality and timeliness of getting the work done. The company I worked for, lost the contract. I was told the differences was about $250K or so, 300 of us were laid off July 1st last year. The company that won the contract, touts itself as a "Canadian" company - yet most of their "employees" are in India, and except for a couple of entry level positions (to do "hands on work" like installing a pc on someone's desktop), they didn't want to hire any of us. I agree, they could have saved that money easily elsewhere - maybe there was more going on that I am not privy to...still, bottom line is, 300 people out of work, not contributing to the economy the way they used to...I was out for 7 months, started a short term contract at the end of Jan this year...but I'm still seeking a permanent position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, LordCanuck said: having a minimum wage that high just means costs of goods go up by 50 to 100%. So in the end its meaningless anyways cause theyll still be stuck in poverty. Long term, you are probably right about the increased costs, short term though before prices rise will result in some gains by the lesser paid folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, stawns said: most of what I know about guaranteed income comes on the back of actually making corporations pay some tax, even if it's much less than they should be. Even at significantly less than 10%, the revenue would be massive Closing loopholes and enforcement of current rates (both corporate and personal) on top of realizing savings from streamlining welfare costs, housing supplement costs, post secondary education supplement costs etc, etc would all help. Taxes are taxes. Corporate or otherwise, they're all eventually borne by the consumer. This allows the free market to still largely shape pricing while (with appropriate enforcement to ensure fairness) while giving people a safety net to continue to afford that free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 As someone mentioned... just "whack-a-mole". It's not just about how much you earn, but how much things cost. If housing prices were the same as it was 10 years back, nobody would be really complaining as much. I do recall back in 2006 that a 1BR suite along Pacific Ave in a 30+ year hold building was like 500-600 dollars. Same place probably goes for like about $2000. $20 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $41,600/year or 3,466.67/month pre-tax. When rent is already more than half your income, "living wage" doesn't help in the long run. I really dislike government intervention, since it's only a short-term solution. The market just needs to correct itself. Once cost of living or wages reaches a breaking point, one and/or the other will need to adjust organically. Companies unable to find qualified employees will need to pay more or adjust their business. Housing prices/rent unable to attract occupants will have to readjust in pricing or rent amount. It's terrible when you hear stories of people living in poverty conditions.... but you can't make decisions based purely on emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Lancaster said: As someone mentioned... just "whack-a-mole". It's not just about how much you earn, but how much things cost. If housing prices were the same as it was 10 years back, nobody would be really complaining as much. I do recall back in 2006 that a 1BR suite along Pacific Ave in a 30+ year hold building was like 500-600 dollars. Same place probably goes for like about $2000. $20 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $41,600/year or 3,466.67/month pre-tax. When rent is already more than half your income, "living wage" doesn't help in the long run. I really dislike government intervention, since it's only a short-term solution. The market just needs to correct itself. Once cost of living or wages reaches a breaking point, one and/or the other will need to adjust organically. Companies unable to find qualified employees will need to pay more or adjust their business. Housing prices/rent unable to attract occupants will have to readjust in pricing or rent amount. It's terrible when you hear stories of people living in poverty conditions.... but you can't make decisions based purely on emotions. govt intervention is the only solution. There is no free market, there is no "capitalism" anymore. Governments need to protect the citizens, that's what they are there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Alflives said: 20 dollars/hr! Holy carp! That's a crazy good wage for a lot of unskilled labor. Wouldn't paying that minimum wage put the cost on the consumer? That's exactly what would happen. So there would be no difference. The minimum wage worker wouldn't be able to afford anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, stawns said: govt intervention is the only solution. There is no free market, there is no "capitalism" anymore. Governments need to protect the citizens, that's what they are there for. It's not the only solution, but you're right that there is no "free market"... haven't been one in multiple generations. All hands-on approach hasn't worked anywhere in the world. Governments doesn't protect people, they protect their voting blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 35 minutes ago, stawns said: read the book, or do some research into a book called "F--K Work", though it's a little more extreme than what is being proposed by some of the fed NDP candidates. It advocates actually enforcing tax law on corporations. Even a minute tax, actually enforced, would be billions of revenue.......money that would be used to reinforce a minimum income standard of some kind........maybe $40 000, or whatever would be determined to be a liveable income. Citizens would be be given a supplement to make sure they hit that income number. That's my interpretation of it anyway What happens when corporations leave? Then who foots the bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.