Funny how things work

[canndo]

DOES CANADA ALSO HAVE A MINiMUM WAGE LAW?


Updated: 02/01/13
These minimum wages are the minimum hourly wage rates set by the provinces and territories in Canada for experienced adult workers.

Province	General Wage	More Employment Standards
Alberta	$9.75	Alberta Human Services
BC	$10.25	B.C. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training
Manitoba	$10.25	Manitoba Family Services and Labour
New Brunswick	$10.00	New Brunswick Employment Standards
Newfoundland	$10.00	Labour Relations Agency
NWT	$10.00	Education, Culture and Employment
Nova Scotia	$10.15	Labour and Advanced Education
Nunavut	$11.00
Ontario	$10.25	Ministry of Labour
PEI	$10.00	Environment, Labour and Justice
Quebec	$9.90	Commission des normes du travail
Saskatchewan	$9.50	Saskatchewan Labour Standards
Yukon	$10.30	Employment Standards

LOL You FUCK If Canadian Dollars are worth more than US dollars than their Minimum wage is Higher than even ours
There goes your John Birch Society premise

You can also look at the minimum wage in the various states. If indeed one state's minimum wage laws actually affect the bottom line of a company then that company should not be able to compete across state lines - yet they do. Mcdonalds employs workers in every state and manages so far as I know to be competitive in each state - and, likely it is profitable in even the states with the highest minimum wage.


Of course I am talking about jobs that cannot be exported, namely service oriented jobs. If corporations have labor costs that are lower in other countries AND they use unskilled labor then I doubt what I am saying will be true - all other things being equal we will indeed force labor out of our country.


There is something else though.


The right has an obvious choice. They can claim that a minimum wage is a bad thing but they cannot also claim that welfare is bad. If a minimum wage employee remains in a needy class then the only other option is for them to get government assistance. They don't get it both ways here. Either they have private companies take up the slack or they actually support issuing food stamps.

 

[deprave]

The problem is this "common sense" thing you mention. When "common sense" does not comport with reality then it does not make sense to continue to attempt to USE common sense. If the employer cannot afford the employee to clean his floor then he surely cannot afford to pay his staff to do so, taking them away from their important work and/or paying them overtime.

The point remains that tghose studies indicate that the difference between that 5 dollars and another amount is not significant enough to seriously alter national employment figures. That doesn't make "sense" in a free market but we are still left with the reality of the situation, that companies still hire even when mandated to pay more than they would like to pay.

IF the floor needs sweeping then a company will hire a floor sweeper and pay what it must.


Nothing says that they don't pass the cost on and they may but if the company down the street has decided to forgo a clean floor in order to keep their prices lower than the other company, then the company with the clean floors will not raise their price or do so at it's own peril.

so therein lies the problem, you said so yourself, we don't have a free market. In a true free market, unemployment would be far less, it would almost be non-existent of course with the few exceptions.

 

[canndo]

The government presence has artificially inflated the price via prohibition. If there were no regulation and no prohibition, a true free market, supply and demand would set the price. Taxed and regulated is better than the present model in that the size of the stick the thugs use is reduced, but I oppose tax and regulation on the grounds that I and I alone own my body. Nobody should have to be granted permission to own themselves or grow a plant.

Don't give up on Mary Ruart, if you believe peaceful interactions are the best way to live your life.

We don't agree. Now certainly the price is elevated because of risk but that changes nothing. You aren't really calling for the regulation of commerce are you? I didn't think so.

The point here is that pot is a perfect example of what would happen in a truly free marketplace - barring the additional cost imposed by the threat of government sanctions.


This being the case, we see phony names for the product and prices structured around a variety of things unrelated to direct cost of the product. We see short weight, wet weight, fungus, chemicals remaining on the product and the like. Because it is unregulated every abuse that can occur does occur. In short, man's motivations do not work for the good of all, they never have and so long as man is man, they never will. There will be concentrations of power, abuse of the system (cartels for instance), abuse of the consumer, misreprentation, fraud and theft.


Without oversight this will always happen.


Now, what body has the power - using threat of physical force, to regulate such abuse?

 

[deprave]

We don't agree. Now certainly the price is elevated because of risk but that changes nothing. You aren't really calling for the regulation of commerce are you? I didn't think so.

The point here is that pot is a perfect example of what would happen in a truly free marketplace - barring the additional cost imposed by the threat of government sanctions.


This being the case, we see phony names for the product and prices structured around a variety of things unrelated to direct cost of the product. We see short weight, wet weight, fungus, chemicals remaining on the product and the like. Because it is unregulated every abuse that can occur does occur. In short, man's motivations do not work for the good of all, they never have and so long as man is man, they never will. There will be concentrations of power, abuse of the system (cartels for instance), abuse of the consumer, misreprentation, fraud and theft.


Without oversight this will always happen.


Now, what body has the power - using threat of physical force, to regulate such abuse?

it all happens in a copratist structure as well, the body of power is the consumer, the threat is, not to buy the product. Much more justified and morally correct then gun barrels and imprisonment.

 

[canndo]

so therein lies the problem, you said so yourself, we don't have a free market. In a true free market, unemployment would be far less, it would almost be non-existent of course with the few exceptions.

Not true at all. In a completely free market and a country with porous borders we will see the price of labor go down until there is an equilibrium and that equlibrium will be below the poverty level for many. It will be a "can you name that tune" sort of a game. Corporations will offer the least amount of money they can and there will always be someone willing to work for less. Those who work for less will not have the ability to purchase necessities and fewer laborers will be needed making employment even more precious,driving the cost of labor down even further. Eventually there will be a reversion to serfdom where the average individual will have no personal wealth at all. That personal wealth will be concentrated at the top and according to what I understand ( you don't believe in inheritance taxes do you?), that wealth will be more and more concentrated into a ruling class. That class will rule based upon the scarcity of jobs and the fact that those who work will have no leverage in the form of personal wealth.

 

[deprave]

We don't agree. Now certainly the price is elevated because of risk but that changes nothing. You aren't really calling for the regulation of commerce are you? I didn't think so.

The point here is that pot is a perfect example of what would happen in a truly free marketplace - barring the additional cost imposed by the threat of government sanctions.


This being the case, we see phony names for the product and prices structured around a variety of things unrelated to direct cost of the product. We see short weight, wet weight, fungus, chemicals remaining on the product and the like. Because it is unregulated every abuse that can occur does occur. In short, man's motivations do not work for the good of all, they never have and so long as man is man, they never will. There will be concentrations of power, abuse of the system (cartels for instance), abuse of the consumer, misreprentation, fraud and theft.


Without oversight this will always happen.


Now, what body has the power - using threat of physical force, to regulate such abuse?

Its not a question of will we have oversight, its by whom? and should they have a monopoly on it? If your answer was government to the first question then the second question is consequently, yes, your saying that a group of people should have a monopoly on the use of violent force.

 

[canndo]

it all happens in a copratist structure as well, the body of power is the consumer, the threat is, not to buy the product. Much more justified and morally correct then gun barrels and imprisonment.

You make the classic mistake that most do, you presume that consumers have free will.



They do not.

 

[Rob Roy]

^^^ Regulations don't necessarily equal safety. War is "regulated"....how'd that work out? Also why would we want the same organization that imprisons thousands (millions?) be the organization that runs the show under "tax and regulate"? Seems rather hypocritical of them, to prolong prohibition long enough till they can get their cut.

The truly free market for pot isn't available in the present scheme, I think the actions of the government have created perverse incentives and results. Remove the government entirely and more people will be able to openly provide the service of selling pot. Some will be a good customer value and some not so good. What will happen eventually is the consumer will return to those that provide good value and those that don't provide service will be out of business. Oversight and business viability / longevity is made possible by the actions of individuals making choices of who provides the best service. Run a good business, keep your customers. Run a shitty business and go under. General Motors comes to mind..

FED-EX and UPS seem to be doing better than the Postal service when it comes to providing for their customers, even with the restrictions placed on them by government, why?

 

[canndo]

Its not a question of will we have oversight, its by whom? and should they have a monopoly on it? If your answer was government to the first question then the second question is consequently, yes, your saying that a group of people should have a monopoly on the use of violent force.

Yes, by consent of the governed, a certain body should have a monopoly on the use of force. There is no other way. libertarians seem to believe that the cohersive force of the group will bring the cohersive force of a conglomerate into line simply by refusing to purchase a product. That doesn't work on a number of levels. Someone eventually has to "force" a corporation for example, into a court and prove that corporation is doing damage to something outside of itself. Then a body has to "force" that corporation to comply or force that corporation to comply with the sanctions imposed upon it. By it's very nature, the body must have enough power to do such a thing. We already see the abuse when a government does not have the motivation to sanction. Much worse would be a state where the government hasn't the ability.

 

[deprave]

Not true at all. In a completely free market and a country with porous borders we will see the price of labor go down until there is an equilibrium and that equlibrium will be below the poverty level for many. It will be a "can you name that tune" sort of a game. Corporations will offer the least amount of money they can and there will always be someone willing to work for less. Those who work for less will not have the ability to purchase necessities and fewer laborers will be needed making employment even more precious,driving the cost of labor down even further. Eventually there will be a reversion to serfdom where the average individual will have no personal wealth at all. That personal wealth will be concentrated at the top and according to what I understand ( you don't believe in inheritance taxes do you?), that wealth will be more and more concentrated into a ruling class. That class will rule based upon the scarcity of jobs and the fact that those who work will have no leverage in the form of personal wealth.

Why would someone work for less money then they need to to "purchase necessities"?

"Eventually there will be a reversion to serfdom where the average individual will have no personal wealth at all." - Oh so you mean like the direction we are heading now?

Why would "fewer labourers be needed"?

Why wouldn't there be competition to win the hearts of skilled laborers? There is financial incentive to have quality workers. Personally because I am american and speak english, I charge people more money right now for software development. There is a need for skilled programmers, especially those that speak english. The reason being is that to be a good software developer you have to be able to communicate and read your end users. If your end users ask you "What does this button do?" then that's a problem, good software shouldn't have the users asking question, it should just work for them, indian, romanian, etc... programmers fail at this miserably because they lack communication skills. I think IT is a good example of the free market where government hasn't got their hands in it so far cause they can't. The rea

 

[canndo]

^^^ Regulations don't necessarily equal safety. War is "regulated"....how'd that work out? Also why would we want the same organization that imprisons thousands (millions?) be the organization that runs the show under "tax and regulate"? Seems rather hypocritical of them, to prolong prohibition long enough till they can get their cut.

The truly free market for pot isn't available in the present scheme, I think the actions of the government have created perverse incentives and results. Remove the government entirely and more people will be able to openly provide the service of selling pot. Some will be a good customer value and some not so good. What will happen eventually is the consumer will return to those that provide good value and those that don't provide service will be out of business. Oversight and business viability / longevity is made possible by the actions of individuals making choices of who provides the best service. Run a good business, keep your customers. Run a shitty business and go under. General Motors comes to mind..

FED-EX and UPS seem to be doing better than the Postal service when it comes to providing for their customers, even with the restrictions placed on them by government, why?

No, regulations do not necessarily equal safety but I have never said that the government is in the business of providing safety, they, as I said, are in the business of providing order.
If order implies safety, fine but it is not necessary.


You are doing the same thing most libertarians do, presuming that humans act in a way that they do not. You presume that all consumers are totally educated and free from influence. Unless you ban all Public relations, all marketing and all advertising. Furthermore unless you manage to ban anything substance that is even remotely habituating then you will never have what you might call a "free market".

Beyond even that, you will need to ensure that information about all products is accurate and freely available - that all studies be instigated by third parties and that those third parties are incapable of collusion.


That can't happen in a place where government is stripped of it's ability to enforce regulations.

 

[Rob Roy]

You make the classic mistake that most do, you presume that consumers have free will.



They do not.

Try as I might to resist, the cookie aisle sometimes coerces me, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

What do you mean consumers don't have free will, I don't understand.

 

[deprave]

Yes, by consent of the governed, a certain body should have a monopoly on the use of force. There is no other way.
libertarians seem to believe that the cohersive force of the group will bring the cohersive force of a conglomerate into line simply by refusing to purchase a product. That doesn't work on a number of levels. Someone eventually has to "force" a corporation for example, into a court and prove that corporation is doing damage to something outside of itself. Then a body has to "force" that corporation to comply or force that corporation to comply with the sanctions imposed upon it. By it's very nature, the body must have enough power to do such a thing. We already see the abuse when a government does not have the motivation to sanction. Much worse would be a state where the government hasn't the ability.

Yes there is other ways. There could be private firms which do this which have oversight by other firms and so forth, which are contracted to citizens, much more fair then someone having a "monopoly" , that is completely immoral and breads corruption when one group has a monopoly.

How many corporations go to court when the government has a monopoly on force? hmmm? whys that? hmmm? corruption

 

[canndo]

Why would someone work for less money then they need to to "purchase necessities"?

"Eventually there will be a reversion to serfdom where the average individual will have no personal wealth at all." - Oh so you mean like the direction we are heading now?

Why would "fewer labourers be needed"?

Why wouldn't there be competition to win the hearts of skilled laborers? There is financial incentive to have quality workers. Personally because I am american and speak english, I charge people more money right now for software development. There is a need for skilled programmers, especially those that speak english. The reason being is that to be a good software developer you have to be able to communicate and read your end users. If your end users ask you "What does this button do?" then that's a problem, good software shouldn't have the users asking question, it should just work for them, indian, romanian, etc... programmers fail at this miserably because they lack communication skills. I think IT is a good example of the free market where government hasn't got their hands in it so far cause they can't. The rea

I have seen this many times. Why would someone work for less than what they need? because they have found a way to need less. Two or three people live in an apartment meant for one. They purchase cheaper food, share cars, forgo amenities, give up their ability to save money or amass wealth.


You are presuming that there is a limited number of potential employees, that it is a seller's market, so long as there are porous borders, which is what I said to begin with, there is no shortage of labor. If there is never a shortage of labor then the value of that labor will always go down. No company needs to compete for labor.

What you are doing is comparing specialized workers with general low wage workers. Even in your case, eventually the market for english speaking programmers will be saturated simply BECAUSE currently there is a need for them. After enough time there will be an abundance of them and their value will decrease as that number grows.

Furthermore, if you don't want to see regulation then you don't want to see the importation of skilled workers either. Regardless of what you offer currently, that as well will be absorbed and adjusted to.

 

[canndo]

Try as I might to resist, the cookie aisle sometimes coerces me, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

What do you mean consumers don't have free will, I don't understand.

When I have these discussions they inevitably turn to the anecdotal. in a way that is exactly what I have in mind. Did you think that we have an obesity problem in the U.S. because we watch too much TV? No, we are convinced through the use of sophisticated dynamics to buy food that companies wish us to buy.


Corporations spend billions on advertising and PR, subverting the media and getting you to unconciously want things. Now according to libertarians, companies that spend money without return on investment eventually dissapear. In otherwords, they must be efficient in order to survive, this being the case, we can be assured that those methods work, corporations include feedback mechanisms in order to see that their coherseive dollar is well spent. We have little free will in the matter yet libertarians believe this not to be true. They would hand over even more power to corporations to subvert our will. Now I know that many who read this will cry and scream that they do indeed have free will. That may be so with individuals, but the masses do not and your philosophy depends upon mass decisions to purchase or not purchase an item. So long as they have valid motivations this scheme might work, but they don't.

No one has enough information to make actualy informed decisions on everything they buy or participate in buying.

 

[canndo]

Yes there is other ways. There could be private firms which do this which have oversight by other firms and so forth, which are contracted to citizens, much more fair then someone having a "monopoly" , that is completely immoral and breads corruption when one group has a monopoly.

How many corporations go to court when the government has a monopoly on force? hmmm? whys that? hmmm? corruption

That is doubtful unless you can "regulate" the firms that vend information on other firms. Now who does THAT regulating? What is to prevent collusion? what is to prevent collusion that is hidden from the population. As I said, libertarians make fundamental mistakes about the nature of man. You cannot be fully aware of the product you are purchasing, what that product's manufacture does to the environment, how it interrelates with things upstream of it's manufacture all the while being bombarded with information that may or may not be valid to begin with AND being immersed in PR, marketing and advertising.

 

[deprave]

I have seen this many times. Why would someone work for less than what they need? because they have found a way to need less. Two or three people live in an apartment meant for one. They purchase cheaper food, share cars, forgo amenities, give up their ability to save money or amass wealth.


You are presuming that there is a limited number of potential employees, that it is a seller's market, so long as there are porous borders, which is what I said to begin with, there is no shortage of labor. If there is never a shortage of labor then the value of that labor will always go down. No company needs to compete for labor.

What you are doing is comparing specialized workers with general low wage workers. Even in your case, eventually the market for english speaking programmers will be saturated simply BECAUSE currently there is a need for them. After enough time there will be an abundance of them and their value will decrease as that number grows.

Furthermore, if you don't want to see regulation then you don't want to see the importation of skilled workers either. Regardless of what you offer currently, that as well will be absorbed and adjusted to.

"I have seen this many times"
in the existent corporatist structure you have seen this many times, which IS NOT A FREE MARKET you have seen this problem many times yet your proposing that we keep doing the same shit, just want to bring that up..

"You are presuming that there is a limited number of potential employees, that it is a seller's market, so long as there are porous borders, which is what I said to begin with, there is no shortage of labor. If there is never a shortage of labor then the value of that labor will always go down. No company needs to compete for labor."

So your "presuming" that porous borders will happen and result in a lack of labor shortages, granted this is historically true, however, in a free market there is an increase in need for workers and the quality of those workers because of an increase in trade and competition. Yes they will need to compete for labor because of increased competition and trade.

 

[deprave]

That is doubtful unless you can "regulate" the firms that vend information on other firms. Now who does THAT regulating? What is to prevent collusion? what is to prevent collusion that is hidden from the population. As I said, libertarians make fundamental mistakes about the nature of man. You cannot be fully aware of the product you are purchasing, what that product's manufacture does to the environment, how it interrelates with things upstream of it's manufacture all the while being bombarded with information that may or may not be valid to begin with AND being immersed in PR, marketing and advertising.

THAT regulating is done by competing firms which are regulating said firms which are competing which are hired by people via contractual arrangements, if said firm is say, dumping toxic waste in the river, I would presume that they would be fired and in favor of others.

"As I said, libertarians make fundamental mistakes about the nature of man."

So why if you do not trust the nature of man, why should essentially one man have a monopoly on force? This is your "fundamental mistake", believing that government gives a fuck about people and is some sort of divine power for good. There is no exception to "the nature of man" and the government, its ran by men, which are not held EQUALLY accountable for their actions because they have a monopoly.

 

[Mr Neutron]

You been saying that for 4 years now havent you?

A devalued dollar also increases our* exports and benefits our economy

Thank you very much

BTW
Ron Paul Lost.....again

Great job, too.

 

[Mr Neutron]

We don't agree. Now certainly the price is elevated because of risk but that changes nothing. You aren't really calling for the regulation of commerce are you? I didn't think so.

The point here is that pot is a perfect example of what would happen in a truly free marketplace - barring the additional cost imposed by the threat of government sanctions.


This being the case, we see phony names for the product and prices structured around a variety of things unrelated to direct cost of the product. We see short weight, wet weight, fungus, chemicals remaining on the product and the like. Because it is unregulated every abuse that can occur does occur. In short, man's motivations do not work for the good of all, they never have and so long as man is man, they never will. There will be concentrations of power, abuse of the system (cartels for instance), abuse of the consumer, misreprentation, fraud and theft.


Without oversight this will always happen.


Now, what body has the power - using threat of physical force, to regulate such abuse?

Why is government oversight better than self oversight?