Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I have noticed a number of people on this board comment about the differences in minimum wage from province to province. This ranges from a low of $5.90/hr in Alberta to a high of $8.00 in BC (although Nunavut is higher still).

A lot of the comments on this board seem to be related to the fact Alberta's is "so much lower than other provinces", mostly from people in BC..

Note that NB is only $6.30 and Saskatchewan is $6.65.

But my big question is, does anyone think we need to change these numbers? What about adjusting them for economic conditions?

In Alberta, I think the minimum wage is mostly irrelevant. A lot of the "McJobs" pay significantly higher than the legal minimum now anyway due to a worker shortage. I drove past a McDonalds in Calgary the other day and saw a sign saying starting wage was $8.50. A Superstore had a sign up saying that they had jobs available ranging from $9.00 to $16.50...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Starting minimum wage should be about 7.50-8.00 dollar per hour. As I've said many times, minimum wage should be for only high-school part time jobs. An adult shouldn't be working at minimum wage. That's what the education system is for, but still alot of adults work at minimum wage. It's not the fault of the wage being low, but the fault of the individual. It's their fault they haven't received a higher paying, better job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pateris, I agree with you about the minimum wage out here in Alberta. The farther north you go, the more irrelevant it is. Our McD's the other day was advertising janitorial positions at $10 per hour.

We moved here from BC, and still find it hard to believe what the people "back home" consider a decent wage. So I think it is all relative. If an employer out here offered the minimum of 5.90 per hour, he simply would not find anyone to work for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noticed a number of people on this board comment about the differences in minimum wage from province to province.
Canada's sensible solution to a "political" problem (some voters want government to impose a minimum wage). In fact, there are federal minimum wages, as well as provincial, depending on employment. There are also nuances for types of employment and age.

IMHO, minimum wage legislation should not exist. If, as a society, we want to help poor people, there are other, better ways to do this. Unfortunately, the pro-minimum wage Left Wing does not understand basic economics. Minimum wage legislation hurts the very people the Left supposedly wants to help.

Pateris, I agree with you about the minimum wage out here in Alberta. The farther north you go, the more irrelevant it is.
Fortunately, many western politicians understand economics better than Left Wing lobbyists. In the past few decades, the minimum wage has not changed but the labour market has. Wages are now market determined, as they should be.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wage distribution becomes stable over time

If your argument was in favor of losing min. wage, welcome, high wages reduces exits from companies and there is a link to voices and talks of unions

Left Wing does not understand basic economics

Sure they do.

They understand about the in/elasticity of the labor demand for low wage industries and we are mostly a service industry.

They understand with monopolising companies with huge profits or even competitive industries that increases in min. wages, it would just simply get absorbed

Shannon and Beach, did a study that suggested increase in min. wage would only lower poverty minimally but a redistribution of creative programs targeting the working poor is a solution

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wage distribution becomes stable over time

If your argument was in favor of losing min. wage, welcome, high wages reduces exits from companies and there is a link to voices and talks of unions

Left Wing does not understand basic economics

Sure they do.

They understand about the in/elasticity of the labor demand for low wage industries and we are mostly a service industry.

They understand with monopolising companies with huge profits or even competitive industries that increases in min. wages, it would just simply get absorbed

Shannon and Beach, did a study that suggested increase in min. wage would only lower poverty minimally but a redistribution of creative programs targeting the working poor is a solution

RB, your argument is blah, then blah and finally blah, blah.

Sorry, RB.

If you want to help poor people, give them money, directly. Don't jack around with wages.

This is so obvious that I'm surprised anyone discusses it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

IMHO, minimum wage legislation should not exist.
Diane Francis wrote an article some years ago (in The Alberta Report, I believe, though it might have been in the Calgary Sun) saying the same thing. She said "we should have those immigrant workers earning wages that they're used to" or something very similar. Well, lets take a look at the ups and downs of no minimum wage legislation.

Calgary might have more employment because a textile mill could operate here instead of China or Bangladesh if they could get workers at 15 cents an hour. Calgary would be more desirable, even at the same wage, so expect a a crush of immigrants. Where would they live? Shanty towns, on the edge of the city, near the dump...er I mean, grocery store. How do you like those open sewers, the tuberculosis and typhoid going into our water supply? They'd have to raise their own chickens and goats in the 'front yard', too, of course, to supplement their diet. I don't think the property values would go up much for those living next to 'Shantyown'. Tough to collect infrastructure taxes there too, I bet.

On the other hand, as a small business owner, I can't afford to pay $10 an hour, minimum, or my business wouldn't survive. My wife and I have, but don't likje to, put in 14 hrs a day running our business. We offered $7 an hr plus a profit-sharing system, and there are many who umped at the chance. We had over 40 resumes, and hired 2 part-timers who were eager to work. Our choices, admittedly, were limited to those that were either young and living at home or sharing accomodation, or 'retired' women (or men) that had a spouse still working and providing the main household income. It is, in our estimation, the fairest system we could come up with.

I don't think that minimum wage needs to be raised exorbitantly, but I don't think it should be abolished either. Sure, I'd love to pay someone 15 cents an hr, and pocket the rest, but I really don't think that's fair or reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the economy is really complex and sometime we have to act to make it work better.

Since a few century, we build democracy in occident by giving more power to the people.

Here is my theory:

"Power = Money"

We have to be very carefull because whatever we may think, a free market is not neccesary a democratic market.

Its great if a company is sucessfull and makes lots of money. Its great but more money = more power and too much power can easily be a threat to democracy.

How ? when you have more power, you can easyer corrupt the politician , you can crush the business enemy with illegal act and etc..

I think its very dangerous when a country get take over by weapon industry, oil industry and etc... why ? they manipulate the people for business purpose.

So, if we don't act, we are going back to what we had before... unelected people controlling us. Thats why we have to be carefull.

Having a minimum salary cap is a security patch to keep the unqualified job to become more monopolistic. Its alot easyer for company to compete if their employe have a similar salary.

The minimum salary cap does not make a society poorer or richer, the only thing it affect is the distribution of that money.

A good salary cap force the the market to give more to the poorer, and i rather give more money to someone poor even if he doesnt deserve it if it can help to divide the power.

But there is another question, how much should the salary cap be ? its hard to say, not too low and not too high. Because if its too low it wont be effective and if its too high, the market will adapt by changing the value of money to lower the cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my theory:

"Power = Money"

Money has existed for about 6000 years or so. Power has existed for much, much longer. Your equation is wrong, Bakunin.

Money is just paper anyway. Don't confuse symbol for reality.

We have to be very carefull because whatever we may think, a free market is not neccesary a democratic market.
What do you mean by democracy then? You are twisting words to mean what you want. That's superstition, not the scientific method.

Bakunin, you believe the State is good and your fellow humans as individuals are bad. Think.

Calgary might have more employment because a textile mill could operate here instead of China or Bangladesh if they could get workers at 15 cents an hour. Calgary would be more desirable, even at the same wage, so expect a a crush of immigrants.
Where would these Chinese immigrants live? They would have to pay rent. (Yes, they could live 15 in a one-bedroom but...)

Minimum wage legislation has nothing to do with keeping poor Chinese out of Calgary. (What a thought, anyway.)

What primarily keeps poor people out of Calgary is the rare space and big city prices. As they say in the Maritimes, there are lots of jobs in Toronto but rents are astronomical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an economics expert by any means, but here's my 2¢ worth.

In province that is primarily rural in nature, the economy of many of these rural economies rely on small businesses with limited resources and low profit margins.

IMO, forced minimum wages hurt these small businesses by forcing them to pay more to employees. I know one business owner who may cut a job to help pay for the rest and working more himself to some cover the work.

Our minimum wage is currently at $6/hr., and the government has announced a plan to phase in a $1/hr. increase over 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my theory:

"Power = Money"

Money has existed for about 6000 years or so. Power has existed for much, much longer. Your equation is wrong, Bakunin.

.

We have to be very carefull because whatever we may think, a free market is not neccesary a democratic market.
What do you mean by democracy then? You are twisting words to mean what you want. That's superstition, not the scientific method.

Bakunin, you believe the State is good and your fellow humans as individuals are bad. Think.

Calgary might have more employment because a textile mill could operate here instead of China or Bangladesh if they could get workers at 15 cents an hour. Calgary would be more desirable, even at the same wage, so expect a a crush of immigrants.
Where would these Chinese immigrants live? They would have to pay rent. (Yes, they could live 15 in a one-bedroom but...)

Minimum wage legislation has nothing to do with keeping poor Chinese out of Calgary. (What a thought, anyway.)

What primarily keeps poor people out of Calgary is the rare space and big city prices. As they say in the Maritimes, there are lots of jobs in Toronto but rents are astronomical.

Money is just paper anyway. Don't confuse symbol for reality

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Money is the Western man's GOD!!!!!!

MONEY, determines life and death now!

If you are sick, and have no money for meds, what good knoing whats wrong? A true FREE healthcare system provides not only diagnosis of illnesses, but the medication to treat the illness.

A Demcocratically FREE health care system allows for the diagnosis, but does NOT provide the medication for free, or most therapies for free.

What is good about Democracy when only the well to do can afford to be healthy?

What good is Money at the end of the day? You ARE going to die, and you are not talking a cent with you!

Why waste your life in the pursuit of something that that is never really yours, and tends to make you a wors person not a better one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

August1991 Posted: Jan 9 2005, 01:43 AM

RB, your argument is blah, then blah and finally blah, blah.

I have not seen minimum wage shift along with inflation, and that in fact I would say to those of you who think employers are hurting, the true is that whilst manufacturing would have a wage increase, that we can assessed that minimum wage had fallen 50%. So this minimum wage could hardly be the major contributing factor to high unemployment or worsen employers’ position.

Furthermore, only 6% of all jobs in Canada were paid out at or below minimum wages

I have seen that companies will try to reconfigure strategies for the long term in order to save on labor cost (so there is long term implication of trade-offs) but importantly that if we did indeed raise minimum wages the total increase in wages pay out is well an increase in income overall

And if there was a co-relation of low wages and being poor contrary to the economic theory, that in Canada min. wage is accrued to only 30% of the poorest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Money has existed for about 6000 years or so.  Power has existed for much, much longer. Your equation is wrong, Bakunin.

Money is just paper anyway.  Don't confuse symbol for reality.

When i was writting, i tought about putting (ressource)or(trade value) but i tought it was clear enough, well i was wrong ;)

What do you mean by democracy then?  You are twisting words to mean what you want.  That's superstition, not the scientific method.

Its simple, democracy mean power to the people. if the power concentrate into the hands of an elite, then we dont have a democracy, we just have a failed system.

Bakunin, you believe the State is good and your fellow humans as individuals are bad. Think.

i dont think the state is naturally good and i dont think inviduals are naturally good. The state is controled by a government wich is composed of individuals anyway. Just take the time and inform yourself about who are controlling usa right now and you will see, "conflit d'intérêt" in big letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noticed a number of people on this board comment about the differences in minimum wage from province to province.
Canada's sensible solution to a "political" problem (some voters want government to impose a minimum wage). In fact, there are federal minimum wages, as well as provincial, depending on employment. There are also nuances for types of employment and age.

IMHO, minimum wage legislation should not exist. If, as a society, we want to help poor people, there are other, better ways to do this. Unfortunately, the pro-minimum wage Left Wing does not understand basic economics. Minimum wage legislation hurts the very people the Left supposedly wants to help.

Pateris, I agree with you about the minimum wage out here in Alberta. The farther north you go, the more irrelevant it is.
Fortunately, many western politicians understand economics better than Left Wing lobbyists. In the past few decades, the minimum wage has not changed but the labour market has. Wages are now market determined, as they should be.

I disagree August,

When Karl Marx cast his damning review of capitalism, he felt that it created its own grave diggers by alienating the workers until they had nothing to do but revolt. While I am not a fan of Karl Marx I feel he was on to something, but where he was wrong was that he underestimated the ability of capitalism to adapt and evolve, before it reached that point, I belvie minimium wage is one of those adaptations. It is gurantee to the worker, as the work force is so large uniting the whole work force is impossible but there must be some measure to ensure that wages are not driven down both by employers and employees. Even Adam Smith admitted that unless there were some such standards and saftey nets such as unions and minimium wage workers would be the ones to get screwed. Infact considerign we ahve un-employment rates it makes sense if we did not have such minimium wage laws we woudl ahve portions of the population battlign for Jobs, and there would not be enough to go around, slowly causing wages to degrade.

Another problem I have with your arguement is that you are playign both sides of the fence, to create an ultimate defence. On one side you claim that the markets now determine wages (rendering minimium wage irrelevant) and on the other side you claim to be infavour of eliminating minimium wage. Which begs the question if minimium wage is irrelavent why would you need to eliminate it? And if eliminating minimium wage would have an affect, would that affect not be lower wages? As that is the only thing if any that can result from eliminating minimium wage. So that leaves us with lower wages for workers, and perhpas you may claim more Job available. Unfortunantley this suggestion may not even be true in an economic text book with defined parameters, as the wages would have to drop significantly to allow for one mroe person to be hired, we woudl ahve to ensure that we would not expirence to great of a marginal diminishment of product to justify highering that next worker and evne then we would have to calculate wether society has truly made a gain from such a transaction in the form of consumer surplus. But evne that is jsut ina text book, in the real world peopel don't really have the time to spend owers screwing around with thier prices to find out how the market is defined, so it is whittled down to educated guesswork, and even if we could lower the wages we pay our workers, we still have no way of clearly knowing wether or not such a move would be benificial for the compnay, and then past that wether such a moove would be benifical to the worker and society. So perhpas buisness men woudl jsut lower the wages as far as possible and leave everythign else untouched. In a textbook world eliminating minimium wage may seem like a good policy but lets face it a text book is much more defined than the real world.

You have also previously asserted, that if peopel were paid less they would be charged less for their purchases, agian this si partially true, but to the extent that it equals the lower wages, or as you would argue betters the loss in wages, is largely up in the air and I would argue struck down by history. I think the major problem with this suggestion is two pronged and largely intertwined, we have buisness owners beign short sighted, and peopel buying on credit. The idea that prices willd rop if peopel can't afford them depends on the fact that peopel only spend the money they have, which well people go beyond that. Show of hands who here bought there hosue upfront? Who here bought there car upfront? Who here owes moeny on their powerline? Master card? visa? That right there is the major problem, with eliminating minimium wage and hoping that while wages drop the price of the product drops as well. As logn as peopel can buy on credit, or not pay until 2006 at the brick, buisness owners will see no reason to lower their prices until it is to late. You only have to look at some of the wage rate increases to price rate increases, for the same field, during the 1920's to understand how buyign on credit can allow for wages to remain static while the price of a good climbs, if you then like you can go into the 1930's to see the results of such things.

Which leaves us with maybe taxes to reditribute hte wealth, correct? But we are already over taxed in Canada right? and buisnesses are especially over taxed right? To the point where any higher taxes would just result in a mass exodus of buisness from Canada. however as far as taxes are concerned Federal Income tax makes up almost 50% of the governments revenues, lowering that would simply palce the burden elsewhere, either on buisnesses or sales taxes or other duties. So I don't neccesarilly see any improvement to be found there in the Right wing sense.

I think a problem you are expirenceing is failing to note one of the main principles of Economics, People Face Trade offs. To further that every day we face trade offs, between efficiency and equity. Leaving us with Belinda Stronach's economic Pie, we can choose to have a bigger more efficient Pie, or a smaller, fairer, more equitable pie. The efficient Pie that you propose does nto neccasarily mean we are all better off, it is an un-equal Pie, with a few large slices and many many slivers. But you claimed thsi would make the workers better off but to do that you must have a more equitable pie, while a few rich guys may complain it does achieve the goal of making the working class better off. The system of capitalism we have now with minimium wage and unions is better then any parody of the past that you suggest simply because this system was the one that succeded where past forms have failed. Undoubtedly this system will change, however it is ill lgocial and irrational for such a system to revert back tot he past Just as illogical as it would be for me to suggest it would be best for humans if we started to find a way to transform humans into chimpanzees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to inform you but when I attempted to buy a BMW with 1,000 sheets of blank printer paper the salesmen got pretty pissed off.

A banknote is a piece of paper that says, "This piece of paper can be exchanged for x amount of gold." If you wrote one of these yourself, the BMW dealer would laugh at you. If, on the other hand, you had a piece of paper from the Bank of Nova Scotia Gold Warehousing service stating that it was worth 70oz. of gold (about $40,000 US), they might well accept that.

Infact considerign we ahve un-employment rates it makes sense if we did not have such minimium wage laws we woudl ahve portions of the population battlign for Jobs, and there would not be enough to go around, slowly causing wages to degrade.

The minimum wage causes unemployment. Without a minimum wage, everybody who is willing to work for a market wage will find work. However, when the minimum wage is fixed at $5 per hour, every worker whose labour is worth less than $5 per hour will be unable to find work.

This is borne out in practical experience. The last time the US government raised the minimum wage by 50 cents, about half a million minimum-wage workers lost their jobs.

On one side you claim that the markets now determine wages (rendering minimium wage irrelevant) and on the other side you claim to be infavour of eliminating minimium wage.

Markets do determine wages, but minimum wage law is an externality that distorts market outcomes.

The system of capitalism we have now with minimium wage and unions is better then any parody of the past that you suggest simply because this system was the one that succeded where past forms have failed.

Failed? Since the advent of capitalism the human race entered an unprecedented era of peace and an unparalleled rate of economic growth and betterment of the welfare of the common man. Since interventionism has been introduced, our pace of economic progress has been slowed and even stagnated, the pre-20th-Century peace has been broken by the two most destructive wars in human history and dozens more amounting to well over a hundred million war dead, and the governments of the world have committed more than three hundred million murders against their own citizenry.

Its simple, democracy mean power to the people.

Illegitimate power. If one man does not have the right to kill another man or steal his property, why should a million men, or ten million men?

Money is the Western man's GOD!!!!!!

MONEY, determines life and death now!

No, it does not. You are confusing money with wealth, a rather silly but all-too-common mistake.

While I am not a fan of Karl Marx I feel he was on to something, but where he was wrong

Karl Marx was, without doubt, an absolute moron except in his ability to evangelise. Upon reading his work it becomes clear that he has no understanding of history, human nature and psychology, economics, politics and so forth. In fact, he even refutes himself! He states that people argue positions based upon their class origins. All that is necessary, he claims, is to expose the author as a bourgeoisie and he is refuted. Karl Marx is a bourgeoisie, ergo Karl Marx refutes himself.

Even Adam Smith admitted that unless there were some such standards and saftey nets such as unions and minimium wage workers would be the ones to get screwed.

Adam Smith wrote a long time ago and has since been refined and corrected. I would suggest that you read some capitalist texts written within the last century.

Unfortunantley this suggestion may not even be true in an economic text book with defined parameters

There cannot be an economic theory with defined parameters. One can predict a certain number of factors, however, economics is a field of human endeavour, and humans are frequently illogical and irrational and often don't do what one would expect. Therefore, any economic theorem has at least one massive and forever unknowable variable: human action.

in the real world peopel don't really have the time to spend owers screwing around with thier prices to find out how the market is defined

I think you do not understand how the market works. If you leave it alone, it will run itself without any planning required. The choices of a million producers and consumers will automatically steer it in the best direction (remember that "best" is subjective).

The idea that prices willd rop if peopel can't afford them depends on the fact that peopel only spend the money they have, which well people go beyond that. Show of hands who here bought there hosue upfront? Who here bought there car upfront? Who here owes moeny on their powerline? Master card? visa?

Now, hands up who got a mortgage, car loan, or credit card without being approved for credit first? No credit provider will loan to somebody whose ability to repay is in serious doubt.

I think a problem you are expirenceing is failing to note one of the main principles of Economics, People Face Trade offs. To further that every day we face trade offs, between efficiency and equity.

This is a false dilemma. Your rambling about pies and efficiency vs. equity is rubbish, there are no such dilemmas. You don't understand what opportunity costs are. "Efficiency" and "equity" are subjective terms and thus not useful for economic calculation. Trade-offs are judged on an individual basis. My friend buys a big-screen TV for $3000, he has judged that the TV is an acceptable trade for all the things that $3000 may have bought him. I don't buy the TV, I have judged that a TV is worth less than all the things $3000 might buy me. Do you understand this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another problem I have with your arguement is that you are playign both sides of the fence, to create an ultimate defence. On one side you claim that the markets now determine wages (rendering minimium wage irrelevant) and on the other side you claim to be infavour of eliminating minimium wage.
I am arguing that minimum wages legislation is a bad idea, that is slowly becoming irrelevant anyway. Markets increasingly determine low wages without this harmful interference.

Minimum wage in in Quebec in 1966 was $1/hour (taking into account inflation, that is about $6 in 2004 money).

Minimum wage in Quebec is now, after recent changes, about $7.50/hour.

So, changes in minimum wages (at least in Quebec) have stayed more or less constant once inflation has been taken into account.

This ignores two points: First, we are richer now in general than in 1966. We should take into account not only inflation but also the general rise in the standard of living. Second, the labour market is very different now than in the past 40 years. The arrival of women and baby-boomers has halted. The snake has swallowed the egg and digested it.

You have also previously asserted, that if peopel were paid less they would be charged less for their purchases, agian this si partially true, but to the extent that it equals the lower wages, or as you would argue betters the loss in wages, is largely up in the air and I would argue struck down by history.
No, I just said that if many people want to live in one place, housing will become expensive. As far as I know, laptops cost the same in Canada as in Sri Lanka.
When i was writting, i tought about putting (ressource)or(trade value) but i tought it was clear enough, well i was wrong
Now you are clear. Except owning a big house might make you wealthy, but it doesn't make you powerful.

Bill Gates is a rich guy, but is he powerful? Many people voluntarily and happily do what Bill Gates asks them to do. They can choose to ignore him and walk away. Gates relies entirely on co-operation in his dealings.

On the other hand, power is the ability to coerce, to make you do something you don't want to do. It is a form of slavery.

Its simple, democracy mean power to the people. if the power concentrate into the hands of an elite, then we dont have a democracy, we just have a failed system.
I agree that power is better in hands controlled somehow by democracy. Power can be used to do good but it is exceptionally dangerous.

Voluntary co-operation - the kind of relations one finds between friends, in a market, within a happy family, or with corporations - is always better.

Power - even the kind held in check by democracy - is dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are clear. Except owning a big house might make you wealthy, but it doesn't make you powerful.

Bill Gates is a rich guy, but is he powerful? Many people voluntarily and happily do what Bill Gates asks them to do. They can choose to ignore him and walk away. Gates relies entirely on co-operation in his dealings.

On the other hand, power is the ability to coerce, to make you do something you don't want to do. It is a form of slavery.

Bill gate company is a good sample of power used againts others.

Microsoft is a very agressive company that use its power to crush its competitor. That company is constantly in court for antitrust case.

here is 1 sample:

SAN FRANCISCO - Sun Microsystems has filed a private federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the company of harming competition by using its monopoly in the market for PC operating systems to undermine the success of Sun's Java technology, the company said Friday.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/0...0308hnsun2.html

We can also think about the endless war microsoft had with netscape. They dont care to lose in court as long as they keep their monopoly.

So microsoft is a good sample of what can happend with power but has nothing to do with the minimum wage subject, its another problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft is a very agressive company that use its power to crush its competitor. That company is constantly in court for antitrust case.
It is the US Justice department that prosecuted Microsoft under anti-trust legislation.
Sun Microsystems has filed a private federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the company of harming competition by using its monopoly in the market for PC operating systems to undermine the success of Sun's Java technology, the company said Friday.
How can Microsoft "undermine" the success of Sun except by providing a product that customers prefer.

This lawsuit is just competition by another name. The best place to compete is the market place because it's not la compétition but rather la concurrence.

----

Bakunin, the only way Bill Gates can get any money from anyone is buy selling shares or selling a product. It's completely voluntary. Bush Jnr, on the other hand, has his hand in every American's pocket.

Bill Gates cannot put anyone in prison, he can't send out troops to kill anyone. Bush Jnr regularly does both. (How many Quebecers were put in prison for how long in 1970? Why?)

----

Bakunin, you say that Microsoft exercices "power". Well, do ordinary people gain or lose when Microsoft and Sun Microsystems compete? If Microsoft is le concurrent le plus fort, how is that bad for the rest of us?

When Bush Jnr exercises his power to take and spend American taxpayers' money, how do they feel about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Karl Marx was, without doubt, an absolute moron except in his ability to evangelise. Upon reading his work it becomes clear that he has no understanding of history, human nature and psychology, economics, politics and so forth. In fact, he even refutes himself! He states that people argue positions based upon their class origins. All that is necessary, he claims, is to expose the author as a bourgeoisie and he is refuted. Karl Marx is a bourgeoisie, ergo Karl Marx refutes himself.

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo, I doubt anyone else is interested in this, but I would take you to task on this one. Marx argued in favour of the law of accumulation in which empirical, material circumstances would become so difficult and obvious that people would be unable to ignore their subjugation. This is why he divided his subject into "a class in itself" and "a class for itself". You should know better. It suggests that a person (proletariat) can be enslaved (by the bourgeoisie) yet not recognize it.

As an anarchist, you say the same thing, but you are unable to explain why people accept their own oppression. After all, anarchists argue that we are all enslaved by government, yet most people believe the state to be legitimate. Why? Why are we on this forum all not anarchists?

Anarchists made the same mistake as SW feminists. While second wave feminists (but not all women) argued that all women are oppressed, anarchists argue that all legal subjects are oppressed. In both cases, they (women/legal subjects) just don't realize it yet. Why? Are they both just too dumb? At least Marx was smart enough to realize that the proletariat had a stake in conformity/capitalism and that potential rebellion was based on the realization of empirical, material oppression.

If Marx was such a moron, then why is most of the world (esp. industrialized states) governed by redistributive governments? Seems to me he has a legacy. What will be said of Hugo and Cartman? What will be said of Bachunin (not the MLW Bachunin)?

Back to practical matters though, what surprises me is that all of you right-wing Conservative types seem to believe that a minimum wage is wrong, but at the same time argue against maximum wages (i.e. a free market in the NHL which the players advocate). WTF? By arguing against the minimum wage and against the NHL players demands for a free market, you sound like union representatives or feminists demanding specific wage ranges for certain jobs. Rather statist and hypocritical IMO. High wages for owners but not talented hockey players? Why? What is the difference? Was Pocklington more important to hockey than Gretzky?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for salary caps in professional sports, there is a reason why some sports have implemented them.

Because the owners can't seem to hold down salaries based on economics. If the owners were all good business people, they would refuse to pay the ridiculous salaries and some players would be forced to accept lower wages.

If a truly free market existed, the poor business practices of the owners would quickly bankrupt the leagues. And that might be a good thing.

And us "right wing Conservative types" don't like artificial minimum wages. However there is a natural minimum wage. It's the minimum the market can offer for a job that someone will accept to do. And of course the absolutely minimum is zero and we should have laws against slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum wage does not need to be raised. Adults shouldn't be on minimum wage. Kids should be on it. Adults are supposed have better jobs than earning the base wage for their work. That's what the education system is for. To help you get a better job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...