Author Topic: What you need to get a Tim Horton's  (Read 2009 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #135 on: January 16, 2018, 09:58:00 am »
You're simply wrong. The cost of employment is a major factor in everything. It's why so much manufacturing has been moved to Mexico or China or low wage states in the US. It's why call centres have moved to India. You can suggest the impact won't be high, but it doesn't have to be to impact jobs. There are over 18 million people employed in Canada. If employers cut back by one half of one percent that's still 90,000 jobs lost. Minimum wage rises of this level don't just impact those who make minimum wages. As I pointed out earlier all the people who used to make 3 bucks over minimum wage because they were more skilled are now going to have to have big pay increases. And so on up the ladder. If the kid behind the cashier was making 11.40 and their supervisor was making 14, well, you can't leave the supervisor at 14, now can you?

If you go through my comments above, I think you'll notice that most of the money the typical Canadian spends in a month is not impacted by minimum wage.  Your rent doesn't change. Your medical costs, insurance costs, your transportation costs, your banking costs, your internet and phone and cable fees, your electricity bill. None of this stuff changes.  Food, and to some degree clothing, will become more expensive.  To a degree that might be rather modest in my estimation.

If your grocery bill goes up by a few percent, that's survivable. The people most impacted will be the ones getting a raise.

If your $2.50 drive-through coffee costs $2.75, who cares?   A drive through coffee is a luxury, and if your luxuries become unaffordable you know what to do.

You may recall I expressed those exact sentiments about the need to bring in TFWs to work at fast food restaurants when that was under discussion. TFWs, and, for that matter, much of immigration, seems to be purpose designed by government to thwart the market and keep wages low for low skilled workers. I'm all for halting this and letting wages for shitty jobs rise as the supply of workers for those jobs falls. And if that means fewer fast food restaurants I'm okay with that.

I know you've said as much many times.  You're pretty much the only conservative willing to say so, to the best of my knowledge.  Whether it be politicians or pundits or message board commentators, I always see self-styled conservatives grumbling about governments meddling with wages, but never (aside from yourself) hear them complain about governments tilting the labor market in favor of employers.


But drastically increasing the minimum wage doesn't just impact fast food restaurants. It impacts virtually everything. And unlike the natural rise or fall of wages due to demand for those workers, this is entirely artificial and driven by political expediency.

If one level of government is tilting the labor market in favor of employers, why shouldn't another level of government try to counter the effect on behalf of its citizens?  Ideally neither would be going on, of course.  But wages for the working poor have been stagnant for ages while everything else becomes more expensive.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #136 on: January 16, 2018, 11:03:49 am »
A drive through coffee is a luxury

-k
It really says something when getting a coffee before work is considered a luxury by people.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #137 on: January 16, 2018, 12:03:44 pm »
If you go through my comments above, I think you'll notice that most of the money the typical Canadian spends in a month is not impacted by minimum wage.  Your rent doesn't change. Your medical costs, insurance costs, your transportation costs, your banking costs, your internet and phone and cable fees, your electricity bill. None of this stuff changes.  Food, and to some degree clothing, will become more expensive.  To a degree that might be rather modest in my estimation.

By a normal minimum wage hike, you're largely right. This isn't normal. twenty percent is huge, and it will push all the wages up of those above them on the earnings scale. Your landlord has to pay people in the office, maintenance people, etc. Your insurance company has to pay clerks and janitors. Gas stations have to pay clerks, as do bus companies - though the latter being largely government controlled already pay much higher than normal wages. Banks will have to raise wages for clerks, tellers (average entry salary $14.38) and cleaners and security, and all those other companies like internet and cable also have a sizable number of low earning workers - those whose jobs haven't been shipped to India. Every company which sells you stuff also buys stuff, a lot of it, for its daily operations, and that stuff will become more expensive to buy because it will become more expensive to produce, ship and stock. We're not talking huge increases but like I said, a tiny percentage makes a big difference on a macro scale.

Quote
If one level of government is tilting the labor market in favor of employers, why shouldn't another level of government try to counter the effect on behalf of its citizens?  Ideally neither would be going on, of course.  But wages for the working poor have been stagnant for ages while everything else becomes more expensive.

As you say, ideally neither should be doing it. This institutionalizes an unnaturally high wage, though, because it will be impossible for a future government to lower it, despite what happens economically, and will resort in more jobs going offshore to lower wage countries. It's also a big gamble, given taxes on businesses are falling down south while we keep finding ways to make business less profitable up here. I expect manufacturing to take a major hit from this in Ontario, as it's just one more thing on the scale, along with high energy prices, the new carbon tax scheme, and a horrible anti-business regulatory environment. The oil industry is booming down south - but not in Canada, because we can't find a way to get the oil out of the country.

You can take the position that one stupid government policy will help offset another level of government's stupid policy, and you're partially correct, but I certainly can't see myself failing to oppose stupid government policies regardless.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #138 on: January 16, 2018, 04:38:01 pm »
I am not wholy supportive of any ideology. Certain aspects of Libertarian thinking certainly appeal to me, but I do believe in a more humane government which works together for the greater good - within limits.

Ok.

Quote
Poor argument. Such things are necessary for the functioning of an economy and encouraging innovation and creativity. You would have done better to address all the government subsidies - most of which, in my opinion, should be cut.

Why can't companies pay to enforce their own copyrights and laws ?  Why do I have to pay for a cyber crimes unit ?

Quote

As I pointed out in another argument, any virtue taken to extremes becomes a vice (Aristotle)  and while I completely agree we do not want a society in which people are starving or freezing or dying of curable diseases due to poverty, I disagree that we need to take money from other people in order that they have cell phones, big screen TVs and and gameboys. Taxation is, after all, at heart, forced thievery, in a way. You are forcing people to give up money they worked hard for (in most cases), and I think giving it to others who didn't is fundamentally unjust.

Ok, well we might be [scarily] closer in ideology than I suspected.  'Cell phones' 'Big screen TVs' and 'Gameboys' are barely luxuries anymore.  Smartphones are almost a necessity.  Big screen TVs cost about 1/5 of a months rent these days, and I think Gameboys are from the 90s so you can get them at Goodwill.

Your fatal flaw is you want the system to reward virtue and it won't due that.  It will reward merit and ability, and it will prevent the dumbest and hapless from falling into complete ruin... for the most part.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #139 on: January 16, 2018, 07:18:07 pm »

Why can't companies pay to enforce their own copyrights and laws ?  Why do I have to pay for a cyber crimes unit ?

Can't say I really care. Whatever we pay for it, likely to encourage smaller companies to start up here (the big ones can take care of themselves) is vastly eclipsed by what we pay in corporate welfare.

Quote
Ok, well we might be [scarily] closer in ideology than I suspected.  'Cell phones' 'Big screen TVs' and 'Gameboys' are barely luxuries anymore.  Smartphones are almost a necessity.  Big screen TVs cost about 1/5 of a months rent these days, and I think Gameboys are from the 90s so you can get them at Goodwill.

You understand the point. This raise is not because the government made any sort of case that people were starving and homeless, but just so they could have a better lifestyle. But to get that better lifestyle they have to take if off other people, making their lifestyle worse. I don't see the fairness in that. If people want a better lifestyle let them work to get it. I would certainly not be opposed to the government making it easier for people to take courses that improve their skillset/marketability.
Quote
Your fatal flaw is you want the system to reward virtue and it won't due that.  It will reward merit and ability, and it will prevent the dumbest and hapless from falling into complete ruin... for the most part.

The system does reward virtue to a certain extent, if by 'virtue' you mean working harder to get ahead, taking courses, increasing your skillset. It also rewards merit and ability. But it also rewards mediocrity and does its best to cushion failure and make it easier to just do what you've been doing, whether that's being a cashier at Walmart or a barrista at Time Hortons. And it shouldn't.

This raise is also Toronto-centric. It will produce an income of about $2250 a month before taxes for someone making minimum wage. That's a pretty decent salary in rural areas away from the big cities where rents are really low. It means a couple of barristas living together have about $4000 per month to get by on. I don't think that'll be very hard.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #140 on: January 18, 2018, 06:22:47 am »
Can't say I really care. 

You care about the government and the economy though.  You asked why the government should be involved in wealth distribution ?  The answer is somewhere between "it works" and "we like it".  We could easily have the government run the economic game so that a few people at the very top do very well, but that type of country doesn't have the same economic essence that we have had.

Quote
You understand the point. This raise is not because the government made any sort of case that people were starving and homeless, but just so they could have a better lifestyle. But to get that better lifestyle they have to take if off other people, making their lifestyle worse. I don't see the fairness in that. If people want a better lifestyle let them work to get it. I would certainly not be opposed to the government making it easier for people to take courses that improve their skillset/marketability.

Hmmm.... how you frame this question is everything.  These people are at the lowest point in the economic ladder so 'better lifestyle' sounds pejorative.  Maybe that means being able to save some money for retirement ?  Maybe it means being able to afford to move if you're evicted after living in rent control for 10 years ?

Not even the class war people are complaining about the franchise owners getting their profits for a 'better lifestyle'.  As I have stated they are not as likely to be spending those profits in the local economy, and a good portion are going off to Brazil.  Probably better for both sides of the argument to just talk about money and not the implicit morality of how each side would spend the money.

Quote
The system does reward virtue to a certain extent, if by 'virtue' you mean working harder to get ahead, taking courses, increasing your skillset. It also rewards merit and ability. But it also rewards mediocrity and does its best to cushion failure and make it easier to just do what you've been doing, whether that's being a cashier at Walmart or a barrista at Time Hortons. And it shouldn't.

Sure, but as time goes on it becomes much more difficult to make a decent living without some kind of connection or special skill.  As such, it requires more virtue to just get by for a lot of good people.  People who make minimum wage still work, at least.

Quote
This raise is also Toronto-centric. It will produce an income of about $2250 a month before taxes for someone making minimum wage. That's a pretty decent salary in rural areas away from the big cities where rents are really low. It means a couple of barristas living together have about $4000 per month to get by on. I don't think that'll be very hard.

Baristas in many cases will get tips too, so you're looking at even more.  I agree that this is Toronto-centric and that the big pinăta has to burst, when places 1 hour away cost 1/2 as much to live. 

I have an idea to start a work-from home business that will pay people $20/hr to help with software development.  If you live in Elliot Lake and have high speed access you can take a job away from a Toronto person who makes $35/hr or more.  Ask me how !

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #141 on: January 18, 2018, 11:06:46 am »
You care about the government and the economy though.  You asked why the government should be involved in wealth distribution ?  The answer is somewhere between "it works" and "we like it".

Who says it works? It works for the ones who get the money and against those who give up their money. It also works to discourage innovation and self-responsibility.

Quote
Hmmm.... how you frame this question is everything.  These people are at the lowest point in the economic ladder so 'better lifestyle' sounds pejorative.

Well SOMEONE has to be at the lowest point in the economic ladder. And these, for the most part, are kids and those who deserve to be there due to bad choices they've made or just being **** by the fickle finger of fate. Again, I'm all for helping them improve their skillset. I'm not for just giving them more of my money so I'm poorer and they're richer.

Quote
Not even the class war people are complaining about the franchise owners getting their profits for a 'better lifestyle'.  As I have stated they are not as likely to be spending those profits in the local economy, and a good portion are going off to Brazil.

There's little evidence of this. Where does it come from anyway? Brazil is where the corporation that owns Tim Hortons comes from but they skim off the top of sales, without regard to profits. The owners live in Canada. I used my substantial income to buy a car a couple of months ago, and a new house a couple of years ago, and a condo for my brother a year before that. I buy lots of things with it. I don't send any money to Brazil.

Quote
Sure, but as time goes on it becomes much more difficult to make a decent living without some kind of connection or special skill.

Well not any more. The new minimum wage is enough for a single person to afford a decent apartment and to pay for his car and to have all the usual middle class stuff now, while still doing a lot of partying and playing video games and not worrying about the future,.

 
Quote
I have an idea to start a work-from home business that will pay people $20/hr to help with software development.  If you live in Elliot Lake and have high speed access you can take a job away from a Toronto person who makes $35/hr or more.  Ask me how !

Ask me how you think you're going to get talented software developers for $20hr when the barrista at Timmy's is getting $15 + tips.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #142 on: January 18, 2018, 04:27:35 pm »
Who says it works? It works for the ones who get the money and against those who give up their money. It also works to discourage innovation and self-responsibility.

Who says the economy works ?  I guess the 90+% of voters who continually go to the polls and vote for a similar flavour of neo-liberal economic parties ?

I mean - do you see Marxism, or flat taxes, or libertarianism coming up.... ever ?

Quote
Well SOMEONE has to be at the lowest point in the economic ladder.

Right.  But my point is your continuous spiking of economic discussions with morality - in this case by saying more money to the poorest earners funds 'lifestyle improvements' rather than necessities. 

Quote
And these, for the most part, are kids and those who deserve to be there due to bad choices they've made or just being **** by the fickle finger of fate. Again, I'm all for helping them improve their skillset. I'm not for just giving them more of my money so I'm poorer and they're richer.

Oh, Christ.  "Deserve"... here we go again.  So people who win the lottery 'deserve' it, as well as those f***d by fate as you say.

It is to laugh...

Quote

There's little evidence of this. Where does it come from anyway? Brazil is where the corporation that owns Tim Hortons comes from but they skim off the top of sales, without regard to profits. The owners live in Canada. I used my substantial income to buy a car a couple of months ago, and a new house a couple of years ago, and a condo for my brother a year before that. I buy lots of things with it. I don't send any money to Brazil.

How did you enter into it ?  I don't see what you have to do with anything.  Corporate money and money for people who have millions does not go back into the economy at the same rate that it does for low income earners. 

How much money does Brazil get if a minimum wage earner gets a raise?  I retract 'a good portion' as I don't know the numbers but it still means less.


Quote
Well not any more. The new minimum wage is enough for a single person to afford a decent apartment and to pay for his car and to have all the usual middle class stuff now, while still doing a lot of partying and playing video games and not worrying about the future,.

In Toronto ?

Also - they can save for their future now.  Isn't that a big complaint, that the growing class of minimum wage earners gets things paid for them by corporations and higher earners ?  You can set up your economy to decide how many people will earn what... economic policy...

 
Quote
Ask me how you think you're going to get talented software developers for $20hr when the barrista at Timmy's is getting $15 + tips.

You will not get 'talented software developers' for $20/hr.  Only naive simpletons who don't know their worth will take that.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #143 on: January 18, 2018, 05:10:34 pm »
Who says the economy works ?  I guess the 90+% of voters who continually go to the polls and vote for a similar flavour of neo-liberal economic parties ?

I think you somewhat overestimate how many liberal voters there are. Remember the point I've been making for some time. The lower 50% of voters are responsible for paying just 4% of taxes. That figure came from a few years back. It's likely lower now. If you're not paying taxes. If instead, someone else has to pay them for you, so you can get all these neat government services, are you gonna complain about that? Not very likely! You'll continue thinking this is great and vote for parties that offer even more goodies. Which is what happened last election. So with 50% of the vote guaranteed to go to liberal wealth-redistribution parties how many more votes do they need to get from actual taxpayers to win? Given a sizeable chunk of those actual taxpayers are unionized public servants, they'll probably get most of those votes simply because public servants know who butters their bread.

Quote
I mean - do you see Marxism, or flat taxes, or libertarianism coming up.... ever ?

I think by now most people outside of university campuses realize that Marxism is just going to make everyone poor. And flat taxes and libertarianism is not going to reward the people above I just mentioned.

Quote
Right.  But my point is your continuous spiking of economic discussions with morality - in this case by saying more money to the poorest earners funds 'lifestyle improvements' rather than necessities.

Does reality offend you? I don't consider a better cable package, a nicer apartment and a bigger TV to be necessities. 

Quote
Oh, Christ.  "Deserve"... here we go again.  So people who win the lottery 'deserve' it, as well as those f***d by fate as you say.

In a capitalist system you are rewarded for working hard, for improving yourself so that you are worth more as an employee. The corollary is you aren't rewarded for being lazy and not trying. And once again this seems to outrage you for some reason. I'm not imputing a morality to 'deserve' but simple reality.

Quote
How did you enter into it ?  I don't see what you have to do with anything.  Corporate money and money for people who have millions does not go back into the economy at the same rate that it does for low income earners.

The people who will fund this increase are not corporate billionaires. You are. I am. Everyone who buys coffee, groceries, gets their hair cut, goes to the dry cleaner or a movie or the dollar store or the bank. We're going to fund it. The corporate billionaires will be fine.

Quote
Also - they can save for their future now.  Isn't that a big complaint, that the growing class of minimum wage earners gets things paid for them by corporations and higher earners ?

But their savings come at the expense of your savings, and mine and my sisters and the guy up the street. It's making the lives of poorer people better at the expense of less poor people because the less poor people, well, they have more money so we have to take some away and give it to these people who have less. And whether you admit it or not the underlying motive for most of those who support it is 100% based on their sense of morality and fairness. Some of them just try to make up economic justifications for their moral decision.

Quote
You will not get 'talented software developers' for $20/hr.  Only naive simpletons who don't know their worth will take that.

Or illegals, or perhaps TFWs. $20hr is a huge sum for a third world resident. $15hr is not a huge sum for a Canadian, but if you lack much ambition and you're lazy, well hey, you can live fine on that, even in most cities.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2018, 06:03:12 pm by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #144 on: January 18, 2018, 07:52:49 pm »
I think you somewhat overestimate how many liberal voters there are.



I'm talking about the basic economic system that is supported by all 3 major parties here.

Quote
Remember the point I've been making for some time. The lower 50% of voters are responsible for paying just 4% of taxes. That figure came from a few years back. It's likely lower now. If you're not paying taxes. If instead, someone else has to pay them for you, so you can get all these neat government services, are you gonna complain about that? Not very likely!

Actually, you just *might* because the other side of it is that you make the lowest wage they can legally pay you.  When is the last time you heard this exchange:

Poor Sop #1: I wish I be makin' a MILLION dollars a year !
Poor Sop #2: Whoa, boyo - you'd be payin' half of that to the government don't ya know !
Poor Sop #3: Yeah, you'se right.  I'm glad to be makin $30K per year because I get my quality healthcare paid for.

Quote
You'll continue thinking this is great and vote for parties that offer even more goodies.

All parties support wealth distribution, and if you read MY opinion on this I never said it was 'great'.  I am cautious about this and have deemed it an experiment, that's all.
 
Quote
Does reality offend you?

Sorry I think you have confused yourself with a Turkish girl just there.... Morality and Science (or in this case economics) are different things, with different languages and methods of assessment

It's extra income.  You casting aspersions on what it's spent on is useless moralizing.  I doubt they can afford to spend the cash on coke and hookers as the rich capitalist is but that's not a basis for discussion of the economic merits.
 
Quote
In a capitalist system you are rewarded for working hard, for improving yourself so that you are worth more as an employee. The corollary is you aren't rewarded for being lazy and not trying. And once again this seems to outrage you for some reason. I'm not imputing a morality to 'deserve' but simple reality.

Outrage ?  Hardly.  I just think that a moral argument makes no sense.  Rewarding merit and work is what makes the system work, and what makes pure socialism fail - however you can argue for the system without using words like 'deserve'.

Quote
The people who will fund this increase are not corporate billionaires. You are. I am. Everyone who buys coffee, groceries, gets their hair cut, goes to the dry cleaner or a movie or the dollar store or the bank. We're going to fund it. The corporate billionaires will be fine.

They will be fine but less fine than if this hadn't happened.  The consortium will take a hit, if the owners do.  But it doesn't matter to me anyway.  If it works overall, then it works.

 
Quote
Or illegals, or perhaps TFWs. $20hr is a huge sum for a third world resident. $15hr is not a huge sum for a Canadian, but if you lack much ambition and you're lazy, well hey, you can live fine on that, even in most cities.

Yeah, I can't get behind the disparaging of people.  You pulled yourself up from a low wage and so your point of view is completely understandable.  I made a low wage while in high school, and immediately started making decent money in computer by the time I was 19 so I have a different outlook.  Sorry.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #145 on: January 18, 2018, 08:23:25 pm »
I'm talking about the basic economic system that is supported by all 3 major parties here.

Yeah, but the question is just how much income redistribution. How much is justified?

Quote
Actually, you just *might* because the other side of it is that you make the lowest wage they can legally pay you.  When is the last time you heard this exchange:

Poor Sop #1: I wish I be makin' a MILLION dollars a year !
Poor Sop #2: Whoa, boyo - you'd be payin' half of that to the government don't ya know !
Poor Sop #3: Yeah, you'se right.  I'm glad to be makin $30K per year because I get my quality healthcare paid for.

You miss the point.
I'm not saying people are glad they only make $20k-$30k. I'm saying that if they have a choice about voting for a party which is going to redistribute someone else's income to them, or one which says no, we ain't gonna do that so much, they'll choose the first party. Why not? It's human nature.

Quote
Sorry I think you have confused yourself with a Turkish girl just there.... Morality and Science (or in this case economics) are different things, with different languages and methods of assessment

This program has zip to do with economics. It is a political project designed to get votes for the Liberal government. And the people who don't benefit yet support it aren't doing so for economic reasons but for moral reasons. "Oh, those poor people deserve a 'living wage'! And those filthy rich bastards have too much money anyway!
Anyway, no skin off my nose. I mean, I won't be paying it, heh heh."

Quote
It's extra income.  You casting aspersions on what it's spent on is useless moralizing.

You can't, as much as you want to, divorce the moral aspects of this. This is done for political reasons and supported for moral reasons. I'm not casting aspersions or moralizing. I'm pointing out that redistributing money for the purpose of ensuring no one starves or freezes to death in the dark is different from redistributing income as part of a Marxist income redistribution program.

Which is what this is.

Quote
Yeah, I can't get behind the disparaging of people.

Yeah, well I have never had a problem judging people, good or bad. I know how easy it is to just go along as you've been going along, and doing a crappy job for years just because, well, it's what you know, and it's become what you're comfortable in, as long as it pays enough to continue your present lifestyle. And it's easy to say ah, no one will hire me anyway or what's the point in trying to upgrade my skills or apply for that job. I've seen it many, many, many times. And when you got that crummy job in the first place (we're not talking about kids) largely because you didn't finish high school, because you don't have a hell of a lot of get-up-and-go, well, you ain't going nowhere fast without a lot of incentive.

You think this provides any incentive? I think it provides a disincentive.

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #146 on: January 19, 2018, 06:08:41 am »
Yeah, but the question is just how much income redistribution. How much is justified?

Yep.  Agreed.  And this is admittedly pretty extreme - almost an NDP action.  So even though I am trying to focus on the economic numbers and macro flows, there is a clear (and many, even on the left, would say cynical) political motive.

Quote
You miss the point.
I'm not saying people are glad they only make $20k-$30k. I'm saying that if they have a choice about voting for a party which is going to redistribute someone else's income to them, or one which says no, we ain't gonna do that so much, they'll choose the first party. Why not? It's human nature.

Except.... they don't.  Look south of the border and explain to me how poor whites vote for a party that cuts healthcare, and enforces right-to-work laws.  This wasn't the case in the mid-20th century either.

Quote

This program has zip to do with economics. It is a political project designed to get votes for the Liberal government. And the people who don't benefit yet support it aren't doing so for economic reasons but for moral reasons. "Oh, those poor people deserve a 'living wage'! And those filthy rich bastards have too much money anyway!

Can't disagree there, but everything you are saying is obvious.  I find the economic numbers angle interesting, if there's anything to be said there.  But - interestingly - there doesn't seem to be much more for us to say after all.

Quote
Anyway, no skin off my nose. I mean, I won't be paying it, heh heh."

You have, I think, brought yourself up from lower wage into higher one.  People like me, born into the upper middle class, and living in it their entire careers see tax-paying as the cost of good citizenship.  Neither view is right or wrong, nor moral, nor immoral.  I have been in the highest tax bracket since I was in my mid-twenties I think.

Quote
You can't, as much as you want to, divorce the moral aspects of this. This is done for political reasons and supported for moral reasons. I'm not casting aspersions or moralizing. I'm pointing out that redistributing money for the purpose of ensuring no one starves or freezes to death in the dark is different from redistributing income as part of a Marxist income redistribution program.

Fine.  Have your morals, but don't try to get me to buy into them.  I was brought up as a very liberal Christian, and that's in my DNA.  The system works because two alternating moral systems create positive tension to make it work: charity on the one side, hard work on the other. 

I am just saying that there is no point in people discussing morality and trying to shame others on here.  It's like liberals screaming racism at conservatives for policies they rightly see as racist.  Whatever the point may be, it won't go anywhere.

Quote

Yeah, well I have never had a problem judging people, good or bad. I know how easy it is to just go along as you've been going along, and doing a crappy job for years just because, well, it's what you know, and it's become what you're comfortable in, as long as it pays enough to continue your present lifestyle. And it's easy to say ah, no one will hire me anyway or what's the point in trying to upgrade my skills or apply for that job. I've seen it many, many, many times. And when you got that crummy job in the first place (we're not talking about kids) largely because you didn't finish high school, because you don't have a hell of a lot of get-up-and-go, well, you ain't going nowhere fast without a lot of incentive.

You think this provides any incentive? I think it provides a disincentive.

The minimum wage isn't an incentive. 

You don't have a problem judging people, but you don't like people calling you racist for your position on immigration policies right ?  That's the problem: there is nothing to be discussed if you're going to cast moral aspersions on things where there is a subjective element.  I don't know how to put it clearly, but I hope you know what I mean.

Discussion about morality goes nowhere.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #147 on: January 19, 2018, 10:35:11 am »
Except.... they don't.  Look south of the border and explain to me how poor whites vote for a party that cuts healthcare, and enforces right-to-work laws.  This wasn't the case in the mid-20th century either.

The people down south are simply taken in by masses of advertising and PR work done by unrestrained money. And admittedly by the fact that the Democrats are so easy to dislike if you're not a progressive committed to identity politics. Look at how the big money has convinced people that government health care is a socialist plot which will mean they'll wait in line for hours and hours for anything, and be allowed to die if some government bureaucrat says so.

Quote
Can't disagree there, but everything you are saying is obvious.  I find the economic numbers angle interesting, if there's anything to be said there.  But - interestingly - there doesn't seem to be much more for us to say after all.

Because you seem to be convinced this will take money away from corporate billionaires. I am convinced it won't cost them a dime. It will take money away from mostly middle class consumers of services. Most of the small businesses involved have already raised prices and cut back hours.

Quote
You have, I think, brought yourself up from lower wage into higher one.  People like me, born into the upper middle class, and living in it their entire careers see tax-paying as the cost of good citizenship.  Neither view is right or wrong, nor moral, nor immoral.  I have been in the highest tax bracket since I was in my mid-twenties I think.

It is admittedly a different mindset when you've never had to worry about money. When you look at university, for example, and see who takes the 'soft' courses in things like womens studies, journalism, political science, psychology and the like, that's not people who came from where I came from. That's people who came from where you came from. People who come from where I came from take courses which have a more certain economic payoff. Business, software engineering, etc. So maybe since you'e never had to worry about money you don't really care much that this will take money from you and give it to someone else. I, on the other hand, despite a seven figure investment portfolio and a top end income (which could trail off at any time without warning) worry about my future. Like the proverbial squirrel, I stock away food for the winter.

Quote
Fine.  Have your morals, but don't try to get me to buy into them.

To me, the arguments in favour of this are almost entirely driven by morals, and yet you keep accusing me of infusing my position with morality.

Quote
I am just saying that there is no point in people discussing morality and trying to shame others on here.  It's like liberals screaming racism at conservatives for policies they rightly see as racist.  Whatever the point may be, it won't go anywhere.

And again, virtually ALL of the arguments in favour of this move have been moral, and all of the condemnation of those who disagree have been moral shaming. So I frankly find your position laughable.

Quote
The minimum wage isn't an incentive. 

Nope. It's a disincentive. And the bigger it is the more of a disincentive it is.

Quote
You don't have a problem judging people, but you don't like people calling you racist for your position on immigration policies right ?

I see. So your position is that if I judge others poorly, for, say, wanting to execute any woman who doesn't wear a niquab, then I have to accept that all judgement are equally valid? It's all or nothing?

Quote
That's the problem: there is nothing to be discussed if you're going to cast moral aspersions on things where there is a subjective element.  I don't know how to put it clearly, but I hope you know what I mean.

Discussion about morality goes nowhere.

And yet, that is all you seem to want to talk about. My position on this issue has never been about morality. I don't know if you're trying to troll here or what.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 10:53:29 am by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #148 on: January 20, 2018, 12:45:52 pm »

It is admittedly a different mindset when you've never had to worry about money. When you look at university, for example, and see who takes the 'soft' courses in things like womens studies, journalism, political science, psychology and the like, that's not people who came from where I came from. That's people who came from where you came from.

Bosh.  You are constructing some kind of moralistic axiom between being lazy and taking arts courses at university.  I got into the most difficult computer program in the country. My cohorts went into business schools, science and pre-law (which is also arts)

Quote
People who come from where I came from take courses which have a more certain economic payoff. Business, software engineering, etc. So maybe since you'e never had to worry about money you don't really care much that this will take money from you and give it to someone else.

This legislation will have almost no impact on me, but that doesn't mean I don't care.

Quote

To me, the arguments in favour of this are almost entirely driven by morals, and yet you keep accusing me of infusing my position with morality.

Yes, because economic decisions are made with a view of macro impacts not of punishing or rewarding people.

Quote
And again, virtually ALL of the arguments in favour of this move have been moral, and all of the condemnation of those who disagree have been moral shaming. So I frankly find your position laughable.

Well, you are laughing at me for moral positions that I have not taken.  That's confusing, and likely related to how you group people in your mind.  Not my problem.

Quote
I see. So your position is that if I judge others poorly, for, say, wanting to execute any woman who doesn't wear a niquab, then I have to accept that all judgement are equally valid? It's all or nothing?

How is that a discussion of economics ?

 

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: What you need to get a Tim Horton's
« Reply #149 on: January 20, 2018, 01:08:15 pm »
Bosh.  You are constructing some kind of moralistic axiom between being lazy and taking arts courses at university.  I got into the most difficult computer program in the country. My cohorts went into business schools, science and pre-law (which is also arts)

You are again resorting to moral arguments. You need to stop that since your morality really should not be the focus of discussion.

You are also being utterly illogical by pretending that socioeconomic upbringing does not impact course selection. You recently posted a paper showing how universities have become basically job factories whereby young people go to get their papers stamped so they can make more money. Are you going to try to pretend that people raised without any economic cares are not going to be more prone to taking courses without as much regard to likely economic payoff?

Quote
This legislation will have almost no impact on me, but that doesn't mean I don't care.

That's just arrogance. It will have almost no impact on me either. Both of us make lots of money. It WILL have a negative impact on lower economic earners, however, who will find things getting more expensive. This will transfer money from them to minimum wage earners, just as it transfers it from you and me. But we have a sufficiently high income we'll barely notice.

Quote
Yes, because economic decisions are made with a view of macro impacts not of punishing or rewarding people.

Which economic decision? This raise is not based on economics and you know it.

Quote
Well, you are laughing at me for moral positions that I have not taken.

Ditto.

Quote
How is that a discussion of economics ?

You brought it up. You tell me.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List