Canadian Politics Mega-thread - Page 13

On September 30 2015 10:20 Impervious wrote:

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation.

Company A pays its workers $12 an hour. Company B pays its workers a wage of $15 an hour. The living wage is at $15 an hour. Employees of Company A receive a variety of different support programs through welfare to top them up to that $15 an hour wage (and costing a fair bit in bureaucratic inefficiencies in the process). Which company is likely to make more money for each man hour worked?

Here's a 2nd hypothetical situation.

Company A pays its workers $12 an hour. Company B pays its workers a wage of $15 an hour. The living wage is at $15 an hour. Company A receives money from the government to prop up the wages to $15 an hour to compensate for that. Which company is likely to make more money for each man hour worked?

On September 30 2015 12:46 Djzapz wrote:
I frankly don't understand the question(s). Which company makes more money per number of hours worked doesn't really change anything because it's not the point and it leaves a bunch of other questions open. What does the company that pay $12 an hour do, what does the $15/hr company do?

Also it's not necessarily fair to assume that welfare programs all end up being inefficient. Economies of scale for instance are a thing - by standardizing programs the government can in some (if not many) cases reduce the costs of some services. Furthermore, the person who makes $12/hr doesn't get caught up to the person who gets $15/hr, they both get some benefits because and a slew of exemptions and tax cuts depending on their status. For instance you can make more than someone else but pay less taxes because you have kids, for instance. And you can have access to certain services like healthcare, child care and various social subsidies which in many cases actually don't cost all that much because the difference between approving a transfer of funds to the consumer and approving a transfer of funds to the provider of service is not that time consuming.

Now there's always going to be much to be said about inefficiency in bureaucracies and in the public sector in general, but frankly dispensing services instead of dropping funds directly into a bank account has its advantages. One is that you know where the money goes. If you can offer services to young mothers in the form of a subsidy so that they can go to prenatal courses and take a slew of tests, they'll do this one thing that's responsible, but if you just dump $x in their account, they might do something else. And hell, some of those services are expensive as hell, too.

If anything, the bureaucracy would get even heavier if benefits were dispensed as big checks. Situations change, if I suddenly find myself in a kind of situation where I need this service that I can't afford and it's socially advantageous for me to get this service, then my interface as a citizen shouldn't be the ministry, it should be the service provider itself, which can dispense services at will on the spot. This allows to control for what public money goes toward.

Now I'm not sure I understand your example, but if A makes $15/hr and B makes $12/hr + 3/hr by the government, then the direct effect is that A's salary gets reduced to $12/hr and he doesn't lose any money because the government will fill the gap.

Understandably, people wouldn't be happy with this. I'm fine with some minimal fund transfers to individual like income assistance or whatever it's called in English where you get a pittance every month but it's enough to survive until you get a job. But I'm not necessarily fine with subsidizing a livable wage where the employer is able to afford it. However, I'm fine with paying MORE money than said livable wage would cost in taxpayer money if it's to offer specific, socially advantageous services to people in specific situations. Like I want new mothers or "pregnant couples" to have access to prenatal care, but I know that if they were just handed a check for whatever the cost of prenatal care is, many of those would go out and drink it away.

Social programs have their issues to be sure but they're one of the greatest tools we have in providing some opportunity to a great number of people.

On October 01 2015 09:36 Impervious wrote:

Why does it matter what the companies do? Company A is paying wages below the cost of living, requiring employees to receive more in assistance than they get taxed for them. Company B is paying wages where they receive assistance programs and get taxed at relatively even amounts. Granted, this is simplifying things greatly, but that is the basis behind the idea of a "living wage". Because of this, it is effectively costing the government money to supplement the income of company A's employees, which means it is costing the tax dollars of you and I to pay for the ability of company A to pay for labour below the cost of living.....

It is quite fair to assume that complicated welfare systems are inefficient. There are studies showing this. Compared to the USA we're doing amazing, but compared to most of Europe, we're pretty terrible. There is a lot of money being thrown at the issue of poverty in our country, far more than any of us would like to admit, yet the fact is that in the last 30+ years, the rate of poverty in the country has been quite stagnant. And poverty is one of the most dependable predictors of things like crime and bad health..... When you're struggling to put food on the table, there's a good chance that you're not going to the doctor for preventative medicine of any kind, and when your issues can't really be solved without outside help (like mental health issues), then they end up really hindering your ability to further yourself.....

Actually, there was a pilot program in the past that did exactly that. It happened in a little town called Dauphin Manitoba. And the results would likely blow your mind. Google it.

It would also allow more people to do things like become artists, or musicians. Entrepreneurs would have a much easier time starting a new business if they had the ability to survive while things are just getting going. Commission jobs would make far more sense; imagine working at McDonalds but getting paid by the burger you flip instead of the hour.

I oversimplified it, I guess. A makes $12 an hour from the company, and receives more in assistance than they pay for it in taxes and deductions of all kinds (because the living wage in the example is $15). B makes $15 an hour, and pays roughly equal in taxes and deductions to the assistance they receive. Employees of company B cause no net drain on the government, while employees of company A do, which is indirectly subsidizing the labour the company pays for by the amount between the wages they pay and the living wage. Example 2 shows how ridiculous that is by the government giving it to the company to forward directly to the employee, rather than indirectly giving it to the employee through other means.

The whole "drink it away" thing is actually a lot rarer than you're implying it is. Yes, there are stupid people out there that would do that, but the majority don't do that..... And of the ones that do, there's likely some kind of reason for it (mental health issues like addiction may play a part here, and it's a lot easier to get treatment for that when you're not worried about your next meal.....).

Agreed, except my problem isn't with the social programs, it's with companies getting indirect benefits by paying employees like shit because the minimum wage is fairly far below a realistic living wage. When you're working 40+ hours a week and all of your income is used for stuff like rent and food, and you have nothing left to use for any kind of economic advancement, then there's a problem.....

On October 01 2015 09:36 Impervious wrote:
Agreed, except my problem isn't with the social programs, it's with companies getting indirect benefits by paying employees like shit because the minimum wage is fairly far below a realistic living wage.

On October 01 2015 11:48 Falling wrote:
I was just reading a bit about the '88 election and how big a deal NAFTA was in the debates... why can't we have the same thing with TPP? It's far a far larger trade deal, but it's getting rushed through in secrecy, even though it's during an election. It's so huge, the parties ought to be able to debate about it, even if trade deals are too complicated for the average voter. Senator Brown of the US talks about how it's easier for elected representatives to get a hold of CIA briefings than it is to access the TPP text. That shouldn't be.

On October 01 2015 10:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
Its so frustrating, the liberals and the NDP will probably never merge. And because of first past the post the conservatives will probably continue to win...what will it take for them to merge? Its just stupid pride that's keeping them separate.

On October 01 2015 11:38 Djzapz wrote:

Which business is more profitable under that simple complex doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't tell any story.

Factual corrections
1- The poverty rate in Canada has plummeted in the last decades, the Fraser Institute data shows a steep decline from 12 to 5% from 1975 to 2005, using the "Basic needs" indicator which is not perfect but it's good. 12% to 5% ain't bad.
2- Poverty is not at all a good predictor, much less an indicator of crime. It is a predictor of bad health, but it is much less so in Canada where poor people have access to healthcare. As for crime, an indicator/predictor of crime actually is social inequality, which obviously is significantly less of a problem in Canada than in the US, as you'd agree with me, because we don't frown upon redistribution like they do because they've been traumatized by the cold war.

As for food, well food stamps work well enough.

That is actually really cool, and actually it would be nice to see more of this at larger scales. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, I'd like to see more about how they were able to determine that those paychecks didn't deincentivize people from working though, it seems like it might have that effect on small communities but does it translate to people in cities who don't know their neighbors?

That's something I could stand for, to an extent, but if you push it too far, at some point, you're just bailing people out. And that might sound like right-wing cockery but even as a social democrat, that seems very expensive.

Calling it a subsidy is still a bit of a stretch.

Well it speaks of the whole social acceptability thing. I believe that good and reasonably efficient distribution of social services can be achieved, and I believed that a country which is unable to distribute services will have an equal amount of difficulty distributing paychecks because people and accountability above all. Even I kinda do. The idea that all people who need financial support will give it away is ridiculous, and some US states actually require the recipients of welfare to pass drug tests. Yet barring alcohol, people are very bad at having money. People spend it. People also kind of don't know what's good for them.

By providing services that have a directly positive impact on our society, like my favorite example of prenatal care, you're definitely providing a worthwhile service. Yet if you have some subsidy that gives pregnant women and new mother say $1200 which is the equivalent of a full prenatal care courses, well many will think you know it's probably fine anyway, maybe we won't go to the new parent classes and instead we'll just go for the $150 antenatal scan or whatever. I mean I get the idea but the fact that this concern exists in MY mind just explains how the general public would accept it. I'm not talking about social acceptability in Dauphin, MB, I'm talking social acceptability in provinces and the federal government where corporate interests are heavy... their first instinct like mine is that it needs to framed in such a way that it's not to be abused (to act as if this concern is unfounded is lunacy). Now there are probably reasonable solutions to this concern that involve minimal bureaucracy, but you just know they'd put administrative red tape over all of this shit to the point where it would be the same. You'd have $1200 in your account and it'd be tied every which way so that you can only spend it at X or Y places and whatnot.

Basically I can see how it could be preferable in some ways, but some taxes I'm glad to pay when they go specifically for a program which has certain specific benefits, the importance of which people often don't grasp, and they wouldn't get it by themselves.

On October 01 2015 16:37 DefMatrixUltra wrote:


A couple of things here, since at least one other person has agreed with this mindset.

First off, companies do not set wages. They only determine where you work. The job market sets wages. There are many companies that don't exist any more because the job market set wages they couldn't match.

If your ultimate goal is to help low-income earners (e.g. part-time minimum wagers) reach some arbitrary level of income, the most efficient and effective route is to provide tax credits based on income or direct assistance based on income. I'm not an expert, but I know that both of these systems are in place in at least Ontario - and they are both scalable (up and down) to meet the political will.

What you're suggesting is that the well-being of citizens of the country is the responsibility of private entities. That not only is not desirable, but it doesn't make sense even as a proposition. Will you also blame the private entities for the unemployment rate? Look at all these people that these private companies are paying $0 wages! Unspeakable horror! Even if the government provides the "top-up" on their wage to the company, you're just subsidizing anyone that's employed (what about the unemployed?).

More to the point, the minimum wage is an economic tool that is far more complex in its use than "help poorer people get more money". A large, sudden hike in the minimum wage is going to have adverse effects on two main groups. The first group it will hit is small business owners. People with a local shop/office that hire 1-10 individuals. Their business may go from being viable to being non-viable overnight because of the margins involved. The second group such a hike would hurt is the very people you are trying to help. The largest employers are naturally the biggest corporations, and those large companies are going to adjust the number of employees they have and reduce benefits of employees they keep in order to maintain their finances - and most of them will be legally bound to do so. This means that many people who would have been making $12 an hour now make $0 an hour.

I'll put it a slightly different way. Take someone who works a part-time job at minimum wage. Maybe it just doesn't work in their city. Their rent is too high, and food is getting too expensive etc. - they're in a financial whirlpool from which they have no power to escape. Why is it the responsibility of a private company to solve this economic problem? Why does this problem need to be solved through a private company?

And another way. Some people are worth $12 an hour but not $15 an hour to a company. If someone isn't worth $15 an hour and the minimum wage is changed to $15, that person is going to remain unemployed. Trying to drive assistance to low earners through companies is going to miss people whose productivity does not match the minimum wage. Should there be a productivity requirement to get government assistance?

The MW should probably be set in almost every country to change based on an index, maybe even quarterly. But the MW is not a magical solution to help low-income earners - mostly what they need is a healthy job market. The MW is more of a productivity floor to participate in the economy.

On October 02 2015 12:25 Impervious wrote:

If any business is profitable by using cheap labour that is paying employees wages below the cost of living and requires support by the government, and would not be profitable by being forced to actually pay for those support programs or straight up higher wages, then that business is basically just draining money from the government, not generating money..... In my opinion, no business should have any right to be able to make profits like that. Maybe this is just a philosophical disagreement here though. It's one thing to sell goods or services to the government to make a profit, it's another to indirectly siphon money from the government.....

Factual correction to your factual correction: That's the Fraser Institute talking here. A conservative think tank. Their list of things that don't count towards their minimum needs for the poverty line include sanitation costs, education, and health care, etc..... Statistics Canada itself says that it's more than double that, as do a variety of other sources, that take into account more modern needs..... Good luck trying to do better yourself if you're outside of that "poverty" range according to the Fraser institute, yet still can't afford internet and a computer.....

Maybe this is shocking to you, but people actually work to buy things they want and not just need?

The definition of Subsidy according to Merriam Webster: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

On October 02 2015 12:25 Impervious wrote:
It is not the private entities that are responsible for the well being of citizens. It is the job of private entities to generate as much profits (and with that tax revenues for the government) as possible. They aren't doing that if they are being subsidized to generate those profits. I know that topping up of wages or tax credits or assistance programs are not direct subsidies, but unless you or someone else can come up with a better description for them, that's what I'm going to keep calling them. [1]

And why, exactly, is it bad for a company that is unprofitable without government support to go under? I thought that was the idea behind a free market? The government is supposed to create a level playing field for everyone, and if some companies are receiving subsidies like this while others are not, how is that fair for a company that pays livable wages? [2]

A large, sudden hike in minimum wage would also mean a lot more money in circulation in the hands of the poorer parts of the population, which are more likely to be living paycheque to paycheque and spending their money as fast as it comes in..... Money circulating like that is ridiculously good for the economy overall, because it changes hand many times over the course of a year. It would be a change, yes, and there would be people who would lose their jobs (generally in anything exports related), but what's to say that other jobs would not open up due to more demand from the increase in money being spent by people in worse financial situations? What's to say that stuff like movie theaters don't see more customers, or restaurants don't actually see an increase in patronage now that more people can afford to go/go more often? [3]

Productivity of employees has generally gone up, while wages has generally gone down if you index for inflation. [4]

I'm pretty sure that the situation is pretty similar in Canada, even if the numbers work out a bit different (and I'll admit right now that I'm skeptical of the numbers shown in the video as well as the percentage impact it would have on the end product), so I'm going to bet on the problem being the former, not the latter. Also, you do realize that companies like Wal-Mart and Ikea have actually announced some rather sweeping increases to wages, because of a variety of reasons (bad press, attempting to reduce turnover, retain productive employees longer, improve morale to improve productivity, etc)? [5]

That would be fantastic in theory, as long as the minimum wage was actually a livable wage. In practice I doubt it would work because there are so many variables for that, like rent in some locations is far cheaper than others, or transit costs, etc, so it would need to take all that into account as well. In which case you'd end up with a situation where people working for the exact same job in the same company in 2 neighboring towns could be paid drastically different..... [6]

I really don't see how a raise of the minimum wage to a living wage would really work tbh. It's a fucking mess right now, and would only get more complicated, especially if you tried to index it. And you're right, a healthy job market is crucial for job creation. But there are jobs out there if you are willing to work. [7]

But I still don't think that the guy sweeping the floors and taking out the garbage should be paid a wage that they can't live on. While their work may not be the most productive in the company, they do get stuff done that needs to get done to allow the people who are more productive to get more stuff done instead. It's still an important part of the business. [8]

On October 02 2015 12:50 Djzapz wrote:

The Fraser Institute uses a stable poverty indicator, much to their credit. It was the first thing I could get my hands on. Most of the left leaning think tanks will tinker with their indicators to adjust for a bunch of things, which is pertinent but you'd have to be absolutely insane to think things didn't get better even for the poor in Canada. Outside of the people living in a complete state of indigence, lower class Canadians live much more "comfortably" (relatively speaking) in 2015 than in 1985. That doesn't diminish the importance of the problem, but the constant denial of progress is ironically slowing down progress because everyone is too busy saying nothing you do ever matters. It does. We've seen some progress. We've taken steps back but poverty in Canada has gotten less bad in the last 30 years. It's not just statistics, it's a bit of an evidence too. Yet my point remains, it's not poverty that's a big deal, and the reason why the Fraser Institute indicator seems bad to you: it fucking is. It's income inequality you need to look at. It's the one that matters. Poverty ranges are by design arbitrary and useless. It's inequality that speaks.

Why write it like I'm some asshole? I legitimately thanked you for bringing something to my attention, I don't know why I deserved this weird sass out of nowhere. Maybe it's shocking to you, but there are a lot of people who believe that needing to work for a living incentivizes work and hard work, and there's some degree of credibility to it. There are people who live off handouts and just figure it's fine and so they don't need to find work. Now the right-leaning folks might feel like this is an obvious fact and it rules everything, and that would be just as stupid as it is for you to essentially mock me for pointing it that it might happen.

Yes people actually work to buy things that they want. They also find rich men and women to buy stuff for them, they leech off their parents, and some of them, yes, leech of the government when they get a chance. Maybe this is shocking to you. And even if they're not that common, scale it to millions of people and then it's not negligible. Consider that it might mean that people will work for the things they want but they'll work fewer hours. It's not a bad thing but my point is that social services can focus resources on things that are good for the collective, and much like private organization, individuals will spend their resources for personal profit a lot of the time, at the detriment of everyone else sometimes.

A number of important analytical results emerge. Earnings, a narrow
definition of income consisting largely of wages, salaries, and net small busi-
ness income, have the highest level of inequality, one which has increased
sharply since 1982. But this measure ignores a number of critical factors that
temper inequality and its growth over time. Specifically, fewer families (and
individuals) have earnings than was the case 30 years ago, many more people
(students, seniors, welfare recipients) are receiving government transfers now,
and families have gotten smaller. Accounting for these important changes—
and choosing a broader definition of income—provides a very different view
of inequality.

After-tax income includes government transfers and income taxes.
Adjusted for family size to take account of the number of people supported
by the family’s income, it is therefore a much better reflection of the family’s
actual living standard. Using this measure, we find that family income inequal-
ity between 1982 and 2010 has risen between 6.5 and 12.9 percent, depending
on the inequality indicator used. This is a far more modest increase than many
other studies show.

Now you can disagree with me on whether that's ok morally or not, on whether it's effective or efficient from any kind of perspective based on our ideologies (we undoubtedly value different things in society), but you can't deny that freeloaders (maybe this is shocking to you) do exist.

And yeah I'm a bit butthurt if you haven't noticed, I thought we were having a civil discussion and suddenly I'm not worthy of respect? Generally wouldn't mind but I didn't expect this kind of childish BS from you.

They work the same-ish. Still not a subsidy. How many times are we going to go over this.

Edit: Won't edit my outburst out, but I was tired and crank, for what it's worth.

On October 04 2015 03:41 Impervious wrote:

I actually don't see inequality as a bad thing. The communist ideal of giving everyone the same rewards regardless of the work they put in or what they do for society is a terrible goal in my mind, because there would be no reward to work harder, or to innovate. And there are jobs that pay fairly well because they are undesirable jobs, jobs like garbage men and women.

Also, people aren't the same. I'm 6 ft 3, so no matter how badly I want to be a fighter pilot, it's never going to happen. I'm too physically big to sit in those jets. But I've also got a fairly big stature, so if the qualifications for being a fireman need me to be able to lift a 250 lbs person up and down flights of stairs, I can do that, while someone who is 5 ft 10 and can fit in those jets may not be capable of doing so with a smaller physical frame. Individuals are different, so creating some kind of one-size-fits-all solution is never going to work out well. Individuals are going to know their own limits, needs, and abilities far better than any kind of government organization will.

And with technology nowadays, the job market is way different than it was 30 years ago. Nowadays if you have a bad back, or are physically disabled in some way, you can still find employment in a rather large number of fields. A lot of jobs are information related nowadays, and require employees to basically be sitting behind a desk for large chunks of a day, where the disability is essentially not an issue. On the flip side, if you go into a garage and talk to the people who turn wrenches for a living all day, you would have a hard time finding a single person who would want to sit behind a desk all day. Just think about what it would have been like to have a disability 30 years ago.....

Things are very different than they were 30 years ago. To use the same metrics for determining poverty that was used then is actually what does a disservice to the progress that we have made. Our efforts to eliminate poverty are aimed at removing it in the past society, not the present society, and if we don't change that mindset, we'll never get anywhere.....

You just used the Fraser institute as a source for information.

Freeloaders do exist. And I want to kick them in the ass for it. But that doesn't mean that they should be living in poverty for it. Poverty is kinda like digging a hole, and standing in it while you're digging it. The longer you're in there, the deeper you get yourself, and the harder it is to get out..... Imagine applying for government subsidized housing because you're about to lose your accommodations, only to find out that the waiting list is about 10 years..... Because that's the current reality for those in need right now. I've been there, I've seen what this shit was like. I literally spent 8 months sleeping on a floor, because I didn't have money for an actual bed. I had months where I couldn't come up with the money for a bus pass at the beginning of the month, so ended up spending more money on tickets over a whole month than a pass would have cost me. I don't want to see anyone else to ever go through something like that. It's dehumanizing, and it's changed me. People that in any way suggest that this kind of thing is okay because they "don't work hard enough" or whatever piss me off. And I'm pretty lucky overall, I've managed to get my life back together in a pretty short period of time. I've also got a fair bit going for me that others may not (I'm a straight white male in my 20's who is in pretty good health overall).

Do you have a better description of it?

On October 02 2015 16:46 DefMatrixUltra wrote:


[1] If you're saying that, in principle, a company that's not profitable enough to pay employees a living wage (which is a dangerous term) shouldn't exist - then I at least see what you mean. I disagree in principle, but I understand your point. Now, explain to me how to put that principle into practice and not destroy the job market for the very people you're trying to help.

The crux of my disagreement lies in this: when you set a higher minimum wage, there will be 3 important groups of people. Group 1 lost their jobs from the businesses trying to stay in the black. Group 2 kept their jobs and are paid more. Group 3 lost some of their labor force and had to refactor their business. Now let's go back in time.

-Pre-Hike According to Impervious
Group 1 is paid less than the living wage.
Group 2 is paid less than the living wage.
Group 3 is getting subsidized labor from groups 1 and 2.

Your only argument in holding onto your principle is that it's better for Group 1 to lose their jobs and for the job market to suffer than for Group 3 to receive subsidized labor. I simply disagree, and we can agree to disagree on this point if that's OK with you. From my perspective, Group 3 is a literal job creator and indirectly forcing them to reduce their overall productivity is going to have a halting effect on the economy as well as causing Group 1 even more strife as a result of an even worse job market.

[2] I think it's perfectly acceptable and maybe even desirable for unprofitable companies to go under. But devastating the job market out of a principle of free enterprise is outside of my philosophy, which tends towards pragmatism. The scenarios that we're discussing here are scenarios where the job market is lean - that's why there's even a discussion about the MW in the first place. If the job market was very healthy, the MW is an afterthought.

[3] Aren't you just enriching a group of people at the direct expense of another group (and in a negative-sum way so that the government inefficiently picks up the tab?)? And very arbitrarily so? Do you feel that the low-end stimulus from those who received a marginal increase in income will outweigh the damage caused to the job market? My instinct is that it wouldn't, but there's room for disagreement here.

[4] And this is going to keep happening until our race destroys itself. It was Karl Marx who first clearly outlined the idea that the man-hour is the essential unit of currency, and a lot of his discussion centered around the fact that machines or devices can work more than one man-hour per hour. People are going to need to provide more and more value to compete with automation and mechanical advantage provided by technology. The miracle is that our economy hasn't completely collapsed at the lower end.

[5] Companies do not set wages. If those companies are going to change their wages, they're going to do so as a response to a more or less competitive job market. The job market is what sets wages.

[6] Now you're really talking about subsidies if you're suggesting imposing geographical MW. I outright disagree with this entire train of thought, and I don't think we'll find any common ground here. I very firmly believe that locations/cities should and do compete with each other for labor and resources. Setting a MW to a specific location codifies their advantage or disadvantage in stone.

[7] You say there are lots of jobs, but the numbers don't really agree. I think the minimum wage should be raised and indexed, but the absolute worst possible time to do it (and I think we can at least agree on this point) is during a hard downturn in the jobs market.

[8] If those floor sweepers could work elsewhere or in the same place for more money, they (in a macroscale sense) would do so. That's precisely what I mean when I say that the job market sets the wage. Low-paid staff get an increase in pay when no one shows up for the job because they're working in a better situation elsewhere.

On October 04 2015 04:49 Impervious wrote:
We're now at the point where a huge number of jobs require certifications well past grade 12 or 13, and you need a high school education just to get a job sweeping floors..... Marx had no way of knowing it would ever get like that, so you do need to take his ideas and theories with a bit of skepticism.

On October 04 2015 05:30 killa_robot wrote:
Is there anywhere that shows what employees in small businesses make vs large businesses, that's not just averages? Maybe the mode instead?

I mean, obviously the employees at large companies have a higher average based on the stats, but that doesn't mean the average employee makes more, just that on average the large companies are paying more per employee.

On October 04 2015 04:27 Djzapz wrote:

It's not about perfect equality, nor does it matter what you think about inequality. And egalitarianism has nothing to do with communism, liberal/social democratic countries prefer to strive for equal opportunity and diminishing the income differences between people because not doing so is one of the biggest indicator of all of the ills in society, a lot more so than poverty by itself. There was a TED Talk about it, and I checked myself at the time and it was true. Using the OECD figures, you can find a very VERY significant correlation between the indicators of income inequality (like the Gini coefficient and others) as well as a bunch of issues, like infantile mortality, crime of all sorts (rape, homicide, theft), suicide, etc.

Many attempts at explaining this probably hold some water, but basically what it suggests to me amongst other things is that when people feel fucked, they misbehave. A poor person in a country where most people is poor is just going to keep going. A poor person in a country where most people can afford luxuries and he can't afford basic commodities is likely to act out.

No one is saying we should all have equal income, equal everything... much less equal height x_x... Some people work harder than others, except not 1800 times harder - and yet some people make thousands of times more money than other people who work 40-50 hours a week and still make little money. And there are people who can't get a job for a variety of reasons, like bad luck and general incompetence certainly. And yet I don't think that being a bit of a dummy should prevent a person from living a reasonably comfortable life.

We largely agree but my point was that since certain services are dispensed directly rather than with straight up money transfers, it prevents said freeloaders from spending the money in ways which aren't socially acceptable. We won't come up with a framework in this informal discussion on how to simultaneously treat freeloaders with respect by giving them the means to keep going while discouraging them from staying on public support through various incentives (or deincentives perhaps), but it seems clear to me that it's what we need. No one should live on the floor, not even the "freeloaders", much less the people who are legitimately looking for work, but it really is working that should allow people to afford luxuries. My concern with direct transfers is that I've seen enough of this world to see that people will often use their resources for luxuries before they purchase what they need. This is not uncommon.

Well at this point it's just a ridiculous discussion regarding semantics... I won't drop my qualifications here but let me just say that I've worked in the public sector and I know what a subsidy is. Something which arguably has the same effect as a subsidy is not a subsidy. If something tastes like chicken it isn't chicken. I think it's obvious. If I were to write a paper and referred to the minimum wage as a subsidy, anyone in public admin would chew me up because subsidy is a very technical term that's applied to certain transfers of funds with specific characteristics by certain organization. It's not a broad term for anything that has some impacts that result in government dispensing some assets like you make it out to be. So what is the minimum wage? It's a regulatory public policy. If you specifically want to talk about the externalities that it causes, you can't just use a word that means something else but kind of makes sense. People might understand what you mean but it's still incorrect.