Exactly why a global effort is needed to regulate these corporations: ensure they maintain a fair and reasonable pay scale from top to bottom, ensure they are socially and environmentally responsible to the countries they operate within, closing all tax/environmental loopholes.

I don't know how anyone can find it acceptable for a company to layoff its employees, pack up and leave the country for laxer government regulations and cheaper wages elsewhere. It's behaviour that is unethical, selfish, irresponsible, and does much more harm to society at large than the minority of minimum wage earners who exhibit such behaviour in their own lives.

Are you being serious? It's because people always and will always want the most and best shit for the cheapest price. You want to pay $300 for a new iPhone made in China or $3000 for it made in Canada?

Yes I am serious about human rights, environmental rights, etc and I am willing to pay more for products to ensure, when I can, that people and places around the world aren't exploited for profit and greed. Your Apple example only furthers my point in light of their recent practices in China.

I am not saying this behavior is right. I totally agree what you've just said.
However, large corporates tend to be greedy and earn as much as they can in order to boost their balance sheet. Greed is human nature that nobody can fix.

If one cannot afford to live at $10.25 / hr, get a second job and find ways to save $$$$. Stop buying the hottest electronics, start making homemade coffee instead of Starbucks, bring lunch instead of dine out. This is the incentive to survive.

Raising minimum wage reduces our competitiveness against the rest of the world in terms of export. Do you still remember how our locals suffered from export because our Loonie was strong than the American dollar in 2008.

IMO, the best practice is when employers know the balance between adequately staffed and over staffed.

Being understaffed is less than ideal for obvious reason. Sure your remaining employees can pick up the slack but you can't just run your employees to the ground. That's why you'll see some places of employment with high employment turn over.

Now being adequately staffed, although in the surface sounds ideal, is still not actually the best practice when you really think about it. Yes your employment has achieved equilibrium, but what happens when that equilibrium is upset? Things happen. Life happens. For example, people get sick, people get in accidents, people take maternity leaves, vacations, people relocate, people quit - and an adequate replacement aren't always easily found, whatever it may be that upsets that equilibrium, could actually cost and hurt a company's operations.

That's why IMO, it's nice to just be slightly over-staffed. Owners just have to find that balance where you're slightly over staffed but you're not being overly-wasteful. This slight over-expense is pretty much the company's cushion/safety blanket when they encounter staffing emergencies.

The correct answer is neither, since it is not necessary for your survival.

The quality of life in countries where many of our products are made is shit, and that's bullshit. A lot of people need to snap back into reality, we don't need half of the crap that we buy, and it all supports companies that are willing to outsource and take advantage of poor human rights laws. The reason I frown when I see "Made in China" is because of the end product's quality, but I'm aware of the reasoning behind it, the people who made it don't give as much of a shit because they are more worried about survival.

If the rest of the world caught up with us in terms of wages and overall civil rights, you would understand that the $3000 phone isn't a ripoff, it's a luxury. You are right by saying that bringing production back home would increase the cost of products exponentially, but that's the only thing that will reveal just how materialistic we have become. It used to be that kings and queens were the only ones who could live our kinds of lives, but that isn't an improvement, it's a positive facade that covers up how we achieved this "wealth".

This bloated consumerist society that's risen up is pure poison, letting companies take advantage of people half way across the globe so that we can afford shit that we don't need is disgraceful. Unfortunately it's gotten to the point where you and I cannot do anything, and perhaps you wouldn't want to do anything anyway, you've been conditioned to live this kind of life.

I'd be a hypocrite if I said that it was everyone else's problem, here I am living the same life as you, but I'd like to think that I could see another way forward.

I understand what you are trying to say, and in theory that is all great and dandy but in the real world it just does not and cannot work like a perfect eutopia....until we explore light speed space travel, have a passing Valcun ship notice us and begin our Star Trek experience.

Different countries have different populations, different natural resources and different governments. There is no even playing ground where productivity and wages can be constant globally. Maybe the example I used was extreme, but simple things such as food prices, basic clothes and real necessities are also cheaper because of outsourcing, purchasing power, and economies of scale. Even when we send foreign aid to countries like Africa, it hurts their industry and companies like salvation army and second hand clothes have killed off textile manufacturing in Africa.

Just remember when you buy that "Made in China" clothes and cringe, you are also helping the employees get a wage. Unless they are forced to work in slave shops, they choose to take up those jobs, just like you and me. They might be working in textile factories, and to you, you think that they are in terrible conditions but to them they are fine. We will always have higher paying jobs, lower paying jobs and so fourth.

We are materialistic, it's the truth, but that's how society has developed.

the world should never be judged by it's invisible made up borders.

We should judge the world based on our reach. and we can reach everywhere on this planet right now. and a little bit beyond it.

exploiting is a fundamental skill that makes humans so resourceful. We are masters of exploitation.

I'm still waiting for Bananana to share his point of view after give fails to everyone who has posted
from one side of this argument.

You're assuming that either:
A. the employees were working below capacity to begin with
B. the employees working at minimum pay give a fuck enough to work harder when they're swamped.

Alternatively, the employees can not give a fuck and continue with how they've always worked and watch customer satisfaction go down due to increased waits etc. We're talking about dead-end minimum wage jobs here, not entry level jobs with opportunities to advance as these rarely pay exactly minimum wage.

So minimum wage is going up a smidge. But finally I've found an article that sheds some light on who is making minimum wage in BC.

Lets disregard the actual number or percentage increase going forward for a minute

100,800 (91 per cent) worked in the service producing sector.
62,500 (57 per cent) were part time workers.
7,800 (7 per cent) were defined as being the head of the family.
57,800 (52 per cent) lived with their parents.
Of the minimum wage earners living with their parents, 47 per cent were attending school.


This shows that over half of people earning minimum wage were living at home with their parents, and half of those were going to school. I might be jumping to conclusions, but Im going to guess the majority of people who live with their parents are under the age of 20-22.

So can we put an end to the argument that people on minimum wage need to support families and kids etc? If 5.9% of the work force is on minimum wage, and half of them are youths, Im going to extrapolate that maybe 2.5% of the workforce are adults earning minimum wage, and even less of them have families. Only 7% of minimum wage earners, so less than 0.5% of the working population, are the head of the household.

Should the entire economy shift to accommodate the lowest 2.5% of the work force? That sounds pretty socialistic, no?

IF you say minimum wage should be bumped up to accommodate those people, you have to agree that provinces like Ontario, and Nova Scotia are going the right direction by having a split minimum wage like BC used to with different teirs for young workers and adults. You can make an arguement that an adult with a family needs to make $15/hour, but why does a 14 year old kid flipping burgers or selling popcorn at a theater with no cost of living need to?

Kids these days need higher min wage to buy their shits yo, you know... Like apple watch.

I'll vote for raising the minimum wage to $15 if I also get a 33% raise at work.

Otherwise, fuck no.

Did they say how they got that $15 number? There has to be a reason/logic/study how they got that number other than pulling it out of their ass?

They pulled it out of their ass. Trying to shoot for the star but land on the moon, except got crushed to the ground with 20 cents.

An example I can think of is the the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The government should:

- eliminate the "low skilled workers" category

This would force companies to hire companies used to procure such jobs to hire local people. If they can't attract people - these companies should raise their wages then. It's what every company does, whether a small business, multibillion dollar corporation, or even professional sports teams. You gotta pay to attract people.

A bit off topic, that's why you see companies like Microsoft in the US always lobbying for them to be allowed bring in more people from overseas. They did it here successfully in Vancouver. That Microsoft office here mostly consists of non-Canadians. Overall, it's cheaper for MS.

People should think and vote more according to their own needs, not some bullshit about how we should think about everyone else. If that happened, government policy would be more in line with what the actual needs of the population are rather than everyone just being a bleeding heart social justice warrior.

if i am not mistaken, the $15 was something that one of the states implemented. and now BC think it should follow.

that is, if i am not mistaken.

It wasn't a state, it was the city of Seattle.

turn up for minimum wage

ok so what's the new minimum wage?

and if they made different minimum wage for different age groups, we're gonna have tons of older people without a job

Exactly. If the gov't scrapped/reformed the TFW program I argue that they wouldn't have to change the minimum wage; rather, the labour market would adjust themselves accordingly to entice Canadian workers by raising their wage to something more "livable". Go to any Tim Hortons or McD and what do you see? Plenty of TFWs with jobs that could be given to Canadians. It's fail logic to hire people from abroad to fill jobs with a pay so low that the average 16-22 year old won't work there, when forcing companies to hire Canadians and refusing them the safety net of the TFW program would make them increase their wages anyway...

New minimum wage is 10.45 I think. Just 20 cents more.

I'll just leave this here... :whistle:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=165954961