Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Media Deceives Canadians On Minimum Wage Increase" video.

  1. Danish Cost of living considerations must factor in GOOD free public schools, and universities, and excellent affordable childcare. And of course public non-profit healthcare (also very affordable). Not sure about social housing, housing assistance. I think rent tends to be high, especially in the larger cities. And then there is the cost of transportation or good public transportation. That covers major parts of the budgets of low(er) income households. If you got those areas covered, you can make at least a stable if modest living. School success of the children does not depend on the education, or socioeconomic status of the parents. Add to that approx. 5 weeks paid vacation, extra paid holidays, sick leave, maternity leave.
    1
  2. Yes, biz owners hire ONLY when they need more workers to get a job done (or replace those who leave). Which of course has a lot to do with consumer confidence and disposable income. Good sales will encourage to expand the operation. Even if profits are excellent, they will not hire more people if the work gets done. If the situation (attracting staff) and the law or the political situation (dictatorship, poverty) will allow it they will squeeze unpaid work out of their emploeyees. Only if they MUST treat employees well they will do it - on a large scale. It was like that wehn unemployment was low for 30 - 40 years - and BEFORE the polticians made it safe, lucrative and possible to outsource manufacturing into countries with sweathshop conditions. When THAT started there was always competition for the domestic workforce (we will move production to Mexico or Asia ...). They had to compete with underpaid workers often in poor dictatorships (like China) - even in a booming economy. It was not like that in the era of the Economic Miracle. Which ended when they could pit the workforce of poor and wealthy countries against each other. Instead of starting to apply the so successful recipe of the wealthy countries also to the developing countries. Example China ** What is more: even well meaning bosses or managers will be forced into a race to the bottom - someone always starts it. Big Biz can be relied upon to use such practices to maximize profits ("All hail shareholder value") and they dominate more and more of the economy.
    1
  3. On the other hand businesses avoid hiring like the plague (even when necessary to do the work properly) when revenue and profits are not good enough, either for regular operation (bad luck, bad management or business model not viable) or the the demands of shareholder. That can easily be the case with low or stagnant wages, and has more to do with how the economy is doing on the continent or globally - or massive management mistakes that the shareholders allowed to happen. They do not hire but FIRE if top management screwed up royally even IF the sales numbers and the profit margin from operative business is good - to COMPENSATE for other losses. (Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen just recent examples) The shareholders and their management decide to make up for the extra costs of fines and law suits or speculative losses on the back of the workforce (and sub contractors). They fire thousands of people. The rest is forced to work under high pressure and partially for free (unpaid overtime) or to accept cuts in pay (that is popular for the staff of airlines) to keep PROFITS intact (never mind management mistakes and clueless owners or shareholders). Recently the highly paid management of BAYER bought Monsanto (or they merged). The fought long for it because of monopoly regulation. Now - I have known for quite some time about the problems of Glyphosate (it is highly likely to cause cancer, they narrowly passed EU admission - corrupt EU ! - a few years ago). A major part of the business model of Monsanto is to have genetically modified crops (seeds) that will not die off when Glyphosate is sprayed. Of they spray it on before harvesting. The ready crop will wither and is easier to process by the (currently used) machines. It seems a lot of that "weed" killer is used in that way. No matter it is found everywhere, breakfast cereals, ... A normal plant dies if sprayed with Glyphosate. Weeds are supposed to die , except that some "weeds from hell" have adapted. Monsanto picked a fight with evolutionary mechanisms of adatption (in mass extinction events) that are hundreds of millions of years old. Of course it will not work for longer. Of course some plants will adapt - and where they take root (!) farmers have to give up the fields. So they lose more than the weed killer if Glyphosate is forbidden, they also lose the sales on GMO seeds. I have known of these potential troubles (hardly kept at bay by corruption and lobbying BY Monsanto). So how come the "experts" the "top" management and the major shareholders of BAYER were foolish enough to join up with a company with so many skeletons in the chest. (NOW they could buy them for cheap - if they are still interested). The former profits made by the ruthless business model and profiting FORMER shareholders (and their management that is paid in stocks as well) will not ease the financial burden of BAYER in the future if there is an avalance of lawsuits for damages. And if a main revenue sources is outlawed. If the employees of big biz do not accept that THEY have to bring the sacrifices to keep profits steady they will get fired and lose benefits (like retirement plans). In the good times the shareholders cash in on the profits and allow reckless managing - these profits are not meant as nest egg for the bad times. In the bad times the workforce has to bring sacrifices. If smaller businesses do that the falling quality of services and products may put them out of business. And their workforce usually will leave more easily (if big Auto fires people by the thousands you bet there are no good or even acceptable alternatives in the region). Businesses that do not constitute such an employment monopoly may see their staff leave for another (also not well paid job) but at least it is only the agreed upon 40 hours. Of course the "advantage" of squeezing the workforce shows immediately in the books (and may in some cases keep a biz afloat, but if that is the long term plan, the business model is not viable). Squeezing the workforce and also companies down the supply chain or sub contractors) may have hidden costs to it. It may LOOK like a cut in expenditures - but bankrupt the company within a few years. Quality problems, law suits (the allegedly good Thomas Cook hotel in Egypt with 2 dead British tourists in August 2018, more tourist have fallen ill no casualties but they shut down the hotel. - I remember the brand name ! way to nullify marketing expenditures and efforts. I will assume that it was not a poisoning as kind of terror attack but due to negligence with food and hygiene. And poor, unmotivated untrained staff. Washing fruits with local water etc. ) Hidden cost of retraining, employees careless with the equipment and grumpy with customers (they hop soon to the next not well paid job - who cares).
    1
  4. Higher costs for staff raise the stakes for management. It changes how they treat and lead the team (or they go under). Management by group cohesion and good treatment. You get or develop ! the good and responsible people (which will earn at least a living wage). It also triggers attempts to sell higher quality products and improve quality - in which case the higher costs can be more easily shouldered. The team ! and management will not tolerate slackers or weak performance. Higher wage costs mean that human labor must be used as efficiently as possible. Securing the willing cooperation of the staff members is a major part of that. If people are willing, and not completely stupid - they CAN improve. When staff was scarce (during the Economic Mirarcle) they hired not quite qualified people, young people, older, with disabilities, even fellons got a chance. Everyone they could get - and THEN invested the training in them. A good team can do a lot to elevate the performance of mediocre or inexperienced employees. Lack of motivation - and that can come from being treated like an expendable serf, by management tolerating mobbing, or bullying managers - can severely reduce performance. With poor payment those inefficiencies can be papered over but if you have to pay them well such management errors become unaffordable. One would think putting the staff to good use is the default position. But humans are highly emotional creatures. A boss that leans towards bullying, is power-trippy or is weak in tackling mobbing is not acting in rational self interest. Psychological factors, personality flaws, lack of self discipline and patience often trump objective financial considerations and rational self-interests. Trump is a good example btw for irrationality and overlooking the obvious. He is allegedly ! a savvy business man: did he REALLY think his buisness dealings would not be investigated in detail after his divisive campaign ? He used at least the rhetoric against the war machine and the deep state. You better be squeaky clean if you do that. He likely laundered billions over the years for Russian oligarchs. After his strategic bankrupcies no bank in the U.S./ the West would lend his company money. So it must have been his ego (irrational motivation) that possessed him to run for president - or it was a desperate attempt to boost the brand (and he expected to lose respectably). Bullying or weak bosses will need to adapt with the higher wages or they will go under and be replaced by business owners with better leadership skills. Harnessing the power of groups: slackers, underperformers or people that like to quarrel either fall in line with the constructive group consensus. Humans as social beings often do that when the reward is pleasant relationships - or the few that remain disruptive are fired. You build a supportive team and then see to it that they stay - thus saving on training costs, profiting from commitment to the company and to the social relationships within the team. And increased experience. In smaller restaurants, bars, shops friendly contact with clients can help to boost business. All things being (almost) equal - friendly staff that knows customers by name can secure the sale. People that work low pay jobs do not by default lack common sense, good work ethics or ideas how to improve the work process. You want to harness those assets (it is a cost saver or quality improver and THAT can offset some wage costs). Humans are very social and most react to good treatment with wanting to reciprocate - millions of years of evolution made sure of that. I see that effect with IT staff - software by medium sized companies for medium sized clients- in wealthy European countries. (the niches are too specialized and not large enough to make outsourcing to India an option ! And they also do not have the management culture of the IT giants - some of the big players intentionally aim for a highly comptetitive, even toxic culture. Or like google: they demand 70 - 80 hour weeks). Staff for these medium sized IT companies have been in high demand and therefore there exists a management culture that treats them well.They lead them friendly, with a light touch and many carrots. Which is not only more pleasant for everyone but they can also access the power of group support, group discipline and the often untapped potential that employees give to their company if they are treated as humans and not as "human capital".
    1
  5. New Deal vs. sweatshop economy / wages: China had almost 1 billion people in the mid 1990s when the Western and the Chinese "ruling class" decided to use the Sweatshop instead of the New Deal model . Funny how such a huge market still needs to export so much. (In the beginning almost everything, they made consumer products then. Chinese workers were kept poor thanks to the dictatorship that forbids unions, so they could not buy the stuff in the 1990s. Those exports from China to the wealthier nations would not have been possible w/o the "Free trade agreements" and the gladly granted low tariffs (Bill Clinton) that were a HUGE INCENTIVE to move production destined for wealthy countries into poor countries. Now China is a planned capitalistic economy. Especially after the financial crisis they started to reduce their dependency from having to export because domestic consumption (consumer spending coming from WAGES) is too low. They have raised wages at least for a part of the workforce. But it is 2018 - that is 23 years if you count from 1995. 23 years after the end of WW2 - that is 1968 in Western Europe or Japan. They were at the height of the Golden Era then. China could have pulled that off QUICKER. In the 1950s and later technology, automation, were not nearly what they were in the late 1990s. No computers. Filters and technology to avoid pollution or increase worker safety hadnot yet been developed. So the U.S., French, Australian, Dutch ..... worker's GOOD and constantly growing wages made up a larger part of the product prices than with current higher level of technology. China started in the mid 1990s with much better technology, the country is stable, the works ethic is high, infrastructure was in place and also a healthcare system. Education is valued and they had schools for everyone (from very high illiteracy in the 1930s and even 1950s). So China could have jumped forward in 10 - 15 years to the level of a wealthy European nation - for everyone and develop ALL regions of the huge country. Some state intervention (they have to keep one billion people docile) made sure that they got some middle class - but the improvement could have been so much better (see Japan, they had widespread poverty after WW2, add 23 years and they did not have 30 % of the population left behind). The jubilant headlines about "global reduction of extreme poverty by capitalism" have a lot to do with Chinas efforts btw (managed ! economy). With the capitalism practiced almost everywhere else - in India, Thailand, Vietnam, Latin America, ..... those numbers would not be nearly as good - and it leaves a lot of "normal poverty" (instead of extreme poverty) to deal with. So the poor in China have the very basic essentials (like basic healthcare), but don't ask for retirement ! or care for elderly people. Social cohesion was undermined by creating jobs only in some areas. They have a migrant workforce of 400 million people. The old stay behind often raising the one child while both parents work (or slave away) in areas where there are jobs. Children are entitled to a school place, but ONLY where they come form. So in the cities the parents have to pay out of pocket and rely on the authorties tolerating their private schools. So most leave the children far away with elderly relatives. If both parents work long hours in the coastal industrial centres and live communal or in very low standard housing, the child would cause costs for supervision, and air and water are polluted. That is not how industrialization was boosted in the West after WW2 ! The Chinese neglected to develop all areas - in which case families could have stayed in their home region and raise their children and find work THERE. The rural regions are still very poor and offer little chances to build a life. So while they are not as badly off as the poor in India - they still do not get to participate in the boom or have a nice if modest family life. Most of the gains were for the "elites" - of China and of the wealthy countries (we see that in the numbers, inequality, number of millionaires and billionaires, the Chinese Rich now buying up real estate worldwide and fleeing China).
    1
  6. The Goldern Era (in the "West") was an aberration. After WW2 the "elites" were more aware that economic desperation, high unemployment could lead to terrible wars. And they had to prove that capitalism was superior to the Soviet style State capitalism (it was not Communism, despite the claims). The economic model required a well educated work force. Educated people tend to get uppity, they want real participation in politics and demand a good standard of living, clean air and water. Sometimes they even demand that wars are ended (Nixon passed the Clean Air and Water act, and had to end the war). Germany or Japan are good examples: densely populated, little natural resources, the weather is mostly moderate. A population that was well trained (also in crafts and technical professions) or willing to be trained. With THAT you can rebuild two large nations after a catastrophically lost war. The riches of the nation are the people (mines and oil fields can be looted to the profit of the few w/o elevating the population). If you need most of the workforce to make the profits and need them fairly capable and skilled - even the oligarchs have to make concessions to the plebs. That lasted as long as the workforce that was needed for the profitable ! operations was sufficiently scarce. Ongoing increases in productivity (computer, automation), ongoing immigration and women joining the workforce would have suggested to reduce the weekly worktime again after 30 years of unprecedented development.
    1
  7. The 40 hour week was a good fit in 1940 in the U.S. and in the 1950s in Europe and Japan). No one reacted appropriately to massively increased productivity between 1945 and 1970 - it was not even discusesd, because in the 1970s/80s the 1 % took over the megaphone in politcs and media (and even to some degree in academia). A major part of productivity gains until then had been given to the workers in form of WAGE INCREASES, average U.S. wages adjusted for inflation increased by 97 % between 1947 and 1970. Purchasing power had almost DOUBLED. In the same time productivity increased by 112 %. 1970 - 2013 plus 9 % wages versus 69 % productivity - the gains were NOT given anymore - that also meant an ever increasing output of goods and services was not met with the necessary purchasing power (mostly coming from wages). In the U.S. consumer debt on the credit card bridged the gap, in Europe it was partially done with strong welfare and good public services like free school, good healthcare and childcare, that prop up the low(er) income groups. Not the wisdom of the haves and politicians but scarcitiy of the then absolutely necessary DOMESTIC workforce granted the necessary balance of power after WW2 until 1970. Two major oil crises disrupted the BALANCE OF POWER for wage negotiations - doubling oil prices within few months caused the first major unemployment crises (after WW2) on top of ongoing slower developments (productivity). The crises were spread out over the 1970s and caused international recessions. Rising unemployment (high for those times) and high(er) inflation (a new phenomen. usually they lowered interest rates to counteract an ecnomic downturn - that default recipe did not work for the new challenge. "Debt and interest free money" (Dr. Richard Werner) would have been a useful concept, or the use of alternative currencies to finance infrastructure, social housing, or energy efficiency programs - but these concepts were not publicly discussed, the banking sector saw to it. Volcker the economic advisor of Carter likely saw the world from the view of point of the important banks - no consideration for alternative ideas. Which meant the extreme spike in interest rates (also for mortgages) that may have cost president Carter the 2nd term. The U.S. also had to deal with the costs of the Vietnam war.
    1
  8. "free" "trade" deals - protect Big Biz from democracy / undermine the negotiating power of the people who have their income from WORK (not captital gains): - This is why U.S. wages adjusted for inflation have slighly fallen over the last few months despite low unemployment - outsourcing destroyed the negotiation power of unions, workers, even governments. Many companies CAN leave for developing countries within 6 months - they may run at full capacity in the U.S., but if the workforce would dare to demand their fair share, they could be ready to leave within 6 months or one year. And they will be allowed to still sell in the U.S. ! The trade wars of Trump are onesided (not a win/win for all countries, and in trade all disruption is damaging. The mess did not develop over 1 year and needs steady and careful disentangeling). Politicians made outsourcing possible, and the deals are valid 20 - 30 years even after they were abolished. Newer deals (I guess not NAFTA) make sure to give companies unprecedented rights to SUE governments over "hypothetical lost profits". In a private for-profit arbitration system (which is a lucrative scheme in itself). These cases are excessively expensive so of course out of reach for medium sized companies. Big Biz wins 2 out of 3 cases (go figure). Each party have to pay their expenditures - but there is a chilling effect, that governments will not even try - so it is well worth that multinationals HAVE the WHIP - often they will not even need to use it to get their way. So the rights and privileges of multinationals are set in stone, they can strongarm governments (for instance when they pass laws to protect the environment or workers). Free trade deals protect Big Biz - their maximum profits - from the risks of democracy. More recent drafts, TPP or TTIP also try to set in stone the right to sue governments. As soon as they get ONE government (or the EU) to pass it - they have won - it is a one direction road. Later governments have a hard time to pull out, even if by then the angry voters find out how they have been screwed AGAIN. So even if the workforce is scarce in the U.S. - that often does not give workers any negotiation power. Add to that the ideological indoctrination. The workers are trained by the think tanks to dismiss the idea of raising wages (or resisting trade deals) right away. Mainstream media is glad to assist in the noble effort. The companies can refuse to share the profits with the workforce. Or they may not have the profits and revenue to finance the wage increases if they have competition from sweatshop production. (So Disney, Walmart, McDonalds, Amazon have no excuses - they cannot outsource. "free" "trade" deals can also prevent adjusting of sales prices (slight increases to offset better wages) - if there is a sweatshop competitor around the corner.
    1
  9. Relatively high wage costs did NOT hinder sales. At. All. See 1945 - 1970 *. But then the competiton was between EQUALS. (The "market" consisted of France, Japan, Canada, U.S. Netherlands, ...... - more or less the same HIGH standards - they did not compete on the back of workers or by allowing pollution). * or mid 1990s in countries like Germany - the 1970s were an aberration with the oil crises, and the neoliberal attack of 1980 hit the U.S. and U.K. first. As long as the race to the bottom is possible (mostly enabled by "free" trade between nations that are completey unequal in their economic development) some companies will start the downwards spiral that is harmful for the regular citizens. Their competitors must go along in many cases or they go under. There was competition between Japan, U.S. Germany, France - they had a level playing field. So that lead to improved products. If the Japanese built better cars more efficiently - they won the race fair and square. The native U.K. car industry went belly up, other nations stepped up their game (their quality was sufficient, they "only" had to adjust costs, more automation, smarter processes). That meant better and cheaper products. Of course THAT fair advantage (Japan did not pollute or exploit their workforce, they won with better technology and good organization) did not last forever, the other nations caught up with Japan. But then they had changed the world of automotive and industrial production for the better. That is one of the (not so numerous) examples where international competition improved the situation - for everyone. And boosted progress.
    1
  10. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed 1976 Big Money in political campaigns. In the 1970s the ruling class prepared the attack against the New Deal. In 1980 in the U.S. and U.K. it was carried out - on the European continent the good times lasted until the early 1990s. (the Soviet Union stepping down, the botched German unification under a neoliberal framework). The U.S. led the way into global neoliberalism, "free trade deals" that were bad for workers everywhere, deregulation of finance to allow speculation instead of save and boring banking and suppression of wages and worker's rights. Reagan deregulated the for profit media which has ever since colluded with Big Biz and the war machine (they have done so before, but since 1980 it is on stereoides). They stand to profit from insane campaign spending on TV ads. (In Europe the amount that can be spent on such ads is very much limited). The developping countries had never enjoyed the window of opportunity after WW2. There was no political reason to not exploit THEM - like the Cold War that made it advisable to treat the citizens / workers of Europe, U.S., the Commonwealth, ... well. Lack of solidarity by the workforce / consumers of the rich countries for the poor countries (farm workers producing crops for export like coffee, too) came back to bite them. Turns out Big Biz does not only exploit people in poor countries - they do the same at home when they increase their political power and can get away with it.
    1
  11. More automation is NOT the enemy as soon as regular citizens understand that the 40 hour work week - with a living wage is not a law of nature - like gravity, nor is it written down in the gospel, or chiseled in the stone tables of Moses. These are political and economic agreements that were appropriate for the state of technology and society 70 - 80 years ago. It is allowed - and recommendable ! - to discuss reducing the work time to 39, 37, 35 ... 30 .... hours - with a liveable wage ! Bold public programs (extensive quality social housing ! healthcare, childcare ) can help - if costs of living are lower, people can do well even if wages (adjusted for inflation) do not constantly grow. All these services can be PRODUCED IN the COUNTRY and with the resources of the country. So with _Debt and Interest Free Money _ (Dr. Richard Werner) ** those projects can be financed - to benefit the citizens over the coming DECADES. ** similar or related concepts are know under QE for the people Sovereign money - positivemoney(dot)org, MMT - Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Prof. Steve Keen Warren Mosler (who came up with the term MMT and formulated that concept)
    1
  12. Reduction of work time, minimum wages, good wages before 1970, "free" trade deals undermining wages and job security, _Debt and Interest Free Money (gov. funding) - if interested see my comments under the thread of +Despicably Irascible Rapscallion P.S.: got a little carried away - but I think it is essential that people can connect the dots - and I tried to structure it
    1