Ontario Moves to $15 per hour minimum wage

[Wesley Mouch]

Right under this forum's heading it says:

Since 1999 the Internet's Largest Discussion of all topics relating to the Detroit - Windsor Family of Communities. All Detroit, all the time, all in one place.

Pretty clear to me that this forum includes Windsor.

It also is important to Detroit because our sister city will be experiencing a controversial change to employment, that it warming thought of by all progressives.

Most economics believe that MW increases cost youth jobs. As posted above, some believe that benefits outweight that cost.

I believe that youth employment in Detroit is critical, and that a MW increase isn't in Detroit's benefit. In fact, I believe elimination of this unnecessary and harmful intervention in employment markets disproportionately harms Detroiters.

Its a very important Detroit issue, regardless of your opinion.

[GMan]

Okay Okay I get it. I just wondered why when the impact will have no effect over here. Good luck to our Canadien neighbors, guess this will help them pay for their electricity rates.

[Wheels]

The future of $15 an hour minimum wage is near!
http://start.att.net/news/read/artic...hole-newscred2

[canuck]

Okay Okay I get it. I just wondered why when the impact will have no effect over here. Good luck to our Canadien neighbors, guess this will help them pay for their electricity rates.

Ontario, maybe. Montreal on the other hand is less than half the cost of Detroit's and Toronto's electric bill. The power is overwhelmingly hydroelectric and thus renewable. We got rid of our only nuclear plant recently. No coal, no gas.

Check electric rates on page 11 of this document:

https://issuu.com/hydroquebec/docs/c...51578/39216309

[GMan]

Ontario, maybe. Montreal on the other hand is less than half the cost of Detroit's and Toronto's electric bill. The power is overwhelmingly hydroelectric and thus renewable. We got rid of our only nuclear plant recently. No coal, no gas.

Check electric rates on page 11 of this document:

https://issuu.com/hydroquebec/docs/c...51578/39216309

Our rates aren't too bad. It's the surcharges that are added for various programs and initiatives that inflate the bills.
I guess I'm lucky that I pay less than the average listed for Detroit both in pre / post tax considerations in the guide you posted. Here's DTE rate guide. ResidentialElectricRates.pdf
Sorry I know it's not about Min wage.

[Wesley Mouch]

Back to MW in Ontario, and by inference, Michigan...

Conservative newspaper Seattle Times cites MW study commissioned by highly conservative City of Seattle via right-wing University of Washington. Done by non-partisan, non-profit National Bureau of Economic Research -- I've no idea who they are.

The problem with studies is that everyone cites only studies that support their position. This supports mine. I don't know the NBER, but if Seattle and UofW hired them, I have to think they're not a conservative anti-fact group.

A key finding: 3% increase in pay for low-wage workers. A 9% reduction in hours. Net 6% earnings loss for low-wage jobs. NBER/Seattle Times..

For an average low-wage worker in Seattle, that translates into a loss of about $125 per month per job.

Citation: UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs

It is just one study, but if you care for low-wage workers, you may want to reconsider the Fight to $15. It feels good. But it hurts the poor.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

It is just one study, but if you care for low-wage workers, you may want to reconsider the Fight to $15. It feels good. But it hurts the poor.

The primary motives for leftist leadership [[not rank and file liberals on the street) are NOT to help the poor. They are a) achieving and keeping power, b) making themselves feel good by publicly demonstrating their willingness to spend other people's money to help people, c) punish the perceived affluent [[as defined by anyone having any more than they do). There are a great many things a leftist won't do that would help the poor.

[Wesley Mouch]

The primary motives for leftist leadership [[not rank and file liberals on the street) are NOT to help the poor. They are a) achieving and keeping power, b) making themselves feel good by publicly demonstrating their willingness to spend other people's money to help people, c) punish the perceived affluent [[as defined by anyone having any more than they do). There are a great many things a leftist won't do that would help the poor.

Read a blog post recently wherein the author pointed out that the data from this report shows that MW increases INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY. Banish the thought!

[Bham1982]

The primary motives for leftist leadership [[not rank and file liberals on the street) are NOT to help the poor. They are a) achieving and keeping power, b) making themselves feel good by publicly demonstrating their willingness to spend other people's money to help people, c) punish the perceived affluent [[as defined by anyone having any more than they do). There are a great many things a leftist won't do that would help the poor.

What on earth is "leftist leadership" in the U.S. context? I mean, is there even such a thing in the U.S.? It sounds like Bigfoot or something.

Hillary Clinton was far to the right of the right-leaning candidates in other First World countries. Angela Merkel is certainly left of Clinton, and she's CDU [[Germany's most conservative major party). If Merkel were running in America she would be considered a pinko Commie.

Is there ANY prominent Leftist in any position of power in the U.S.?
I mean, we already have basically the lowest taxes on the rich in the developed world and the crappiest services for the poor and working class.

[Wesley Mouch]

...Is there ANY prominent Leftist in any position of power in the U.S.?

Mayor Bill DiBlasio, of the most important city in the world, as well as the vast majority of large city mayors. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, governor of one of the world's largest economies. House Leader Ms. Pelosi shows her power daily. Associate Justice Sotomayor proudly expresses her left-learning power from the bench. Granted, the Democrats are in second place, but its clearly a closely contested leader

I mean, we already have basically the lowest taxes on the rich in the developed world and the crappiest services for the poor and working class.

We suck, don't we. No, we don't.

[Canadian Visitor]

We suck, don't we. No, we don't.

I'm not sure why that's an appropriate reaction to Bham's post.

Everyone will know Bham and I have had our disagreements in this space.

But here, he has simply made factually correct statements.

At no time did he included the phrase 'we suck' or anything I read to be comparable.

If you disagree with this facts, then I'd venture to suggest, you're wrong. But I would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

There are many fine things about the United States, you won't count me as a 'basher'; but in the areas of crime/gun control, and treatment of the poor/working class there is objectively much to be desired.

Sticking here to the latter topic as it more closely relates to the minimum wage....

The question is one of how you choose to provide real opportunity to those at the bottom; as well as a basic standard of living while they ARE at the bottom.

If one were to judge the effectiveness of things as they are in the US, one need only concern oneself w/social mobility stats.

What% of folks born into the lowest economic quintile can climb even one rank in a generation.

The answer in the U.S. is not only very few, but less than most other developed countries.

There are a variety of ways to remedy this, not all involve vast sums of government expenditure.

But you really need to pick some to endorse, if you don't want to suggest that you wish people born into poverty to remain that way.

Pointing all that out isn't America-bashing. Its merely reality-discussing.

It neither makes America bad, nor her people.

It does acknowledge room for improvement.

There's room to improve everywhere, not just in the U.S.

Including on the poverty file.

But the U.S. does lag more than most, among developed nations.

****

Also, I believe this discussion turned towards this on the notion that the US doesn't have Socialist leadership.

Again this is accurate.

If California were deemed the place in the US that right-wingers are most concerned about in terms of left-wing inclinations...

Let's review: Paid Family Leave

in California - 6 weeks @ 55% of income
in Canada - 17+39 weeks [[mat. leave plus parental) @ 55%
in Germany - 14 months [[60 weeks) @ 65%
in Spain/Austria et al. 16 weeks @ 100%
in Australia 18 weeks @ 100%, plus 34 weeks unpaid, per parent.

***

in California - paid vacation - requirement zero days off.
in most of Canada - 2 weeks in 1st year, 3 after 5 years.
in the entire EU - 4 weeks paid vacation or MORE

***

Childcare

California - subsidies are largely limited in scope to welfare recipients

Most of the developed world - affordable childcare for middle/working class and poor.

*****

Put another way, the most left-wing state you imagine would pass muster as ultra-conservative anywhere else.

[313WX]

Put another way, the most left-wing state you imagine would pass muster as ultra-conservative anywhere else.

Well said..

[GMan]

......

But the U.S. does lag more than most, among developed nations.

****

Also, I believe this discussion turned towards this on the notion that the US doesn't have Socialist leadership.

Again this is accurate.

If California were deemed the place in the US that right-wingers are most concerned about in terms of left-wing inclinations...

Let's review: Paid Family Leave

in California - 6 weeks @ 55% of income
in Canada - 17+39 weeks [[mat. leave plus parental) @ 55%
in Germany - 14 months [[60 weeks) @ 65%
in Spain/Austria et al. 16 weeks @ 100%
in Australia 18 weeks @ 100%, plus 34 weeks unpaid, per parent.

***

in California - paid vacation - requirement zero days off.
in most of Canada - 2 weeks in 1st year, 3 after 5 years.
in the entire EU - 4 weeks paid vacation or MORE

***

Childcare

California - subsidies are largely limited in scope to welfare recipients

Most of the developed world - affordable childcare for middle/working class and poor.

*****

Put another way, the most left-wing state you imagine would pass muster as ultra-conservative anywhere else.

The US provides opportunity to rise above the minimum for most. The problem is affordability of the above programs you mention. There is a need for minimum housing, living wage standards. But when that includes big screen TV's, cell phones then you are beyond basic minimums. There is abuse of the US welfare system designed as a safety net but evolved into a bargaining chip by politicians who use it to collect votes by making promises that can't be paid for unless you raise taxes.
And the ruling class ain't gonna raise taxes on themselves. Who's gonna pay for it? The shrinking middle class!
Add additional refugees mouths to the equation and you get Donald elected as president who made no apologies about shutting the door. But you have politicians on the left and right making money of these social welfare programs, hence the resistance to suggested reforms.
Watch as Illinois goes bankrupt.

[Bham1982]

Mayor Bill DiBlasio, of the most important city in the world, as well as the vast majority of large city mayors. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, governor of one of the world's largest economies. House Leader Ms. Pelosi shows her power daily. Associate Justice Sotomayor proudly expresses her left-learning power from the bench. Granted, the Democrats are in second place, but its clearly a closely contested leader
We suck, don't we. No, we don't.

DeBlasio is a Leftist, but he's a city mayor. He has zero power outside of NYC. He would be unelectable outside of NYC and SF.

And NYC is wildly successful right now, so not a particularly good example of the supposed dangers of Leftists. Just yesterday Aetna, one of the largest health insurers on earth, announced it's moving to NYC. Unemployment is near zero. Crime is lower than any post in recorded history; even lower than Iowa.

The other examples aren't remotely Leftists. Jerry Brown and Nancy Pelosi are hardly Leftists. They're like the Clintons; generally centrist outlook. In Europe they would be considered Center-Right.

Also, you said "vast majority of city mayors" are Leftist. I can't think of one outside of DeBlasio. The mayors of Detroit, SF, LA, DC, and Chicago are all very centrist and pro-business community.

Bernie is arguably a Leftist, but will never win anything outside Vermont. Can't think of anyone else nationally.

Sonya Sotomayer is a SC judge. There is no possible way of knowing whether she's a "Leftist". She has no legislative record.

[Zacha341]

Yep, once we see the duplicity and hypocrisy of both parties we can begin their true motives [[despite what is being said).

...But you have politicians on the left and right making money of these social welfare programs, hence the resistance to suggested reforms.

[313WX]

Bernie is arguably a Leftist, but will never win anything outside Vermont.

If Bernie were to run for president again in 2020, I think he'd win [[if for no other reason, because of the Electoral College). Bear in mind, the same states Hillary lost in the general election [[Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, etc.) are the states Bernie won in the primary. Also, the Neoliberals in California and the BOS-DC corridor who seems to have an aversion to fiscally liberal politicians would end up voting for him any way out of fear of Trump.

Bernie's biggest problem in 2016 was that he lacked name recognition before jumping into the primary, especially amongst older African-Americans who are still stuck up Bill Clinton's ass. But now, he's the most popular politician in the country [[Guess who's the least popular? And no, it's not Trump).

[Zacha341]

^^^ Now-now, that was not nice 313WX.. about older African Americans! Well actually it was funny..........

My parents indeed adored Bill Clinton. That adoration did not automatically transfer to Hillary. Perhaps, had she ditched [[divorced) Bill she may have gotten more votes from women [[and by extension more feminists).

Not my vote, but I am just saying.

And BTW, who's the least popular politician? Not Trump? I thought he was the super-soak-sponge for all things evil politically? Is it Nancy Pelosi??

[Richard]

Chris Cristie is the least popular governor in the country at the time.

[313WX]

^^^ Now, that was not nice 313WX.. about older African Americans! Well actually it was funny......

My parents indeed adored Bill Clinton. That adoration did not automatically transfer to Hillary. Perhaps, had she ditched [[divorced) Bill she may have gotten more votes from women.

Not my vote, but I am just saying.

And BTW, who's the least popular politician? Not Trump? I thought he was the super-soak-sponge for all things evil politically? Is it Nancy Pelosi??

My comment may have been crude, but there's truth to it. Remember when black people were claiming that Bill Clinton was the country's first black president and fell in love with him after he played that saxophone on Arsenio Hall?

That said, young black people aren't falling for the BS. Maybe because they don't remember how awesome the roaring / go-go 90s were for everyone [[including the black community), but instead how badly Clinton's policies such as NAFTA, welfare reform and the crime bill have screwed them over in the long term.

Also, to answer your question, Suffolk University poll recently showed Trump with a 47% approval rating and Hillary Clinton with a 35% approval rating.

[Zacha341]

I know. I found that whole 'bill and his horn - first black president' blather rather patronizing rather than engaging us in any meaningful way, relative to policy and economics! The Arkansas political cultural shape-shifting and what not attendant to the Clinton's remained top of my mind, despite the balloons, horn play and other circus [[media) distractions.

I am oft to remind some of Clinton's welfare reforms [[not that they were all bad) and that working and middle-class killer known as NAFTA when presented with the ONLY the right wing folks and republicans do bad things/ and 'take things away' narrative. Yes, young black people [[and black people in general) aren't falling for the oaky-doke lock-step as much.

And if there's anything good about the Trump win it proved that the democratic black vote is not to be assumed, ala putting anyone up there for us to vote for.... Uh, nope. Not anymore.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm not sure why that's an appropriate reaction to Bham's post.

Aw, just couldn't stop myself. Both Bham's post and mine dig were unnecessary and just for fun.

...snip...
Put another way, the most left-wing state you imagine would pass muster as ultra-conservative anywhere else.

True, but it does make you wonder. Why can't the left get its act together in California. There's no effective Repubican party, but they still can't get 'progressive'? Curious why you think that is. In CA, the R's aren't stopping progress. So what is?

[313WX]

So what is?

Corporate lobbying.

The state DNC just elected a Pharmaceutical lobbyist as their Chairman for Christ's sake...

[Zacha341]

^^^ [[Pharmaceutical lobbyist?) Say that's not a money deal in the making!

Neither party seems immune for the pull of the almighty dollar. The dems just like to pretend they are not so driven.

[archfan]

If Bernie were to run for president again in 2020, I think he'd win...

The guy's going to be 79 in 2020, let him be. Let's hope we can vote for somebody under the age of ancient in 2020 - and this coming from an alte kaker like me.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yes, I think 80 is a bit advanced in age for the job of president. I'm not being ageist in saying this but it's simply a matter of decreased energies that is attendant to age.

We don't need people presenting themselves who cannot win [[such as Hillary or Sanders).