Thursday, February 1, 2007

The $10 revolution

Effective today, minimum wage earners in Ontario received a mandatory 25 cent raise to make $8 per hour. However, the socialist labour movement won't stop there. The London Free Press points out:

While the province today increases the minimum wage by 25 cents to $8 an hour, it remains too low and should rise to $10 an hour, OFL president Wayne Samuelson said yesterday in London.

"Study after study states this money goes right back into the economy," said Samuelson. "People will have more money to spend. It is good for the economy."
Oh really? I'm pretty certain these so-called "studies" you are referring to are just more leftist tripe from your lobby group. Any sane-minded economist would tell you that a 25% immediate increase in real wages would lead to at least one of two things: Increased prices on consumer goods and/or massive job losses.

Shockingly, our cruel McGuinty government estimates that Ontario would loose approximately 66,000 jobs if a $10 an hour minimum wage comes to fruition.

Even with this bleak prospect, London's own head Bolshevic leader wants to take it a step further.
The OFL and London and District Labour Council will soon unveil a public campaign aimed at boosting the wage, which will include rallies, town hall meetings and days of action, said Tim Carrie, president of the London and District Labour Council.

"It is a social justice issue. We will form a coalition of like-minded groups on this issue and we will fight for justice and pressure MPPs," said Carrie.
Wow! Tim Carrie sure sounds like a true socialist revolutionary in the likes of Lenin, Mao, or Il-Sung. Using the media and public rallies to boost your cause and fight the oppression from big business. I wonder what "pressure" he plans to put on our elected officials. If the past communist revolutions are any indication, it will likely involve total takeover of our government,total income redistribution, and the full state ownership of private property. Then we can all stand in awe at our $10 an hour workers paradise.

Here we see their leader, Wayne Samuelson, holding the worker's party propaganda pamphlets. Notice the use of the colour Red to get their message across.


Jeremy McNaughton said...

What would be so wrong with working people earning a little more money?

I'm sure you'll point out that lots of small business owners can't afford to pay their employees more. That may be the case.

But of those small business owners.. how many are living at a quality of life greatly above that of their minimum wage earnging employees. Isn't it the employees that do all the work? Maybe the business owners could shed a little luxury, so that their workers can earn a livable income.

And then there's the major corporate employers. The people getting rich from owning those could certainly shed a little luxury for the workers (who again are doing all the work).

Emma G. said...

I have to agree Jeremy. You make very good points here. Why should employees make so little money money when in many situations they do ALL of the work. Sure the business owner took the risk to start the company and ya they should get a better return for such a risk but... how can wage slavery be justified?

Jeremy McNaughton said...

Emma G is obviously not your real name.

However.. imagine Tim Carrie as an armed revolutionary. I think he'd get a chuckle out of that.

Emma G. said...

I don't know who Tim Carrie is but his name doesn't really have that revolutionary ring to it does it? But who knows, he sounds like a man of the people.

Jeremy McNaughton said...

Tim Carrie is the President of the London and District Labour Council. He's also a member of the Canadian Auto Workers.

Once he gave me an umbrella. He's a very nice guy.

Jake said...

Jeremy & Emma

Look, I have nothing against people wanting to make more money. I just have a problem when special interest labour groups claim that making a mandatory higher wage benefits the entire economy. These groups tend to know very little about economics or business in general.

Anyone who operates a small, independent business are likely to suffer the most, not huge companies, for having to pay more to employees. Their profit margins are usually slim, with few employees. The consequence is, they either have to lay people off or raise prices on their goods to consumers.

Emma G. said...

Ya I saw his job description in the article but I don't know much about it. I especially didn't know he is so generous! I'd like to meet him some day.

What, is Emma not a common name in these parts? It was my Grandmothers name. She was a wonderful woman and I miss her greatly.

take care :)

Jake said...

Plus, I would hardly call the current $8 an hour minimum wage a "slave wage". Compared to other provinces, Ontario's minimum wage is actually above the national average. The relative cost of living here versus, lets say, Alberta or British Columbia, is much lower per capita than them--and our minimum wage is considerably higher that theirs.

Jeremy McNaughton said...


I was guessing that you used the name as a tribute to Emma Goldman. My apologies.


That wages are even lower in other provinces isn't really a reason that they shouldn't be higher here.

Jeremy McNaughton said...


Not to mention, there's a different between "wage slavery" and "slave's wages"

Slave's wages would mean to me that your compensation for labour is a barn to sleep in and some table scraps to eat. Wage slavery is having to work most of your life to survive, and by having to work most of your life not having the time or resources to work for yourself instead of others.

Jake said...


Up until 40 years ago, people in Canada worked their entire lives. If you ask any older relatives or the elderly, they would likely tell you that our generation has it way easier economically than their generation.

If you want to live in a country where you should be rewarded for doing less, move to Sweden or France where the bounty of generous welfare state initiatives will greet you in open arms.

Jeremy McNaughton said...

Perhaps we have it better because of all the unionization after the Second World War? If you ask me, we're back into a decline. We might still have it better than my grandparents' generation, but I think we have it worse than my parents' generation.

Job prospects for young people aren't that encouraging. You might say that's because Canadians are demanding wages that are too high, so the jobs have been moving to other countries. You'd be right too, from a certain perspective. But why have we organized our society so that when workers start doing well, the bosses are allowed to move their jobs to other countries?

Ayn Steyn said...

The minimum wage should be completely abolished. The attempt to control prices is a denial of basic economic law.

Jake said...


Unionization of the national workforce has been in a steady decline since the 1970's. If anything, the reason for our better economic standing is correlated to this decline.

The so-called theory that our baby boomer parents had it better than us is wrong also. They had to live through two brutal recessions and record high interest rates during the 1980's. The economic situation since the middle 1990's till today has been the longest continuous economic boom period since the 1920's.

Also, you talk about the export of domestic jobs and outsourcing. There is strong evidence that the outsourcing of jobs over the past decade didn't work out too well, and that a rebound is happening domestically. More skilled immigrants than ever before are coming here from abroad to learn and work.

Finally, when talking about job prospects for today's youth, you should know that within the next 5-15 years, the baby boomer generation will retire in droves, thus opening millions of the well-paying careers that the currently hold.

gm said...

I understand that socialism is all about giving orders and forcing others to do your bidding under the compulsion of the state. Mr McNaughton is able to demonstrate the naked greed and power that socialists lust.

Why not just pass a law that mandates us all to be rich?

Mike said...

Enough of these minimum wage half measures. For far too many centuries we've been putting up with measly single-digit growth in the economy year after year.

What we need to do is pass a law that every year, everyone's salaries and cash holdings are doubled. We need to harness the amazing power of exponential growth.

With this plan, every one of us would be more than 1,000 times richer within ten years.

Talk about giving the common Canadian peasant a new straw mat to sleep on!

I urge progressive voices to raise themselves together in unison and call for this measure. It's a question of dignity. It's a question of not feeling like a loser because somebody else has made more of their life than you've managed to. It's a question of priorities.

Jake said...

Mmmm, Hyperinflation. Canada will become just like post-WWI Germany. I'll use my pocket change to heat my furnace.

gm said...

How about lower taxes for those employing people at minimum wage? how about lower property taxes?

I can hear the greedy socialist response to that idea...

Little Big Man said...

The saddest thing about the minimum wage debate is that the left has managed to get the right to agree that it is about forcing EMPLOYERS to pay a certain wage. That theory neglects the fact that it takes two to tango. Moreover, the LEAD in that dance is not the employer, it's the employee. The REAL target of the left is not employers who want to PAY less, but employees who are willing to CHARGE less. Behind every wage control law there is a bunch of people who are threatened by their neighbours' willingness to do the same job for LESS. It's the same mentality that leads closed-shop unionists to call replacement labour "scabs".

It reminds me of one of my summer jobs, digging ditches as a student in a unionized public workforce. "Little Big Man" they used to say, "slow're going to hurt yourself". It was code for "slow down, or we'll hurt you".

Mike said...

No inflation -- instantaneously double everything at a predictable interval! (Admittedly, this plan requires technological advances before it can be implemented.)

WWI hyperinflation is something to avoid for two reasons. First, new waves of new money ripped off each new recipient a little more as the spreading of knowledge of the inflation made prices go up. The merchant who takes my money for boots has no idea what it will buy him tomorrow. Prices get all out of whack and proportion and the unit of a dollar is no longer a reliable guide.

But no one would be ripped off if everyone knew it was happening. Any lingering confusion would as a byproduct create new accounting jobs.

Second, there are the infamous images of Germans with wheelbarrows full of money on the way to buy a loaf of bread. But in the age of the network, the days of wheelbarrow-wallets are a thing of the past. So I'm not claiming that jobs for wheelwrights and porters will be created by this plan.

You can call it a wash or a greedy neoliberal plan to trick the working class with smoke and mirrors while rendering corporate profit figures and CEO salaries incomprehensible and inexpressible to the man on the street. But just wait until today's greedy trillionaires complain a few years down the road about how hard it has become to keep their books, or to brag about how rich they are to other richers when they have to deal with thousand-digit numbers. Perhaps that confusion, that bitter taste of the common man's daily bread of money troubles, would be some comfort to homeless Canadian millonaires, or to the zillionaires waiting in the queue for the underfunded octomegahypergoogle-dollar health care system as Scrooge flies overhead on the way to the US for immediate treatment, typing on a fancy laptop whose memory is half eaten up to store account balances. Note that this is a progressive policy, since the rich pay proportionally more in terms of gigabytes than the poor.

Enough. Until that's possible, it's a bad idea to raise, moreover to have, the minimum wage. Surely, peaceful deals between people are nobody else's business. But a minimum wage presumes the law can legitimately be used to force other people to incorporate your terms ("Pay $10 or else!") into other people's agreements, making them an offer they can't refuse when the whole situation was none of your business to begin with!

The law is supposed to arrest people for that kind of thing, not perpetrate it!

Having essentially legalized the crime of violent interference in things not one's own business, bad results such as increased poverty and decreased ability to exit that poverty are sure to follow. People who can't produce $10 an hour at this early or late point in their life losing their increasingly rare jobs, costs increasing in a way that harms the poor worst of all people, trouble created with other higher-paid workers who want a courtesy raise to match, and a host of other unintended but unavoidable consequences.

Unions want an increased minimum wage because unions want the increased salary that is tied to the minimum wage. If unions cared about poor people they would disband and let poor people compete for the formerly union-owned opportunities.

Ayn Steyn said...

Interesting points Little Big Man. Working too hard (or working a little bit extra than the average dogfucker) is a no-no to unions.

Right now—I believe it is still going on—there is an RV manufacturer in Strathroy whose union employees are on strike because they want more money of course. These employees have physically threatened the non-union office workers who still have to go into work and have to "cross the line", and have damaged those office workers' vehicles for doing so.

The union thugs have also broke into the RV shop at night and slashed the tires, and ripped apart, the already fabricated RVs.

"You're fuckin with our livelihoods", they scream, because they want another dollar an hour.

Their desire for one more dollar an hour wage, entitles them to vandalize the property of the very employer they want a raise from.

They are willing to destroy their own employer's capital just because they believe they have a right to whatever wage they want.

Unions are nothing but a gang of dog-fucking thugs who have an utter contempt for the productive.

Anonymous said...

The last comment above lets me think of the city union. Try to suggest city hall employees work more effectively when the council is baffled by numbers and could not manage the books. There was more concern about accountability (more closed door meetings requested by grant hopcroft at the committee of general government in queens park November 2006)and about budgets to protect the rising wages of the senior employees of city hall. Wouldn't the min wage guys die for a good city paying job at 20 per hour as opposed to the 40+ all city hall employees make. And the min wage guy or girl would not have to work for a living if a job opened on Dufferin. Better yet in the fire hall. You could sleep the better part of the day, make 70k per year, eat good food, and go for false alarm calls. Heck, I may pay 10 per hour for a job like that.

Oh, thats right, I do on my property taxes.

Thanks again Board of Control and Council for spending our money. Fanshawe has accounting classes so you could learn to read the U&*)&* budget.


Minimum wage slave said...

The writers for this site are a bunch of half wits. At least within socialism there are checks and balances that help your fellow human. GREEDY SOCIALIST? Please feel free to pick up an encyclopedia or a dictionary and look up the word socialism. No your parents angry lessons on socialism when you were a child are not enough. Think for yourselves.
Co-op-er-a-tion... I know, that was a hard word to say. Instead of Competition; where those with the upper hand to begin with will continue to take advantage of those who didn't.

In addition, what about the nice people who don't want to fuck everyone they know over to survive. Hmmm, cant wait to fuck over all of family, friends, neighbors etc. in order to make a buck... yippeeee sounds like the perfect place for people on this site.

Little Man Syndrome said:
"employees who are willing to CHARGE less".

That is the worst rich kid logic I have ever seen. Ya, because I am ?WILLING? to work forty five hours a week, to pay my rent, put food on my table and then barely have enough left to pay back my library fines is exactly the life I choose. Boy oh Boy I cant wait to go to work tomorrow knowing that I'm merely making ends meet. No hope for a better future and I will probably get fired as soon as those capitalists figure out a way to pay someone else even less.

Then I break into your rich kid homes, out of necessity (you have completely removed the welfare state and I have to feed my family), and you go on talk shows crying about how our society is too easy on crime. Then you advocate for the use of more private security to protect your property from the poor people. Wow kind of sounds like the shit pile of a country south of the boarder.

To be a rich kid doesn't mean you don't have to work, it means you always have mom and dad to call when you need more money. That is your social safety net. Wether any of you are willing to admit it or not.

Jake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jake said...

To Mininum Wage slave,

Half wit eh? Well, in 10 years when you are filling gas inside my car--still making the same mediocre wage you do today--I'll take solace in the fact that you refused to improve your own income situation.

The only so-called "checks and balances" in socialism are from the depletion of the "cheque books and the bank balances" that taxpayers use to feed reprobates like yourself.

If you love socialism so much, move to North Korea where you can praise Lil' Kim Jung-Ill for letting you starve to death so he can build nuclear weapons and drink Hennessy Cognac like a sailor.

Minimum wage slave said...

Yes, thats right Jake, I 'refuse to improve my own income situation.' I cant wait to get home from work to scheme the best ways to keep myself from making a better living. I spend all night before my next shift just REFUSING to make my income situation better.
I thoroughly enjoy it.. no wait I down right love it. Poverty is so much fun!

This is precisely what we, the non rich kid population, are talking about.

Oh, and if you lost your job with a wife and kids at home with no other jobs (that pays enough to make rent and feed your family) available and some bunch of rich kids managed to destroy any hope of aid you would receive in that situation... you too would rob their fucking houses. you might even kick their asses in the process.

So keep your judgements on my moral integrity to yourself. Unless you understand then you're no better then politicians. looking out for number one at all times.

Yes this is class war whether you want to admit it or not.

Jake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jake said...

Minimum wage slave,

It's obviously apparent your self-degregating, defeatist attitude on working will serve you well in life. You seem to love to use these hypothetical "sob sister" comments a lot in our blog.

Here is a great way for you to make a decent living by spewing more left-wing whinny rhetoric: become an editor at the Toronto Star.

Lisa said...

Minimum wage slave says:

"At least within socialism there are checks and balances that help your fellow human."

As Jake points out, the only checks and balances in place in a socialist society are those laws that make it illegal to refrain from paying your taxes. It's the politicians that help themselves, and though they may throw a few scraps to the poor, they certainly aren't feeling any hunger pangs themselves as they are typically members of the oppressive "class".

You preach welfare and "cooperation", though you say you would break into the home of a "rich" family to serve your own ends.

By your own account, you are employed. Well, what of all the homeless people who have had even fewer advantages than you? Don't they have a "right" to break into your house and steal the contents of your fridge and perhaps your tv besides?

And why wait until minimum wage laws deprive you of a job before you go on a robbing spree? The government's been robbing us for years, in the name of the poor, but apparently they haven't been stealing enough. Let the class war begin Comrade!

Mike said...

rob their fucking houses

That's a different issue. The problem you raise here is with laws that take away the means and natural right to lethal defence of person, family, and property.

Careers in burglary shouldn't be discouraged by impoverishing everybody with a minimum wage. They are most effectively and justly discouraged by the prospective burglar's fear of being crippled or killed by his prospective victims.

Stay on topic.

basil said...

Where has all my money and youth gone?

It's true, I do want to be a rich kid. I find being an orphan working for a living most demeaning.

Besides, all my socialist friends ever talk about is stealing money and hurting rich people.

gm said...

Socialism is all about taking by force what is ideologicaly desired.
All socialism is about is government force. Under socialism, one is liberated from having to take care of oneself.In practice, it creates self-centered individuals and a narcissistic society. Perhaps it may have begun as a way to help others, it has come to mean a way of evading responsibility for oneself and for others.

Minimum wage is not about negotiation of higher paycheques, it is really about holding a gun to the head of employers and demanding more money.

Sounds pretty greedy to me.