Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gogis]

I've been living in India for 8 months. Amount of people that simply doesnt want to work (I am not even putting `hard` here) for whatever reason is staggering. Please, travel world, live there for prolonged period of time to understand mentality before throwing punches.
I've spoken to people living in Africa for 1+ years. No, they don't want to be prosperous in `our` meaning. Not at all.

Is that not like saying all Germans during WWII where supporters of Hitler?
or that all Russians supported Stalin?
Or all Americans are crazy morons?

All answers is `false`.

Another false is - you have no idea about ideas in heads of people from Africa etc. They are aliens for us. I know this for sure. And we should not interfere their policies. Thats what I think. Again, I was there, did you?

[Pnx]

Well, this topic moved on pretty fast since I started writing this post, but I'm going to post it anyway!

Its a bit cheeper.
1 gallon = about 3.4 L, right?

More like 3.8, but yeah.

Oh, and snarky Australians (who I've seen bragging all over the internet recently for some reason or another), please cut it out. I was curious about the "cost of living" in countries, and found a website that would appear to be fairly well respected that provides such info. Anyway,

Consumer Prices in Canada are 26.66% lower than in Australia
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Canada are 33.34% lower than in Australia
Rent Prices in Canada are 46.54% lower than in Australia
Restaurant Prices in Canada are 27.42% lower than in Australia
Groceries Prices in Canada are 21.79% lower than in Australia
Local Purchasing Power in Canada is 6.99% higher than in Australia

That's a really goddamn big difference, especially considering how big the difference is between Canada and the US. The only things noticeably cheaper in Australia are rice and... milk. Yeah, that's kind of a reoccurring theme here.

On the discussion of relative prices, it would in theory have more to do with sales tax, or more particularly value added tax (aka VAT) than minimum wage. VAT is that it tends to make things more and more expensive the further down the production line you go.

Australia has a flat 10% VAT tax rate, which is high, but not as high as pretty much all of Europe's VAT tax rates (which are typically at least 20%).
The VAT and sales tax system in Canada is kind of crazy, but it seems to be that typically most transactions have a VAT tax of 5% with one of multiple different sales taxes added on at the end, a lot of consumer goods like groceries and such have no VAT added on due to exemptions, but that doesn't mean that their cost isn't increased by the value added tax due to stuff further down the line. Australia has no such exceptions as near as I can tell, it's 10% on everything, which must run away horribly when it comes to raising the cost of goods.

For example if it's applied to everything, a dairy farmer (just as an example) has to pay 10% VAT on buying feed, and on housing the cows, and on his own bread and butter, and on every other cost he incurs, and then of course you pay 10% on the milk when it's sold to his friend the cheese maker, then 10% to sell it to the grocery store, then 10% to sell it to the consumer...

Now, I doubt that tax is paying paid on all of that, but you can see that while 10% doesn't sound like much, all those 10%'s add up quickly, and you just know that people are going to raise their prices to compensate for the money they're paying in taxes.

The US meanwhile has no VAT taxes, which would probably be a good concise explanation for why goods are cheaper in the US than in Canada, and Canada cheaper than Australia.

[GreatJustice]

Well, this topic moved on pretty fast since I started writing this post, but I'm going to post it anyway!

Its a bit cheeper.
1 gallon = about 3.4 L, right?

More like 3.8, but yeah.

Oh, and snarky Australians (who I've seen bragging all over the internet recently for some reason or another), please cut it out. I was curious about the "cost of living" in countries, and found a website that would appear to be fairly well respected that provides such info. Anyway,

Consumer Prices in Canada are 26.66% lower than in Australia
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Canada are 33.34% lower than in Australia
Rent Prices in Canada are 46.54% lower than in Australia
Restaurant Prices in Canada are 27.42% lower than in Australia
Groceries Prices in Canada are 21.79% lower than in Australia
Local Purchasing Power in Canada is 6.99% higher than in Australia

That's a really goddamn big difference, especially considering how big the difference is between Canada and the US. The only things noticeably cheaper in Australia are rice and... milk. Yeah, that's kind of a reoccurring theme here.

On the discussion of relative prices, it would in theory have more to do with sales tax, or more particularly value added tax (aka VAT) than minimum wage. VAT is that it tends to make things more and more expensive the further down the production line you go.

Australia has a flat 10% VAT tax rate, which is high, but not as high as pretty much all of Europe's VAT tax rates (which are typically at least 20%).
The VAT and sales tax system in Canada is kind of crazy, but it seems to be that typically most transactions have a VAT tax of 5% with one of multiple different sales taxes added on at the end, a lot of consumer goods like groceries and such have no VAT added on due to exemptions, but that doesn't mean that their cost isn't increased by the value added tax due to stuff further down the line. Australia has no such exceptions as near as I can tell, it's 10% on everything, which must run away horribly when it comes to raising the cost of goods.

For example if it's applied to everything, a dairy farmer (just as an example) has to pay 10% VAT on buying feed, and on housing the cows, and on his own bread and butter, and on every other cost he incurs, and then of course you pay 10% on the milk when it's sold to his friend the cheese maker, then 10% to sell it to the grocery store, then 10% to sell it to the consumer...

Now, I doubt that tax is paying paid on all of that, but you can see that while 10% doesn't sound like much, all those 10%'s add up quickly, and you just know that people are going to raise their prices to compensate for the money they're paying in taxes.

The US meanwhile has no VAT taxes, which would probably be a good concise explanation for why goods are cheaper in the US than in Canada, and Canada cheaper than Australia.

Oh dear. Yeah, the VAT would be pretty huge in that case.

[Virex]

Well, this topic moved on pretty fast since I started writing this post, but I'm going to post it anyway!

Its a bit cheeper.
1 gallon = about 3.4 L, right?

More like 3.8, but yeah.

Oh, and snarky Australians (who I've seen bragging all over the internet recently for some reason or another), please cut it out. I was curious about the "cost of living" in countries, and found a website that would appear to be fairly well respected that provides such info. Anyway,

Consumer Prices in Canada are 26.66% lower than in Australia
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Canada are 33.34% lower than in Australia
Rent Prices in Canada are 46.54% lower than in Australia
Restaurant Prices in Canada are 27.42% lower than in Australia
Groceries Prices in Canada are 21.79% lower than in Australia
Local Purchasing Power in Canada is 6.99% higher than in Australia

That's a really goddamn big difference, especially considering how big the difference is between Canada and the US. The only things noticeably cheaper in Australia are rice and... milk. Yeah, that's kind of a reoccurring theme here.

On the discussion of relative prices, it would in theory have more to do with sales tax, or more particularly value added tax (aka VAT) than minimum wage. VAT is that it tends to make things more and more expensive the further down the production line you go.

Australia has a flat 10% VAT tax rate, which is high, but not as high as pretty much all of Europe's VAT tax rates (which are typically at least 20%).
The VAT and sales tax system in Canada is kind of crazy, but it seems to be that typically most transactions have a VAT tax of 5% with one of multiple different sales taxes added on at the end, a lot of consumer goods like groceries and such have no VAT added on due to exemptions, but that doesn't mean that their cost isn't increased by the value added tax due to stuff further down the line. Australia has no such exceptions as near as I can tell, it's 10% on everything, which must run away horribly when it comes to raising the cost of goods.

For example if it's applied to everything, a dairy farmer (just as an example) has to pay 10% VAT on buying feed, and on housing the cows, and on his own bread and butter, and on every other cost he incurs, and then of course you pay 10% on the milk when it's sold to his friend the cheese maker, then 10% to sell it to the grocery store, then 10% to sell it to the consumer...

Now, I doubt that tax is paying paid on all of that, but you can see that while 10% doesn't sound like much, all those 10%'s add up quickly, and you just know that people are going to raise their prices to compensate for the money they're paying in taxes.

The US meanwhile has no VAT taxes, which would probably be a good concise explanation for why goods are cheaper in the US than in Canada, and Canada cheaper than Australia.

That's... not how VAT works. Sure, the farmer has to pay 10% VAT, but, at least in most European countries, he can compensate that with the VAT people pay on his milk. So as long as the products you're selling are worth more than the products you buy to produce them, you don't have to pay any net VAT. The result of this is that the cost ends up being carried by the consumer, and any business that's reducing the value if it's end product relative to the starting products (bot those don't last long anyway)

[Knight of Fools]

As someone who's had eight jobs within the past decade, only two of which were above minimum wage (And one only higher by 20 cents), I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage, but I think pay should be based more by a company's profit and hours worked per week rather than an arbitrary number.

This is an idea I took a whole five minutes to conjure up, so my personal connection to it is nonexistent. Disprove or disagree at your own pleasure, it won't hurt my feelings.

TL;DR: Companies have to pay more money for employees who work fewer hours, thus increase the number of hours employees work or the amount earned per hour, thus earning the employees more money. Companies must also ensure that a portion of its profits go to employees, which will both increase pay and productivity. In theory, folks would be working more, working harder, and earning lots. Obviously, this only applies to hourly workers -  I'm sure if you're on a salary you're going to be affected by minimum wage in the first place.

_{Knight of Fools castes Summon Wall of Text.}

Companies are driven by profit, and anything that increases income and reduces expenditures is a good thing. Employees, despite being an important driver of a company's success, are seen more as a liability than something that benefits the company. They'll treat them nice and pay them, sure, but only as much as they have to, since the company wants to please the investors more than the employees. Increasing the minimum wage will just make the lower tier, part-time employees even more of a liability - Suddenly that punk who only works 20 hours a week has gone from costing your company $140 a week to $190. Multiply that by the hundreds of punks spread throughout your business, and you're looking at a loss of hundreds of thousands, even millions, per year. That looks really bad to an investor, so to keep the same rate of profit, the company can cut a few hours to bring it back to what it was before. Not as much stuff will get done, but it looks better on paper, and you can always demand the same volume of work be completed anyways. Employees get stressed and the quality/quantity of the product decreases.

Sure, the kid's still earning $140 per week and even working four fewer hours a week, but the problem hasn't been solved - He's still just earning $140 a week, well below the poverty line. Getting a second job is a possibility, and working fewer hours certainly makes that more of a possibility, but it's an incredible hassle and puts even more stress on an individual who's barely keeping his/her head above water. Also, on a larger scale, we want to employ ever more people, and having folks with two jobs means that someone else goes without a job, even if it's just $140 a week.

What we need to do is encourage companies to increase hours given to an employee. Using the part time punk's example, the company has a choice between having the kid work between 20 or 16 hours - But they'd have to pay him more if he only worked 16 hours. This shouldn't be done to an extent that a company would simply hire three full time workers rather than six part time ones - The difference should be rather minimal to encourage both maintaining more employees and increasing the number of hours worked for part time employees. If you have a choice between paying a kid $10 an hour for 16 hours of work, or paying him $9.50 an hour for 20 hours, you'd probably go for the "more for less" deal. Either way, the kid's going to be getting paid more, and companies are going to either pay their peeps more or give them more hours. Likelihood is that they'll give their punks more hours, since they can get more for less. This is especially true if even more tiers are introduced to encourage more hours worked.

That's all just an example, though. A lot more research would have to be done to find more optimal numbers, and I have no clue where to start with that. I don't even know if it'll work, but it sounds like it'd do more to increase bottom tier income than just jacking the minimum wage up.


As for the pay based on salary bit, that's just common business sense that isn't too common. If your company is making profits, you should pay your employees more - It encourages employees working to increase profitability and reduce waste. Unfortunately, a lot of companies can't seem to get their heads around that idea, so depending on how much profit your company is earning, your employees should get slight pay raises. If a company isn't making any money, they'll still have the "absolute minimum" to fall back on, so they won't start getting paid less than minimum wage if the company's profits drop below zero. It would mean that hourly rates would fluctuate from paycheck to paycheck, but it'd still be more than it would have been unless the company's going under.

I know even less about this one, especially since there's so many companies with different profits and expenditures (Necessary and unnecessary). This would require a lot more research and much more specific guidelines than my other idea, but ultimately it'd probably increase productivity and profitability across the board. Folks would have more of a reason to work, they'd be willing to work harder, and, with the other idea, they'd be working more, too.

[Max White]

That is the other thing, do you guys have increased casual rate?
For example, over here employees on a casual rate aren't entitled to any set number of hours a week, don't earn holiday leave and often miss out on other benefits, but as compensation the minimum wage for a casual is 50% higher than somebody on full time or part time.

[Nadaka]

nope.

"part time" employees don't get higher pay. And they can be given fewer/no benefits that full time employees are entitled to.

[Max White]

You guys do understand that your system sucks, right?

[Nadaka]

You guys do understand that your system sucks, right?

yup.

[Knight of Fools]

Some of us do, even us conservatively minded folks. There's a big "we're the USA, and we won't do it the way anyone else does it" sentiment around here, which is part of, but not the whole, problem. For example, I didn't even know other countries had casual pay.

[Max White]

Ok question: Do you guys have a superannuation scheme?

[Mr. Palau]

Any tax is ultimately paid by the consumer, because the consumer ALWAYS pays for everything. Econ 101. Unless it is a tax on profits, I guess, because that is applied after you have made your money.

Also the 10% of a VAT works like Virex said. It just ends up as flat 10% increase to the consumer at the end, because businesses are allowed to pass the tax on.

To Knight of Fools, I thought about them reducing hours in order to contain costs, and switching to part time workers more, but I think that the minimum wage should just be set on 40 hour work week, working 2000 hour years, the average in America. Also incentivizing companies to have their workers work more hours is incentivizing against productivity, which is the last thing you want to do.

We could set a separate limit for part time work, but if it is larger than X*Y (x being minimum wage, y being hours worked, for the part time job) then we are disincentivizing work, compared to whether they were the same. I think it would just be better to give people working minimum wage part time welfare.



This is kind of off topic but this topic has seen a lot of talk about inequality, as expected, so I'll just post it here. Anyway, I was playing Europa Universalis: Rome a lot this week, and that got me looking up a bunch of roman stuff, one being GDP estimates. The GDP varied but it was less than 50B$, so Apple actually produces more value  than the Roman Empire during its peak under Trajan (values were adjusted for inflation, it was mostly goods produced estimates and then the values of those goods all added together in today's dollars). What was really surprising though were the estimates for inequality. Near as they can tell at its height the senatorial class and rich equestrian and plebeian families (their equivalent of the 1%) controlled 23% of the income of the economy. The figure today for America is 26% of the economy controlled by the 1%. Which means that America is actually more unequal than the Roman empire, in which 1/5 of the population were slaves, and thus by definition had no income at all.

I think that the solution to all of this inequality, and a good way to fund the welfare programs, would be a 1% tax on all wealth over 1 million $. Opinions?

[Knight of Fools]

Ok question: Do you guys have a superannuation scheme?

Is that mandatory savings for retirement?

Well, kind of. Social Security is supposed to do that, but instead of saving for your retirement, you pay for someone else's until it's your turn to get Social Security checks. It's basically a giant, mandatory pyramid scheme that requires an ever increasing number of new people paying into it.

[Max White]

Have fun with that aging population and all...

[Doomblade187]

Have fun with that aging population and all...

That hits medicare/medicaid, too.