Careers

Ontario Minimum Wage $11.00/hr and will be $11.25/hr Oct 1st 2015

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 30th, 2015 6:50 pm
Tags:
None
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
charlesd79 wrote: Jesus, this forum (or at least this topic) is full of geniuses ... Have you even read the article ? Those corporations hoard cash abroad in order not to pay taxes in the first place !!! :facepalm:
Yeah, and if you read it, it was that US tax laws are unfavorable, so companies would rather leave it abroad for use elsewhere. Those countries where it is held will benefit from the investment.
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
Let's keep equalizing the playing field for all Canadians then, keep paying out social assistance because many do not want to push carts or flip burgers for 11 / hour when they could be just as well off sitting at home.

Let's OVERPAY for labour, accountants, engineers, scientists etc., when there is no shortage of skilled people to do the job and the market has dictated what people are worth. Now that's a winning idea to help us compete internationally! Because yes, we are fighting with China, India, Brazil etc. In the knowledge economy.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
6198 posts
762 upvotes
charlesd79 wrote: There's no hole, giant or small, in my argument that a 16 year old driving a F150 should be held responsible for his/her actions the same way a 89 year old driving a F150 would.
But you are assuming that if a child is not legally permitted to do a potentially dangerous activity (e.g. driving an F150), they will not do it. That is where your argument falls apart. A child under 16 is physically (but not legally) able to drive a car, play with their parent's loaded gun, throw objects off the balcony of an apartment 20 floors up, etc. Children do all these things and occasionally these actions tragically result in injury or death; the question I am asking and you are continuing to evade is: would you punish the child the same way you would punish an adult in these circumstances?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
6198 posts
762 upvotes
charlesd79 wrote: Like I said, I love your arguments and comparisons ... because we all know that corporations are people, right ? :facepalm:
I bet you're the soul of the party in your circle of friends.
Yes, in fact corporations are legal persons. If you were unaware of this, please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

A legal person enjoys some of the same rights as a natural person, including the right to arrange their financial affairs to reduce their tax liability.
Deal Addict
Mar 7, 2011
3744 posts
1986 upvotes
Vancouver
CheapScotch wrote: But you are assuming that if a child is not legally permitted to do a potentially dangerous activity (e.g. driving an F150), they will not do it. That is where your argument falls apart. A child under 16 is physically (but not legally) able to drive a car, play with their parent's loaded gun, throw objects off the balcony of an apartment 20 floors up, etc. Children do all these things and occasionally these actions tragically result in injury or death; the question I am asking and you are continuing to evade is: would you punish the child the same way you would punish an adult in these circumstances?
Sorry, I just can't fight your "logic" and "arguments".
Deal Addict
Mar 7, 2011
3744 posts
1986 upvotes
Vancouver
CheapScotch wrote: Yes, in fact corporations are legal persons. [...] A legal person enjoys some of the same rights as a natural person, including the right to arrange their financial affairs to reduce their tax liability.
Exactly. It's no wonder that you don't see nothing wrong with this, you're a capitalist ...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
6198 posts
762 upvotes
charlesd79 wrote: Sorry, I just can't fight your "logic" and "arguments".
Yeah, you really painted yourself into a corner on this issue.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
6198 posts
762 upvotes
charlesd79 wrote: Exactly. It's no wonder that you don't see nothing wrong with this, you're a capitalist ...
Assuming that the double negative was unintentional ... why do you object to the concept of legal personality and corporations sharing some of the rights of natural persons?
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2014
161 posts
31 upvotes
Scarborough, ON
CheapScotch wrote: Yeah, you really painted yourself into a corner on this issue.
The poster clearly answered your question... multiple times.
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2014
161 posts
31 upvotes
Scarborough, ON
jblast wrote: Government sets the minimum wage someone is willing to take, with welfare. You are much better off on welfare than working 40 hrs a week at minimum wage.
On what planet? Ontario Works pays roughly $560 per month if you are single without children. Minimum wage at 40 hours per week pays close to $1,500 take-home (after all deductions).
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
6198 posts
762 upvotes
DoughHead wrote: The poster clearly answered your question... multiple times.
Read the last few pages carefully. My question was
What if a 12 year old does something stupid and accidentally kills 4 people? What if a 10 year old does it? What if an 8 year old does it? Would you punish an 8 year old the same way as a mature adult?
Talking about minimum age requirements is not an answer to the question. The issue is not what children are legally permitted to do, it is what they do in fact, legal or not, and whether their punishment should be the same as for an adult.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 23, 2009
7083 posts
5213 upvotes
jblast wrote: Let's keep equalizing the playing field for all Canadians then, keep paying out social assistance because many do not want to push carts or flip burgers for 11 / hour when they could be just as well off sitting at home.

Let's OVERPAY for labour, accountants, engineers, scientists etc., when there is no shortage of skilled people to do the job and the market has dictated what people are worth. Now that's a winning idea to help us compete internationally! Because yes, we are fighting with China, India, Brazil etc. In the knowledge economy.
Well, how exactly do you compete with somebody who is willing and able to work at 10% of the pay?

There's a reason why companies do what they do.

Globalization is leading to a common living standard.

Those who have had it better (Canada, US, England, etc.) will have to accept lower or be out of a job.

No longer will owning and operating a car be usual and standard, most will use public transportation and we may see other less expensive modes such as bicycles and scooters (ala Vietnam).

Free Markets/Globalization are not good for the employees where a higher standard exists.
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
DoughHead wrote: On what planet? Ontario Works pays roughly $560 per month if you are single without children. Minimum wage at 40 hours per week pays close to $1,500 take-home (after all deductions).
$560 per month with a Toronto housing apartment equal to $600-800. Include other benefits like home stabilization and special diet allowances or odsp (abused) and you are in the 1500$ range.
Not working, plus that, is starting to sound good rather than bust your butt for 1500$.

Let's be real, most have at least one child or a couple, and presto, more benefits.

Also, a lot of people working for minimum wage don't even get 40 hours a week and have to work multiple jobs.
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
renoldman wrote: Well, how exactly do you compete with somebody who is willing and able to work at 10% of the pay?
Exactly. Unless you can show that you provide better, more efficient and innovative solutions for companies.

And without that, we cannot dictate to companies to increase employee wages arbitrarily because they will not survive in the global economy, its a fact of life now.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39339 posts
6342 upvotes
Winnipeg
renoldman wrote: Well, how exactly do you compete with somebody who is willing and able to work at 10% of the pay?

There's a reason why companies do what they do.

Globalization is leading to a common living standard.

Those who have had it better (Canada, US, England, etc.) will have to accept lower or be out of a job.

No longer will owning and operating a car be usual and standard, most will use public transportation and we may see other less expensive modes such as bicycles and scooters (ala Vietnam).

Free Markets/Globalization are not good for the employees where a higher standard exists.
by been better at it, wage is merely a fraction of the total cost in a business, we canadians have higher skill and knowledge to command the high wage
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2014
161 posts
31 upvotes
Scarborough, ON
jblast wrote: $560 per month with a Toronto housing apartment equal to $600-800. Include other benefits like home stabilization and special diet allowances or odsp (abused) and you are in the 1500$ range.
Not working, plus that, is starting to sound good rather than bust your butt for 1500$.
I actually provided incorrect information earlier. A single person on Ontario Works can actually receive $656. A single person is not getting $1500. It's just not happening.

Try to live on $656 per month in Toronto. I wouldn't wish it on anybody. Minimum wage is far better.
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
DoughHead wrote: I actually provided incorrect information earlier. A single person on Ontario Works can actually receive $656. A single person is not getting $1500. It's just not happening.

Try to live on $656 per month in Toronto. I wouldn't wish it on anybody. Minimum wage is far better.

So where do they live on that kind of income? Try finding an apartment for less than 650 a month... It is simply not happening! Are they living on the street? No.

There is a thing called toronto housing that they are eligible for. Still beats working 40 hours a week... No?

And if it is really that bad, there must be droves of people applying for cleaning jobs and serving coffee... Right?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
39339 posts
6342 upvotes
Winnipeg
^and if anyone wondering about the quality of social housing, it's actually pretty good, I would say it's better than every single place I've rented.
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2014
161 posts
31 upvotes
Scarborough, ON
jblast wrote: So where do they live on that kind of income? Try finding an apartment for less than 650 a month... It is simply not happening! Are they living on the street? No.

There is a thing called toronto housing that they are eligible for. Still beats working 40 hours a week... No?

And if it is really that bad, there must be droves of people applying for cleaning jobs and serving coffee... Right?
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Welfare is not better than full-time minimum wage. And no matter how many times you say it is won't make it so.
Sr. Member
Dec 24, 2013
668 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
DoughHead wrote: With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Welfare is not better than full-time minimum wage. And no matter how many times you say it is won't make it so.
Care to elaborate? Time is a priceless commodity and if someone doesn't have to work 40 hours a week and receive a similar standard of living, then yes, I would say it is better than working a fulltime minimum wage job, which is actually tough to come by these days.


I'm actually standing up for those that do work min. wage jobs. And as someone who pays more in taxes in one month than I spend on my own cost of living in one month, I have looked into it. But thanks for your 'enlightened' input.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)