this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
90 points (88.8% liked)

Canada

7133 readers
550 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 22 points 6 months ago (3 children)

We don't have a lack of labour. That's a myth the neoliberals are pushing to keep wages low. There's a lack of businesses who are willing to raise their wages to the point that people would be willing to work for them.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And keeping businesses dependent on sub-livable wage labor is problematic.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. We bring in immigrants because our economy is addicted to paying poverty wages. People will post the studies showing that immigration doesn't suppress the wages of good paying jobs as though that's a winning argument, but what they're ignoring is that that's because the economy has a built-in assumption that immigrants are all paid starvation wages.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That's an argument to end the exploitative TFW program and increase unionization rates. Not against immigration generally.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree. But that's not the approach the Liberal party is taking, and their approach deserves criticism.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Agreed on this absolute agreement. 😁

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I agree with the sentiment that wages need to be rise to provide a better quality of life.

I do have some questions however, if we did not have a larger working class than retired how could we sustainably fund their retirement?

It's a well-known fact that our population demographics are only getting older. He only way I could see this being sustainable is if you restructured our economic system.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The current working population only partially funds the retired income. Significant part of retirement income in Canada is prepaid in the form of the CPP which is sustainable, institutional pension plans, and private savings beyond, often in the form of real estate and other assets. The money the current working population pays for retirees is towards OAS and GIS.

But in my opinion there's a better way to look at it by looking at the real economy, not the financial metadata. Can we feed, clothe, house and medicate our retired population? How many working people do we need to do that? I think given how much food we produce and waste and how few people produce it, that food isn't a problem. Neither is clothing. Housing on the other hand could be a problem since it already is. The same is true for healthcare. Can these be solved so that we don't reach a place where we run out of people to sustain the retired population? Housing can for sure. Once built it requires a lot less labor to maintain. Healthcare, isn't that obvious. Personally I think it's solvable but I can't present an obvious argument.

Finally, we have acute income problems with the working population today. As in, a good chunk of the working population can't afford to live where it works. If we don't solve them, any real problems with retirees become worse. For example PSWs being close to minimum wage workers, can't afford to live where they have to care for retirees.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

I would say it's a self solving problem. There's a negative feedback effect between economic outcomes and population growth. Plus shitloads of automation technology reducing the demand for certain kinds of work. We don't need to keep suppressing wages by flooding the labour market.

Immigration with the express purpose of keeping labour costs low (which is the Liberals' stated reason for their current approach) is basically trading human dignity in the form of a living wage in exchange for subsidizing businesses who refuse to pay their workers more.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How would a lack of labour keep wages low? It's the most basic law of economics, low supply means high prices.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because I said it's the myth of labour shortage that keeps wages low. As in, the neoliberals say that there is a labour shortage, which lets them justify policies that increase the supply of labour.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Feb 2024 unemployment rate was 5.8%. That's basically full employment. Unless you think that's a conspiracy?

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not only this unemployment number does not count people who have given up looking, but 5.8% is 2.3 million people looking for a job at a wage they can't find. This is definitely not full employment, by definition. No conspiracy required.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How do you define full employment then? Economists say roughly 5%, as you need a little flex since you can't perfectly match everyone with a job. The link from Stats Canada also included the participation rate, which is 65.3%. This is fairly typical and doesn't suggest the unemployment rate is boosted by people leaving the workforce.