Discussions

If a job is only worth $X/hour but the local work force will only do it for $X+5/hour, doesn't automatically mean the employer is under paying, it more often means there's a false sense of entitlement amongst the workforce. Look at the the fast food debate in the states. In no way is that a $15/hour job (especially in the American economy, with their lower tax rates and whatnot) yet that's what the employees feel their entitled to.  
 
And once again I'll state, a higher minimum wage is a terrible thing for the economy. It reduces low income employment, gives a false sense of people earning more money, reduces EVERYONE'S buying power, drives inflation, etc etc.  
 
If government wanted to truly help low income people, increase the basic personal tax exemption. But they won't do that, because it will actually help people. It's much better to buy votes with a false promise of more money via raising minimum wage.

Nordberg said "    beefer39 said "    Nordberg said "    Butterflymbca said "What you seem to overlook is that if an employer can find someone willing and able to do the same job for less, then they are working within the open market. I am sorry you lost your job, it sucks but isn't $4 less an hour better than $0 per hour? That's the problem with the sense of entitlement I was talking about earlier.     If you had two people willing to work for you doing I don't know - cleaning your house - one was willing to work for $10 and the other for nothing less than $15 - which would you hire?     Don't tell me the $15/hr worker because when it is money out of your pocket instead of demanding more money in, the story changes - it will always change. THAT is the basis of the free market. " What you seem to overlook is everything I just wrote. I wasn't looking for your pity (I don't want it) when I used myself as an EXAMPLE of the free labour market. If you took the time to look, you would realize that I said "TOO BAD FOR ME!", meaning that my employer found someone on the free and open market that could replace me for cheaper. I don't have a sense of entitlement, because I never argued that I should of kept my job.     I would hire the $10/hour because that person was available on the free and open labour market... again, something that I already said. That being said I would pay them $10.70 as to stay legal.     I never once argued about either of those situations, and if you would take the time to read my posts for what I actually said, you would realize that. Instead you argue against what you think I'm saying, which would be fine if you were not continually misinterpreting me.     Let's go back to your example. The $10.70 or the $15 per hour house cleaner. Let's change it up a bit. Let's say that the choices are between a $12/hour and $15/hour cleaner. You advertise and advertise for a house cleaner, yet no one is willing to clean your house for $10.70/hour. There are plenty of people that will do it for $12, but the people who would do it for $10.70 already have jobs at that wage that are easier and less dangerous than cleaning your house. In fact, some of those jobs still have openings. What should you do? The logical answer would be to offer perhaps $11.50/ hour, see if anyone wanted the job. Or perhaps, offer the $12/hour and get someone already in the market to take the job. However, if you operated like the temporary worker program, then what you would do is import a worker who by law could only work for you at the $10.70/hour or risk deportation. By that limitation, that worker is NOT PART of the free and open market because they are not free to go work for someone else if that other business offers them more. It is the limitation on the imported worker's freedom to move in the labour market that I am arguing against. When you essentially take away the right to job mobility, you form a section of the workforce that is indentured to their employer and is not free. That in turn artificially lowers the wages that the free market would otherwise determine.     It is not a free market when one of the people involved is not free to move about the market.     So again, I say, let the market decide. I'm willing to. In fact, the market decided that I should no longer have that job. I'm okay with that... not happy, but okay with it. I got priced out of the market: again, too bad for me!     If you cannot find workers, then you have to raise wages until you can [b]compete[/b] with the wages being offered by others. If a business is unwilling to play that free market, then that is a problem with their business plan, and should not be fixed by governments making special immigration rules. It messes with the free market forces, hurts the job market, hurts the company's competitors, and artificially drives down wages.     Again and again I have repeated, "let the market decide". I do not understand why you continually argue against a free and open market. " When someone enters another country with the intention of working, they require a work visa. This visa has conditions attached to it.     Companies that bring foreign workers in spend considerable time, money, and effort on these recruitment programs. Yes their intention is to provide labor for their companies. And yes they should have the exclusive right to employ these people for a designated time frame. This is no different than an employment contract.     In your fathers farming example, would it be right if your father spent the time, money and effort to bring foreign workers to help operate the farm only to have the neighbor poach them after a month or two for a dollar or two an hour? I don't think so either.     " And you prove my point...     If a competitor can "poach" a worker by offering them a higher wage, would that not be proof that your business is not offering the "market wage"?     "

And you missed my point.  
 
The people who come to Canada understand that they are here under the terms of a work visa and the employers who have recruited them understand this as well.  
 
There are many people in our area who have arrived here under these programs who have earned the right to work for whoever they chose.