Anytime the government says "hurry up" about anything, I get nervous. I run a small business and i think the idea of increasing minimum wage is a good idea for whom it affects. Due to the higher cost of living in BC it is an essential part of our lifestyle here in BC. But how do i afford to pay people more oney, if i don't make anymore money and my cost of living is just as high? Unfortuneatley since there are no tax breaks for small business in this situation a higher minimum wage will mean a higher unemployment rate, if i can't afford to feed my family how do i afford to give a 2.00/hr raise? Just do it politics doesn't work, if they want changes they are going to have to sit down and figure out how it benefits everyone involved, and not just rubber stamping ideas to buy votes.
I wonder what an intelligent responsible government looks like?

So how many people does your small business employ on a full time and part time basis broke down ? I find it hard to believe that $2 a hour would make or break a company but maybe I'm missing something here so I would love to look at the numbers here.

Maybe ask the small business owners in every other province in Canada how they do it, highlanderpg.

Nobody in business is going to say a minimum wage hike is good. If they can get someone to work for less the minimum they would. Small business is in the business of making money that is why they have a business. Yes they may say they care about employee's but in fact most of the these people could care less. Money is what the care about. The one that holds the most gold rules is the way they see life.

Try running a small business sometime, Chris, and the rest of you who think that we who do have some kind of a licence to print money.

We all know that the minimum wage is inadequate, but in the vast majority of businesses that doesn't mean that the revenue from which it's paid is adequate to do any better, or will be, after it's raised.

An "intelligent government" would devise a way to increase the 'purchasing power' of not only the minimum wage, but of all wages, in terms of what they'll buy. We don't currently have ANY "Party" advocating that.

Simply raising wages the way we've done so often in the past, and are about to do again, just means we're working with bigger figures ~ since the additional cost will have to be recovered in prices. Or the business will have to reduce staff, or go out of business.

I have a small business. I believe that a raise in the minimum wage is needed big time. I would be embarrased to pay anyone as low as 10 bucks an hour. If you can't afford to pay that, you have to raise your prices. If that will cause you to lose your business, you're in the wrong business. Maybe you have to do the work instead of hiring someone else--what a concept eh?

its time! child poverty has increased tooo much! there are way too many people working fo 8 bucks,lets stop this now!! 10 DOLLARS IS FAIR MIN WAGE.at 8 dollars employers are not even treating there employees right.we need to go ahead and raise minimum wage by jan 1st

I think the minimum wage is too low as well, however, it's also not as easy for small business to absorb an increase as pgmatt would have you believe.

Take a simple example of a business that has 5 employees working 8 hour days and the business is open 6 days a week. 2 bucks an hour doesn't sound like much, but the pure wage costs alone for a year would amount to 25K. If people think that most small businesses just have 25K sitting around, they are delusional.

At the end of the day, prices would need to increase to offset the cost increases, people would need to be laid off or the business owner would have to revise their own ROI expectations.

nmg ur delusional! how long can we go to keep these minumum wages the lowest in the ocuntry,it goes up a few bussiness that are touch and go may go down its better for other bussinesss.there other cost bussiness can control like heat and energy savings and food expenses

pgguru, you must have missed the part where I said I think the minimum wage is too low, LOL.

You are right on one point, however, and that is that a boost in the minimum wage WOULD result in some businesses closing. Sure that may be good for other businesses, but what about for the people that got laid off as a result of the first business closing? You don't honestly think that they would all get hired at the other business do you?

You see, this is the problem with issues like these. People let their own beliefs and ideologies cloud their view and they can't see that there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate.

If we increase the minimum wage, should we then also bump up the income tax rates for low income people and revise the brackets so point where you start paying is lower? BC currently has some of the lowest income taxes in Canada for low income individuals so it stands to reason that if we are comparing minimum wages to other provinces in an attempt to be equal with them, we should also equal out the amount of taxes these folks pay, should we not? The way it is right now, our lower minimum wage is partially offset by the tax savings here in BC as compared to other provinces. I don't suspect it completely makes up the difference but it's just one more example of why you can't look at just the gross wage difference.

It depends on the industry. Some industries go up in value, some down.

For the guys doing the hand car washes, etc, wage increases will be hard to justify. For other industries, it will be not so bad.

When we see that Canada is ranked in about the middle when it comes to world-wide gdp/per person http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/economy/income-per-capita.aspx, yet scores poorly when it comes to labour productivity http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Economy/measuring-productivity-canada.aspx we can see that Canada's economy is not terribly productive. It doesn't really matter if its outmoded business practices, or lazy workers or management that cause it, what matters is that others are doing a better job per person (on a global scale).

What will happen with a higher minimum wage is it will 'force' businesses that are not competitive to become competitive, or close, and thus raise the overall bar and productivity in this province.

Its amazing that those who defend capitalism the most are often the most unwilling to look at their own industries or their own sunk costs in their business and draw the hard conclusions.

The business owners must realize that if your business doesn't provide the return on your investment you need, without providing your workers with the necessities of life, its probably time to close your business.

Unfortunately, you're just one step above a slumlord, and are encouraging the poor productivity of Canadian workers. Find greater efficiencies in your business, find another business, or start working for someone else, because your business model is flawed. Buy a small car instead of that big truck, invest in better insulation to lower your energy costs. Shop your suppliers on a weekly basis to find out who's been sneaking in higher prices because they're your 'buddy'. Install 'security cameras' so as to better monitor employee productivity. If you're in a franchise realize that you don't own a small business, you own a serfdom, sell it and open your own business.

Capitalism works both ways I'm afraid. And yes, I own my own business and struggle with this question on a daily basis.

In my business I would be embarassed to pay that little, too, Supertech. Though I have no doubt that if I were mean-spirited and only concerened about the "bottom line", I could currently replace the employees I have with ones who would work for a wage closer to present minimum than the more than 2 x's the prosposed minimum I now pay them.

I believe a great many other employers are in the same position. But we don't do that, because contrary to what Chris and others seem to think, we DO value our employees. There IS more to being in business than just making bigger profits.

Could I do without them, and do everything myself? Yes, in my business I could. It would be difficult, but it could be done. I would have to work a lot harder to earn what I currently earn, but I could do it. Though I really don't want to. (Most days, anyways!)

Regardless, as with any other employer/employee relationship, I am subject to a very simple economic fact when it comes to incomes ~ if I'm not getting mine, it won't be long before they won't be getting theirs.

None of us in business "make" money, we can only "get" money. In exchange for the goods or services we make or distribute.

What I "get" is wholly dependent on the willingness of someone else who HAS money to spend it with my business.

What my employees get, to them, at least, is based solely on TIME. So many dollars for so many hours. They still get paid a pre-determined amount whether I've sold anything over their pay-period or not, and will do so as long as they're employed, and I've money or other seizable Assets to pay them.

Many of my other costs are also based on time. Either partly, or wholly. And most of these costs have risen steadily over time, regardless of whether my ability to meet them has increased or not.

A hike in my property taxes, for instance, isn't based on whether my firm is more profitable or not. It doesn't take into account whether my business is even profitable at all.

Hydro and telephone bills and other utility bills come in at a certain minimum each period whether I've turned on a light, or made a phone call, or flushed the toilet.

All these costs have to be recovered in price. And while raising the minimum wage may mean an increase in spending from those receiving that wage, the rate that the costs borne by the employer rise will ALWAYS still be greater than the rate the income actually received by the employee will.

The employer's cost is the GROSS amount of the wage increase, plus an increase in mandated contributions like EI, CPP and WCB, etc. that he pays. The employee only receives the NET amount of the increase to spend. To meet prices that have to rise by at least the GROSS amount. The advantage just is not there. We're simply dealing with bigger figures, and not any overall increase in purchasing power ~ ultimately, just the opposite.

The answer, and I fully agree with those who say the status quo in regards to minimum wage is not acceptable, is to increase the PURCHASING POWER of that, and every other wage. We can't do that the way it's being proposed, simply by paying a couple of bucks an hour more. No doubt we'll do just that, though, and once again repeat our past failures to achieve the desired end.

Thanks for the posts by you small business owners, that is great insight. Something you said that is sadly overshadowed is the part about "respecting your employees". Respect has to be earned and that takes a hands on business owner. Too many businessess have far removed ownership and poor management in place. I don't think the general public would have much of a problem paying a few dollars more for good, friendly service. When I cannot find help other than a girl standing in the corner popping her gum and complaining how hard she works - or a guy texting on his phone while playing with the ring through his lip - then I have a hard time thinking we need legislation to pay them more...

Worrying about the lack of productivity in someone earning minimum wage while ignoring the same in people who are high paid is dishonest.

Someone getting paid $25 an hour doing "Spark Watch" at West Fraser Mill is working less than someone fiddling with their lip ring or chatting on their phone. I still know people who show up to work at mills stoned every day.

Unions protect them. Those people can't think for themselves or speak for themselves. Unions have to go simply because the officers in the Unions are the crooks---doing nothing for big money.

Your right supertech the world needs more CEO's making $20-$30-$40 million in salary, stock options, and bonus', while their underlings continue to make $8 an hour?

How many CEO's did we see receiving huge compensation while the companies they ran were getting bailed out with taxpayer money in the last few years?

Incompetant CEO's getting bailed out with taxpayer money. Many of those taxpayers making minimum wage.


Who are the crooks again, supertech?

Small businesses vary considerably. One cannot lump them together in one category. Here are a few examples.
-----------------------------
Small Business category 1 - There are those which run technical/trade/professional services. They typically have a high labour content, say hovering around 75%. However, they also have high hourly or daily rates which are nowhere near the minimum wage.

Perhaps they have a “gopher” who helps out with some simple things who might be minimum wage. Likely not the case though. Might be more in the $10 to $12 range depending on how capable the person may actually be. In either case, a lift would be in order if the minimum wage goes up. That is the part that people generally do not think about. All others who made $10, such as many fast food outlets, will likely be getting increases as well to take them over the minimum wage. In other words, it keeps a bit of a spread.

So if the total payroll is $500,000 with a total cost of business being say $700,000 the $2/hr increment for one employee and maybe a $1/hr lift for a couple of other lower paid people, will affect the business with say a 1% increase. If the business is making an actual profit after everything has been paid for, that would work without immediately having to increase rates to clients. However, those increases will likely come within a year, or other pay increases may take longer to get.
--------------------------
Small business category 2 –
A small recycling business - same number of people, say 8 – 5 at $8/hr, 2 @ $10 and the working owner at $12/hr all plus benefits. So let’s say a payroll at $175,000. Say the total business operates on $250,000/year

The $2 increment goes to the $8 and $10/hr people and the owner takes a $1/hr increase. That means the payroll increases to about $205,000. The differential between payroll and total business costs has gone down from $75,000 to $45,000. The working owner has already taken an incremental increase less than the others. No one is going to find the extra $30,000 which allows the owner to keep the cost to the customer the same by cutting back on rent, electricity, gas, phone, bookkeeping, vehicle, etc.

The $30,000 on a business that was operating at $250,000 per year means that in this case, a 25% raise to a majority of the workers will translate to an increase of 12% to the customer.

Problem is, in this case the customer will likely not pay more for the recycled material, so one person will be let go and the others will be asked to take a few weeks of unpaid vacation. The owner and the higher paid workers will be trying to take up the slack to make up the difference in production. If an increase in payment for recycled materials does not come through, we have another business failure.

Those businesses willing to hire people “under the table” may continue for a while longer. Look at the USA for ample examples of that.
---------------------------
Small business category 3 – a retail business with 3 employees and a working owner. 2 employees are at $8/hr, the assistant to the owner makes $11/hr and the owner, who sells and does bookkeeping, etc. takes in $16/hr. Total payroll with benefits is $100,000.

The total annual cost of inventory plus other costs of doing business is $250,000. Thus payroll is just under 30%.

Everyone gets a $2/hr raise, the owner take $1/hr. That bumps the payroll up by about $18,000. That means a 5% increase in the cost of doing business.

Options?
1. Cut back on hours with one person on the retail floor more often and the owner filling in a bit – ah….. the joys of being the owner!! LOL
2. Cut back store hours.
3. Fewer sales
4. Buy less choice for products – just get the known sellers
5. Be out of stock more often so that you provide “special services” of ordering in with a deposit.
6. Up prices of most popular items.

Conclusion?

Draw your own. Too hot a topic.

I also looked at productivity which is essentially the total product/service price to the consumer divided by the input hours.

The retail sales in a country go into the GDP of a country.

So with respect to the 3 businesses above, here is the productivity perspective of each after a lift of $2 in the $8/hr minimum wage.

Business 1
Productivity increase – if the cost is not passed on to the consumer, there is no productivity increase since that is defined as business output in dollars divided by hours worked.

Business 2
If the customer will pay 12% more for the product, and everyone works the same hours, there will be a productivity increase since that is measured in dollars not in volume of recyclables.

If there is no dollar increase, but the same amount of product will be generated with the same number of hours work with fewer people, there is no increase in productivity either, even though the individual worker/owner works longer, but the total hours stay the same.

Business 3
If the retailer manages to tweak the way of doing business and keep the total value of sales the same with fewer work hours, there is an increase in productivity and a loss in quality of the service to the customer.
-----------------------------

Productivity measurement as done by bean counters without other issues coming into the equation is really just an indicator to explore further, otherwise totally meaningless from the point of view of taking action.

As the one site says, add value to a car by selling it for more dollars by adding a GPS to it and the productivity goes up.

Increase the "added value" and productivity goes up.

Sit on cheap oil, extract it for little money, and prodouctivity in the industrial sector goes up. That is why Qatar, UAE, Norway, Ireland and others have high levels of "productivity" in their industrial sector. The same as Canada with our oil sands.

There was a shareholder's suggestion made one time at the annual meeting of one of the large chartered Banks, one where the top brass were taking home multi-million dollar annual salaries and other perks, that there should be a limit on executive salaries ~ they should be not allowed to rise beyond ten times what the lowest paid employee grosses.

That if the guy at the top wants more, everyone right down the ladder to the bottom gets more, too. Of course, those at the top were aghast at such a suggestion, (even though I believe there is a similar policy already in place in Japan), and couldn't get to their "spin-doctors" fast enough to make sure the word got out that top-notch talent like themselves couldn't be attracted unless the sky was the limit in executive compensation. Maybe somebody should've asked them, if there was a 10 x's limit in place everywhere, "Where else are you going to work?"

Thanks for those two posts, Gus. You've identified some more problems with the minimum wage and the way 'productivity' is calculated using GDP. It is a highly flawed statistic when used the way many are prone to use it.

The simple fact of the matter is that an hour's labour is an hour's labour, wherever it is performed in the world, and whatever 'monetary value' is attached to it in the currency of the country where it is performed.

What should be looked at is just how much, in actual product, is produced per man/hour. I think we in the western democracies still have quite a broad edge over the emerging economic powerhouses that have 'captured' so many of our markets with their 'cheaper' products, when it's looked at that way.

The current system of finance, however, distorts reality. Under it countries compete for international markets and all have a fetish about always trying to run what is called a "favourable" trade balance. Though how exporting MORE "real" wealth ~ resources, manufactures, etc., ~ from our country in exchange for LESS alternate, or the same kind, of "real" wealth imported from some other country is "favourable" to us in any "real" sense is highly questionable.

apoliticalgeek wrote: "It doesn't really matter if its outmoded business practices, or lazy workers or management that cause it, what matters is that others are doing a better job per person (on a global scale)."

Lazy workers does not even factor into the equation. Nor does a “better” job from the point of view of quality necessarily factor in.

Here is how productivity is so nicely explained in your link:

"Many people confuse the concept of productivity with that of work intensity. But improving productivity is not about working longer or harder, it’s about working smarter. It’s about finding more efficient and effective ways to produce goods and services so that more can be produced with the same amount of effort. It’s also about producing higher-value-added products and services that are worth more in the marketplace. The onus of improving productivity lies not just with governments, but with individual firms.

“Challenges to improving productivity are multi-faceted. To enhance productivity, Canada must foster a culture of innovation, open industries to competitive pressures, and improve the level and quality of capital intensity.”

They also provide the normal example – automation:

“Take, for example, the auto manufacturer that introduces new robotics technologies that cut the time it takes to assemble cars, meaning that the same number of workers can now produce more cars per day, without working longer or harder.”

We have obviously seen the effect of that right here with the efficiencies in the sawmill industry. The theory of producing more with the same number of people is not the way it typically works other than in rapidly expanding countries like China who create a world market fro their less expensive products on a world scale, but considerably higher end product when compared to their past internal performance.

In our case it is normally producing the same with fewer people. The productivity per worker is increased, but the productivity per citizen is not necessarily increased

Here are some figures taken from the CIA World Factbook which is one of the more comprehensive, databases readily accessible on the net with some good starting backgrounders.

Figures are for Canada; USA; China

gdp/capita $37,885 $45,579 $6,577
% of pop=workers 54.47% 49.70% 61.16%
gdp/worker $69,549 $91,699 $10,754
% gdp=agriculture 2.3% 1.2% 10.6%
% gdp=industry 26.4% 21.9% 27.2%
%gdp=services 71.3% 76.9% 33.2%
%workers inAgriculture 2.0% 0.7% 10.6%
%workers in Industry 19.0% 20.3% 46.8%
%workers in Services 76.0% 79.0% 42.6%
productivity indicator Agr 115.0% 171.4% 100.0%
productivity indicator Ind 138.9% 107.9% 58.1%
productivity indicator Serv 93.8% 97.3% 77.9%

The productivity indicator is the GDP % of sector divided by the Workforce% of sector. The higher the percentage the more productive the country is in that sector versus another sector in the same country. It is not a country to country indicator.

The primary reason why the productivity indicator for industry is higher in Canada than the USA is due to the tar sands.
Note the high agricultural productivity in the USA as well as Canada. European countries are typically much lower.
As I said, the number is an indicator of internal effectiveness of a sector.

Here are 23 countries/city states which I rated based on the service sector which is the largest sector in all advanced economies in the world. I multiplied the percentage of the GDP which the sector contributes to the economy (the first figure) by the productivity indicator (the second figure) to arrive at a relative impact of the two.

1 Hong Kong 109.4% 91.9% 101%
2 Luxembourg 106.7% 86.0% 92%
3 Japan 112.5% 76.5% 86%
4 France 109.9% 78.9% 87%
5 Taiwan 119.3% 69.2% 83%
6 Italy 112.3% 73.1% 82%
7 Belgium 106.0% 77.4% 82%
8 Germany 106.6% 72.3% 77%
9 USA 97.3% 76.9% 75%
10 Austria 103.0% 69.0% 71%
11 Denmark 96.9% 74.9% 73%
12 Switzerland 98.2% 71.0% 70%
13 Netherlands 93.6% 74.9% 70%
14 UK 93.3% 75.0% 70%
15 Singapore 95.0% 72.4% 69%
16 Canada 93.8% 71.3% 67%
17 Australia 93.3% 70.0% 65%
18 Sweden 89.8% 71.6% 64%
19 Finland 94.4% 66.1% 62%
20 Liechtenstein 97.5% 54.0% 53%
21 Norway 76.7% 58.3% 45%
22 Ireland 73.1% 49.0% 36%
23 China 77.9% 33.2% 26%

Talking about 'productivity', Ireland, which only a few years ago was being touted as the country in Europe to emulate in terms of its economic performance, is now almost in the same spot as Iceland. About to be the next economic basket case.

The questions remain the same, though they're never answered. If a country CANNOT, (never mind whether it wants to, or not), buy and fully pay for ALL its own production from the wages, salaries, and profits distributed in the course of making that production, then how CAN it buy the EXCHANGE of that production through international trade? Why do we continually have to import some other countries' 'money', (which is "effective demand" for THEIR goods and services, NOT OURS), over and above what receive in actual imports from them, to 'financially' live?

Socredible - I learned quite a bit this morning by trying to make some sense of the information easily available to me.

The interpretations are mine, of course. See if anyone has some different interpretations.

I think the Conference Board's information could use some more depth in places.

With respect to small business, some like NMG, are on the right track. But, as I hopefully showed, one small business is not the same as another small business. The ones who are worst off are the ones who cannot pass on their increased costs, especially when payroll is a major part of their business.

And we wonder why we have outsourced so many of our jobs by either moving services to other countries or buying products form other countries that we used to make at home.

In the overall scheme of things, I think you'll find that all businesses are having increased difficulty in passing on their costs.

The only ones who don't are those that are able to monopolise some market. And they take full advantage of the situation, as our quick-to-rise slow-to-fall gasoline price at the pump clearly illustrates.

Fundamentally, this is because, in the economy as a whole, wages and salaries (still the largest source of incomes by far), are generally spent as received for the most part.

While costs as a whole, of which these incomes were a part, are carried forward into prices.

As we lengthen and broaden the whole structure of production through making productive processes of all kinds more 'capital' intensive and less 'labour' intensive, we increasingly get ourselves into the position where we've paid out incomes in one cycle of production, and spent them AT THAT TIME on consumables available AT THAT TIME, while the cost of those incomes carries forward into succeeding cycles of production, to be recovered from prices SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

So long as we continue to produce goods of some nature which do not come within the buying range of the public as we distribute wages to make them, i.e., all manner of "capital" goods (things to make things with), public works, military hardware, exports to other countries, Olympic games, Site C dams, etc., the system can be kept working, albeit with ongoing inflation. (Causing still further inflation, while it can, and then a costly 'correction'.)

But this is NOT how any sane economic system should work. We put ourselves in a position where we increasingly have to do additional work, not because in any real sense this extra work is needed, or often even desired, simply to distribute enough incomes to be able to fully claim goods for our own consumption that we've already made.

Long term, this cannot work. No country can continually export more than it imports without eventually bankrupting its customers, and itself. Nor can any country try to build itself up industrially endlessly in the hopes that it can recover its costs from foreigners by 'capturing their markets'. Many have tried. Spain made the attempt under Primo de Rivera after World War One. That culminated in the Spanish Civil War when it went sour. Italy tried it under Mussolini. And Germany under Hitler. And the USA under FDR. World War Two was the culmination of those attempts. Hirohito's Japan tried it a little differently, but not much, and it eventually had to go down the warpath, too. China's trying it now. The end result is almost certainly going to be the same. Afghanistan is simply a "live-fire" exercise for what's ahead.

You might like the linked opinion piece if you have not read it already.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22211.htm

Germany in relation to the rest of Europe and the world as a parallel to China in relation to its "trading" partners.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/09/is-the-eurozone-germanys-stalking-horse.html

From the first opinion piece:-"According to the World Economic Forum, forty percent of the entire world's wealth has been destroyed in the recent financial collapse. In the U.S. alone, between housing and the stock market, more than $18 trillion in wealth has already been destroyed."

Notice that what the author calls "wealth" has NOT been 'destroyed' at all. What has been 'destroyed' is the monetary REFLECTION of that wealth.

There has been NO physical destruction (yet)of all that the author says has been destroyed. There may yet be, such is the power of " $ -sign figures" over "facts" that we're wont to often try to change the latter to fit the former, rather than the other way around.

The American factories ~ the ones, and they are still considerble ~ that haven't been dismantled and carted off to some Third-World sweatland, are all still in place.

The oil is still being pumped and refined, the coal mined, and the minerals extracted and smelted, and refined. The land is still being farmed, the forests are still growing trees, and there's even some mills left to process them when the still-in-existence American logger is allowed to cut them. Hydro-electric and thermal- electric power plants are still generating electricity.

And the mechanisms for distribution of all this wealth are all still in place. The railways haven't been torn up, the freeways are as clogged as ever, and no major store or shopping centre has shelves that are bare.

Houses that were there before the recent financial debacles are still there. No one has "destroyed" them.

Nor have they "destroyed" their current, or foreclosed upon, former occupants. They're still alive, even if they've been dealt a financial blow that's laid them low, "figuratively" speaking..

And how can the Chinese holders of all those trillions of dollars in American debt collect on it? Well, in 'financial terms', they can't. It's never intended that they should. Any more than Britain and France and Belgium could collect reparations from Weimar Germany.

Ones the Germans were more than willing to pay, the only way they could pay ~ by exporting German goods to those named countries.

Only those named countries didn't want German goods. Any more than the Chinese want American ones today. Not in anywhere near the proportion they'd have to accept them to clear off the debt.

Such an influx of American products would have the same effect an influx of German products would've had to the named countries ninety years ago. Massive unemployment in the receiving countries. And Heaven forbid that ANYONE should be without a "job". Especially in Communist China, a country set up originally as a "Worker's Paradise". Only the meaning of that to its architects isn't that there be a conscious attempt to give workers opportunities for more leisure, but rather ones for doing more work.

Just like here, there too it is an anathema that anyone, anywhere, amongst the "masses" should receive anything he isn't currently "working" for. Even from, no, especially from, a country that was indebted to his.

Why the whole 'moral' structure of society would be irrepairably threatened. Not to mention that of governmental control over said workers, who must not only 'work', but more importantly, work "under direction".

After all who are we mere mortals of the 20th and 21st Centuries to violate St. Paul's dictum of the 1st Century, followed a religiously in an atheistic Communist land as it has been in a so-called Christian one ~ "Let none amongst ye eat who has not first worked." ?

Perfectly true when it was uttered, when we had, and continued to have for centuries afterwards, a world where every "shoulder" was needed to secure the necessities of life, and shirking could well mean actual, physical starvation or other genuine deprivation.

But far from true today. In a world where 'production' is no longer the main problem, unless it's over-production. But 'distribution' is. And one that has a solution that still eludes us.

Why? Because the agency of distribution is "money", and we, for some unknown reason, seem as determined as the author of that piece obviously is to see 'money' as what it IS NOT, and ignore what it IS. It is definitely NOT "wealth".

To bring what is now becoming too long a post to a sudden end, "money" is not, nor can it ever be, a "stock" of something, but is rather a "flow". And when it cannot be a "flow" in concert with the physical realities of actual production and consumption, which it currently can't, (but could be, if we wanted to make it so),we'll always end up in a position where the "reflection" is flawed and distorts the reality.