Financing Human Capital Development By Increasing The Minimum Wage: Evidence From Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides empirical evidence that using the minimum wage as a tool to generate extra taxes to establish a fully publically-funded higher education system is a harmless approach to boost funding for human capital development without changing governments spending priorities or raising current tax rates. The paper proposes a method to finance human capital development through higher education by generating more income taxes from a higher minimum wage and through an effective link of the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in Canada. The paper also argues that indexed minimum wage adjustments will help in fighting poverty, maintain an acceptable living standard for minimum wage workers, reduce dependence on government subsidies, and make-work more attractive. The paper concludes that using minimum wage adjustments as a tool to generate tax revenues and fund higher education could be an effective fiscal tool and could be considered a safe political instrument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it