The whole question is - what does "a living wage" mean? If it means providing the poor with sufficient money that they don't die, we're already meeting that threshold in Canada, as there is no evidence of a significant death rate among the poor here. I think what people really mean when they use that phrase is "a comfortable life" wage, and by comfortable life they mean middle class life (steady employment, own home/condo, own car, etc.)
While I understand that consumerism requires consumers in order to work, and that you have to have a significant middle class in order to have consumers, the truth is that you don't require everyone to be middle class for the system to work. There will always be poor people. The only difference socialism makes is that in such societies there are an awful lot more poor people (and fewer rich)!
Further, I don't think we need more people attending university. In fact, we already have too many. Our universities are bloated with courses which do not prepare students for productive remunerative employment in our economy (philosophy, sociology, etc.). While I think that universities should be free to offer such courses, I don't think public funding should support them. Let the idle rich study philosophy if they so choose (at the true cost of such studies)!
One of the biggest obstacles to restructuring the labour force (sorry, but there is NO prospect of any return to significant levels of blue collar manufacturing employment in Canada) is how to: a) encourage more young people to learn a trade, and b) remove the obstacles to entering a trade. For reasons that I will never understand, today's 20 year old would rather work part time at the GAP (making minimum wage) than learn to be a plumber or electrician. This is a problem with their perception of the reality of the job market/Canadian economy. The truth is that tradesmen will always be required so long as there are facilities/equipment to install, repair and maintain. This is a captive industry. You can't call a plumber in China to come and fix your sink. As to the obstacles, the primary problem is apprenticeship ratios. They are backwards. Instead of requiring 4 journeyman to one apprentice, the ratio should be 1 journeyman to 4 apprentices. What happens as a result of the current apprenticeship system is that when demand for a trade spikes (like the oil sands boom), employers can't hire new apprentice tradesmen to fill the demand because of apprenticeship ratios. As a result, they end up having to recruit people from distant places (Newfoundland) at much higher costs, or rely on immigration. Meanwhile, able bodied young Canadians sit unemployed at home dreaming of working in the back office of some insurance company (a job vacancy that won't be coming available for quite some time).
As to law school tuition, the truth is that the vast majority of law students are making a poor investment. Only a small percentage of them will ever earn the $350,000 income you reference. An education in the law is not without worth, even if your intended career is in the business world and you never intend to practice law. However, it's grossly overpriced in any context except if you end up being a top earning lawyer. Medical schools are smarter in this respect, keeping a tight rein on class sizes, ensuring that there will be a continuing demand (a shortage, currently) for doctors.
Getting back to the topic at hand, Goodwill is closing stores because they are losing money in those stores. End of story. They provided employment for people at those stores for as long as they could, and now they can't do it anymore. Frankly, if you've ever been in a Goodwill store as well as a Value Village, you would immediately understand why Goodwill would lose to the competition. Did the union contribute to the demise? Partially. They created some costs (mostly relating to staffing rules) that overran the small operating margins of these stores. Has the union held a press conference stating they are prepared to revisit these provisions of the collective agreement in order to save some jobs and keep these stores open? No, of course not! They prefer to propagate the ridiculous assertion that Goodwill is actually making money and that the closures are unnecessary. Ridiculous as that position is, it's what their members (and the media) want to hear, so they continue on with it. However, I think Goodwill was doomed anyway, given that their competition was going to beat them into the dust no matter what (Value Village, because it's better run in every way, and Salvation Army because of their reliance on volunteers (in part))
Better hope that lesson is learned before you have kids since it gets even harder.
