[chrstphrhrt]

I think a lot of full time workers can still be wage slaves.

Maybe a living wage is a better benchmark. The minimum required to "thrive" with a normal list of opportunities/choices that people can be expected to encounter. E.g., car required if not living in high-density urban environment, raising children, having pets, buying simple furniture, healthy food, internet access, life and house/rental insurance etc. It's all about access to thriving, not access to luxury, and in each place and circumstance that access is different, but living wages can be indexed to all these factors. The more factors included to counter the various axes of oppression the better.

For example, in Canada we have the Canadian Centre for Policy alternatives which publishes living wage data/indexes every year for a number of cities.

A few years back I helped cofound a programming and design worker co-op with a handful of other people and we discussed using such an index to determine salaries for members in different cities. E.g. if the Montreal team gets 4x the local living wage, then the Vancouver team also gets 4x their local living wage, even if the absolute amount appears higher.

[maxerickson]

I think that is another interesting earning level to look at, but what if the living wage exceeds the per capita GDP (or GDP/work force if you want to better account for children)?

[hwstar]

You also don't have Employment at-will and binding arbitration in Canada. The environment for workers in Canada is fairer than in the US.