Alberta Politics Thread

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not going to do the whole epic 'why Locke is again Minimum Wage Increase' rant again. This will probably be the 5th time (?) I've outlined exactly why but I'll give you the coles notes version:

Why raise minimum wage? To help people who have to live on it.

Who are those people? Information suggests that the vast, vast majority of people on minimum wage are very young, or very old and that its supplemental, ie. they're not living on that money they're using it as an addition to regular income.

The number of people who are in dire straights and living off of minimum wage is actually very small, I vaguely recall a number of people under 10,000.

There are more efficient ways to help those people than to give every single person what amounts to a pretty HUGE RAISE.

Secondly by raising everything for everyone you effectively raise nothing for anyone.

The whole point is purchasing power. If you flood the economy with a high minimum wage the cost of everything will increase as a result so their snazzy new $15/hour will buy them exactly the same amount as their last wage did while levying a hefty increase in prices on everyone.

Thats the nutshell of it. If you want the whole meal deal contact a moderator and see if they can dig up my initial posts on it in the original thread.

According to a report by the Alberta Government in 2014 only 35% of minimum wage earners were under 20 and 11% were over 55. Please explain where you have come up with "a vast vast majority" from. Maybe the numbers I'm looking at are wrong.

In the same study it shows that 20% of Albertans earn less than the 15 dollar/hour benchmark, quite a large number of people, many more than what I would have figured.

What does the average#sub-$15 per hour worker look like? An article published in May 2015 on the Parkland Institute’s website reveals that this worker is likely a woman over the age of 25, working full-time and living independently. This worker is also just as likely to be working for a large corporation (more than 100 employees) than a small business. This profile does not reflect the image opponents are trying to portray, of some high school kid living with their parents and working for video game money.

Here is an interesting article on 2 States, one did what you want in cutting spending, cutting teachers.......the other did things that our current government is doing.

Now tell me why none of this will work here?


http://m.mic.com/articles/111424/2-y...omy#.DMOgZOLOo

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Well "highly doubt it" is just speculation I suppose. I can't combat that but appears the older positions will be eliminated right off the bat. New highers will be greeters and servers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-ndp-1.3453493

Guess we'll find out.

I quickly browsed through the article but I didn't notice anything about the older positions being eliminated at all, just the points you made about the new servers.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Locke

But it isnt 'a dollar or two an hour' its $5.

To put it into perspective at 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year this is an extra $10,000 per year per employee, they assume theres about 400,000 minimum wage earners in Alberta.

Yup. Couple 'o bucks here and there right?

I'm sure that's just a typo, but just over 2% of the workforce in Alberta make minimum wage (or they did at this time last year), which is about 50,000 people.

https://work.alberta.ca/documents/al...ge-profile.pdf

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Here is an interesting article on 2 States, one did what you want in cutting spending, cutting teachers.......the other did things that our current government is doing.

Now tell me why none of this will work here?


http://m.mic.com/articles/111424/2-y...omy#.DMOgZOLOo

The economic success in Minnesota is not because of higher taxes at all...at least according to their own governor. It's because of business friendly policies like huge corporate tax breaks and massive incentives to bring in new business. Have we done that here? Also another example might include Texas. Pretty much the exact opposite of Minnesota and just a smidge behind them even with the falling price of oil.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The economic success in Minnesota is not because of higher taxes at all...at least according to their own governor. It's because of business friendly policies like huge corporate tax breaks and massive incentives to bring in new business. Have we done that here? Also another example might include Texas. Pretty much the exact opposite of Minnesota and just a smidge behind them even with the falling price of oil.

So a comprehensive economic growth and development plan that makes sound economic sense? No thanks.
Raising minimum wage while lowering corporate tax? Ridiculous.

[Enoch Root]

Everybody wants to see single moms get a raise. And everyone wants to see the standard of living for all citizens rise, and continue to rise. We also want a healthy economy. That's all great, but you can’t just talk about raising minimum wage and state it’s a good thing or a bad thing.

There are all kinds of variables. But there are a few key ones that make for a good place to start the conversation: magnitude, scope, and environment.

Let’s start with magnitude: how much is the increase? If it’s been years, and we’re talking 10%, then being able to absorb it should be relatively easy. But if we’re talking 50%, that’s a very different situation. Forced changes of a large magnitude tend to have significant and often unforeseen consequences. In this case, we are talking about a very large increase – the magnitude is very significant (and the environment is unstable).

Scope/sensitivity: how many people are affected by it? What types of businesses? Are we talking 1% of the workforce? Or 5%? Is it primarily low-wage government jobs in a stable economy (like Winnipeg, or to a lesser extent, Minnesota)? Or are we talking about seasonal, or temporary jobs in an economy that is more volatile and sensitive to external forces? I don’t really know what the scope is in this case, but there is no question that many of the industries that will be affected are such that are sensitive to external forces.

Environment: Are the affected workers falling behind the rest of the economy? Are tax revenues increasing or decreasing? Is the economy growing? What about inflation? Most importantly, employment expense is the largest, and most easily ‘changeable’ expense for most businesses, so is the environment for small businesses healthy? Are taxes being raised or cut?

Businesses exist as a mechanism for the owners to make a profit. That means money in their pocket, after expenses and taxes. No more, no less. Say it again – businesses exist in order to make a profit after expenses and taxes.

Employment expense and taxes are two of the largest costs to running a business. More importantly for this conversation, employment expense is the most manageable cost – the one that, when changes are needed, is the easiest – and most impactful – to change.

Notley has raised corporate taxes 20%. That is a huge hit to profitability, and there are only so many ways that that can be absorbed:

1. The owners can take a personal pay cut. This seems to be what socialists want, I think. However, only a fool would expect that to be the outcome. Especially now, when it’s doubtful that very many companies are rolling in profits. Business owners don’t want to do this, so…
   
2. The costs can be passed on to consumers. This is the easiest, first, and most common reaction. It generates inflation and does little to nothing for the economy (other than making businesses less competitive vs. counterparts outside the tax jurisdiction). And it can only happen if the market will absorb higher prices. In Alberta, at the moment, higher prices are a non-starter. That means,
   
3. Reduce the expenses that can be reduced. For most companies in most instances, that means employment expense. Like it or not, that is the primary answer for most companies, as seen over and over in countless situations. It’s why the unemployment rate is the barometer of the economy.

But here’s the thing, Notley has raised taxes AND they are rising wage expense, at the same time. And they are doing it in an environment where costs cannot be passed on to the consumer, and where unemployment is already rising (rapidly).

Predicting the outcome of this is pretty easy: the primary option/result for most companies is reducing the wage-force. In some cases, substantially.

Are there instances where raising the minimum wage is good for the economy? Of course. Are there instances where it’s needed? Absolutely.
But where is Alberta right now?

We are talking about an increase of a large magnitude. We are talking about an economy that is sensitive to change. And we are talking about an environment that could not be less-conducive to forced wage increases at the moment. An economy where layoffs are already rampant, the tax base is shrinking, and taxes are rising.

The NDP has taken something that, in and of itself, should be a good thing, and created the perfect storm at exactly the right time to ensure maximum failure with it.

Apologies for the long post.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm sure that's just a typo, but just over 2% of the workforce in Alberta make minimum wage (or they did at this time last year), which is about 50,000 people.

https://work.alberta.ca/documents/al...ge-profile.pdf

How many make less then $15/hr though? Its gotta be 10x that.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

How many make less then $15/hr though? Its gotta be 10x that.

Yeah, I feel like it'd not only affect people making less than $15 an hour, it'd affect people all the way up to $17-18 an hour, with diminishing effects as we move upward.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

.

Well written. Thank you.

[chemgear]

In before another "it's not 20%, it's just 2%" and the "if you're a business that can't handle paying living wages or just 2% then you should be driven out of business anyhow".

[PsYcNeT]

I'm waiting for someone to trot out an article with some minimum wage earner Uncle Tom claiming that they don't want to get more money.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm waiting for someone to trot out an article with some minimum wage earner Uncle Tom claiming that they don't want to get more money.

Boy you don't help much of anything do ya

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Boy you don't help much of anything do ya

I didn't know that was what i was supposed to do.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

How many make less then $15/hr though? Its gotta be 10x that.

Umm, I don't know. I guess you could look it up if you have that point to prove. My point was that a poster said that 400,000 people in Alberta are minimum wage earners, and that number was off by about 350,000.

I suppose that half a million people in Alberta may, as you suggest, earn something between $11.21 and $15 and hour, but I doubt it.

[killer_carlson]

If I read twitter correctly, the by-election in Cgy tonight saw a whopping 9% voter turnout.

Early polls has WR and PC very close in a 2 horse race.

Edit: Some polls are reporting under 10% and some are substantially more according to twitter.

[Slava]

54/67 reporting here shows the PCs winning by a few hundred votes (out of 6400) http://results.elections.ab.ca/14.htm

I thought that the Liberals would do a little better here actually, although 16% isn't a bad showing for them provincially.

[Bobblehead]

There were probably 30 people voting when I cast my ballot after work, and there were people filing in.

Although looking at the number of people who voted at my polling station and thinking about how many were ahead of me and how many behind, over 10% were voting in the 5 minutes I was there.

[calgarygeologist]

4th place finish for the NDP.

[Resolute 14]

Honestly, I can't believe that 22% of the public voted for the rotting corpse of the Liberal party.

Those results are a big blow to the Wildrose for obvious reasons. But also another shot at the NDP. Fourth place? A couple of polls where they didn't even register a single vote?

[peter12]

9% turn-out. Wow.

People are exhausted, I think.