Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

How is The NDP involved in this?

Hahaha good one.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The amount he is paying his mother in rent has nothing to do with what he can be reimbursed for.

He was reimbursed for his secondary (Ottawa) residence.

The amount of cognitive dissonance on display here is pretty astounding.

Exactly. He’s entitled to his entitlements. No one has ever bashed someone for that. Sure he didn’t stay there but he was within the rules, just like Fildebrant and he was fully supported for claiming what was allowed. I think we will all sleep better knowing we subsidized his mom while he pulled in a six figure salary.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Exactly. He’s entitled to his entitlements. No one has ever bashed someone for that. Sure he didn’t stay there but he was within the rules, just like Fildebrant and he was fully supported for claiming what was allowed. I think we will all sleep better knowing we subsidized his mom while he pulled in a six figure salary.

Not an entitlement at all, he’s legally required to maintain a residence in his home riding. Even while working incredibly hard for all Canadians as a cabinet minister.

The hatred for showing support for his mother after his father died really says much more about those attacking him than anything Kenney ever did.

[Wormius]

The hatred for Kenney supporting his widowed mother is entirely fabricated by Kenney himself. Nobody ever said anything negative about his caring for his mother.

But it does say a lot about Kenney taking it all the way to an 11 with his Trumpian response calling the lawyer a creep and failed liberal candidate before laying on the “woe is me, I was just trying to take care of my widowed mom, why is everybody being mean to me?” bit.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not an entitlement at all, he’s legally required to maintain a residence in his home riding. Even while working incredibly hard for all Canadians as a cabinet minister.

The hatred for showing support for his mother after his father died really says much more about those attacking him than anything Kenney ever did.

I think it’s admirable that he wanted to help out his mother whenever he was in town. And yes he has to have a residence near his riding, and he’s as a hard working cabinet minister he will spend most of his time in Ottawa. He very easily could have called Calgary his secondary residence and as it was with a family member not claimed any expense on it. As a family member owns the house he wouldn’t have been eligible to claim the residence expenses saving the Canadian taxpayer some money.

I take issue with the fact that had it been a different party member, he, like Fildebrant, would have been on the front line of shouting about government waste. I have no issue with a MP claiming an entitlement that they deserve and I don’t think he broke any rules at all. But claiming your primary residence is the basement suite of your moms house and only visiting a couple times a year simply to gain that entitlement is gaming the system. He is as innocent as Duffy was, as innocent as Fildebrant was, but that still doesn’t make it right when you are usually the one to throw the first stone.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by DJones

Just on this page, you dismissed teenagers as having no economic value, then dismissed any business using low skill as not being ethical. Implying that them not having jobs is a good thing I guess since they aren't being exploited. Not really sure wtf you are on about.

You should probably stop talking on the subject haha.

High minimum wages hurt kids. It's undeniable and it hurts unprivileged kids the most. Like my kids won't work for minimum wage. If you are unskilled, you are only worth $15/hour for menial labor. No one is going to waste the time to teach you something worth learning.

I'll have them job shadow me, or one of my friends/colleagues. Call it an internship or some nonsense. It's either your parents or someone who knows your parents. Otherwise you aren't going to get trained. Do that for 6 months and they'll leap frog people that have been stuck in the minimum wage trap for 10 years and you can start climbing the ladder. 6 months of training and you're out of the trap. It's foolish to expect to be paid for the training. And $15/hour? Who the hell would spend the time training kids making that?

Every good job I had until I was 22 was either personal acquaintance or I worked for free to get trained. How the hell else do you even get your foot in the door? Just pray someone takes pity on you and trains you?

I always wonder how people pay the bills when they say they worked for free. I'm assuming your parents supported you in your late teens/early 20's?
most people don't have that luxury.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by DJones

Just on this page, you dismissed teenagers as having no economic value, then dismissed any business using low skill as not being ethical. Implying that them not having jobs is a good thing I guess since they aren't being exploited. Not really sure wtf you are on about.

I didn't claim the use of low-skill labor was unethical, I said that paying low-skill labor a wage below the cost of living is unethical, particularly since the majority of those prior to and after the minimum wage changes were not teenagers living with their parents.

[Flamenspiel]

This stuff about Kenney's mum is pathetic. Even the newspapers have dropped it and the lawyer who brought it up has dropped it and removed all data. It's a non-issue, unless you're part of the NDP base or a member of the party.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I think it’s admirable that he wanted to help out his mother whenever he was in town. And yes he has to have a residence near his riding, and he’s as a hard working cabinet minister he will spend most of his time in Ottawa. He very easily could have called Calgary his secondary residence and as it was with a family member not claimed any expense on it. As a family member owns the house he wouldn’t have been eligible to claim the residence expenses saving the Canadian taxpayer some money.

I take issue with the fact that had it been a different party member, he, like Fildebrant, would have been on the front line of shouting about government waste. I have no issue with a MP claiming an entitlement that they deserve and I don’t think he broke any rules at all. But claiming your primary residence is the basement suite of your moms house and only visiting a couple times a year simply to gain that entitlement is gaming the system. He is as innocent as Duffy was, as innocent as Fildebrant was, but that still doesn’t make it right when you are usually the one to throw the first stone.

Read the regulations, you're totally off base. He cannot claim the Calgary residence as a secondary, so you're upset about nothing. This has already been stated in SEVERAL of the articles linked to the thread. If you're not going to do any proper due diligence it's probably best if you don't comment.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I didn't claim the use of low-skill labor was unethical, I said that paying low-skill labor a wage below the cost of living is unethical, particularly since the majority of those prior to and after the minimum wage changes were not teenagers living with their parents.

Ah. I see your problem.

You are taking a moral stance (ethics) on an economical issue.

The correlation between the value of labour and the cost of living are not direct and would vary by jurisdiction but minimum wage should be a big blanket and nor do either have anything to do with ethics.

Theres the confusion. You're looking at a social problem, defining it by your own ethical code and then applying that code externally onto others making pretty much anything anyone else does that you find distasteful but that doesnt affect you or that you personally do nothing about 'unethical' and thus allowing yourself to maintain your preposterous moral high-ground and condescend upon others with meaningless blanket statements.

This is some good stuff. Cognitive Dissonance 101.

So...

You see a business owner making money but not paying his workers what you consider to be a 'living wage' which is a nebulous and fictitious concept in and of itself, much like 'Social License' which I gather you're also a fan of, ergo this business owner, to your standards, is unethical.

What you're really doing is saying:

"Hey!!! Hey!! That guy is making money and not paying his workers what I arbitrarily have determined to be a Living Wage!!! Look at me! As such I am morally outraged at that Business Owner's lack of ethics to my personal satisfaction!! Hey everyone look at me!!! I'm morally outraged over this social injustice!! Look how morally pious I am!!"

Holding people to an unreasonable and fluctuating personal standard, if you think about it, is also pretty unethical.

I wonder if EI is a 'Living Wage?' If it isnt, is EI then morally reprehensible?

This is just a crazy rabbit hole. But at least I understand where you're coming from now.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ah. I see your problem.

You are taking a moral stance (ethics) on an economical issue.

The correlation between the value of labour and the cost of living are not direct and would vary by jurisdiction but minimum wage should be a big blanket and nor do either have anything to do with ethics.

Theres the confusion. You're looking at a social problem, defining it by your own ethical code and then applying that code externally onto others making pretty much anything anyone else does that you find distasteful but that doesnt affect you or that you personally do nothing about 'unethical' and thus allowing yourself to maintain your preposterous moral high-ground and condescend upon others with meaningless blanket statements.

This is some good stuff. Cognitive Dissonance 101.

So...

You see a business owner making money but not paying his workers what you consider to be a 'living wage' which is a nebulous and fictitious concept in and of itself, much like 'Social License' which I gather you're also a fan of, ergo this business owner, to your standards, is unethical.

What you're really doing is saying:

"Hey!!! Hey!! That guy is making money and not paying his workers what I arbitrarily have determined to be a Living Wage!!! Look at me! As such I am morally outraged at that Business Owner's lack of ethics to my personal satisfaction!! Hey everyone look at me!!! I'm morally outraged over this social injustice!! Look how morally pious I am!!"

Holding people to an unreasonable and fluctuating personal standard, if you think about it, is also pretty unethical.

I wonder if EI is a 'Living Wage?' If it isnt, is EI then morally reprehensible?

This is just a crazy rabbit hole. But at least I understand where you're coming from now.

Ah yes, commenting on an internet forum, the best way to get attention. I notice too, that you are also commenting on an internet forum.

EI btw is max capped at 2200/4 weeks right now, which makes it equivalent to $13.75/hour, which is pretty close to a living wage. Certainly more ethical than arguing untrained labor is worth only $9 an hour.

[iggy_oi]

Locke in your opinion do you consider the abolishment of slavery to have been the moral and ethically right thing to do or was it simply social justice warriors running amok and bad for businesses?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

The correlation between the value of labour and the cost of living are not direct and would vary by jurisdiction but minimum wage should be a big blanket and nor do either have anything to do with ethics..
...

This is some good stuff. Cognitive Dissonance 101.
...

You see a business owner making money but not paying his workers what you consider to be a 'living wage' which is a nebulous and fictitious concept in and of itself, much like 'Social License' which I gather you're also a fan of, ergo this business owner, to your standards, is unethical.
...

Holding people to an unreasonable and fluctuating personal standard, if you think about it, is also pretty unethical.
...

I wonder if EI is a 'Living Wage?' If it isnt, is EI then morally reprehensible?
...

1. Your posts would be much better without the overuse of inflammatory dramatics, it’s very hard to read and take seriously, and you do have a position worth expressing, so that’s a shame.

2. Your definition of “ethics,” “cognitive dissonance,” and “living wage” are all off.

Ethics: it would not be unethical to hold someone to a personal ethical standard, nor is it unethical or strange to hold “personal” ethics, as literally every single person does (should?) have them. Group ethics are essentially a loose collection of the moral principles we all more or less agree to. Not only that, but economics (among essentially everything else) is absolutely influenced by ethics, and to suggest it is separate would be wrong. Economics MAY be more efficient without the influence of ethics, but so would most things.

Cognitive dissonance: I’m not sure how you were trying to define it here. Cognitive dissonance is the mental pressure caused by dealing with conflicting information, essentially. So if Psyche was complaining about how immoral not paying a living wage was, but he was also a business owner refusing to pay a living wage, that would be cognitive dissonance “101.” It just doesn’t really apply here.

Living wage: Unlike “social license” which is a broad concept that can’t actually be defined or measured both in the factors that increase/decrease it and the payoff/consequences of having a high/low social license, living wage is a mathetical equation based on established and readily available information. Not sure where the comparison is to you, but the comparison is poor.

...so, keep posting, because when you’re on you’re on, but these kind of posts that are both meant to be inflammatory and include a significant amount of bad information don’t move the conversation forward.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Locke in your opinion do you consider the abolishment of slavery to have been the moral and ethically right thing to do or was it simply social justice warriors running amok and bad for businesses?

Lol, wow. You managed to equate his views to something horrible and still save a Hitler blast for another pass.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, wow. You managed to equate his views to something horrible and still save a Hitler blast for another pass.

Go do some research and see if you can find the similarities between some of the things Locke says and what slave owners used as excuses to try and justify the status quo of the day.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't understand why politicians keep getting caught in this stuff. If you are at all unsure, take it to the ethics commissioner or whatever, tell them what your plan is, and get it cleared. Then if it comes up in public, you have it in writing that it was approved. And if it isn't fine, don't do it. You get paid enough anyway.


Why is this always so hard for politicians? Clearly this looks like an arrangement that may be in the grey zone. Why risk it? Bonkers.

I've always wondered this myself. My sense is there's a culture around this stuff in the world of politics. Politicians see most of their peers edge their foot over the line - an account used a bit liberally here, an expense claim fudged there.

And whatever they did before they got elected, once established in government politicians tend to travel in wealthy circles, spend much of their time with corporate types and donors who make big coin. I expect a sense of resentment at the relatively modest salaries of MLA/MPs motivates them to look for every edge they can get in an effort to be compensated closer to what feel they deserve, especially since they do make genuine sacrifices for their jobs. So they get all their suits and shoes covered by expenses. Maybe take travel claims on flights their assistant was on. Stretch the truth a bit to make a residency claim.

It's just part of the game. Maybe even part of the thrill - politics tends to attract risk-taking personality types.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, wow. You managed to equate his views to something horrible and still save a Hitler blast for another pass.

It’s actually a pretty common philsophical conversation, and absolutely disproves Locke’s notion that ethics and economics are separate. If judged on economic benefit alone, slavery would still exist today as it’s fantastic for the economy.

But, you know, ethics and morality and stuff. Shame on society for mixing those with economics.

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, wow. You managed to equate his views to something horrible and still save a Hitler blast for another pass.

I don’t think iggy’s point was that his view were “as bad” as slave owners (if it was, it was wrong and also not something to move the conversation forward), but rather pointing out that slavery was a prime example of why economics REQUIRES ethics.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Read the regulations, you're totally off base. He cannot claim the Calgary residence as a secondary, so you're upset about nothing. This has already been stated in SEVERAL of the articles linked to the thread. If you're not going to do any proper due diligence it's probably best if you don't comment.

According to those regulations, Chapter 6, Section 11

Although Members typically choose to have their secondary residence in the NCR since their primary residence is in the constituency, they may choose to have their secondary residence in the constituency and their primary residence in the NCR

As posted prior by Zarley, the bottom 2 criteria in determining if a residence can be declared primary make Calgary eligible.

However the first criteria:

• The primary residence is occupied by the Member more often than the other residence.

Would allow him to make his Ottawa condo his primary residence.

The choice was his. Again, I think the Lawyer is wrong and Kenney didn't break any housing rule, and Kenney is smarter than to say something stupid like "I'm entitled to my entitlements" but in the end that's all it is.

[V]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, wow. You managed to equate his views to something horrible and still save a Hitler blast for another pass.

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Just barely managed to allow the thread to escalate a little more before getting Godwin’d.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I didn't claim the use of low-skill labor was unethical, I said that paying low-skill labor a wage below the cost of living is unethical, particularly since the majority of those prior to and after the minimum wage changes were not teenagers living with their parents.

The alternative is not paying them more, the alternative is the job not existing.

And that completely removes the concept of on the job skill training. I've worked for free plenty of times in my life and I don't regret it for a second. I paid to go to university and it hardly trained me for a job even though I took a practical degree in Accounting. But for some reason being taught how to do something that can give you a career, you must be paid enough to support a family? It make's no sense to me.

I took a course and did two shoebox bookkeeping clients for free before I was able to get a job. And that was after I spent hours being taught how to use Sage Accounting and had been entering data as a treasurer for years. Took me more than a 100 hours of free training before I was capable to get an almost minimum wage job as a book keeper. Probably took me another 2 months before I hit minimum wage with how slow I was(it was $6.90 at the time I believe, took me two years to break $15). I spent years holding my Dads tools doing exterior repairs for whatever cash he had in his pocket. First time I did a roofing take off, I probably had to do it 5 times. Didn't get paid #### until I could match him within 2%. Got me a roofing job but had to do the first roof for free because I was skinny haha.

By the time I was 20 I never had to worry about working minimum wage ever again. If you don't have good parents, the only thing you have to offer is your services for cheap to get valuable skills. Either that, or back breaking work that hopefully can branch off to something skill based.

So ya, as I said before. My kids will not be following minimum wage laws