May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Zevo

So the food is being grown right next to the rail cars it's loaded on and we pick it up at the train station?

You are ignoring the key part of my post (conveniently). The whole fossil-fuel-heated greenhouse part. You know, the part of the business that is seeing a massive increase in cost because of ridiculous amount of energy required to heat a greenhouse in winter.

Find me some evidence that refutes my post and we can talk.

[chemgear]

I thought the NDP were saying the minimum wage wouldn't hurt employment numbers at all - that it would in fact help employment. (Why change or increase the minimum wage even faster based on that?)

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...due-to-economy

Premier says $15-an-hour minimum wage a 'notional' target, suggests it may not proceed due to economy

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Honest question : How many sectors in Alberta are relying on minimum wage workers, where there is a real chance that if they were shuttered, the sector would move over seas? I was under the impression that the vast majority of impacted workers and businesses would be in industries that couldn't be shipped over seas by definition.

[Ozy_Flame]

Order and Pay Here stations are not going away. And that isn't just an Alberta thing.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by polak

One business owner might have lost his business what about all of the other Greenhouses? Has it just eliminated one poorly operated business while raising the quality of life for the employees of the rest of the industry?

Cause then I see that as major win.

That is excellent. From now on whenever I hear of a plant or business closing their doors I can just think of it as a "major win".

Actually, maybe closures could just be referred to as major wins so as to remind people how it is actually a positive thing.

Example "I have to sell my motorhome because a few months ago my company had a major win." See, doesn't sound as bad does it?

[polak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Still shaking my head over directing Jim to work for minimum wage if he wants to have a successful business.

I'm still shaking my head at the notion that "I pay my employees as little as possible" is an acceptable differentiation for a business to cling to.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So what you're saying, is that with less uneducated workers in the retail sector, the labour sector requires more protections than ever?

I agree.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That plus no two locations/economies/societies are alike. San Fran is a city surrounded by a state. Alberta is a province surrounded by a country. There are just over a gillion things that would apply/not apply here/there.

Still shaking my head over directing Jim to work for minimum wage if he wants to have a successful business.

Even with the differences in region, there is still a lot to be learned from the San Fransisco increase. Primarily the impact on small business in relation to employment level. Taken in broad strokes, our reactions shouldn't be so far out of tune that inferences can't be made.

Jim would never work for minimum wage, like the scum that he employs. Jim has standards. Have you seen his shoes? Shiny.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Example "I have to sell my motorhome because a few months ago my company had a major win." See, doesn't sound as bad does it?

Who, but some person with too much disposable income, owns a motorhome anyway.

God save your money or invest it, don't get pissy when you have to sell your $80,000 portable house.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by polak

One business owner might have lost his business what about all of the other Greenhouses? Has it just eliminated one poorly operated business while raising the quality of life for the employees of the rest of the industry?

Cause then I see that as major win.

Yes, exactly. The only issue is the other greenhouses are in Mexico or elsewhere and are subject to different business legislation.

This doesn't necessarily make him a bad businessman (he still might be), but more likely he knows where he can be competitve and what is and isn't within his control. Its not like he can raise prices, customers (myself included) will just buy the alternative product.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So what you're saying, is that with less uneducated workers in the retail sector, the labour sector requires more protections than ever?

I agree.

You are barely proving capable of speaking for yourself. Do not be so arrogant as to presume you are capable of speaking for me.

[chemgear]

Oh, haha nvm. Didn't see the new article one day later. All ahead full!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi..._lsa=dc1b-e074

NDP government now says it's not backtracking on minimum wage


The premier said the government would evaluate the province’s economic circumstances as it moved forward on raising the minimum wage.

“The targets are notional,” said Notley.

“What we’ve said all along is the pace is something that needs to be sensitive to the current economic situation, the depth and breadth of which, we are still, all of us, coming to understand.”

However, Notley’s spokeswoman Cheryl Oates said Thursday the government “is moving forward with our election commitment to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2018.”

[Looch City]

There they go again, the NDP breaking campaign promises...

[polak]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Yes, exactly. The only issue is the other greenhouses are in Mexico or elsewhere and are subject to different business legislation.

This doesn't necessarily make him a bad businessman (he still might be), but more likely he knows where he can be competitve and what is and isn't within his control. Its not like he can raise prices, customers (myself included) will just buy the alternative product.

This, imo, is on the feds. We shouldn't be allowing free trade of products produced in an environment with illegal labor standards. I see no difference between placing a tariff or ban on a product that is being sold at below cost in an attempt to undercut domestic producers and selling a product that is produced illegally.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are barely proving capable of speaking for yourself. Do not be so arrogant as to presume you are capable of speaking for me.

Sassy!

[polak]

How I see conversations about work going with business owners like Jim.

"Oh cool, you own a hardware store? What makes it stand out versus a place like home depot?"

"Well, I pay my employees as little as possible"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

This, imo, is on the feds. We shouldn't be allowing free trade of products produced in an environment with illegal labor standards. I see no difference between placing a tariff or ban on a product that is being sold at below cost in an attempt to undersell domestic producers and selling a product that is produced illegally.

Yup you can do that, and its a logical way to proceed, if you can get by the NAFTA rules that are in place.

However, you put a tarriff on lets say food.

The Americans then retaliate by putting a tarriff on Steel products for example.

Then at the end of the day, all food prices have to rise, and peoples budgets get smaller including the minimum wage people.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I guess I just don't like it because Walmart's competitive advantage is its ability to exploit workers in other countries during the manufacturing process, and I don't see how your plan addresses that. Neither does the NDP's for that matter, but at least the NDP are setting parameters for what they feel is an acceptable level of compensation, and I personally think that's a good thing for the normative principles it promotes.

Well, we're talking about wage increases here and how they affect small business compared to large. Not a total restructuring of social justice and morality in business. There are a lot of things to solve with these big multinationals and trade agreements.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

But i have read that most produce is shipped by truck and only 10 percent by rail.

Anyway if you were ship fresh produce from south america by rail (which i believe is impossible because of the Darian gap, so it needs to be on a plane at some point) (the blueberries i just bought at safeway were a product of Peru) that would be less of a carbon foot print then shipping by truck from Taber or wherever this guys greenhouse is...I don't believe that

You are ignoring the crux of the issue - the fossil fuel heated greenhouse. That is the vast majority of the carbon imprint of any piece of produce, not the transportation method.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Certainly the Mickie D's self-serve terminals are about saving costs to a degree, but it's more about the fact they struggle to find and retain staff. You obviously don't have to recruit or train a machine, and a machine will be loyal to you forever (or until Skynet goes online).