May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I agree, for now. A few budget cycles with 5, 8 or 10+ billion dollar deficits will put us back there though and that is surely what we will see in the next few years.

This is a major concern. I think the deficit is 6.1 on the last budget. But they're looking at borrowing 34 billion for additional spending, and basically legally upped the max that they're allowed to borrow.

The NDP government could end their first term leaving the province in a 30 to 40 billion dollar hole.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think the deficit is 6.1 on the last budget.

Ya, that ain't happening. I don't recall the exact number but I think that was based on $60 oil and probably also assumes income tax revenues don't drop.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This is a major concern. I think the deficit is 6.1 on the last budget. But they're looking at borrowing 34 billion for additional spending, and basically legally upped the max that they're allowed to borrow.

The NDP government could end their first term leaving the province in a 30 to 40 billion dollar hole.

It's pretty sad. What's just as bad is all the partisan NDPers making excuses for Notley and the party. There are things she cannot control but there is more she does control to help with the situation.

I agree with Locke that the biggest spending issue is public sector pensions. They need to be fixed and crawled back to an extent. We are paying out the ### for a lot of people who don't provide value anymore and seem to be living longer lives.

[V]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

We are paying out the ### for a lot of people who don't provide value anymore and seem to be living longer lives.

Haha, oh wow. With this post I find myself in the surprising position of wishing you still only posted about municipal stuff.

[rubecube]

I do wonder if the people who are advocating for clawing back public sector pensions know how crucial they are for attracting and retaining employees. I can't see the bureaucratic issues of the public service being eased by higher turnover rates.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The chickens who filled the PC coffers with money in exchange for a more generous business climate. They got their generous business environment and raked in the dough. What is currently happening is part of the byproduct of that friendly business environment.

Ok well that's ridiculous. Oil companies made a lot of money. Oil companies gave a lot of money to the government as a result. The government wasting that money is pseudo justice for the oil companies? It's their chicken's coming home to roost?

Business lobbies government but government governs. To suggest that this is deserved because the billions upon billions given was wasted by others is just insanity.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Ya, that ain't happening. I don't recall the exact number but I think that was based on $60 oil and probably also assumes income tax revenues don't drop.

I know, I was just going straight from the last budget with the $60.00 per barrel estimate.

so we're probably looking at close to 8to 10 bil

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do wonder if the people who are advocating for clawing back public sector pensions know how crucial they are for attracting and retaining employees. I can't see the bureaucratic issues of the public service being eased by higher turnover rates.

You would think that the pay scale being much higher then other provinces would more then make up for that.

the pension, are unsustainable so retention strategies shouldn't really be suicide pacts.

If the pensions were to be put on the table, I doubt that you would see an exodus of public sector workers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You would think that the pay scale being much higher then other provinces would more then make up for that.

the pension, are unsustainable so retention strategies shouldn't really be suicide pacts.

If the pensions were to be put on the table, I doubt that you would see an exodus of public sector workers.

Except you're not just competing with other public sectors, you have to consider the private sector right now. With the economic conditions what they are now, sure, you might not see a mass exodus, but if/when conditions turn around there will be. With pensions, someone with more than 10 years of public service has a pretty decent incentive to keep working in the public sector. You take away their pension and what's to keep them from jumping ship at the first good offer from the private sector?

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Protected union job with good pay >>> pension

I can handle the pension part decently myself as long as you guarantee me job security, which is what most government employees are provided with. The appeal of public sector jobs is the security and the structured hierarchy/pay scale.

With respect to budget talks, it's amazing how many of you are only now worried about blowing a 40 billion dollar hole in the budget. Perhaps you should have voiced your concerns at some point in the last 10 years?

Of course, that would have required acknowledging that our tax structure was unsustainable.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Protected union job with good pay >>> pension

I can handle the pension part decently myself as long as you guarantee me job security, which is what most government employees are provided with. The appeal of public sector jobs is the security and the structured hierarchy/pay scale.

There are unionized private sector jobs that are almost as well protected as public sector jobs. I'm not saying that the public sector is going to become a ghost town, but you're going to see higher turnover levels and more instability in the public service if you take away pensions and don't offer a total compensation package that matches what someone can get in the private sector.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Protected union job with good pay >>> pension

I can handle the pension part decently myself as long as you guarantee me job security, which is what most government employees are provided with. The appeal of public sector jobs is the security and the structured hierarchy/pay scale.

With respect to budget talks, it's amazing how many of you are only now worried about blowing a 40 billion dollar hole in the budget. Perhaps you should have voiced your concerns at some point in the last 10 years?

Of course, that would have required acknowledging that our tax structure was unsustainable.

More like the spending structure was unsustainable. This province didn't have a revenue problem, its had a spending problem for the last decade, which was accelerated when Stelmach and then Redford ran the party.

[Johnny199r]

Not all govt employees in Alberta have protected union jobs. Management positions (I was a lawyer for two years with the Alberta govt) could, and did get fired sometimes. Contrast that with my experience in another western province where govt lawyers are in a union and it's impossible to get rid of the bad ones.

I don't get the love for govt pensions. They're good, sure, but lots of companies have matching contributions, and if you DIY you can set yourself up for retirement with index based ETFS or investing in a simple Mawer balanced fund. But hey, that takes minimal effort which is too much to ask for some people.

Having operated a small law firm, it's been my experience that support staff liked working in private practice a lot more than govt for numerous reasons (usually paid more, more perks (bonus, taking the office on trips) more freedom (ie not having to fight over the best vacation weeks etc etc)

For a few years govt lawyers were getting bonus checks. That was unbelievable. Big spending problem.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ok well that's ridiculous. Oil companies made a lot of money. Oil companies gave a lot of money to the government as a result. The government wasting that money is pseudo justice for the oil companies? It's their chicken's coming home to roost?

Business lobbies government but government governs. To suggest that this is deserved because the billions upon billions given was wasted by others is just insanity.

C'mon, Nik, that's not what I'm saying at all.

From what I have researched, and the various oilpatch threads have been fantastic for their information, a substantial reason this recession is so bad is because of the amount of projects that are currently online or coming close to coming online that aren't break even at say, $50. When Oil was low at the various other points in Alberta's commodity exporting history, the impacts weren't necessarily as bad as far as the province was concerned because oil and gas resource wealth represented a proportionally smaller amount of government income.

But you can only sell AGT once and now the Alberta economy is less diverse than it was then which means low oil prices impact provincial finances more significantly.

Higher royalty rates would have slowed investment, yes, but the people in the industry wouldn't have been so deeply impacted without so many projects below break even. With lower but competitive investment public sector salaries wouldn't have accelerated like they have, and infrastructure wouldn't be as strained as it is. House prices wouldn't be threatening to burst.

It's important to know how we got here so we don't piss it all away, again.

[nik-]

But how does raising royalties, which was the likely goal of this review, inspire any further desire to diversify the province from a provincial level? Investment isn't going to say "ok, I'm going to build up a new industry here", they're going to move those dollars to where that industry already has a foothold.

If anything reducing royalties forces you to look elsewhere as a province. The message is conflicted.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

With respect to budget talks, it's amazing how many of you are only now worried about blowing a 40 billion dollar hole in the budget. Perhaps you should have voiced your concerns at some point in the last 10 years?

Careful who you lump in there, many of us have been concerned since the Stelmach days and many more under Redford.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

But how does raising royalties, which was the likely goal of this review, inspire any further desire to diversify the province from a provincial level? Investment isn't going to say "ok, I'm going to build up a new industry here", they're going to move those dollars to where that industry already has a foothold.

Opportunity cost for the province to use those royalties to invest or promote other key industry.

Peter Lougheed used part of the proceeds from the first royalty review he did to fund the research that eventually led to oilsands development technology like SADG. This same principle could be applied into a variety of other ways like flood mitigation and management that would benefit the province long term.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do wonder if the people who are advocating for clawing back public sector pensions know how crucial they are for attracting and retaining employees. I can't see the bureaucratic issues of the public service being eased by higher turnover rates.

Would high turnover rates be a bigger problem than people sticking it out 8 more years in a job they hate just so they qualify for the full pension?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

More like the spending structure was unsustainable. This province didn't have a revenue problem, its had a spending problem for the last decade, which was accelerated when Stelmach and then Redford ran the party.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Spending far exceeded tax revenue, and the only thing making up the gap was royalties. And when the PCs posted budget questions and hinted at tax increases or spending cuts, Albertans, being the entitled children they've become as an electorate, responded neither. Jim Prentice was absolutely correct that we needed to look in the mirror.

But the time for an either/or decision has passed. Alberta will have to increase taxes and cut spending. But hey, that boom sure was a blast while it lasted, wasn't it?

[Resolute 14]

Get off your high horse, Cliff. Everybody everywhere opposes raising taxes and cutting services. You only make yourself look like even more of an arrogant ass than usual by trying to pass off Albertans as unusual in this regard.

[Kavvy]

AB government unions should take a haircut, if it is legal.

5% cut to show goodwill. Public jobs exist due to the private sector existing.