Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Exactly. The talk about "respect" and "living" wage is a bunch of sound-bite crap. Minimum wage jobs are that because literally anybody can do them - the consumer can do all these jobs, so the consumer is paying for the convenience to have someone else do it for them. The wage such a job garners is subject to two major forces (simplistic - I am sure there are more subtler ones): (1) from the low end, it has to pay enough that someone will want to do it; (2) from the high end, it has to be low enough, so that the "product" of the business is cheap enough that the consumer will choose to pay for the service, rather than do the job himself/herself. Thus, in a reasonably free economy, the market will dictate a tipping point where the jobs are mostly filled and consumers mostly can afford the product. In boom times, if you will recall, it was tough to fill these jobs, so you saw Tim's paying $16/hr to counter staff, and anybody willing could get a construction job. Now, the trend is obviously in the opposite direction, as there are plenty of people looking for work and plenty of consumers cutting back, so raising the minimum wage to an artificially high level will result in the destruction of a certain number of businesses/jobs built around menial tasks. Hence... idiots.

Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage as defined by labour laws. It's not a secret that most companies will pay as little as necessary, as you pointed out the market dictates this to an extent. The issue I have, and that I feel most people are ignoring is that we as taxpayers are paying a significant amount to help subsidize employee salaries to the benefit of companies who in a lot of cases are more than capable of paying their employees more but rather let us foot the bill for them. Do you really think if Tim Hortons was able to pay $16/hour before they aren't able to do it currently? Yes their business is likely taking a bit of a hit in this economy, but I think you'd agree that they are still doing fairly well, the round the clock line ups at every drive thru as well as the fact that there appears to be a new location opening every other week would suggest that they are thriving.

It all comes down to who is paying to help the lower class, we have been footing the bill for years, while the wage gap has grown increasingly wider. Yes businesses take risks to create jobs, but at the end of the day they don't profit without their workers or their consumers. I think people really need to start giving themselves a little more credit and respect as both an employee and consumer for the role they plan in the health economy and in providing employers with the money they make, we've been doing our part to fix the issue of poverty and other social issues I don't think it's unreasonable to have employers start pulling their own weight.

Prices might go up in some of these places, and places may close down, the consumer and labour markets may or may not balance themselves out, the reality is all of these things are already either happening or could happen as is.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage as defined by labour laws. It's not a secret that most companies will pay as little as necessary, as you pointed out the market dictates this to an extent. The issue I have, and that I feel most people are ignoring is that we as taxpayers are paying a significant amount to help subsidize employee salaries to the benefit of companies who in a lot of cases are more than capable of paying their employees more but rather let us foot the bill for them. Do you really think if Tim Hortons was able to pay $16/hour before they aren't able to do it currently? Yes their business is likely taking a bit of a hit in this economy, but I think you'd agree that they are still doing fairly well, the round the clock line ups at every drive thru as well as the fact that there appears to be a new location opening every other week would suggest that they are thriving.

It all comes down to who is paying to help the lower class, we have been footing the bill for years, while the wage gap has grown increasingly wider. Yes businesses take risks to create jobs, but at the end of the day they don't profit without their workers or their consumers. I think people really need to start giving themselves a little more credit and respect as both an employee and consumer for the role they plan in the health economy and in providing employers with the money they make, we've been doing our part to fix the issue of poverty and other social issues I don't think it's unreasonable to have employers start pulling their own weight.

Prices might go up in some of these places, and places may close down, the consumer and labour markets may or may not balance themselves out, the reality is all of these things are already either happening or could happen as is.

Your issue is with conglomerate businesses, but as everyone is saying, they are the least affected by it.

What you're ignoring, is the fact that these changes hurt small business the most. If you're so concerned about the lower classes of income, don't ever go to Tim Horton's/McDonald's/Wal-Mart again. Support local business only.

The problem is, you just turn around and say that business isn't viable if it goes under. There's no respect from socialists when Ma's deli can't compete with wages & costs of doing business.

IMO a much better solution for lower class earners would be a complete income tax exemption.

[VladtheImpaler]

I might as well be trying to start fires by ESP. It's not Tim's that will go under. It's Jim's Lawn Maintenance and Sally's Painting. And each of those has 2 or 3 or 5 employees... But, yes, they are evil capitalists, so **** them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Your issue is with conglomerate businesses, but as everyone is saying, they are the least affected by it.

What you're ignoring, is the fact that these changes hurt small business the most. If you're so concerned about the lower classes of income, don't ever go to Tim Horton's/McDonald's/Wal-Mart again. Support local business only.

The problem is, you just turn around and say that business isn't viable if it goes under. There's no respect from socialists when Ma's deli can't compete with wages & costs of doing business.

IMO a much better solution for lower class earners would be a complete income tax exemption.

Personally I would rather have them pay their taxes but get educational or training credits or benefits, and have the labor laws incorporate time off in low income jobs for that.

[Flash Walken]

just what everyone struggling to eat and cover their heads wants: time off!

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I might as well be trying to start fires by ESP. It's not Tim's that will go under. It's Jim's Lawn Maintenance and Sally's Painting. And each of those has 2 or 3 or 5 employees... But, yes, they are evil capitalists, so **** them.

Those monsters.

First they take Jim's Hardware store from us (RIP, Jim's Hardware http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...90#post5547590).

Now they've taken his Maintenance business, and Sally's Painting too?

WHEN WILL IT END?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Your issue is with conglomerate businesses, but as everyone is saying, they are the least affected by it.

What you're ignoring, is the fact that these changes hurt small business the most. If you're so concerned about the lower classes of income, don't ever go to Tim Horton's/McDonald's/Wal-Mart again. Support local business only.

The problem is, you just turn around and say that business isn't viable if it goes under. There's no respect from socialists when Ma's deli can't compete with wages & costs of doing business.

IMO a much better solution for lower class earners would be a complete income tax exemption.

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I might as well be trying to start fires by ESP. It's not Tim's that will go under. It's Jim's Lawn Maintenance and Sally's Painting. And each of those has 2 or 3 or 5 employees... But, yes, they are evil capitalists, so **** them.

I will put this to both of you, what percentage of the 300k Albertans currently being paid less than $15/hour do you think work for small businesses compared to larger companies and corporations? Years ago I worked for a small locally owned fast food restaurant and was paid above minimum wage, I'm not saying that is the norm, but I'm pretty confident that it is not an isolated case either. Less than 2% of Albertans earn minimum wage as is, so that means less than 2% will see the full $3.80/hour increase. Of the 300k who will see an increase there is probably a fair chunk that make over the current median between in the wage gap which is $13.10/hour, so for anyone making that much or more the raise will be 14.5% or less, and that would not come until October 2018, although there would be a much smaller bump to $13.60 in October 2017.

The examples you've given of a painter or a landscaper seem to be jobs that would be paying closer to the $15/hour(if not more) than the $11.20/hour. But I understand that you were just giving examples. We would truly need to see the data of how many small businesses are employing people at what rates of pay to truly determine how big the impact would be. I can only speak from my experience which has been that in today's world, the bigger companies are paying a lot of workers minimum wage or close to it. I don't think anyone would argue that while $11.30/hour is not technically minimum wage it is basically the same thing. If you look at all the fast food restaurants and all the Walmart's in Alberta and you do the math on it you can come to the conclusion that a large number of those earning under $15/hour are working at companies that can afford to pay this wage but a choosing not to unless force.

Everyone is looking at the problems this could cause businesses but no one seems to want to look for any solutions other than saying don't do it it's bad. Restaurants were an example given yesterday, those workers there typically get paid minimum wage plus tips, most places don't tax their employees tips, could they not start doing that? Or perhaps just start directly adding a gratuity to patrons bills? Their are solutions, but the fact is most businesses would prefer the safer bet of status quo so they will attack this in every possible way.

Yes things like the carbon tax play a role in all of this as well, but that is what it is. It is there an will make things more costly for everyone, but do you really think that if they hadn't introduced it and instead just went with the $15/minimum wage you wouldn't be hearing the same things from business owners? Every single time the minimum wage is raised the same thing happens, business owners say it's going to cost jobs and workers say it still isn't enough.

Try to keep this in mind when your read things like the story about the western feedlot closure, we don't know what all the financial numbers were that were involved with their decision making, the same as with, to a lesser extent, a lot of the oil and gas companies who decide to look elsewhere for opportunities. Maybe that company was hurting financially before and this was the final nail in the coffin? Or maybe $5M in profits wasn't worth the investment to them compared to what they were making before. Has anyone here seen a financial report of theirs? The most I could find was a reported average annual revenue of $80M but no indication of how much the new taxes and farming rules was costing. Should we really be continually putting ourselves on the back burner in the interest of business owners just because they say it's in our best interest? Yes the jobs they provide are good, but the power and control we give them to completely flip everything upside down whenever it serves their interests is not. Take away any tax or wage increase you want, companies can up and leave you hanging dry at any time because they don't owe you a job, but if they are employing you and you are helping them make money and the local economy is helping them make money, in my opinion they should not be given so much leverage to dictate what we should or shouldn't want or get.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Try to keep this in mind when your read things like the story about the western feedlot closure, we don't know what all the financial numbers were that were involved with their decision making, the same as with, to a lesser extent, a lot of the oil and gas companies who decide to look elsewhere for opportunities. Maybe that company was hurting financially before and this was the final nail in the coffin? Or maybe $5M in profits wasn't worth the investment to them compared to what they were making before. Has anyone here seen a financial report of theirs? .......

Why does this matter? Is it good to drive nails into the coffins of businesses?

If a company invests $500MM and earns $5MM profit, they will look elsewhere. Not because they are evil, but because they can put that $500MM in the bank and earn more profit while taking less risk.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Why does this matter? Is it good to drive nails into the coffins of businesses?

If a company invests $500MM and earns $5MM profit, they will look elsewhere. Not because they are evil, but because they can put that $500MM in the bank and earn more profit while taking less risk.

The general point I was trying to make was that they aren't always closing shop because its unprofitable, it's just not enough, and they are well within their right to decide where they do business. When people say an employer does not have to give you X in compensation, they are right, they don't owe you a job, at the same time they are not be owed the right to be given so many incentives to do business here when it may be detrimental to their workers who are making them their money.

Just think about it, a company says they won't do business with you unless you give them what they want, you get desperate and you keep giving them what they want. Do you think your situation will get better or worse if you keep giving in to them? Don't raise minimum wage or we'll all leave, ok we'll keep it the same please don't go. Meanwhile our cost of living is increasing, the same as all other their costs for running their business outside of labour are going up as well. So we again say we need to raise minimum wage and they say the same thing, at some point you have to shift the balance in power so that you aren't taken for a ride.

I don't ger why people who work a non minimum wage job think it's reasonable to expect pay increases but they don't think minimum wage earners don't. Yeah the economy sucks, a lot of people aren't asking for a raise or promotion, but it does still happen. The minimum wage issue has been neglected for far too long and now someone is actually addressing it. Is it the best timing? Probably not. But no one is blaming the politicians who didn't address it when it would have been more convenient, they're only attacking the ones who are trying to while they can.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The general point I was trying to make was that they aren't always closing shop because its unprofitable, it's just not enough, and they are well within their right to decide where they do business. When people say an employer does not have to give you X in compensation, they are right, they don't owe you a job, at the same time they are not be owed the right to be given so many incentives to do business here when it may be detrimental to their workers who are making them their money.

Just think about it, a company says they won't do business with you unless you give them what they want, you get desperate and you keep giving them what they want. Do you think your situation will get better or worse if you keep giving in to them? Don't raise minimum wage or we'll all leave, ok we'll keep it the same please don't go. Meanwhile our cost of living is increasing, the same as all other their costs for running their business outside of labour are going up as well. So we again say we need to raise minimum wage and they say the same thing, at some point you have to shift the balance in power so that you aren't taken for a ride.

I don't ger why people who work a non minimum wage job think it's reasonable to expect pay increases but they don't think minimum wage earners don't. Yeah the economy sucks, a lot of people aren't asking for a raise or promotion, but it does still happen. The minimum wage issue has been neglected for far too long and now someone is actually addressing it. Is it the best timing? Probably not. But no one is blaming the politicians who didn't address it when it would have been more convenient, they're only attacking the ones who are trying to while they can.

That's because a corporation has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders (ie. anyone who owns even 1 share of McDonald's)

As much as you hate to admit it, a population is better off when businesses that serve it are thriving. Costs go down and something called "purchasing power" can actually go up without someone needing a raise. In turn, your wage (no matter what it is) can buy more.

If you really want to help the poor and downtrodden you should be trying to lower prices on everything, not increase them.

[automaton 3]

The politicians have launched a grand social experiment is the long and short of it. They appear to have no idea what is going to happen, but are determined to do this out of pure ideology.

Reckless is the word that comes to mind.

[Jacks]

I'd rather set my hair on fire than read this whole thread but this post stuck out to me.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Less than 2% of Albertans earn minimum wage as is, so that means less than 2% will see the full $3.80/hour increase. Of the 300k who will see an increase there is probably a fair chunk that make over the current median between in the wage gap which is $13.10/hour, so for anyone making that much or more the raise will be 14.5% or less, and that would not come until October 2018, although there would be a much smaller bump to $13.60 in October 2017.

You're really missing the big picture here. Say you are making $18/hr right now doing a medium to hard labour job. If minimum wage goes up to $15 then you are going to demand more money to do the physical job, otherwise you might as well take a much easier job for a little less money. If you are currently making $15/hr, now you are making minimum wage! you are certainly going to want more money than that right?

This is going to inflate wages across the board, not just to minimum wage employers. Most small to medium businesses aren't going to be able to just suck it up and pay more. They either need to raise prices (pretty much impossible right now), restrict hours or lay off staff.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If you look at all the fast food restaurants and all the Walmart's in Alberta and you do the math on it you can come to the conclusion that a large number of those earning under $15/hour are working at companies that can afford to pay this wage but a choosing not to unless force.

Sure they can, if they want to raise prices. Most of those companies customers are low income earners so that doesn't exactly help them.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Everyone is looking at the problems this could cause businesses but no one seems to want to look for any solutions other than saying don't do it it's bad. Restaurants were an example given yesterday, those workers there typically get paid minimum wage plus tips, most places don't tax their employees tips, could they not start doing that? Or perhaps just start directly adding a gratuity to patrons bills? Their are solutions, but the fact is most businesses would prefer the safer bet of status quo so they will attack this in every possible way.

Wrong wrong wrong. Service industry staff are taxed on tips, if they don't report any tips on their tax return RevCan will be on them like a fat kid on a Smartie. I have a friend who runs a bar and we were talking about this recently. He can't raise prices, the market won't bear it. He has been cutting staff hours so the people who are working are serving more tables. When the future increases kick in he'll have to lay off staff, it's already in their business plan for the next couple of years.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Try to keep this in mind when your read things like the story about the western feedlot closure, we don't know what all the financial numbers were that were involved with their decision making, the same as with, to a lesser extent, a lot of the oil and gas companies who decide to look elsewhere for opportunities. Maybe that company was hurting financially before and this was the final nail in the coffin?

Maybe this wasn't the best time to pound that nail in then?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Key Small Business Statistics - June 2016

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/03022.html

In 2015, the Canadian private sector employed over 11.6 million people. As shown in Figure 2.1-1, the majority of these employees worked for small businesses, constituting 70.5 percent (8.2 million) of private sector employment. By comparison, medium-sized businesses employed 19.8 percent (2.3 million) and large businesses employed 9.7 percent (1.1 million) of the private sector workforce. In total, SMEs employed 90.3 percent (10.5 million) of the private sector workforce, highlighting the important role SMEs play in employing Canadians.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

That's because a corporation has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders (ie. anyone who owns even 1 share of McDonald's)

As much as you hate to admit it, a population is better off when businesses that serve it are thriving. Costs go down and something called "purchasing power" can actually go up without someone needing a raise. In turn, your wage (no matter what it is) can buy more.

If you really want to help the poor and downtrodden you should be trying to lower prices on everything, not increase them.

Why would you think that I'm against businesses thriving? I'm simply not in favour of it happening to the detriment of their employees and enxpense of tax payers unless there are no alternatives.

Buying power goes up for employers when they can buy more quatities of a material yes, but what makes you think that that will lead to lower costs for consumers? McDonald's buying power with Coca-Cola has not reduced the costs for their fountain pop, the price for that has gone nothing but up. Same with when they reduced labour costs by installing kiosks. Banks offer more services online than ever, reducing the need for them to have as many tellers on staff, yet fees go nothing but up as well. While an employer can pass on the savings they make through operational cost reductions and increased buying power, it is fairly wishful thinking to believe they are doing that more often than simply keeping the savings for themselves.

Purchasing power is only increased when you can actually buy more with less or or when you have more funds to spend. A business thriving does not help in this regard unless they are giving you a raise. The basic concept of supply and demand debunks your theory. If a product or service is in demand the price goes up, the price will only lower when the demand does. You see it everywhere in today's economy, businesses are desperate so they are giving people a deal to increase sales not because they are concerned about their customers financial situation. Imagine for a second if when prices for goods and services are at a low what would happen if you gave 10% of the consumer base more money to spend and generate for revenue for those businesses? Even at a reduced profit?

If I sell 1 glass of lemonade for a $1.50 and it costs my business all in (materials, labour, overhead) $0.50 to produce that glass, I'm making $1 in profit. If business is slow and I'm only selling 50-75 glasses and I decide to sell it for $1.25 to increase sales I'm making $0.75 per glass. If a tax and pay increase comes into effect and it brings my costs including my suppliers price hike up to $0.25 overall I'm only making $0.50. If I only sold 100 glasses a week before the increase in my costs but I'm selling 10% more glasses every week I will still be making less than before my cost went up but more than most weeks before my price drop. I can also look at raising my price since my demand also gone up.

This whole thing, especially the numbers, will vary from business to business but it just shows there is a benefit. And yes maybe the next lemonde stand can't handle the extra costs. But that will bring more customers to this one, which will increase their business and that leads to growth and jobs. Will a change like this be painful? Yes. Rebuilding a broken economic structure is painful, but continuing to ride the boom and bust roller coaster we've had for decades is painful as well. There's no guaranteed fix. It is what it is. But most people would agree something has got to give. We could scrap the carbon tax and minimum wage increase, will that fix things. Maybe but maybe not. The only real guarantee it would provide is a slower decline. Will the increases fix everything? Maybe, maybe not. Will it definetly create a period of uncertainty? Yes, but it will also guarantee us a better idea and understanding of what does and doesn't work for the majority of Albertans

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would you think that I'm against businesses thriving? I'm simply not in favour of it happening to the detriment of their employees and enxpense of tax payers unless there are no alternatives.

You haven't even established that this is true.

Rebuilding a broken economic structure is painful

You haven't even established that this is true.

, but continuing to ride the boom and bust roller coaster we've had for decades is painful as well. There's no guaranteed fix. It is what it is. But most people would agree something has got to give.

You haven't even established that this is true.

We could scrap the carbon tax and minimum wage increase, will that fix things. Maybe but maybe not. The only real guarantee it would provide is a slower decline. Will the increases fix everything? Maybe, maybe not. Will it definetly create a period of uncertainty? Yes, but it will also guarantee us a better idea and understanding of what does and doesn't work for the majority of Albertans

You want to find out what doesn't work? You want to test ideology based theories on the economy of an entire province and on the lives of its citizens and find out what doesn't work? Are you ####### insane? Are you Joe Ceci?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You're really missing the big picture here. Say you are making $18/hr right now doing a medium to hard labour job. If minimum wage goes up to $15 then you are going to demand more money to do the physical job, otherwise you might as well take a much easier job for a little less money. If you are currently making $15/hr, now you are making minimum wage! you are certainly going to want more money than that right?

We can all demand more money, all the time. We always could. This doesn't change that. If your hypothetical medium/hard labor worker decides to "demand" a raise, it doesn't mean he's going to get it. If he wants to quit and get a lower-paying job, he can try to do that. It doesn't mean he's going to get that either.

The person currently making $15 an hour can also demand whatever he wants. If it's a point of pride for him to make more than minimum wage, he's welcome to move on.

What are these people going to do, refuse to work? If you're making 15 or 18 bucks an hour, you aren't holding a gun to anyone's head. They are going to get along without you, and right now, they'll have a lineup to replace you. They are not, and will not, be in a position to demand raises no matter what the minimum wage is.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Buying power goes up for employers when they can buy more quatities of a material yes, but what makes you think that that will lead to lower costs for consumers? McDonald's buying power with Coca-Cola has not reduced the costs for their fountain pop, the price for that has gone nothing but up.

I don't want to get into another long winded, multi faceted reply like this morning, so I will focus on just this to illustrate an argument.

You keep treating things like they exist in a vacuum.

Has the price of pop gone up at McDonalds? Yup. But it is priced far cheaper than the cost of same at restaurants that don't have their size and weight. Even BPs is charging $2.50+ for a regular, and I have stopped buying pop at two of our local go-to local bars for work lunches entirely because they are asking $3.00 and $3.25 now. In all cases - including McDonalds - refills are offered.

So yes, McDonalds' buying power does result in their ability to charge less than smaller businesses. And as I indicate with my local pubs, I am now cutting back because costs have risen. So the little guy eats both increased labour costs and reduced revenue because they can't absorb those increases the same way their large competitors can.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would you think that I'm against businesses thriving? I'm simply not in favour of it happening to the detriment of their employees and enxpense of tax payers unless there are no alternatives.

Many people have tried to educate you in this thread and you refuse to listen.

Buying power goes up for employers when they can buy more quatities of a material yes, but what makes you think that that will lead to lower costs for consumers? McDonald's buying power with Coca-Cola has not reduced the costs for their fountain pop, the price for that has gone nothing but up.

Because that's how economics work. Their margins are as close to equal as possible with the net-benefit of the business decision.

McDonald's costs are able to REMAIN lower (aka. reduced) from competitors because of their business model.

Purchasing power is only increased when you can actually buy more with less or or when you have more funds to spend. A business thriving does not help in this regard unless they are giving you a raise. The basic concept of supply and demand debunks your theory. If a product or service is in demand the price goes up, the price will only lower when the demand does.

This is really the root of the issue. Unless you get a cut, it's gotta be wrong. Economics be damned. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this. Less available employers = less available workers = less available tax revenue = higher debt and poverty.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'd rather set my hair on fire than read this whole thread but this post stuck out to me.

You're really missing the big picture here. Say you are making $18/hr right now doing a medium to hard labour job. If minimum wage goes up to $15 then you are going to demand more money to do the physical job, otherwise you might as well take a much easier job for a little less money. If you are currently making $15/hr, now you are making minimum wage! you are certainly going to want more money than that right?

This is going to inflate wages across the board, not just to minimum wage employers. Most small to medium businesses aren't going to be able to just suck it up and pay more. They either need to raise prices (pretty much impossible right now), restrict hours or lay off staff.

Rougeunderoos' response hit the nail on the head

Sure they can, if they want to raise prices. Most of those companies customers are low income earners so that doesn't exactly help them.

So are you saying the risk of losing customers will dissuade them from over inflating their costs?

Wrong wrong wrong. Service industry staff are taxed on tips, if they don't report any tips on their tax return RevCan will be on them like a fat kid on a Smartie. I have a friend who runs a bar and we were talking about this recently. He can't raise prices, the market won't bear it. He has been cutting staff hours so the people who are working are serving more tables. When the future increases kick in he'll have to lay off staff, it's already in their business plan for the next couple of years.

Actually you are only partially right here. It would have been much more accurate to write service industry staff are supposed to pay tax on tips. Many don't and if you don't believe that you being ignorant to reality. Wow your friend who is a small business owner will making layoffs when the increases go in, as opposed to making layoffs before they went in as he was doing prior? Yeah it's tough that those workers will lose their jobs, if only workers left employed were making more money to help generate more revenue for other businesses to create jobs elsewhere.

Maybe this wasn't the best time to pound that nail in then?

Better late than never, like I've said no other party has addressed it even in a better economic environment, the current government has a finite number of guaranteed years to implement changes. Sucks that they had to do it now, but if it wasn't addressed now it likely never would be.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

You haven't even established that this is true.

You haven't even established that this is true.

Their workers remain in poverty and tax payers pay for welfare

You haven't even established that this is true.

We have a recession every time the price of oil(a commodity the value of is out of our control) drops. That's a healthy system? Hope for the best with no control on any variables?

You want to find out what doesn't work? You want to test ideology based theories on the economy of an entire province and on the lives of its citizens and find out what doesn't work? Are you ####### insane? Are you Joe Ceci?

You haven't established that it won't work long term