Alberta Politics Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why would you change careers? Is it because you only hold your job because of the money it provides vs the money provided what you would rather do?

The money I make is part of why I do my job. That's true for basically everyone who actually works for a living. I enjoy what I do, but I wouldn't do it for way less money than I get right now. It takes up a ton of my time and is stressful.

If you ask most people, "if you could have more or less the same lifestyle as you do now, but work 25% less at something that isn't nearly as taxing, even if it was maybe a little less engaging for you, would you do it?" Those people would at least consider it.

Why wouldn't you live in a major city? Dont you find it odd that something as abstract as money runs these decisions in your life?

Not even a little bit. This is a capitalist society. The money we make and spend is a big part of how we all live our lives, what we do on a daily basis. Many of the reasons that people choose to live in Calgary, and not in Banff, are economic. That is how the system functions.

Wouldn't you be more productive in the field that holds your interest and is something you are superior at than others?

This is a question with built in incorrect assumptions that don't reflect reality, so I can't answer it. I also think it reflects some naivety on your part.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The money I make is part of why I do my job. That's true for basically everyone who actually works for a living. I enjoy what I do, but I wouldn't do it for way less money than I get right now. It takes up a ton of my time and is stressful.

If you ask most people, "if you could have more or less the same lifestyle as you do now, but work 25% less at something that isn't nearly as taxing, even if it was maybe a little less engaging for you, would you do it?" Those people would at least consider it.

Yeah for sure. I guess where I'm coming from is that "more or less same lifestyle" can be largely supplemented by the IMO artificially high earnings of people that don't necessarily work as hard as their pay seems to indicate. Many of those people, those at the very top, could be in way higher tax brackets without changing their livelihoods at all, while helping to prop up people that are underpaid by business, small or large. The argument is that those top people will just straight up leave the economy, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. In order for something like that to work as it should theoretically, without an exodus of the tax revenue, it would have to be a global economy. Which I realize is naive, but we are talking in theoreticals. Naive may be the wrong word. We are very new in the this very globalized economy. Maybe a global currency and global labor laws are something that are future possibilities. Is it just as naive to assume this won't or shouldn't be changing?

Not even a little bit. This is a capitalist society. The money we make and spend is a big part of how we all live our lives, what we do on a daily basis. Many of the reasons that people choose to live in Calgary, and not in Banff, are economic. That is how the system functions.

Yes I agree, but we seem to talk about this like it's always been this way and can never change. With the way business is changing, and the way communication is changing, you can conceivably work for a company in Calgary from pretty much anywhere in the world.

This is a question with built in incorrect assumptions that don't reflect reality, so I can't answer it. I also think it reflects some naivety on your part.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Plenty of studies show people having happier lives by working less, having less, but more time for personal hobbies and family. And socialism in this sense may be naive, but isn't it just as naive to expect profit based business (specifically large scale corporations) to properly allocate profit sharing outside of paying shareholders and top management more? I mean, the former is actually against the law. They must venture to increase their share price. Does that leave any more room for ingenuity within an established corporation than a socialist society does? I would argue having more wealth spread around offers ingenuity opportunities for those who may not otherwise have it, and that you access a greater range of ideas that way.

If you look at the economy like a machine, lets say there are 100 cogs to make it work, but only two of those cogs are getting enough grease to work properly. Wouldn't the best way to fix it be to adjust the lubrication system so all the cogs are getting at least enough grease to spin at the same speed as every other? That doesn't necessarily mean the other cogs aren't still being over-greased, just that the rest at least have enough for the machine to work.

[Flash Walken]

There are posters posting in this thread who were alive when personal income tax rates were 70% or higher on income above 200k.

Corporate tax rates in Canada have never been below 10%.

Yet, in this discussion, the thing that has already happened and proved beneficial is an impossibility and viewed as 'extreme' while the thing that's never happened is being viewed as more desirable and less rife with problems.

Bizzaro world, and this is coming from someone who thinks corporate taxes are an inefficient tax.

[iggy_oi]

I find it rather amusing when people argue that people will leave their job for an easier one even if it is less money. What problem does this create? Maybe employers recognize that good working conditions will attract workers? Oh no someone making $16/hour quit his job to take a $15/hour job. Now someone looking for work will only be left with non minimum wage options? Isn't that a good problem to have? For those who argued that minimum wage workers were lazy, I hope this at the very least debunks that theory for them. People currently work minimum wage jobs out of necessity, at least for the most part, I'm sure most would jump at the opportunity to make more money doing something a little more challenging, that option does not always present itself.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Meanwhile, you're suggesting adopting policies like those in place in Scandinavia. That would represent an overhaul of peoples' way of life, the results of which can't be predicted other than to say they would be enormous. I'll suspect that personally, that change in incentives would mean I would either leave the country, or change my lifestyle completely (wouldn't live in a major city, would probably change careers and certainly jobs). If that's reflective of what the impact on most peoples' lives would be, it should be pretty obvious that the idea is on a different order of magnitude of "extreme".

I would suggest that with the almost 20% of the work force in Alberta either unemployed or currently earning less than $15/hour more people would be open to the concept of a lifestyle change than you think. Just because you are opposed to it does not suggest that everyone would be. The impact felt by those earning between $35k-$70k would also likely be fairly minimal, assuming there would be any noticeable impact at all.

[PaperBagger'14]

If I was working a busy and physically demanding job at $18/hr (say warehousing) and I was offered a $15/hr job at a drug store stocking shelves, it wouldn't even be a question of if I would stay. I'd take the easier job 10 times out of 10. With that being said, my education and skill set is very specialized and there's no real comparable positions for slightly less money with greatly reduced responsibilities.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If I was working a busy and physically demanding job at $18/hr (say warehousing) and I was offered a $15/hr job at a drug store stocking shelves, it wouldn't even be a question of if I would stay. I'd take the easier job 10 times out of 10. With that being said, my education and skill set is very specialized and there's no real comparable positions for slightly less money with greatly reduced responsibilities.

If highly skilled positions were being paid $15-$20/hour it could potentially create an issue in the form of a skilled worker shortage, however most jobs in that wage range are mostly unskilled jobs or jobs that require minimal training. So if someone leaves that position the extent of the hardship that the employer would be faced with would be having to retrain someone new for the position.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Raising the minimum wage makes a small business more competitive? Do you people even read what you write? Your claim makes no logical sense.

Please re-read what I said. I said if the stat posted represented small business vs big business then ........ But that stat likely doesn't show that. Maybe you should read what people write before asking them if they read what they wrote.

[GGG]

I moved within my field for less money and less responsibility but no overitme. It was a glorious low stress choice that I would do over and over again. Though it wasn't a significant drop, less than 10% difference.

I've also known people to turn down promotions to stay technical for less money but less stress. I don't think it exists at the lower wage end of the spectrum. No one is leaving a $20 an hour job for a $15 dollar an hour job because that is a meaningful standard of living change. I doubt most people are willing to sacrifice standard of living for easier work.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I would suggest that with the almost 20% of the work force in Alberta either unemployed or currently earning less than $15/hour more people would be open to the concept of a lifestyle change than you think. Just because you are opposed to it does not suggest that everyone would be. The impact felt by those earning between $35k-$70k would also likely be fairly minimal, assuming there would be any noticeable impact at all.

Just out of curiosity, let's pretend you work somewhere and earn $12.20/hr today. What would you do tomorrow? I know what I would be doing, but I'm genuinely curious to know what you would be doing. (I just picked the latest post of yours to quote)

[para transit fellow]

We had to move our office this week. I hired a couple of fellows on AISH for 25 hrs of work at $15/hr. (6 hr days)

NB: I covered lunch out of my own pocket)

Would there be a better deal getting two workers from cash corner?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just out of curiosity, let's pretend you work somewhere and earn $12.20/hr today. What would you do tomorrow? I know what I would be doing, but I'm genuinely curious to know what you would be doing. (I just picked the latest post of yours to quote)

I'm not sure what you mean? If I worked somewhere today for $12.20/hr I would probably either have a day off or go into work tomorrow. If you are referring to October 1, 2016 specifically, that being the day the minimum wage increases, I would do the same. If I felt I deserved a raise, I would ask for one, I don't need minimum wage to increase for that to happen, the myth that the wage an employer pays is directly tied to the minimum wage in any way other than it is the lowest amount they can compensate their employees per hour is quite the reach. I could ask for a raise, and my employer could either give me one or tell me to go pound sand. The same two outcomes as any other time an employee asks for a raise.

Do you really think employers are going to be falling over themselves to give raises they don't want to or can't afford when they are under no obligation to do so? They know what the unemployment rate is, if they are giving you a raise tomorrow, they could have given you one today.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm not sure what you mean? If I worked somewhere today for $12.20/hr I would probably either have a day off or go into work tomorrow. If you are referring to October 1, 2016 specifically, that being the day the minimum wage increases, I would do the same. If I felt I deserved a raise, I would ask for one, I don't need minimum wage to increase for that to happen, the myth that the wage an employer pays is directly tied to the minimum wage in any way other than it is the lowest amount they can compensate their employees per hour is quite the reach. I could ask for a raise, and my employer could either give me one or tell me to go pound sand. The same two outcomes as any other time an employee asks for a raise.

Do you really think employers are going to be falling over themselves to give raises they don't want to or can't afford when they are under no obligation to do so? They know what the unemployment rate is, if they are giving you a raise tomorrow, they could have given you one today.

It's not that I think employers are going to falling all over themselves to give raises, but I know if I were working for $12.20/hr today and minimum wage tomorrow is that rate I would be asking for a raise. I think that would be the case for a lot of people in that position. There is something of a "knock-on effect" because there are employees who weren't working for minimum wage today and don't want to be tomorrow either.

And to be clear, that doesn't mean that this happens tomorrow, first thing, kind of thing. But definitely people will ask for raises because they want to make more than minimum wage wherever its set.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not that I think employers are going to falling all over themselves to give raises, but I know if I were working for $12.20/hr today and minimum wage tomorrow is that rate I would be asking for a raise. I think that would be the case for a lot of people in that position. There is something of a "knock-on effect" because there are employees who weren't working for minimum wage today and don't want to be tomorrow either.

And to be clear, that doesn't mean that this happens tomorrow, first thing, kind of thing. But definitely people will ask for raises because they want to make more than minimum wage wherever its set.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I maintain my position that the employer is not obligated and in this economy unlikely to fulfill the request. People can ask for raises at any time and for many different reasons. The employer evaluates the situation and makes a decision that is best for their business.

It would be quite interesting to hear what all the people that were belittling minimum wage workers by saying things like they don't deserve to make what an accountant makes would think of this scenario: I'm sure the salary of accounts vary but for arguments sake we'll say Locke is a cp'er that means he must make $100k. If the minimum wage were increased to $100k per year would it make sense for Locke to go in to work and say I need a raise, I deserve more than an accountant made yesterday? I'm not saying different jobs should all pay the same, the point I'm making is that I think a lot of the sentiment people hold towards minimum wage has more to do with ego and maybe even prejudice in some cases than it does with economics.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you really think employers are going to be falling over themselves to give raises they don't want to or can't afford when they are under no obligation to do so?

Pretty easy to pick out the people in this thread who have never signed the front half of a paycheck.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

for arguments sake we'll say Locke is a cp'er that means he must make $100k. If the minimum wage were increased to $100k per year would it make sense for Locke to go in to work and say I need a raise, I deserve more than an accountant made yesterday? I'm not saying different jobs should all pay the same, the point I'm making is that I think a lot of the sentiment people hold towards minimum wage has more to do with ego and maybe even prejudice in some cases than it does with economics.

The market would dictate that Locke is worth more than 100k in that scenario. Is this really so hard to understand?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Pretty easy to pick out the people in this thread who have never signed the front half of a paycheck.

Based on the bolded portion of the quote, one could argue in some cases it's just as easy to pick out the people who probably shouldn't.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Based on the bolded portion of the quote, one could argue in some cases it's just as easy to pick out the people who probably shouldn't.

Maybe. I keep 20 people employed, what's your contribution to the economy?

[transplant99]

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The market would dictate that Locke is worth more than 100k in that scenario. Is this really so hard to understand?

You just made my point. There are no economic facts in my example other than the fact that an accountant now makes minimum wage. It could be 100 years in the future and maybe accountants are obsolete due to technology and in very low demand. Even if you took it in the context of it occurring present day, you do not make a case for why he deserves a raise other than to claim a fictional market which has not even been defined will dictate who makes what. What if today in the real world every student going to post secondary took accounting and the market became over saturated, would all accountants be entitled to make the same amount as when there were not as many? No the jobs would go to the lowest bidder in most cases, if that eventually fell to minimum wage, in your opinion would that suggest that because accountants are now earning minimum wage that we should lower minimum wage at that time? Or did the market dictate what they should be making? And does that make it now ok as long as long as it's not the cost of living or any other social economic metric determining that a certain trade or skilled job now makes minimum wage?