Alberta Politics Thread

[Jacks]

Wow

[transplant99]

double post

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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?

Because no one in their right mind would do a job that requires a high amount of skill, education, risk, and liability if they can work at a golf course washing clubs or selling used books or stocking shelves or watering plants for the same price. Accountants would be "entitled" because the wage would need to be significantly higher than doing the easiest jobs around in order to convince people to do accounting rather than jobs that require little to no education, skill, risk or liability. Even if someone wanted to do accounting because they "love" it, there are very few people who can do accounting, relative to people who can stock shelves, and in order to procure those few people willing to do accounting over a simple task, they will cost more to lure over to their accounting job.

This really isn't that complicated. Its very basic supply and demand.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its very basic supply and demand.

There is no supply and demand comrade. You are good at accounting but that won't help you with driving a delivery truck, learn to love the job you have been assigned. When you are done for the day you can line up for your bread.

[Dion]

One study conspicuously absent from the Notley NDP government's reading list is a made-in-Alberta look-see from the University of Alberta economist Joseph Marchand.

Marchand says it is true places like New York and California are committed to a US$15/hour minimum wage but will not reach that goal until 2022, not 2018, as in Alberta.

In other words, they're going slower.

The economist also points out California's plan allows for the postponement of minimum wage increases if labour demand decreases due to a recession.

Marchand advises until energy prices begin to move upward, "the province should postpone further increases to the minimum wage, as the potential job loss is just too great a worry."

That ain't happening.

Enter Amber Ruddy from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

She says Gray isn't telling the whole story. Far from it.

"Owners of small businesses are sick and tired of this provincial government's cavalier dismissal of their real world experience. And what do they get from this government? More headaches," says Ruddy.

"People come up to me and tell me they've had to lay people off, they've had to cut back on hours. They are struggling and the government says there is no fallout."

"What do we have to do to prove to them there is a real impact in what they're doing?"

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/09/30...-to-15-an-hour

[Dion]

Alberta's Notley says minimum wage increases timely, will not lead to job losses

When asked about potential job losses, she said she didn’t think that will happen.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016...ead-job-losses

[CaptainCrunch]

It seems like Notley is having a bad few days again.

She came out claiming that Albertan's were happy about the Carbon Tax. Then a survey comes out that Albertan's are hard against it, and dissaprove on their overall climate plan.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...rta-carbon-tax

he ThinkHQ Public Affairs survey shows 63 per cent disapproval of the broad-based carbon tax, which comes into effect Jan. 1, compared to 32 per cent approval. On the Notley government’s climate change strategy, which beyond the carbon tax includes a cap on oilsands emissions and an accelerated phase-out of coal power, 53 per cent of respondents disapproved while 37 per cent approved.
That’s a drop from a similar poll in December, which saw Albertans split on the climate plan, with 44 per cent approval and 44 per cent disapproval.
Albertans were not asked about the carbon tax in the December poll.

I think its pretty fair to conclude that this government is completely out of touch. On top of that, there's no way that this doesn't become an election issue in the next election.

Notley is coming across as completely stupid, a little dishonest and completely lost.

[Coach]

Yeah, even for someone as socialist as me, the carbon tax is just plain stupid.

It's not even really a socialist policy. It's just another charge on people for something that has no discernable affect on the actual problem.

Climate change is a problem. Just charging people for using carbon isn't changing that. People are still using it because they have to. It's ridiculous. It's not incentivizing anything because there's no alternative present. Put up some ethanol gas stations funded by the carbon tax, then maybe you're doing something. Throwing money at what is a physical problem makes no sense.

[Jacks]

Welcome to the dark side Matty

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, even for someone as socialist as me, the carbon tax is just plain stupid.

It's not even really a socialist policy. It's just another charge on people for something that has no discernable affect on the actual problem.

Climate change is a problem. Just charging people for using carbon isn't changing that. People are still using it because they have to. It's ridiculous. It's not incentivizing anything because there's no alternative present. Put up some ethanol gas stations funded by the carbon tax, then maybe you're doing something. Throwing money at what is a physical problem makes no sense.

Its much more socialist though; its pure wealth distribution and has basically nothing environmental to it. That's why people are upset about it, because really everyone is an environmentalist to some degree. The fact that we'll all pay more to turn on the furnace in a northern climate though isn't caring about the environment so much as its taking money from some people and giving credits to others. When the government comes out and explains that a majority of the population is going to get a credit for more than they're impacted its socialism plain and simple. I'm surprised that you're not in favour actually!

[CaptainCrunch]

Because of the impact of the carbon tax across the whole spectrum, and what sounds like a spitboard calculation in terms of the rebate. This is wealth distribution. Well wealth distribution from the lower and middle class to the government.

The Notley carbon tax is stupid and poorly thought out with a bunch of guesses thrown in on top of a insipid trust us, we're the government and we know better.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes you see this all the time with Scandinavian countries, it has nothing to with dictatorship rule or anything like that, otherwise that photo could be considered ignorant misleading capitalist propaganda.

[Alpine Fisher]

The Carbon Tax is just a money grab. It's not going to reduce emissions. All the while we have 3rd world industrializing nations contributing the majority of the world's greenhouse gases at an alarming pace.

We need to impose tariffs and taxes on manufactured goods from countries with deplorable environmental records. We buy less goods from them, they manufacture less goods and pollute less. That reduces carbon. NOT charging me extra to heat my home or fill out at the pump.

I love our environment and would like to see greater protection of it. But Carbon Tax is not the answer. For the government to shove it down our throats and think we are stupid enough to believe it is done all in the name of saving the environment is egregious.

[Fuzz]

I thought it was nice in the PNW pipeline announcement that they mentioned that exporting this gas will help other countries reduce CO2 emissions by replacing coal with NG. I think a reasonable approach to this should be a project's net benefit, in that if this reduces emissions by 50% by switching from coal, this project should be seen as reducing emissions by 3.5MT/year, not increasing them. In which case, from an environmental standpoint, it is a no-brianer.

All of our projects should be assessed this way. If you want to make a difference, that is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes you see this all the time with Scandinavian countries, it has nothing to with dictatorship rule or anything like that, otherwise that photo could be considered ignorant misleading capitalist propaganda.

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist at all.

It's a Christian democratic cultural effect.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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

The number of people you keep employed is not a reliable metric to gauge a person's contribution to the economy, too many variables factor into the equation. For example, if you employ a single mother of 2 and pay them minimum wage, you are currently paying them under $24k per year, at which rate they will be getting just under $17k annually in child tax benefits. After taxes they would only net $20k from the salary you pay them, so for the $20k (after tax) they are able to contribute to the economy from being employed by you, $17k is being taken out what tax payers could contribute. Yes they will still be able to put that money back into the economy but it is now in one person's pool of wealth rather than spread out through thousands. So a lot of consumers would lose income in order to generate a subsidy for one person's, yes raising the minimum wage would cost employers in a similar manner, however when you look at the wage gap trend over the last 50 years it's really hard to argue that the majority of businesses and the wealthy are not thriving while workers are falling increasingly further behind, so who would be better able to provide more financial support?

Another example of how it doesn't work: IF an employer is making $20k in profit off each employee, but the employer is saving that money or making foreign investments and not putting it back into the economy that would also devalue their contribution. The same would apply if they were employing a staff of mostly immigrants who's families lived in their former country and they were sending half their paycheques back home to them. That business may be generating a lot of revenue, however it may not be making an overall positive contribution to the economy.

I'm not suggesting you aren't contributing, it's just that a head count of the number of people you keep employed does not accurately gauge your economic contribution. So even if I were to tell you that I keep exponentially more people employed than you do, it doesn't guarantee that I'm making a bigger economic contribution than you are.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its much more socialist though; its pure wealth distribution and has basically nothing environmental to it. That's why people are upset about it, because really everyone is an environmentalist to some degree. The fact that we'll all pay more to turn on the furnace in a northern climate though isn't caring about the environment so much as its taking money from some people and giving credits to others. When the government comes out and explains that a majority of the population is going to get a credit for more than they're impacted its socialism plain and simple. I'm surprised that you're not in favour actually!

We all have to pay the tax though. It's costing more to fill up, or buy groceries or whatever whether it's me or Mr. Edwards.

Getting tax credits don't really help people when they can't afford things at that present moment.

Either way, I've really always been against stuff like this. I just don't see the purpose. Even charging O&G companies emission charges is something I find counter intuitive. It's charging people an abstract quantity of this thing we made up to trade with each other to try and combat a physical issue.

I'm a socialist when it comes to wealth distribution. Logically, it makes no sense to me to have a huge portion of the population not able to fully participate in the economy. I'm also for pipelines, because it's the fastest and safest way to move this stuff that we use every day. That doesn't make me pro-oil, it makes me pro-common sense. Want to reduce oil use? Make alternative energies viable (for which the R&D is horrendously underfunded world wide) and stop burning this stuff that we need for a plethora of other things. Use it for the things we HAVE to use it for. We don't have to use it for energy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist at all.

It's a Christian democratic cultural effect.

They are not hard line socialists ruled by dictatorship, however it would be hard to argue that they are not committed to equality(or at least eliminating poverty) and social justice.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They are not hard line socialists ruled by dictatorship, however it would be hard to argue that they are not committed to equality(or at least eliminating poverty) and social justice.

Welcome to communism.

People need to know the difference between these things. Socialism is not a political structure, it's an economic structure with the funding of essential services done via taxation and made available to everyone. What those services are depends on what the people agree is essential. You could have socialism with any range of political systems from authoritarian to pure democracy (the latter just requires more collective agreement among the people). Communism is purely centralized industry (generally with a dictator, but doesn't have to be). Socialism doesn't necessarily require services to be nationalized (although certain ones tend to be because private business doesn't make as much money in those states and so services like healthcare and education have to be funded by the population, not private interest).

And don't mind peter12, he thinks all that's good in the world is purely the result of Christianity. Most socialist nations (which Sweden, Denmark, Norway etc.. most definitely are) tend to have the lowest religious populations.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MattyC

And don't mind peter12, he thinks all that's good in the world is purely the result of Christianity. Most socialist nations (which Sweden, Denmark, Norway etc.. most definitely are) tend to have the lowest religious populations.

I wonder if there has ever been a study on the financial implications that come with being religious or even just the existence of religion. It's interesting to think about how most religions preach helping others yet if what you are saying is accurate one could infer that the less religion the more likely people are to actually do so, or at least accept doing so. I'm not implying anything with this statement, there are both religious and non religious people who do wrong, just thought it was interesting contrast as I'd never heard the correlation before.