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.
I don't think I would go that far. It's more about a general acceptance of everyone, regardless of religion or whatever. But religions tend to cause friction when they actually hold power in governing people instead of governing those of their faith. So nations that have moved away from theocratic tendencies I would say tend to be more peaceful.
That said, it can be taken to extreme where all religion is effectively banned (like in China). I'm atheist, but I don't think you can ban something as personal as religion. People will always finds something to worship.
Although having religious institutions as tax-free entities obviously holds some potential revenue back. I don't know that it's overly significant in a place like Canada.
I don't think I would go that far. It's more about a general acceptance of everyone, regardless of religion or whatever. But religions tend to cause friction when they actually hold power in governing people instead of governing those of their faith. So nations that have moved away from theocratic tendencies I would say tend to be more peaceful.
That said, it can be taken to extreme where all religion is effectively banned (like in China). I'm atheist, but I don't think you can ban something as personal as religion. People will always finds something to worship.
Although having religious institutions as tax-free entities obviously holds some potential revenue back. I don't know that it's overly significant in a place like Canada.
I'm not suggesting it's the reason, and I'm not making an argument for or against its impact. I just thought about it for a second and it got me thinking about how much money is spent in organized religion. Building places of worship, funding, donation, etc. It is likely protected information that does not get released publicly, so I guess we'll never know. To make it clear again, I'm not trying to imply anything here, as it could have a positive, negative or neutral economic impact, just don't want anyone taking it as an attack on religion.
The Carbon Tax is just a money grab. It's not going to reduce emissions.
Not true. All the people who will lose their jobs as a result won't be driving cars as much. Some of them will even end up on the streets, so won't have homes with lights to use or dishwashers to run. So emissions will go down. Notley's a genius!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Alberta wage hike will kill jobs
Quote:
For many of the 383,900 Albertans currently making less than $15 an hour, it will seem like a pretty sweet deal. The problem is that many low-skilled workers, especially young people, will be priced out of the market. Indeed, it is a basic law of economics that, all things being equal, the higher the price of a good or service, the less of it people will buy. Conversely, when prices are set artificially low, more of that good or service will be demanded than the market is willing to provide, leading to shortages.
Some people, whose skills are valued at significantly less than the government-imposed price floor, or who work for employers that can no longer afford their salaries, could end up losing their jobs. But the effects may not be readily apparent if, for example, a business has budgeted the funds to hire two workers at $7 an hour, it will only be able to hire one employee at $15 an hour.
To take another example, if a first-year university student would be paid $10 an hour in a free labour market, he may find that no one is willing to hire him at $15. That is why Canadian studies have found that a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage leads to a three to six per cent decrease in youth employment.
Quote:
It is true that some economists have argued that a $15 minimum wage would not have an adverse effect on employment, but many of their arguments are based on spurious logic and have been thoroughly refuted. There also have been studies showing that small increases in wages may have a relatively small effect on employment in some labour markets. Unfortunately, it will be years before we know the true effects of the wage hikes that are being instituted in a number of U.S. cities.
However, a study published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research looked at the effect of the increase in the federal minimum wage in the United States from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour between 2007 and 2009. It found that the increase “reduced the employment-to-population ratio of working age adults by 0.7 percentage points,” meaning that there were 1.4 million fewer jobs than there otherwise would have been. Another paper published in the Journal of Labor Research in December found that increasing the federal minimum wage in the U.S. from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, as supported by President Barack Obama, would result in the loss of between 550,000 and 1.5-million jobs.
Quote:
Indeed, the entire argument for forcing companies to drastically increase salaries is based on the fallacy that greedy corporations are sitting on piles of cash that could be used to lift people out of poverty. In reality, corporate savings aren’t held in Scrooge McDuck’s vault for CEOs to roll around in — they’re invested. If more of that money goes to labour, less of it will be used to build new factories and create new jobs.
It is also the case that many businesses, especially in the food-service industry, are already operating on razor-thin margins. Even large chains are often run by local franchisees who struggle to get by. For businesses operating at the margin, increased wages will likely mean they will have to either hire fewer people, increase prices or close shop. This will drive many mom-and-pop operations out of business, as they will be unable compete with large companies that can afford to absorb the increased costs. And then there’s the problem non-profits, which are definitely not sitting on piles of cash, but will still have to raise salaries.
If a 10% increase in minimum wage leads to a 3-6% decrease in youth employment, I wonder what a 50% increase will do? Guess what, Class of 2017? You're about to find out!
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
In principle, I'm all for a carbon tax. In terms of the specific rate that'll be charged, I simply hope the government did their homework in terms of economic forecasting. Here's why I like the idea... any jurisdiction that claims it's serious about reducing CO2 emissions has to put some kind of price on carbon. At the moment the burning of fossil fuels and it's impact on the environment is not adequately accounted for in the market--it's a negative externality. If I were to get caught by police littering on the street or spilling fuel in waterways, I would probably get fined for it. Yet, we pollute the air without any of those costs being internalized. Given current price signals, people have zero incentive to conserve and use more energy efficient technology when it's simply much cheaper to stick with current behavior.
Your opinion is fine with me, but quoting the national post like it somehow substantiates your opinion with objective analysis ... ha! Like as if the national post would print any other position on minimum wage.
If a 10% increase in minimum wage leads to a 3-6% decrease in youth employment, I wonder what a 50% increase will do? Guess what, Class of 2017? You're about to find out!
When did they announce a 50% increase resolute?
Edit: I'm aware the wage from a year ago was $10.20 but the way you've written it implies an additional 50% after the original 10%
My favourite part is when the writer defends big corporations by saying it's a myth that they are sitting on piles of cash and have their money tied up in other things such as growth and creating jobs, implying they can't actually afford to pay their workers more, then further down the article he claims while small businesses can't afford to pay their employees more the corporations can.
So he's suggesting we should keep wages low so that big businesses can continue to grow which will give them a better ability to increase their buying power which will further reduce costs and then they can wipe out their competition, that are already operating on razor thin margins therefore cannot grow, by underselling them? Is this not the exact same end result that people are claiming will happen with increasing minimum wage?
Edit: also wanted to add, the evidence being presented about job losses in the US when the minimum wage was being raised from 2007-2009, is presented in a manor that kinda neglects the whole worst recession since the Great Depression thing that was going on at the time, and while you could argue that maybe it didn't help, I think most people are aware the main factors which contributed to that recession were unavoidable and were going to have a severe impact. One could even argue that given the circumstances, the fact that it only got as bad as it did with a 41% increase to the minimum wage piled on top, our minimum wage raise won't be as damaging as many fear.
Mattyc you've probably already seen the documentary Inequality for All, but in case you haven't and for that matter for all those reading this who haven't, I'd recommend it to anyone, it's on Netflix
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
My favourite part is when the writer defends big corporations by saying it's a myth that they are sitting on piles of cash and have their money tied up in other things such as growth and creating jobs, implying they can't actually afford to pay their workers more, then further down the article he claims while small businesses can't afford to pay their employees more the corporations can.
So he's suggesting we should keep wages low so that big businesses can continue to grow which will give them a better ability to increase their buying power which will further reduce costs and then they can wipe out their competition, that are already operating on razor thin margins therefore cannot grow, by underselling them? Is this not the exact same end result that people are claiming will happen with increasing minimum wage?
He didn't say we should keep wages low. I looked at what he said to mean that businesses that use minimum wage workers may decide to cut back on hours or not hire any extra employees due to the wage increase. In a way he's saying that you can force a wage increase on employers but this will not gaurentee that these same employers will create more jobs for the economy.
Those (not all) operating on razor thin margins may have debts to pay from the business start up. The economy and how a business in doing in a certain area can have an effect on profit margins.
FWIW a business will put away a certain percentage of profits for future upgrades/remodeling, repairs and expansion.
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.
Haha, okay. Maybe my arguments went over your head.
I am Danish Canadian, lived in Denmark for almost a year, and I have most of my family still over there.
A Christian democrat is an idea descended but not directly linked to Christianity.
While most Danes don't go to church regularly, the Lutheran Church plays a central role in the culture, and has for 100s of years.
Haha, okay. Maybe my arguments went over your head.
I am Danish Canadian, lived in Denmark for almost a year, and I have most of my family still over there.
A Christian democrat is an idea descended but not directly linked to Christianity.
While most Danes don't go to church regularly, the Lutheran Church plays a central role in the culture, and has for 100s of years.
You do not know of what you speak.
What argument? All you stated was that Scandinavian countries weren't socialist, which under any definition of the word, they are.
I don't know the historical cultural role the church plays, youre right. But the data from these nations show them with some of the lowest number of people with religious affiliations.
And what does it have to do with them being socialist? If it was a Christian democratic cultural effect wouldn't we see more socialist policies in more christian nations?
Not going to argue about your own experience in Denmark religion wise, I don't see how you can claim those nations aren't socialist.
Why don't you explain it to me then? How the historical christian culture of these nations somehow relates to them not being socialist (which they are). It's not really a matter of opinion. They are nations which economic structures include largely socialist policies.
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).
You're right, people do need to know the difference between these things. And you are not the person to tell them. Socialism is absolutely not "the funding of essential services done via taxation and made available to everyone". You're describing something more akin to social democracy and the welfare state. While it has some incorporates some aspects of socialism it is not classical socialism.
The Following User Says Thank You to Handsome B. Wonderful For This Useful Post:
Fair enough, I see your point. I'm more looking at how we understand these things today. In order to participate in the global economy, you have to allow free market enterprise, or you have to have a closed system, which really isn't possible now.
Classical socialism was more centered around state-ownership yes, but those definitions have shifted. Just like even the most capitalist nations need to have some semblance of socialist (or welfare-state if you prefer) policies, socialist nations need to have elements of private enterprise. The trick is the balance. Like I said earlier, most places bounce between relatively close extremes of capitalism and socialism. No one is going full free market, and no one is going full state ownership. It's just not possible anymore. Nations we refer to as socialist do tend to have more centralized industries though.
It's probably more an effort to avoid words like "welfare" or, on the other side "trickle down" because they have bad connotations associated with them. So yeah, it's a bit of a redefining if you will. That's probably what peter12 was getting at. I can get on board with "social democracy".
I do always find it funny/odd that, of all these words we use to try and box up socio-economic ideals, only one has a root word that means to be the top, or head of something. And all the other terms center around community.
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.
The values of Christianity can persist in a culture even while religiosity is declining.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Your opinion is fine with me, but quoting the national post like it somehow substantiates your opinion with objective analysis ... ha! Like as if the national post would print any other position on minimum wage.
Instead of insulting the Post, how about actually refuting some of the points? In fact, I'll make it easier for you and reduce it down to one single point:
Increasing the price of a commodity reduces its demand.
