Alberta Politics Thread

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would everyone's purchasing power decrease? Seriously, wouldn't the invisible hand that everyone claims regulates the economy take care of this imbalance? With people losing jobs all over the place, prices would drop would they not?

Why is it that so many in this thread who claim the minimum wage being raised is uncalled for because wages are figured out and corrected by the markets, don't believe in the markets also correcting for other economic factors?

In this thread people have argued that rent will or could go up because of this increase, really? So all these landlords who can't find tenants for their rentals now are going to all of the suddenly think that asking for more because people got a raise is going to get tenants to sign a lease? Right....

Some have also claimed the the price of everything will go up, why should this happen anywhere other than at businesses that are paying minimum wage? Around 18% of Albertans make under $15/hour, why is this going to affect the price of something like a trip to the dentist? No one there makes less than $15/hour, is the dentist frustrated because his Big Mac is more expensive so he's goona take it out on his patients? Guess what? He could have done that anyways. Ok so let's say that dentist is getting charged more by one of his suppliers, so he wants to raise his prices because of that, take benefits out of the equation, if someone doesn't want to pay his new price, he will lose business if patients can find someone cheaper. Consumers actually using their buying power wisely will grow their buying power, not keeping minimum wage low.

What tends to happen when you increase minimum wage by large amounts is that low income earners gain more money but are employed less. And when you isolate the minimum wage increase to single jurisdictions, low wage earners tend to migrate to areas that have lower minimum wages. John Monras study for details. So benefit wise raising the minimum wage has much less benefit to anyone than you think. High end earners will just move to better lower priced rentals driving the rental prices back up. All you're doing is shuffling people around. Gentrifying urban areas. Isolating rural and small towns. Sending people to bc and Saskatoon.

Carbon tax is the same thing. Some properties close to transportation and industrial centers will do well. Efficient properties will be in demand. Others will decrease in value.

Generally you don't understand two things. One, businesses can drop to zero in value. Two, market forces don't matter when you're dealing with essential goods and services. We have to buy utilities and gas no matter the prices. Therefore everything will in fact go up in cost because of the first thing you don't understand. Yes we can weed out inefficient businesses but there is still a pricing reality that has to be met.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Dion

The NDP's headlong rush to overhaul Alberta by 2019





http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...lberta-by-2019

or hand the electricity market back to private companies

Eh? When did they take that over? It's privatized; they haven't changed anything other than try to gut coal power and sue themselves over PPA's.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Iggy oi, if you are so incapable of understanding a concept as simple as discretionary income, then please stop wasting my time with useless responses.

So rather than answer any of my questions you choose to throw out accusations based on the fact that I disagree with your assessment? If my responses are a waste of your valuable time then by all means ignore them.

[Bownesian]

@ iggy_oi, your questions have been answered lots of times.

There are several postulates in discussion here:

1) Stuff (heating, electricity, food, transportation, property taxes) will cost more for everyone.
2) The effects of the changes to the costs for heavy industry (corporate tax, uncertainty, emissions caps, carbon taxes, property taxes) will be a reduction in activity in that sector, over and above the problems with resource prices.
3) Some employees will cost more for some businesses, leading to:
4) Some marginal businesses will go out of business,
5) And some low-skill employees will be laid off or have hours cut.

...and some potential positives
6) Some low-skill employees will have more spending money.
7) Increasing the public service will help the economy
8) The carbon taxes will lead to growth in the environmental sector

The contention of your detractors is that the positives for 6-8 are much more than outweighed by the negatives of all the other groups. Your detractors include businesspeople like myself who actually make hiring and investment decisions, and who are privy to the activity of heavy industry.

You refuse to acknowledge the other negatives, and/or contend that the positives of the not laid off low-skill group's increased purchasing power (and other positives) will outweigh those negatives. Your detractors disagree on one or more or all points. It's all rather circular.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So if no one can afford anything businesses will raise their costs indefinitely to maintain their profits? And you think that will work? In your view there is no possibility of them reducing the prices of their goods and services to keep their business afloat? Because if I look around currently, a lot of things are a lot cheaper now than they were in boom times.

It's not impossible, but when money gets tighter, brand trust starts to become more important to customers. Once a business reduces their prices it's very tough to raise them again. The expectation is that prices are too high if they ever do so. If they panic and lower prices it can have serious negative effects in the long term.

Do you have some examples of things that are cheaper now? I can't think of many personally.

[puckedoff]

Costs do come down and prices do tend to be lower in areas with poorer economies. Overall though, these price reductions do not tend to outweigh the negatives associated with struggling economies. If you look at regions around the world, the typical trend is that quality of life is higher in regions with thriving economies, despite higher prices in these regions. In fact I struggle to think of an example where an economically destitute region has a high standard of living (there well could be some though).

[Robbob]

I thought it was legislated that all provincial employees or people that receive money from the government were subject to the sunshine list. Curious to know why they aren't required.

http://www.660news.com/2016/11/03/pa...sunshine-list/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I thought it was legislated that all provincial employees or people that receive money from the government were subject to the sunshine list. Curious to know why they aren't required.

http://www.660news.com/2016/11/03/pa...sunshine-list/

One of the claims is that some head office functions saw one year pay increases ranging from eight to 40 per cent.

CAPSC also suggests that when you include benefits, certified teachers have an average salary package of $117,000 a year with that number hitting $154,000 for teachers downtown.

The argument is that if less money was spent on compensation, the board would be able to drop core high school class sizes down considerably and allow for more aides to be hired at the elementary level.

Okay, okay, I'm one of the first people to harp about public sector wages, but in my experience these are examples of the high end to an extreme.

I have never, in my personal anecdotal experience, seen a teacher earning $154K. The $117K number is in line with a teacher at maximum term with a specialty.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, okay, I'm one of the first people to harp about public sector wages, but in my experience these are examples of the high end to an extreme.

I have never, in my personal anecdotal experience, seen a teacher earning $154K. The $117K number is in line with a teacher at maximum term with a specialty.

Did you read the part where it said.. 'when you include benefits'?

[Robbob]

The teachers aren't as big of an issue IMO (that is a discussion for another time), it is the behind the scenes bloated salary that I think needs to be made public, just like other parties that are legislated to release numbers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What tends to happen when you increase minimum wage by large amounts is that low income earners gain more money but are employed less.

Do you have a source that identifies this as a direct cause in all cases?

And when you isolate the minimum wage increase to single jurisdictions, low wage earners tend to migrate to areas that have lower minimum wages. John Monras study for details. So benefit wise raising the minimum wage has much less benefit to anyone than you think. High end earners will just move to better lower priced rentals driving the rental prices back up. All you're doing is shuffling people around.

What would cause those properties vacated as a result of this to have their prices driven up? Would they not go down in price if they cannot find tenants? So would it really be people or rental value being shuffled around?

Generally you don't understand two things. One, businesses can drop to zero in value. Two, market forces don't matter when you're dealing with essential goods and services. We have to buy utilities and gas no matter the prices. Therefore everything will in fact go up in cost because of the first thing you don't understand. Yes we can weed out inefficient businesses but there is still a pricing reality that has to be met.

The pricing reality which you speak of can adjust according to demand, even essential services, gas prices are a good example of this, prices fluctuate province to province, even city to city within a province for the exact same commodity. Telecommunications is another example where price can be massively adjusted for a market, in Canada we pay some of the highest rates for these services. Why? Because these companies know we can and will pay those prices, when people stop being able to pay those prices do you not feel that those companies will adjust their business plan? Again this is something that is already currently happening.

Originally Posted by Bownesian

@ iggy_oi, your questions have been answered lots of times.

There are several postulates in discussion here:

1) Stuff (heating, electricity, food, transportation, property taxes) will cost more for everyone.
2) The effects of the changes to the costs for heavy industry (corporate tax, uncertainty, emissions caps, carbon taxes, property taxes) will be a reduction in activity in that sector, over and above the problems with resource prices.
3) Some employees will cost more for some businesses, leading to:
4) Some marginal businesses will go out of business,
5) And some low-skill employees will be laid off or have hours cut.

...and some potential positives
6) Some low-skill employees will have more spending money.
7) Increasing the public service will help the economy
8) The carbon taxes will lead to growth in the environmental sector

The contention of your detractors is that the positives for 6-8 are much more than outweighed by the negatives of all the other groups. Your detractors include businesspeople like myself who actually make hiring and investment decisions, and who are privy to the activity of heavy industry.

You refuse to acknowledge the other negatives, and/or contend that the positives of the not laid off low-skill group's increased purchasing power (and other positives) will outweigh those negatives. Your detractors disagree on one or more or all points. It's all rather circular.

It's not that I'm refusing to acknowledge potential negatives, I simply refuse to acknowledge them as absolute outcomes, or long term absolute negatives. I feel that people are really downplaying the fact that while yes some businesses may go under if they are not structured in a manner to survive this, there would likely be new businesses starting up to replace those ones. Where there is an opportunity to make money, there will always be someone trying to make it.

People should be able to plainly see that most of the arguments made by some businesses are being debunked by those same businesses. Businesses know the economic climate in Alberta. They are aware of the economic climate in our province, they understand very well what people can and will pay for goods and services, as well as the minimum wage and tax legislation that exists. Yet while most argue that people will be laid off for certain and that people will not be able to afford certain things, there are still businesses like gas stations, grocery stores and restaurants opening all the time and currently under construction. If all the things that everyone is terrified of having happen and claiming are going to happen with certainty, why would there be people investing in opening new businesses here currently?

For all the negative things I can say about the Walmarts and McDonald's of the world, I will say this: they know how to make money. They would not be expanding in areas where there is a very big risk of loss, and they have been through things like minimum wage hikes in other places, they clearly aren't deterred by it, the reason for that is they likely have a much better understanding of all the implications than any of us do.

I'm not here trying to tell people they are wrong or that I'm right about what may or may not happen, but I hope that some of the posters here can realize that having a different opinion doesn't mean that someone doesn't understand something, they just don't agree with your assessment. I hear and acknowledge what people here are saying, but if you can't prove something will happen without part of your argument being based on speculation, how can you say someone else's opinion is wrong when you can't prove what they are saying will happen won't?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Your detractors include businesspeople like myself who actually make hiring and investment decisions, and who are privy to the activity of heavy industry.

Had to touch on this point because it actually made me chuckle, I'm not going to get into the debate over which one of us is more privy to business and industry matters, but just wanted to know if you are aware that there are many businesspeople like yourself who don't share your view on this subject?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm not here trying to tell people they are wrong or that I'm right about what may or may not happen, but I hope that some of the posters here can realize that having a different opinion doesn't mean that someone doesn't understand something, they just don't agree with your assessment. I hear and acknowledge what people here are saying, but if you can't prove something will happen without part of your argument being based on speculation, how can you say someone else's opinion is wrong when you can't prove what they are saying will happen won't?

Some accounts from posters here are actual business owners though. This isn't some sick social experiment to see who is right or wrong, jobs and livelihoods are at stake because of decisions the NDP have made and continue to make.

Forget McDonald's and Wal Mart. Businesses are closing in this city. Food banks are empty. People are being forced to move because there isn't enough work.

Tell us when you think these changes will produce net positive results if you disagree. Is rent going down? I guess you think things are cheaper, but please cite some examples then. Everyone else offering counter points to your claims has done so.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

there are still businesses like gas stations, grocery stores and restaurants opening all the time and currently under construction.

Prove it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Some accounts from posters here are actual business owners though. This isn't some sick social experiment to see who is right or wrong, jobs and livelihoods are at stake because of decisions the NDP have made and continue to make.

Forget McDonald's and Wal Mart. Businesses are closing in this city. Food banks are empty. People are being forced to move because there isn't enough work.

Tell us when you think these changes will produce net positive results if you disagree. Is rent going down? I guess you think things are cheaper, but please cite some examples then. Everyone else offering counter points to your claims has done so.

Those people's jobs and livelihood were at stake before the NDP even got into office, having our entire economy supported by an industry that lives and dies by a commodities world market price which is set by people we have zero influence over was always playing with fire.

People were leaving before the minimum wage or carbon tax were even on the table. This is a fact.

We are currently suffering from the backlash of having a ridiculously unregulated economic structure for decades. The unemployed aren't the ones who are going to get the economy going again, the employed are by growing business with their consumer dollars.

What has gotten cheaper in the last few years? Rent, eating out, tradeswork, hotels, even the stampede was letting people in for free. Not sure why you needed me to cite examples on that unless you don't live here.

As for how these changes can possibly produce positive net results:
My view is that many here may likely be right in the short term, smaller businesses that rely on a cheap labour cost will probably struggle, some jobs could be lost, if that did happen hypothetically it would be logical to assume things like rent would go down in price since the demand would be down. Unless people decide to stop wanting to try and make money, new businesses would come in to replace those that folded, and if those businesses are better able to thrive in this new environment their employees will have more spending money to contribute to growing the economy. There appears to be an irrational fear among many that if one business can't survive in a $15 minimum wage and carbon tax economy no other business will figure out a way to do it.

Bonus thing that could help:
Maybe those who are better off than most right now try to reduce the impact of the carbon tax by making energy efficient changes to their home or car, which would also help the economy in the short term, while saving them money in the long term. Any of the carbon tax's other possible benefit will be defined by what they actually do with the money from it.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Those people's jobs and livelihood were at stake before the NDP even got into office, having our entire economy supported by an industry that lives and dies by a commodities world market price which is set by people we have zero influence over was always playing with fire.

People were leaving before the minimum wage or carbon tax were even on the table. This is a fact.

We are currently suffering from the backlash of having a ridiculously unregulated economic structure for decades. The unemployed aren't the ones who are going to get the economy going again, the employed are by growing business with their consumer dollars.

What has gotten cheaper in the last few years? Rent, eating out, tradeswork, hotels, even the stampede was letting people in for free. Not sure why you needed me to cite examples on that unless you don't live here.

As for how these changes can possibly produce positive net results:
My view is that many here may likely be right in the short term, smaller businesses that rely on a cheap labour cost will probably struggle, some jobs could be lost, if that did happen hypothetically it would be logical to assume things like rent would go down in price since the demand would be down. Unless people decide to stop wanting to try and make money, new businesses would come in to replace those that folded, and if those businesses are better able to thrive in this new environment their employees will have more spending money to contribute to growing the economy. There appears to be an irrational fear among many that if one business can't survive in a $15 minimum wage and carbon tax economy no other business will figure out a way to do it.

Bonus thing that could help:
Maybe those who are better off than most right now try to reduce the impact of the carbon tax by making energy efficient changes to their home or car, which would also help the economy in the short term, while saving them money in the long term. Any of the carbon tax's other possible benefit will be defined by what they actually do with the money from it.

Put some real numbers into your suggestions and statements, it makes it even more laughable.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Prove it.

http://www.avenuecalgary.com/Restaur...ws-CityMarket/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/busines...2018-1.2924475

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/mec...gary-1.2992938

http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/about_ikea...xpansion_plan#

Other than that I would suggest opening your eyes will provide you with more proof

[Frank MetaMusil]

We are currently suffering from the backlash of having a ridiculously unregulated economic structure for decades. The unemployed aren't the ones who are going to get the economy going again, the employed are by growing business with their consumer dollars.

What has gotten cheaper in the last few years? Rent, eating out, tradeswork, hotels, even the stampede was letting people in for free. Not sure why you needed me to cite examples on that unless you don't live here.

Here is where you show the true colors of someone who doesn't care. What you just posted flies in the face of everything you argue for. 10% of the province is unemployed and they aren't all oil & gas.

I don't know how you keep getting free meals, but hook a brother up. You could be costing a business serious coin if you don't share the wealth here.

As a bonus point, I've lived in Calgary for my entire life of 32 years.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Other than that I would suggest opening your eyes will provide you with more proof

You didn't prove it. Show me facts. Show me real numbers. Show me how those numbers compare to previous years. Prove to me that gas station, grocery store and restaurant openings are not showing a decline.

As you seem uncertain on the concept, let me help you. These are numbers. These are facts.

Housing Statistics
Sales are down.

New motor vehicle sales, by province (monthly)
Sales are down.

2016 Civic Census Results
More people are leaving the city than moving to it. The only reason the population increased at all was due to births. Vacancies are up dramatically.

Otherwise, I will have to conclude that the source of your claims is just like all your other claims. Pulled out of your ass.

[Dion]

Eating out has certainly not become cheaper. I'd love to know more about these so called eating establishments that have slashed their menu prices. I could sure use a break!