Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

My mentally disabled brother has worked at a national chain restaurant for 20 years. Three days a week, four hours a day. He has seen managers come and go. They've always found work for him in the kitchen, through economic ups and downs.

When the minimum wage was increased in October his hours were cut to two days a week. When the minimum wage is hiked again next October, I expect his hours will be cut further, or he'll be laid off altogether.

This is what happens when you mandate all jobs should provide employees with a living wage - the lowest few rungs of the ladder get removed, and young workers and the vulnerable like my brother are no longer regarded as worth employing at all.

I believe that even our finance minister in Ottawa talked about the rising costs of labor, and automation creating an environment where young workers will become transitional workers and will have to be continually training for the next job opportunity.

It will probably become very much the same for minimum wage workers with the costs boosts, they'll find very little permanent employment, but will be forced to continually look for jobs because companies won't create permanent minimum wage or low wage positions. They'll hire as they need and terminate once the need is done.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Saying 'there's still some Mcdonald's and other new restaurants going up' in response to the claims people are making is not saying anything meaningful and does not hold up as any evidence of anything regarding your position.

The poster in question was asking for proof that businesses are actually investing in this market, you seem to be reaching quite a bit here, I get you don't agree with me, but it trying to twist what I'm saying really helpful?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There are numerous restaurants that have cut prices or created specials to bring in customers. There is one restaurant(can't recall the name) that even advertises a wine special where the price stays low until the price of oil goes above a certain level. Lots of places have started offering kids eat free or buy one get one deals. Drove by Austen's pub in canyon meadows the other day and they actually have a sign that says "recession busting specials"

Resturaunts, fast food etc have always been always offering specials to attract business. Kids eating for free and BOGO deals were a staple long before the recession his this province.

That wine special could be a loss leader that businesses have always used to attract business. We used to have happy hour prices before the govt eliminated that practice.

[DiracSpike]

iggy_oi's comical misunderstanding of the economy would be funny if there wasn't a whole crew of dunder-headed union lifers just like him running our Province right now.

Our economy's not in trouble because there's a McDonalds opening in Walden broooo

[GGG]

I was thinking about minimum wage the other day and my argument that businesses should pay a wage that allows a person to live without government subsidies. It might be entirely flawed. For example the US Walmart example is that they require health subsidies from the government. Well this is very true in Canada as the entire health system is subsidized by high marginal rate tax payers.

What if that were flipped the government should give its citizens enough money so they can meet the absolute minimum of needs (home and food). Then get rid of minimum wage. Essentially have a minimum guaranteed income but very limited employee rights

In this environment you would have higher taxes to subsidize people who aren't working or working for very little money and business would have to pay enough money so that the benefit of working outweighed just collecting the subsidy.

The concept of minimum wage might be completely flawed. Its set up to ensure that people can earn a living and support themselves but what if instead we ensured businesses were successful, taxed them effectively, and used that money to support people.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The poster in question was asking for proof that businesses are actually investing in this market, you seem to be reaching quite a bit here, I get you don't agree with me, but it trying to twist what I'm saying really helpful?

Maybe I can use an analogy to show how your responses are not quite supporting your viewpoint:

Every business day we can turn on the business news and watch the TSX or the S&P 500 index and see whether it is up or down and by how much. Sometimes they will also show the 10 largest gainers and 10 largest losers on a given day. Even on the crappiest days on the market, somewhere somehow there's probably 5-10 companies that had a good day, but the market as a whole is down because the biggest losers far outweigh the biggest gainers.

Basically the other posters on here are predicting doom and gloom because the overall economy is down and that key components of the market are performing badly and their outlook for the future is equally gloomy. When they seek evidence that things will improve broadly or that policies will improve things, they aren't interested in hearing that somewhere somehow there are a few random sectors showing signs of growth, because in aggregate it doesn't make enough of an impact to improve the economy (And BTW you haven't even really provided proof that things are doing well broadly in Calgary or Alberta for even the companies you stated. Even though McDonald's is opening a store in Walden they could still be hemorrhaging losses elsewhere, or significantly pulling back on their typical capital investment in Alberta. Based on the annecdotes you provided we can't make those conclusions or answer those questions so therefore the anecdotal evidence can be dismissed)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

What if that were flipped the government should give its citizens enough money so they can meet the absolute minimum of needs (home and food). Then get rid of minimum wage. Essentially have a minimum guaranteed income but very limited employee rights.

Given the relentless march of automation and the weakening of labour versus capital, I think a minimum guaranteed income is bound to be implemented at some point. And not as an egalitarian gesture, but as a necessity to keep the wheels of commerce spinning. The hordes of unemployed and underemployed will essentially need to be subsidised to enable them to buy stuff (not to mention keep them from burning everything down in their lucid moments between drug-fueled virtual reality binges).

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

I was thinking about minimum wage the other day and my argument that businesses should pay a wage that allows a person to live without government subsidies. It might be entirely flawed. For example the US Walmart example is that they require health subsidies from the government. Well this is very true in Canada as the entire health system is subsidized by high marginal rate tax payers.

What if that were flipped the government should give its citizens enough money so they can meet the absolute minimum of needs (home and food). Then get rid of minimum wage. Essentially have a minimum guaranteed income but very limited employee rights

In this environment you would have higher taxes to subsidize people who aren't working or working for very little money and business would have to pay enough money so that the benefit of working outweighed just collecting the subsidy.

The concept of minimum wage might be completely flawed. Its set up to ensure that people can earn a living and support themselves but what if instead we ensured businesses were successful, taxed them effectively, and used that money to support people.

I was thinking this same thing the other day. I am behind minimum wage hikes in theory and how they can help lift some people from poverty but there have been a lot of points which really show that it ends up being a net zero effort. It is starting to feel to me like we are trying to influence 21st century market conditions with a 19th century mechanism.

There would be a lot of work to make this happen, but eliminating admin heavy social programs, eliminating CPP/EI contributions, and increasing tax it could be viable. There is a lot of opposition to guaranteed income but it would probably work very well combined with the elimination of minimum wage laws.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I was thinking this same thing the other day. I am behind minimum wage hikes in theory and how they can help lift some people from poverty but there have been a lot of points which really show that it ends up being a net zero effort. It is starting to feel to me like we are trying to influence 21st century market conditions with a 19th century mechanism.

There would be a lot of work to make this happen, but eliminating admin heavy social programs, eliminating CPP/EI contributions, and increasing tax it could be viable. There is a lot of opposition to guaranteed income but it would probably work very well combined with the elimination of minimum wage laws.

Agree.

Within the confines of how the system currently exists the state needs increased revenue from corporate and personal income taxes, but I think that's generally inefficient and would be better replaced by removing artificial drags on the economy and substituting a conspicuous consumption tax and more tiered income taxes over a certain threshold.

How his proposed “ steeply progressive consumption tax” would work: Taxpayers would report to the IRS how much they made and how much they saved. The difference is their consumption. Frank envisions a “big standard deduction, say $30,000 for a family of four” that would mean “people in the bottom half and slightly above would pay no more tax than they do under the current system.”

“Once your consumption goes beyond a certain point, though,” he said, “the rates begin rising.” How much? “Let me not frighten you,” Frank hesitated, evidently forgetting his context (speaking to a journalist). “But I’ll say, suppose it were 100 percent for people consuming already $5 million a year or more, what would that mean?”

It would mean the $1 million yacht might cost the purchasers $2 million. Or the $10 million New York City penthouse suddenly gets a price tag of $20 million. Frank doesn’t think it will stop luxury spending. But, he predicted, “By making additional purchases for people at the top of the ladder much more expensive, that would steer money out of those purchases and into savings and investment.”

http://billmoyers.com/story/tax-cons...s-consumption/

[CliffFletcher]

In my more fanciful musings I've thought that businesses might get involved directly in consumer subsidies. Like brokers would put together monthly packages ($100 at Costco, $100 at Sears, $50 at Amazon) that citizens could select from a number of options, with government licensing these brokers and administering their allotment. Something like food etc. coupons during rationing in the war. High earners could of course spend beyond their allotment. But businesses and the state would partner to keep the wheels of commerce spinning. In a world with 20 per cent unemployment and 30 per cent part-time unemployment we'd also need the state to subsidize housing and utilities. Maybe using Thomas Picketty's idea of a global micro-tax on all financial trades and transactions.

Pie in the sky stuff. But something will have to give if we continue to relentlessly shed the need for human labour.

[GGG]

The question that probably needs to be answered in all of this is how as the labour participation rate falls do we manage the economy.

Looking at the US recovery all of the indicators are up except labour participation rate. Which previously has been a driver of growth (ie women entering work force).

A minimum income would further stress the participation rate.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe I can use an analogy to show how your responses are not quite supporting your viewpoint:

Every business day we can turn on the business news and watch the TSX or the S&P 500 index and see whether it is up or down and by how much. Sometimes they will also show the 10 largest gainers and 10 largest losers on a given day. Even on the crappiest days on the market, somewhere somehow there's probably 5-10 companies that had a good day, but the market as a whole is down because the biggest losers far outweigh the biggest gainers.

Basically the other posters on here are predicting doom and gloom because the overall economy is down and that key components of the market are performing badly and their outlook for the future is equally gloomy. When they seek evidence that things will improve broadly or that policies will improve things, they aren't interested in hearing that somewhere somehow there are a few random sectors showing signs of growth, because in aggregate it doesn't make enough of an impact to improve the economy (And BTW you haven't even really provided proof that things are doing well broadly in Calgary or Alberta for even the companies you stated. Even though McDonald's is opening a store in Walden they could still be hemorrhaging losses elsewhere, or significantly pulling back on their typical capital investment in Alberta. Based on the annecdotes you provided we can't make those conclusions or answer those questions so therefore the anecdotal evidence can be dismissed)

That's a fantastic analogy, unfortunately you seem to be arguing against a claim I never made. You appear to be under the impression that I'm claiming the economy is doing fantastic and businesses are doing fantastic. Not sure where you read that. The only point I was trying to make when I mentioned those businesses that were still investing here is the fact that if they are still doing so even with all the upcoming changes, those companies must think that it will still be profitable.

They may be slowing down there typical investment but if they really felt that this raise in minimum wage will be disastrous for the economy and their business either through their own cost increases or by the loss of customers due to people losing their jobs or not being able to afford anything extra because the price of everything else will be going up as a lot of people are speculating, they wouldn't be investing at all.

Again I get that you disagree with my optimism, which is fair, but you are taking my response to a poster who was denying that there was any business investment going on here at all and trying to turn it into me saying that the overall economy is growing right now, which I'm not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Alberta unemployment hits over 10%

Most of the job gains were in part time jobs.

While resource based jobs increase overall jobs were lost.

Its more likely that the true jobless rate is 15% or higher as the above numbers don't include contractors and people who's benefits have ended.

We now have similar unemployment numbers to the maritimes

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Alberta unemployment hits over 10%

Most of the job gains were in part time jobs.

While resource based jobs increase overall jobs were lost.

Its more likely that the true jobless rate is 15% or higher as the above numbers don't include contractors and people who's benefits have ended.

We now have similar unemployment numbers to the maritimes

;(

[CaptainCrunch]

whoops forgot the link

http://calgaryherald.com/business/lo...-9000-new-jobs

[Tron_fdc]

I'm hoping someone can correct me here.

In 2009 the Feds and Ontario gov buy into (bail out) automakers to the tune of 10 billion to keep them afloat.

In 2015 after an adequate recovery, that buy in is mostly paid back. Which is a lot better than no strings attached bail out money with nothing in return. That year it helps balance the federal budget.

In Alberta, the federal governments main economic engine, we are losing 10's of thousands of jobs, hitting unprecedented levels of unemployment, and the Feds are sitting back saying that they are going to "review" the strategies (pipelines, etc) that can help us. SFA is coming in the forms of help to O&G companies.

Am I doing this right??

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm hoping someone can correct me here.

In 2009 the Feds and Ontario gov buy into (bail out) automakers to the tune of 10 billion to keep them afloat.

In 2015 after an adequate recovery, that buy in is mostly paid back. Which is a lot better than no strings attached bail out money with nothing in return. That year it helps balance the federal budget.

In Alberta, the federal governments main economic engine, we are losing 10's of thousands of jobs, hitting unprecedented levels of unemployment, and the Feds are sitting back saying that they are going to "review" the strategies (pipelines, etc) that can help us. SFA is coming in the forms of help to O&G companies.

Am I doing this right??

Yeah, because Oil and Gas companies arent in voter-rich Ontario or Quebec.

Political Capital man...Political Capital.

[Tron_fdc]

So let's run this gigantic fkn deficit, and let one of the industries capable of possibly servicing that debt twist in the wind?

Yeah that makes sense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm hoping someone can correct me here.

In 2009 the Feds and Ontario gov buy into (bail out) automakers to the tune of 10 billion to keep them afloat.

In 2015 after an adequate recovery, that buy in is mostly paid back. Which is a lot better than no strings attached bail out money with nothing in return. That year it helps balance the federal budget.

In Alberta, the federal governments main economic engine, we are losing 10's of thousands of jobs, hitting unprecedented levels of unemployment, and the Feds are sitting back saying that they are going to "review" the strategies (pipelines, etc) that can help us. SFA is coming in the forms of help to O&G companies.

Am I doing this right??

Well that is one of looking at things. The other is that a "bailout" for oil companies isn't asked for at all, and might do nothing here. For example you give Suncor $10bn today and how many jobs does that bring back? Aside from my personal dislike of giving private business money, which I think is a bad idea, what is the point? They haven't asked for this, and just giving them money doesn't mean they hire people tomorrow.

Second, there have been a lot of concessions made by the federal government. They've extended EI so it basically goes for a full year, have pushed for infrastructure spending here and as far as I know they've approved every pipeline or project that has come through for them to have their say. I don't consider that SFA, but everyone has their axe to grind.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that is one of looking at things. The other is that a "bailout" for oil companies isn't asked for at all, and might do nothing here. For example you give Suncor $10bn today and how many jobs does that bring back? Aside from my personal dislike of giving private business money, which I think is a bad idea, what is the point? They haven't asked for this, and just giving them money doesn't mean they hire people tomorrow.

Second, there have been a lot of concessions made by the federal government. They've extended EI so it basically goes for a full year, have pushed for infrastructure spending here and as far as I know they've approved every pipeline or project that has come through for them to have their say. I don't consider that SFA, but everyone has their axe to grind.

Agreed, throwing money at oil companies will not influence their desire to operate in regions where they will make more money due to cheaper operational expenses. You'd be better off sending that money to Saudi Arabia and asking them to raise the price of oil.