Alberta Politics Thread

[Weitz]

Is anyone surprised? No one in this country cares about anyone but themselves.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Ok so let's dissect this.

EI extensions: that's fine. How did that help the thousands of contractors out of work?

Pushed for infrastructure: the Feds are running one of the highest deficits that our generation (hopefully) are ever going to see. And all they have done is "Push" for infrastructure? Thanks.

How are those pipelines going? It sure seems to me they red taped it to a high enough degree that even though they are "approved" they will never be a "reality".

So I guess it might not be "sweet" FA but it sure is a whole lot of FA. Unless of course they are doing something I'm not aware of.

I also never said I wanted a bailout. It was an example of the Eastern bias that seeps into the minds of a whole lot of Albertans these days.

It's not that easy though. I feel for the contractors, but what are we (society) supposed to do for that class of worker? They have benefits to the arrangement when times are good, and they know the risks. I just don't know what can be done though. I do think that the government pressing the EI limit further back is a great start, and yeah it won't cover everyone or solve the issue for every family, but its not nothing either.

And what do you suggest that the government can do about the pipelines? We've seen that you can't just ram them through because you'll just get court injunctions coming back at you. I mean realistically, they've approved everything that has come to them...what more do you suggest they do here?

They've greenlighted and funded billions in infrastructure spending not only federally but provincially as well. And yeah they're running huge deficits to do this, but things are getting built which should be putting people to work. They've given the money and done everything on their end...so again what else can they do?

To me this isn't even a political issue or anything to do with western alienation. You have the major commodity that we have produced for decades and based our economy on suffering pricewise globally. There's really nothing simple and sure fire that the government can do (regardless of political stripe) to just fix this.

[Street Pharmacist]

One of the worst things about our democracy is that in an effort to get elected, our government has promised to do things that governments have no control over

[CaptainCrunch]

Lucky I'm not an MP, because I would have turned around and donkey punched that jacka%% right in the sack.

[Tron_fdc]

So we should just be complacent where we are? Because that's the sense I'm getting from your posts, which I totally disagree with.

[CaptainCrunch]

I thought that the vast majority of the infrastructure dollars coming to Alberta were on autopilot from the Harper government and in comparison what the Liberals are spending is pretty small. I could be wrong on that, but I think that was one of the complaints.

The EI extention is fine, but iirc it was pretty targeted and honestly it results to a bandaid that will run out for the majority of unemployed people long before any fix is put into place.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So we should just be complacent where we are? Because that's the sense I'm getting from your posts, which I totally disagree with.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm saying that "we" are doing things, and I just don't know what else could be done. It's great to complain that not enough is happening, but seriously what else should be happening? I would love to see everyone employed and a nice stable economy, but I don't know how to just make that happen either.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I thought that the vast majority of the infrastructure dollars coming to Alberta were on autopilot from the Harper government and in comparison what the Liberals are spending is pretty small. I could be wrong on that, but I think that was one of the complaints.

The EI extention is fine, but iirc it was pretty targeted and honestly it results to a bandaid that will run out for the majority of unemployed people long before any fix is put into place.

Well just last fall the Liberals promised a large chunk for Calgary for the LRT and I think something else? I have no idea if there are holdovers from Harper, because I just don't care. We need a lot of this infrastructure and people need jobs, so whichever government said they would fund it, that's great; lets move along with the building.

And yeah, the EI increase is a Band-Aid and all that. I still think its a good plan and hopefully it helps a lot of people through some unquestionably difficult times.

I'd be in favour of further programs or plans to help people more. Unfortunately though, I think that the issue is bigger than Alberta and Canada and takes a long time to unwind. We had a huge productions surplus and its beyond our control, so limiting the damage is about all the government can try to do. I would be very interested in hearing other ideas though and not just "why doesn't anyone want to help Alberta?!" That doesn't mean that I condone people like that BQ MP in the least. I just try to ignore it because its useless to waste energy with people like that.

[Tron_fdc]

I can actually tell you how much infrastructure money is coming our way (I think) once I get off my phone. NDP had a pretty huge amount and Trudeau flew out to announce they were matching it, but as far as I know neither one has happened. I will dig a bit, I have all the Ab tenders in my email.

There are lots of things we could be doing. "Targeted" spending for roads, government programs to actually help pipeline construction, evaluate transfer payments or more funding for government programs that can effectively create jobs. I could go on forever.

I just feel like it's "you didn't vote for us, so too bad". That alienates me.

I voted liberal. I truly thought this government was going to be different. I don't work O&G (I actually get busier when Quebec and Ontario do well) but it sure does feel like this province that I grew up in and love (I'm 4th generation Calgarian) is getting the shaft and I don't like it.

I can see why parents and friends thought I was a lunatic for supporting Trudeau. He's not helping his cause out here at all. His optics are terrible, and as we all know optics have a lot to do with voting.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Here's the three fold argument to a guaranteed minimum income. To make it affordable all social programs go away.

I don't think governments could afford to be the sole funders of a guaranteed minimum income. Not without a radical overhaul of taxation that would be practically impossible to implement. This would need to be done by a the state, banks, and corporations working together.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The second argument is that its tough to define a minimum income in that kind of user fee environment.

Enough that people have a roof over their heads and some money to spend to keep the economy going. The spending part is key. Our entire economy is based on broad spending to keep the wheels turning. If we see the kind of chronic economic stagnation and relentless and permanent loss of jobs some are predicting, most people won't earn enough to spend. We won't be able to rely on the wealthiest 20 per cent to spend enough to keep the economy running.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh and the fourth one is that you will actively create class warfare and resentment between the people who want to live on the minimum income and those that are footing the bill, the resentment comes from the argument of why the heck and I'm paying for a person to sit at home.

If we really are entering an era of chronic stagnation, with 1 to 2 per cent growth for the next 20 plus years, while automation eliminates tens of millions of jobs and most people are lucky to have any kind of full-time employment, we'll have class warfare anyway. We're already seeing a kind of class warfare, where the losers of globalization in the UK and the U.S. - the unskilled and the old and those who can't adapt - would rather blow up the whole system than quietly go into the night.

In the big picture, it's looking more and more like the post-war society that we consider 'normal' - the widespread prosperity and security of the 50s to the 90s - were an anomaly. A fortunate era that came about because of an unlikely confluence of history and technology. Today, capital is back on top, and those who either don't have a pile of money already, or have the technical and social skills to succeed in a world of innovation and intense competition, will be left out in the cold. That will be most people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think governments could afford to be the sole funders of a guaranteed minimum income. Not without a radical overhaul of taxation that would be practically impossible to implement. This would need to be done by a the state, banks, and corporations working together.

Why would corporations and banks do that there's no benefit for them to? The only benefit would be if the government paid lets say the first 30k of everyone's salary and they top up after that, but that's an unaffordable concept.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Enough that people have a roof over their heads and some money to spend to keep the economy going. The spending part is key. Our entire economy is based on broad spending to keep the wheels turning. If we see the kind of chronic economic stagnation and relentless and permanent loss of jobs some are predicting, most people won't earn enough to spend. We won't be able to rely on the wealthiest 20 per cent to spend enough to keep the economy running.

Again one of the primary selling points of a minimum government income would be that there would be no more social programs, everything would be user paid, so that roof over peoples heads would vanish pretty quickly the first time your kids got sick and you had to pay $1000.00 of dollars for their health care. Or you had to buy your own health care insurance.

To me the current system needs adjustment to targeted help instead of something like a guaranteed income, that to me means education and job training dollars instead of income dollars from the government except for those in real need on a temporary basis (EI/Welfare) or a permanent basis (pension or disability) for example.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we really are entering an era of chronic stagnation, with 1 to 2 per cent growth for the next 20 plus years, while automation eliminates tens of millions of jobs and most people are lucky to have any kind of full-time employment, we'll have class warfare anyway. We're already seeing a kind of class warfare, where the losers of globalization in the UK and the U.S. - the unskilled and the old and those who can't adapt - would rather blow up the whole system than quietly go into the night.

This is going to happen no matter what, even the Canadian Finance Minister talked about the future of younger or unskilled workers being one of constant churn and moving from job to job and training to training. Just creating a unaffordable minimum income concept where we actually make the vulnerable more vulnerable through the removal of social programs and targeted help makes very little sense.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the big picture, it's looking more and more like the post-war society that we consider 'normal' - the widespread prosperity and security of the 50s to the 90s - were an anomaly. A fortunate era that came about because of an unlikely confluence of history and technology. Today, capital is back on top, and those who either don't have a pile of money already, or have the technical and social skills to succeed in a world of innovation and intense competition, will be left out in the cold. That will be most people.

Sure, but then society has to change and I believe that the emphasis has to be on targeted education and job training and encouraging people to learn to work where the gaps are. In the 50's and 60's the gap was in manufacturing, and you could get away with being relatively unskilled. Now the demand is going to be heavy in the skilled trades and we need to encourage the young to look at those areas and train and prepare to work in those areas because the other option is that you don't train in those skills and you get caught in the churn. I believe that the day of education for the sake of just learning or spreading your wings is ending and everything is going to be with a purpose.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Did you even read what I wrote? Are farmers not already using tractors? This is about preventing further automation. If a farmer is employing someone to drive that tractor, it would make them the decision to replace that worker with a self driving tractor a lot more difficult for them to make. Protecting jobs is important in a consumer driven economy.



If 100 thousand jobs are replaced by machines to make businesses more efficient, how does this expand the economy? If McDonalds eventually becomes fully automated, their cost savings on labour do not get put back into our economy, because even if their business expands they are not creating more jobs, they are just taking in more money. This doesn't only apply to automation, look at the oil and gas industry. All of these people out of work because these companies decided while they could still operate here at a reduced profit with the price of oil where it is, they could make more money drilling elsewhere, so they completely crippled our economy in the process by laying everyone off. I'm not suggesting that they would not have made the same decision even with higher severance pays, but it would have been a bit more of a deterrent. It creates an environment where companies can still make money here, but not so easily leave the people who helped them make all that money in the dust when they decide it's a slightly better return on investment elsewhere.



No one is advocating the smashing of machines, but people need to realistically view the threat of expedited automation. Technology is moving too fast these days, if we eliminate jobs at a faster rate than we create new ones what do you think wI'll happen?

If unions were the reason that Calgary didn't have automated garbage pickup trucks earlier, what changed? Garbage collectors still have a union, so if they had this power to prevent it, why would they all of the sudden change their minds? Sorry, most of your posts here show you have a fairly well informed point of view on things, but this comment is just nonsense, especially if you know and take into consideration how the city and it's labour unions work.

As for the freeing humans from labour created society comment, when did this happen exactly? Last I checked there was still a large percentage of the workforce working in manual labour jobs. The ones most recently "freed" who are sitting at home or on the street wondering what they are going to do now probably wouldn't like this society that is being created.

Your arguments are identical to the Luddites. You are falling victim to a goldilocks argument where the current level of automation is good but anymore is bad. So why are tractors good but self checkouts bad?

Economies expand with efficiency because eiter the price of goods drops which allows more consumption or profit increases allowing more investment. How you distribute this win fall can be debated but to say that efficiency doesn't drive expansion ignores 6000 years of society.

When did humans become freed from labour? Slowly over the last 6000 years. From manufacturing to farming the amount of human energy required to do anything has dropped significantly. We used to have a 16hr 7 day per week work day in hunter gatherer societies. 7 X 12 was common in the industrial revolution. We now work 5x 8 with oil companies in boom times down to 4.5 X 8.

In fact one of the solutions to automation is to change the maximum hours of work down to say 32 so we share the limited jobs available. This can happen because the efficiency of the economy has lowered the cost of goods to allow for less labor to be required to survive.

[Resolute 14]

Given Iggy_oi's anti-automation stance would completely gut Canada's manufacturing sector - we would obviously be much more expensive than regions that keep up with technology - I wonder how he plans to deal with that?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given Iggy_oi's anti-automation stance would completely gut Canada's manufacturing sector - we would obviously be much more expensive than regions that keep up with technology - I wonder how he plans to deal with that?

In general IggyOi looks at everything from 6 feet, there's lots of people like that out there working for companies. They just think about how things affect their world and just want to believe that companies will always be there and always make things work.

The funny thing is, their pessimism about large companies and how they could do so much more for the common man and still make profits is correct, but what they always fail to understand is that like everything in life - It's not always fair.

"We want our share" and "these companies are just going to have to suck up these changes" are great in theory.........if most companies didn't have the option of packing up and leaving or not opening in any given city in the first place.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your arguments are identical to the Luddites. You are falling victim to a goldilocks argument where the current level of automation is good but anymore is bad. So why are tractors good but self checkouts bad?

Economies expand with efficiency because eiter the price of goods drops which allows more consumption or profit increases allowing more investment. How you distribute this win fall can be debated but to say that efficiency doesn't drive expansion ignores 6000 years of society.

So if McDonalds completely automates that'll be good for the economy? Because it'll either lower their prices or give them more money to invest in expansion? Funny their prices didn't drop when they installed the order taking machines, according to you that means they will expand, but as they continue to automate that will create fewer and fewer jobs as they expand would it not? So are you suggesting that once they fully automate they will then drop their prices? That's a gamble you'd be willing to take?

When did humans become freed from labour? Slowly over the last 6000 years. From manufacturing to farming the amount of human energy required to do anything has dropped significantly. We used to have a 16hr 7 day per week work day in hunter gatherer societies. 7 X 12 was common in the industrial revolution. We now work 5x 8 with oil companies in boom times down to 4.5 X 8.

100 years ago people were working 12 hour days 6 days a week, I hate to break this to you but it wasn't automation that changed that, it was the organized labour movement. According to you in 5900 years we went from 7 16 hour days to 7 12 hour days, and then over the next hundred years we went to 5 8 hour days and this is due to some form of evolution created by automation? You do realize many countries in the world have the same technology but very different averages for work/life balance right?

In fact one of the solutions to automation is to change the maximum hours of work down to say 32 so we share the limited jobs available. This can happen because the efficiency of the economy has lowered the cost of goods to allow for less labor to be required to survive.

Again the efficiency of a company does not automatically translate to those savings being passed on to consumers. What we would basically be doing in this situation is taking a cut as workers, which would then lead to reduced business for employers. At which point they could lower their prices, but according to many in this thread they are more likely to pack up and leave so do you really believe it's best to just keep automating?

[Street Pharmacist]

Preventing automaton? Let's kill the internet! It's destroying jobs!

It's like waiving your hands and telling a train to stop. Your just going to get run over. You either adapt or become obsolete. Take your pick. You can't "undo" discovery

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by jayswin

In general IggyOi looks at everything from 6 feet, there's lots of people like that out there working for companies. They just think about how things affect their world and just want to believe that companies will always be there and always make things work.

The funny thing is, their pessimism about large companies and how they could do so much more for the common man and still make profits is correct, but what they always fail to understand is that like everything in life - It's not always fair.

"We want our share" and "these companies are just going to have to suck up these changes" are great in theory.........if most companies didn't have the option of packing up and leaving or not opening in any given city in the first place.

I only think about how things affect my world? To make a statement like that I guess you'd have to have a pretty good idea of what my world looks like and what company I work for, but my guess is you're generalizing which really takes away from your credibility.

Yeah life's not fair, but that doesn't mean you can't fight to make it a little more fair.

Companies can pack up and leave at any time, you are correct. But the thing is, if they do that everywhere they have a hard time making any money, they know this and if more people that start to recognize this the better it is for workers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Preventing automaton? Let's kill the internet! It's destroying jobs!

It's like waiving your hands and telling a train to stop. Your just going to get run over. You either adapt or become obsolete. Take your pick. You can't "undo" discovery

Preventing and deterring are not exactly the same.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Preventing and deterring are not exactly the same.

Alberta isn't an isolated place. You can deter any economy that isn't connected, but even that won't last long at all. You cannot deter innovation in a connected industry (most industries) or you become inefficient and get destroyed.

If you legislate preventing some innovation that increases efficiency, you'll simply send that money elsewhere. If you can't make things as efficiently, you lose the business. If you can't provide efficient service (logistics, IT, etc) you will lose the business.

I get that innovation hurts jobs, but it's also creating jobs. The issue isn't lack of jobs, it's lack of an adaptable workforce. You can't turn back time so you have to be nimble to survive

The pace of

[OMG!WTF!]

So if McDonalds completely automates that'll be good for the economy? Because it'll either lower their prices or give them more money to invest in expansion? Funny their prices didn't drop when they installed the order taking machines, according to you that means they will expand, but as they continue to automate that will create fewer and fewer jobs as they expand would it not? So are you suggesting that once they fully automate they will then drop their prices? That's a gamble you'd be willing to take?

McDonald's is second only to WalMart as a target in the battle for a $15 wage. You can find numbers around 1.2 billion in public aid that we're forced to spend covering McDonald's employees.

That said, do you not see the connection between social pressure to pay people more and this strange and scary decent into automation? You're going to need a thousand fingers to plug the thousand holes from all the unintended consequences of your economic engineering.

However, the thing about automation, even at McDonald's, is that it isn't killing jobs. Like the ATM, McDonald's is repurposing employees to more meaningful roles. Instead of cashier work, employees are offering table service, more customer service, not less....

http://globalnews.ca/news/2582516/mc...of-the-future/