Alberta Politics Thread

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why would corporations and banks do that there's no benefit for them to?

To prevent the system from collapsing altogether. Look at the desperate measures already being taken to try to encourage spending:

1) Historically low interest rates.
2) Historically high household debt.
3) Historically high government debt.

All the levers to increase spending and revive the economy are already maxed out. And most of the world still hasn't recovered from 2008 (a point that Albertans tend to be unaware of because the oil boom continued for six years after that).

We're seeing two historical forces that together are leading us into uncharted territory.

After the gains made by labour in the 20th century (mostly owing to the loss of capital suffered in the two Great Wars), we're seeing capital regain its supremacy. Expect to see concentrations of wealth the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century.

The process of automation that is just picking up steam is different from other eras of technological change because we're destroying jobs far faster than we're creating new ones. The new industries and companies only employ a fraction of people as the companies they're replacing did. Kodak once employed 145,000 people. The company leading the 'disruption' when Kodak went bankrupt was Instagram. It employed 13 people.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

Automated cars will put half a million Canadians out of work. How many software developers and other new jobs will be needed to replace them? 1,000? If that? 42 per cent of Canadians jobs are at high risk of automation.

Here's a sobering number: 0.5 per cent of Americans are employed in industries that have emerged since 2000. http://www.economist.com/news/specia...on-and-anxiety

I'm not against progress. But we need to prepare for a labour market - and a society - where half the workforce will be deemed unnecessary. You can't train everyone to be software developers. And in fact, software development itself is becoming less and less labour intensive. Some people simply don't have the intelligence or flexibility to thrive in a high tech economy. And we only need so many waiters and bartenders - especially in a society where wealth will be so concentrated that most people won't be able to eat out regularly.

In an economy built on mass consumption and mass spending, it will be in the interests of not only government, but banks and corporations themselves to find some way to get all that money that will be concentrated in very few hands into the hands of hundreds of millions of unemployed or underemployed so it can circulate in the economy. The market isn't going to do it naturally. It will require intervention on a scale we've never seen.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

Given you have spent this entire thread proposing "solutions" to smaller problems with a myopic passion while completely ignoring the larger consequences, I would say he's got you dead to rights.

So, again, please tell me how you intend to deal with the industries, such as manufacturing, that you intend to kill with your anti-automation stance.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Automated cars will put half a million Canadians out of work. How many software developers and other new jobs will be needed to replace them? 1,000? If that? 42 per cent of Canadians jobs are at high risk of automation.

Before you totally light your hair on fire, your article says...

We don't believe that all of these jobs will be lost," said Sean Mullin, executive director of the Brookfield Institute, in a release. "Many will be restructured, and new jobs will be created as the nature of occupations change due to the impact of technology and computerization

As Obama says...there's going to be jobs for folks. Actually here in Alberta, too many jobs...

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...eport-predicts

The economic downturn has reduced Alberta’s projected 10-year labour shortage, but the province is still expected to need an additional 49,000 workers by 2025, a new report says.

The Occupational Demand and Supply Outlook (2015-2025) released Wednesday by Alberta Labour indicates 401,000 Alberta jobs will be created over the next decade and only 352,000 people will join the labour force.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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?



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?



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?

Mcdonalds -- They did lower prices. Year over year prices stayed at the same level. That is a 1-2% price cut. And its not Mcdonalds expanding that's the benefit of efficiency. Its McDonalds dividend increasing leading to more money available for investment into any industry. Our entire capitalist system is based on goods becoming cheaper to produce overtime. Its the underpinning of thousands of years of expansion.

Work Week -- I agree that organized labour led to shorter work weeks and better working conditions. However this was made possible by the amount of profit being made by companies. A profit that was allowed to be made by automation. As I said in my post automation leads to increased efficiency is a fact. How you divide the winfall is a political issue.

What you seem to be missing is what Money is. Money is a representation of Human and Mechanical labour. There is a finite amount of human and mechanical labour available. (it can be added through energy extraction or adding more people, or making those people work more) So if we have a finite amount of energy in the economy the way you maximize economic output is to maximize the efficient use of that energy.

The lower the cost of an apple or an apple iPhone the more of these wigits people can consume and the greater the carrying capacity of the world.

And I agree that automation gains aren't necessarily passed on to the consumer. But that is a political issue of how wealth is shared and not an issue with automation. You seem to be caught up in the potential negative consequence of automation as opposed to discussing how regulation and government intervention can allow automation to happen while ensuring wealth distribution is appropriate.

Essentially you want to limit technological advancement because the technology might be used in weapons. Fix the distribution of wealth and not force people to work at pointless tasks that are unnecessary

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Mcdonalds -- They did lower prices. Year over year prices stayed at the same level. That is a 1-2% price cut. And its not Mcdonalds expanding that's the benefit of efficiency. Its McDonalds dividend increasing leading to more money available for investment into any industry. Our entire capitalist system is based on goods becoming cheaper to produce overtime. Its the underpinning of thousands of years of expansion.

Work Week -- I agree that organized labour led to shorter work weeks and better working conditions. However this was made possible by the amount of profit being made by companies. A profit that was allowed to be made by automation. As I said in my post automation leads to increased efficiency is a fact. How you divide the winfall is a political issue.

What you seem to be missing is what Money is. Money is a representation of Human and Mechanical labour. There is a finite amount of human and mechanical labour available. (it can be added through energy extraction or adding more people, or making those people work more) So if we have a finite amount of energy in the economy the way you maximize economic output is to maximize the efficient use of that energy.

The lower the cost of an apple or an apple iPhone the more of these wigits people can consume and the greater the carrying capacity of the world.

And I agree that automation gains aren't necessarily passed on to the consumer. But that is a political issue of how wealth is shared and not an issue with automation. You seem to be caught up in the potential negative consequence of automation as opposed to discussing how regulation and government intervention can allow automation to happen while ensuring wealth distribution is appropriate.

Essentially you want to limit technological advancement because the technology might be used in weapons. Fix the distribution of wealth and not force people to work at pointless tasks that are unnecessary

You lost me when you tried to argue that McDonald's has kept their prices the same year over year. That simply is not true. In fact they went up after getting those order taking machines.

Companies were making profits before automation, they just had slaves instead of machines. Employers didn't just willfully decide to share those profits with their employees, nor did they willfully allow people to work a reduced work week. In fact they complained and fought throughout the entire process.

Technology being used in weapons? Where are you coming up with this stuff?

There are serious implications to workers being replaced too quickly by automation. People will make the argument that the order taking machine will need to be built and serviced by someone. That's very true, however the clerk losing their job likely can't do those jobs. They also will not need 10 people to make 10 new machines. Do you see how this starts to have a very exponential impact? There are ways to minimize the impact and I believe this issue should be taken seriously, I'm not in any way suggesting to stop automation all together, but at the same time we need to make sure we are not digging ourselves into an economic black hole. Eliminating local jobs by automation so that someone in Japan can have a job making these machines is not going to help us in the long run.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

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?

There are two political decisions that the Federal Liberals have made that affect and block billions in private infrastructure investment. To improve this, they could:

1) Lift the NW BC oil tanker ban (instead impose and enforce appropriate maritime safety rules).
2) Shorten the amount of time they sit on NEB approval decisions at the cabinet level.

[Tron_fdc]

I'd like to see someone go backwards in the labour chain, hire a bunch of guys locally at $40/hr instead of taking advantage of automation and technology, then compete globally with China.

You, my friend, would be my FAVORITE competition. I would eat your lunch in a week.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There are ways to minimize the impact and I believe this issue should be taken seriously, I'm not in any way suggesting to stop automation all together, but at the same time we need to make sure we are not digging ourselves into an economic black hole. Eliminating local jobs by automation so that someone in Japan can have a job making these machines is not going to help us in the long run.

How can you say this with a straight face when you have to know that your stance is what would create the "economic black hole" in the first place? Once again, Iggy_oi, please explain how you intend to deal with industries your anti-automation position will decimate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You lost me when you tried to argue that McDonald's has kept their prices the same year over year. That simply is not true. In fact they went up after getting those order taking machines.

Companies were making profits before automation, they just had slaves instead of machines. Employers didn't just willfully decide to share those profits with their employees, nor did they willfully allow people to work a reduced work week. In fact they complained and fought throughout the entire process.

Technology being used in weapons? Where are you coming up with this stuff?

There are serious implications to workers being replaced too quickly by automation. People will make the argument that the order taking machine will need to be built and ser viced by someone. That's very true, however the clerk losing their job likely can't do those jobs. They also will not need 10 people to make 10 new machines. Do you see how this starts to have a very exponential impact? There are ways to minimize the impact and I believe this issue should be taken seriously, I'm not in any way suggesting to stop automation all together, but at the same time we need to make sure we are not digging ourselves into an economic black hole. Eliminating local jobs by automation so that someone in Japan can have a job making these machines is not going to help us in the long run.

Your original contention was that we should punish companies for automating jobs because we will displace workers whose jobs won't be immediately replaced. You are unsure where you would draw the line.

My original contention is that restricting automation is stupid as it increases the size of the economic pie and therefore is a net good regardless of job displacement. The distribution of this economic pie needs to be dealt with politically through taxation and not the restriction of progress.

Does this still hold up as the argument we are having?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How can you say this with a straight face when you have to know that your stance is what would create the "economic black hole" in the first place? Once again, Iggy_oi, please explain how you intend to deal with industries your anti-automation position will decimate.

Why can't we try to find ways to give companies incentives to train their current staff into new roles before their jobs are eliminated by automation? Will that really decimate the industries?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your original contention was that we should punish companies for automating jobs because we will displace workers whose jobs won't be immediately replaced. You are unsure where you would draw the line.

My original contention is that restricting automation is stupid as it increases the size of the economic pie and therefore is a net good regardless of job displacement. The distribution of this economic pie needs to be dealt with politically through taxation and not the restriction of progress.

Does this still hold up as the argument we are having?

The severance penalties I suggested were meant to be a deterrent of job elimination, not a mechanism to stop automation all together. As for economic distribution, if automation will lead to higher taxes for companies isn't that essentially the same thing as the penalty I suggested? You could even argue that companies would be more in favour of a one time payment than an endless higher tax bracket.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You lost me when you tried to argue that McDonald's has kept their prices the same year over year. That simply is not true. In fact they went up after getting those order taking machines.

You seem to be very critical of the way McDonald's and other private companies run their business, and yet I bet the pension fund of your union holds stock in many of these companies.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The severance penalties I suggested were meant to be a deterrent of job elimination, not a mechanism to stop automation all together. As for economic distribution, if automation will lead to higher taxes for companies isn't that essentially the same thing as the penalty I suggested? You could even argue that companies would be more in favour of a one time payment than an endless higher tax bracket.

Automation leads to job elimination. Their is no such thing as retraining when the physical number of jobs has been reduced. So what your proposal is doing is making automation more expensive by incentivising existing human labour over robots.

Automation doesn't lead to higher taxes necessarily. And certainly doesn't target the automaters. I am saying that income inequality needs to be addressed politically rather than through the prevention of automation.

You seem to look at the small picture. 1 job being lost and how that person can be kept employed. Whereas the Macro picture is much more important. All jobs eventually will be lost so delaying that doesn't help, how do we ensure that as jobs are lost society continues to function in a reasonably equitable manner.

The answer to this isn't to punish automaters.

[SeeGeeWhy]

NDP outlined how carbon taxation will actually be implemented on Friday

Summary by pwc here

Then list of activities NOT exempt would be shorter.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

NDP outlined how carbon taxation will actually be implemented on Friday

Summary by pwc here

Then list of activities NOT exempt would be shorter.

Am I reading this correctly in that any fuel imported into Alberta is essentially exempt from the carbon tax? And our refiners here will be charging tax on fuel that is manufactured in Alberta. And how will retailers that may be selling a blend depending on where their particular batch came from know which ones to charge on and which not to?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Automation leads to job elimination. Their is no such thing as retraining when the physical number of jobs has been reduced. So what your proposal is doing is making automation more expensive by incentivising existing human labour over robots.

Automation doesn't lead to higher taxes necessarily. And certainly doesn't target the automaters. I am saying that income inequality needs to be addressed politically rather than through the prevention of automation.

You seem to look at the small picture. 1 job being lost and how that person can be kept employed. Whereas the Macro picture is much more important. All jobs eventually will be lost so delaying that doesn't help, how do we ensure that as jobs are lost society continues to function in a reasonably equitable manner.

The answer to this isn't to punish automaters.

Who will be expected to cover the costs of this equalization?

[Fuzz]

natural gas, the levy will be collected by the last seller before the consumer

That still doesn't clarify if it will be a line item on our bill, or rolled into the rate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Who will be expected to cover the costs of this equalization?

It my magical fantasy world a progressive consumption tax would likely be the best way to deal with income inequality which would pay for a guaranteed income.

This issue though exists with or without the discussion around automation. The question of distribution of wealth within a capitalist society has always been and will always be an issue. The goal should be to perform this equalization in a way that hits economic expansion in as minimal of way as possible.

The problem with limiting automation is that you are paying someone to do nothing but making them do something. This means they can't be doing something else. We also then need to train people to replace the people doing nothing thus investing shared resources into the creation of nothing. If we are going to pay someone to do nothing lets pay them to do nothing and maybe in their spare time they will find something to do.

Essentially as confusing as the above paragraph is if we have to pay people to do nothing we need to be as efficient about it as possible. Limiting automation is the least efficient way to pay someone to do nothing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

It my magical fantasy world a progressive consumption tax would likely be the best way to deal with income inequality which would pay for a guaranteed income.

This issue though exists with or without the discussion around automation. The question of distribution of wealth within a capitalist society has always been and will always be an issue. The goal should be to perform this equalization in a way that hits economic expansion in as minimal of way as possible.

The problem with limiting automation is that you are paying someone to do nothing but making them do something. This means they can't be doing something else. We also then need to train people to replace the people doing nothing thus investing shared resources into the creation of nothing. If we are going to pay someone to do nothing lets pay them to do nothing and maybe in their spare time they will find something to do.

Essentially as confusing as the above paragraph is if we have to pay people to do nothing we need to be as efficient about it as possible. Limiting automation is the least efficient way to pay someone to do nothing.

This is what I keep saying, but they keep hiring Government workers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

It my magical fantasy world a progressive consumption tax would likely be the best way to deal with income inequality which would pay for a guaranteed income.

This issue though exists with or without the discussion around automation. The question of distribution of wealth within a capitalist society has always been and will always be an issue. The goal should be to perform this equalization in a way that hits economic expansion in as minimal of way as possible.

The problem with limiting automation is that you are paying someone to do nothing but making them do something. This means they can't be doing something else. We also then need to train people to replace the people doing nothing thus investing shared resources into the creation of nothing. If we are going to pay someone to do nothing lets pay them to do nothing and maybe in their spare time they will find something to do.

Essentially as confusing as the above paragraph is if we have to pay people to do nothing we need to be as efficient about it as possible. Limiting automation is the least efficient way to pay someone to do nothing.

I can appreciate where you are coming from, but the fact is when people lose their jobs they can't exactly be counted on to cover equalization. With less and less people being employed, the employers will be required to pay for more and more people to not be employed by them. When you have real people working for you and you expand you are reinvesting into the economy. When you eliminate jobs but are still expanding you are investing solely in yourself, if you need to pay more for equalization so that you are able to maintain customers/revenue it seems to me like eventually you will be losing on that if more and more people are out of work.

I can see your point of paying someone to do nothing instead of using a machine, but if you choose to pay for that machine instead, under your suggestion you will still be paying people to do nothing.

I can understand everyone's concern with businesses choosing then to instead invest into foreign markets, but I really believe that this will eventually become a global issue and if we don't address the issue sooner rather than later, we could eventually find ourselves in a situation we can't get ourselves out of. If we get to a point where employers have the ability to dictate our quality of life or how much they need to give up to do so because we've lost all leverage due to the fact that they can operate without workers what will equalization really look like?