Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Well with this logic we should have a daycare tax to discourage more parents from entering the workforce to reduce the labour pool.

It doesn't need to swing from one extreme to another.
GGG posted about getting parents back to work and I question what work they are going to do?
Let's add thousands of stay at home moms or dads to the pool looking for a job who were surviving without it. As a cherry on top, those who truly need a job can compete with even more people than they already are.

[Ozy_Flame]

Travis - there are other jobs than O/G. I don't know where this "every industry is ####ed" sentiment is coming. And the alternative isn't just working at McDonald's either. Plenty of jobs in tech if one is willing to learn back-end or front+end development. Can always use good business analysts too.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Speaking as someone with a single income with kids and a wife that has been stuck at home with the kids for 6 years I would have a much different opinion on this matter, especially the bolded.

I can respect that as I can't relate... no kids.

The fundamentals of it just don't add up to me and it seems like an attempt to buy votes. With unemployment as high as it is, why incentivize more people to go look for work that doesn't exist?

I feel for that single income, no spouse individual who is doing everything possible to find a job and right as they may be close, they could lose it to someone who didn't need the job but because they can take their kid to daycare for $25, they entered the workforce.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Travis - there are other jobs than O/G. I don't know where this "every industry is ####ed" sentiment is coming. And the alternative isn't just working at McDonald's either. Plenty of jobs in tech if one is willing to learn back-end or front+end development. Can always use good business analysts too.

I never said every industry is **&&(ed

But fact is, unemployment is extremely high and this goes well beyond just oil and gas now. The trickle down has to be 5+ layers deep into different industry.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I can respect that as I can't relate... no kids.

The fundamentals of it just don't add up to me and it seems like an attempt to buy votes. With unemployment as high as it is, why incentivize more people to go look for work that doesn't exist?

I feel for that single income, no spouse individual who is doing everything possible to find a job and right as they may be close, they could lose it to someone who didn't need the job but because they can take their kid to daycare for $25, they entered the workforce.

As Ozy pointed out, there are plenty of jobs out there, especially for low skilled or lesser experienced workers.

The job losses in the OG sector are a huge portion of the overall job losses and the resulting unemployment. There is plenty of work out there, should people want it, in many many industries in Calgary.

My friend’s brother worked in OG, spent a year unemployed waiting to get back into it. Gave up, and found a job outside that industry within 6 weeks. Thinking everyone is just going to be entering the OG industry where professionals outweigh positions is flat out wrong.

[Roughneck]

What’s the cutoff for somebody who truly needs a job and somebody who doesn’t? If this is the worry, what makes a daycare tax extreme if it weeds out more people who don’t truly need their jobs, freeing them up for those who do? Wouldn’t the economy be best served by having the best candidates available to the labour force, and isn’t society best served by allowing more choice for people?

Not to mention it results in a lot more disposable money for families, which can be spent in the economy, which is better for business.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I can respect that as I can't relate... no kids.

The fundamentals of it just don't add up to me and it seems like an attempt to buy votes. With unemployment as high as it is, why incentivize more people to go look for work that doesn't exist?

I feel for that single income, no spouse individual who is doing everything possible to find a job and right as they may be close, they could lose it to someone who didn't need the job but because they can take their kid to daycare for $25, they entered the workforce.

Its not even a platform that would necessarily buy my vote but to say because unemployment is high (which it isnt where I live) so why incentivize people to go look for work. Strange take. My wife is a hair dresser - lots of stylist jobs out there. I dont get your take at all.

[FireGilbert]

Daycare should be at a low enough cost point so that mothers who want to go back to work can go back to work. They shouldn't need to make a difficult decision between their careers and their kids.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Its not even a platform that would necessarily buy my vote but to say because unemployment is high (which it isnt where I live) so why incentivize people to go look for work. Strange take. My wife is a hair dresser - lots of stylist jobs out there. I dont get your take at all.

This is one of the silliest posts in this thread. Unemployed oilfield services worker, go become a hairdresser? That's your suggestion?

Unemployment is up as much as it is because of a cascading effect, as the money that would normally be paid to workers in the oil industry is not being deployed as consumer spending, or otherwise. It's not that there are a bunch of job openings out there while low-skilled former oil and gas workers sit at home stubbornly refusing to look for work they could easily have.

[Travis Munroe]

I have no issue with the $25 day care.... I just feel emphasis should be placed on the economy at this point in time. Get the economy moving and bring in the $25 day care. Not wait for unemployment to peak and then incentivize more people to look for jobs.

It just seems backwards to me just as the NDP stepping on the O&G sector when it was down. I am fine with them pushing towards a climate change plan but perhaps we can focus on getting the economy moving and slowly implement change.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I have no issue with the $25 day care.... I just feel emphasis should be placed on the economy at this point in time. Get the economy moving and bring in the $25 day care. Not wait for unemployment to peak and then incentivize more people to look for jobs.

It just seems backwards to me just as the NDP stepping on the O&G sector when it was down. I am fine with them pushing towards a climate change plan but perhaps we can focus on getting the economy moving and slowly implement change.

But again, even if these people don’t all go back to work, you’re giving tens of thousands of people hundreds of dollars per month to plug back into the economy.

More people spending money = more businesses doing well = more businesses hiring.

Trickle up economics?

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I have no issue with the $25 day care.... I just feel emphasis should be placed on the economy at this point in time. Get the economy moving and bring in the $25 day care. Not wait for unemployment to peak and then incentivize more people to look for jobs.

It just seems backwards to me just as the NDP stepping on the O&G sector when it was down. I am fine with them pushing towards a climate change plan but perhaps we can focus on getting the economy moving and slowly implement change.

The economy is more than just oil and gas. By getting women back into the workforce and increasing our province’s overall productivity this can actually be viewed as an investment in getting the economy moving... but the return might not be the traditional oil and gas jobs that have dominated here for so long.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But again, even if these people don’t all go back to work, you’re giving tens of thousands of people hundreds of dollars per month to plug back into the economy.

More people spending money = more businesses doing well = more businesses hiring.

Trickle up economics?

I do believe that those who need subsidized daycare should get it. I don't believe that those who prefer subsidized daycare should get it.

Where the need and prefer line is drawn, I don't know but I certainly don't believe a household income of $100,000 needs subsidized daycare.

And again, lets not pretend that the savings on daycare are complete savings. This isn't coming from the magical money tree... the government will recover some of this in a more discrete fashion.

Let's also not argue that someone who needs subsidizing of daycare is in a position to take that new savings and pump it into private business to spur economic growth. If someone is about to go pump hundreds of dollars into private business more than they used to over subsidized daycare, I would call that an incredibly flawed system that is not helping those who truly need help.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is one of the silliest posts in this thread. Unemployed oilfield services worker, go become a hairdresser? That's your suggestion?

Unemployment is up as much as it is because of a cascading effect, as the money that would normally be paid to workers in the oil industry is not being deployed as consumer spending, or otherwise. It's not that there are a bunch of job openings out there while low-skilled former oil and gas workers sit at home stubbornly refusing to look for work they could easily have.

What are you talking about? I said my wife is a hair dresser and there are lots of stylist jobs out there. How is that silly?

I'm not sure where the rest of your post came from either. I didn't mention any of of what you are saying.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

The economy is more than just oil and gas. By getting women back into the workforce and increasing our province’s overall productivity this can actually be viewed as an investment in getting the economy moving... but the return might not be the traditional oil and gas jobs that have dominated here for so long.

I am blind to all of these jobs people keep talking about and clearly, with the nations highest unemployment rate, others are as well.

As I said before, the damage from oil and gas goes down many layers. Industry well beyond oil and gas is laying off.

All of my posts go back to 1 point.

It was said that $25 day care will get all of these people back to work.
I questioned if getting people back to work was the goal, it seems pretty flawed when unemployment is this high.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I do believe that those who need subsidized daycare should get it. I don't believe that those who prefer subsidized daycare should get it.

Where the need and prefer line is drawn, I don't know but I certainly don't believe a household income of $100,000 needs subsidized daycare.

And again, lets not pretend that the savings on daycare are complete savings. This isn't coming from the magical money tree... the government will recover some of this in a more discrete fashion.

Let's also not argue that someone who needs subsidizing of daycare is in a position to take that new savings and pump it into private business to spur economic growth. If someone is about to go pump hundreds of dollars into private business more than they used to over subsidized daycare, I would call that an incredibly flawed system that is not helping those who truly need help.

Nobody needs subsidised daycare.

But I’m sure it is very nice to have, and whether that money helps someone get by, or helps them pump more money into the economy, those both seem like wins.

And nobody thinks this stuff comes from “the magical money tree.” I think everyone who has a basic level of understanding regarding government money knows what tax revenue is.

But what to you is the cutoff? Who needs subsidised daycare? Who doesn’t? Being that daycare costs are not currently standardised, how do you then standardise the income level that gains the right to it? Should a 3 person family spending $1200 on rent in a condo with a household income of $90K get it, while a 5 person family spending $2000 on a mortgage not even if they just make 10K more?

“Need,” under your terms, is entirely subjective and frankly hard to measure with any accuracy. And chances are, if you put a wage cut off, you’ll just make it more likely for people near the bracket to weigh their options and have one person stay home. Say you’ve got one individual making $80K, and another who stays at home watching their kid. Put a cap at 100k, and that person is not going back to work.

This worse when it both helps those in need, and encourages that money and that time to be put back into society. Your solution just doesn’t accomplish that.

[GGG]

I think need is quite easy to assess, you just have to divide what the goal of the program is and the threshold that it delivers the most value.

If you goal is to increase labour participation then you want to make the decision to go back to wrk make more sense. So after tax income of the lower earner vs daycare cost would be the metric.

So if someone earning 60K before taxes earns about $240 per day. After tax probably about $180. So set a threshold for daycare fees of say 33% of after tax income. So this person would pay $60 per day for 1,2 or 3 kids.

The engineer making 150k gets nothing because they can easily afford it. Then you could apply a lower threshold for single parents.

If the goal is making the choice easier to increase labour participation then it should be targeted at making the choice make sense. If the income of the second job is too low that person should open a daycare. If high enough that the dollars aren’t the driver of the decision then we shouldn’t waste money on a subsidy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I would say he's trying to make a point about poor math and English, but he deleted it so it's probably that other thing.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1110410824265289730

[PsYcNeT]

I'm starting to question the UCP's ability to understand basic math guys. They might not do so hot with this economy thing

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I do believe that those who need subsidized daycare should get it. I don't believe that those who prefer subsidized daycare should get it.

Where the need and prefer line is drawn, I don't know but I certainly don't believe a household income of $100,000 needs subsidized daycare.

And again, lets not pretend that the savings on daycare are complete savings. This isn't coming from the magical money tree... the government will recover some of this in a more discrete fashion.

Let's also not argue that someone who needs subsidizing of daycare is in a position to take that new savings and pump it into private business to spur economic growth. If someone is about to go pump hundreds of dollars into private business more than they used to over subsidized daycare, I would call that an incredibly flawed system that is not helping those who truly need help.

I think you're under informed on the topic of child care.

My wife and I make over your threshold, own our house, have no debt other than a mortgage, own both our cars. We pay $1,200 a month for 3 days a week of daycare, if we did full time it would be close to $2,000 a month.

We 100% would go out for dinner more, or purchase more "want's", but with a huge chunk of income going to child care each month it just isn't in the cards. Yes we could find slightly cheaper care at a dayhome but we just weren't comfortable with that.