Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mull]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's a deliberately misleading statistic, as simply recovering to February 2020 levels is a feat in itself. Here's how long it has taken to recover to prior peak private sector job numbers in the last 4 recessions in the US (I used the US because the data is easier to pull from and they're a good benchmark):

1990: 3 years and 2 months
2001: 4 years and 2 months
2008: 6 years and 4 months
2020: 2 years and 4 months

So to say "x % of job growth in the last 2 years and 5 months in Canada has been in the public sector" is more or less meaningless because in a normal recession, we wouldn't have expected to even get back to the baseline by this point. The fact that Canada got back to our prior number within 2 years (4 months faster than the US did) is a good thing. But obviously once you hit the point of recovery for private sector numbers, then nearly 100% of the growth will be in the public sector because the private sector has been in recovery for several years.

It's a bit like comparing bank interest to the stock market. If the stock market crashes and then recovers 2 years later, would it make sense to say "99% of the money my investments have returned in the last 2 years have been from my savings account. There's something wrong with the economy if the stock market can't even beat my bank account"? No, you wouldn't. Because stocks fluctuate just like private sector job numbers. And with both, if you cherry pick the period you're comparing, then you can easily make the numbers look bad.

The exact same thing happens every time there's private sector job loss from a recession, so anyone pretending it's unusual or unexpected is either being misleading or is ignorant.

Great info ty

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Worth noting that the share of public sector jobs in Canada is less now than it was after the 1990 recession, as well.

This would seem to throw mud in the argument our federal government is bloated

To make this high level metric more valuable - You would need to normalize the total job percentage of public jobs by their salary compared to public salary or something

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mull

This would seem to throw mud in the argument our federal government is bloated

Doesn't mean it is, doesn't mean it isn't. Just that what we're seeing now isn't some kind of unprecedented public sector explosion.



That would also include all public sector jobs at all levels of government, not just the feds.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's a deliberately misleading statistic, as simply recovering to February 2020 levels is a feat in itself. Here's how long it has taken to recover to prior peak private sector job numbers in the last 4 recessions in the US (I used the US because the data is easier to pull from and they're a good benchmark):

1990: 3 years and 2 months
2001: 4 years and 2 months
2008: 6 years and 4 months
2020: 2 years and 4 months

So to say "x % of job growth in the last 2 years and 5 months in Canada has been in the public sector" is more or less meaningless because in a normal recession, we wouldn't have expected to even get back to the baseline by this point. The fact that Canada got back to our prior number within 2 years (4 months faster than the US did) is a good thing. But obviously once you hit the point of recovery for private sector numbers, then nearly 100% of the growth will be in the public sector because the private sector has been in recovery for several years.

It's a bit like comparing bank interest to the stock market. If the stock market crashes and then recovers 2 years later, would it make sense to say "99% of the money my investments have returned in the last 2 years have been from my savings account. There's something wrong with the economy if the stock market can't even beat my bank account"? No, you wouldn't. Because stocks fluctuate just like private sector job numbers. And with both, if you cherry pick the period you're comparing, then you can easily make the numbers look bad.

The exact same thing happens every time there's private sector job loss from a recession, so anyone pretending it's unusual or unexpected is either being misleading or is ignorant.

So wait, are you suggesting the Frasier Institute put out something misleading, and we were right to question them? Well, who could have seen that coming?

It always amazes me when posters bring their worthless trash up time and again, and every time it gets dissected for the garbage it is. Maybe just stop reading their stuff? Unless you like to be deceived? I don't get it. Maybe Azure can explain.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I wish the government would figure out a way to better manage it’s current cash flow rather than dream up new taxes.

As mentioned above, how many more years until the thresholds are lowered and the scope expanded?

Is it indexed to inflation? If not, technically the threshold will drop over time.

As for cutting the public service, didn't we just go through a good example of why that would be bad? Everyone get their passports renewed quickly enough, or is a year wait what we want? It's always funny when people want government services trimmed, then they yell like crazy when they don't get what they need quickly enough. Pick a lane.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So wait, are you suggesting the Frasier Institute put out something misleading, and we were right to question them? Well, who could have seen that coming?

It always amazes me when posters bring their worthless trash up time and again, and every time it gets dissected for the garbage it is. Maybe just stop reading their stuff? Unless you like to be deceived? I don't get it. Maybe Azure can explain.

That article Azure linked really is a great example of using vague words to mislead people. The headline is "Government Jobs Driving Canada's Recovery," so any reasonable person would assume they're talking about the job numbers relating to the recovery; in other words the vast majority of the recovery in job numbers since the low point of the pandemic has been due to public sector hiring.

And of course the article continues on that theme, talking about job numbers "since the start of the pandemic" and since "early 2020," along with "job creation in Canada since the onset of the pandemic and recession." Again, a reasonable person would assume they're talking about people losing jobs as a result of the pandemic, and then where those new jobs since then have come from.

But they're not. They're comparing to before the pandemic resulted in any job losses, so they're not talking about a recovery at all. If you go by the period it sounds like they're talking about (which would be April 2020 to now), then nearly 90% of the jobs that have been created have been in the private sector. But that's not going to rile their target audience up.

Technically they're not straight out lying; they're just being vague enough in the right spots and relying on people not thinking too hard about it all in order to mislead people.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

If they have saved $100k surely they can come up with another few bucks to make the difference. Remember the tax you pay is only on the amount OVER $100k, not the “first” $100k. So if the car cost $110k they’re paying 20% on the $10k. So this particular car would cost an additional $2000, less than 2% of the purchase price, peanuts really.

There was an earlier example using a Lexus and it is a good one. You could purchase the less expensive Toyota and save money but instead, opting for the more flashy luxurious Lexus, for no other reason then to drive a Lexus, could now cost even more. And anyone spending $100k+ on a Lexus should be subject to an idiot tax as well.

I feel like the dripping sarcasm of my post may have required green text. Just to be clear, in a country where the median 65 year old has 127,000 saved in a RRSP and 50K saved in TFSA’s as per Stats Canada, I do not think that buying a 100,000 dollar vehicle to kick of an indeterminable period of time where one may continue to live but not make as much money as they did in previous years is a thing many people are doing. With or without a luxury tax.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Mull

When people say this - I always have to ask - what In the current budget would you get rid of that would make a meaningful difference?

It is hard to say, as obviously the government is massive, and to be honest, cutting away a few departments in really peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, it would be interesting to see after a year how much this wealth tax has generated. I assume that most who are in a position to buy $200,000 cars and whatnot, also avail themselves of a team of professionals who fully understand the tax code and are very efficient at reducing a persons tax burden.

But the ministry of the middle class (or whatever they are officially called), seems like a great first place to start in terms of reducing government bloat.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As for cutting the public service, didn't we just go through a good example of why that would be bad? Everyone get their passports renewed quickly enough, or is a year wait what we want? It's always funny when people want government services trimmed, then they yell like crazy when they don't get what they need quickly enough. Pick a lane.

We could probably cut the people who called me 28 times earlier this year to check if my children were quarantining (when they were not required to do so). Roughly 280 minutes of government employees time and my time, where every conversation ended with "we don't have that in our system, I'll update it."

Narrator: they didn't.

Or even just move them to giving out passports.

[calgarygeologist]

It is being reported that Justin has told his Cabinet that he is not leaving and will be sticking around as leader of the Liberals for the next election. It also sounds like Freeland wants out as is looking for a top job with the NATO.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It is being reported that Justin has told his Cabinet that he is not leaving and will be sticking around as leader of the Liberals for the next election. It also sounds like Freeland wants out as is looking for a top job with the UN.

We need the liberal knives to come out and turf him.

Carney or Freeland would be much better

[Northendzone]

I feel like carney is even more of a green zealot than the current guy.

Oh well, at this point all I can do is sit back and watch the circus

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It is being reported that Justin has told his Cabinet that he is not leaving and will be sticking around as leader of the Liberals for the next election. It also sounds like Freeland wants out as is looking for a top job with the NATO.

I don't have much respect for Freeland, I get its the party way, but she stood by through too many ethical violations, and attempts at court fixings, and for a feminist talker she stood behind Trudeau and nodded her head while Trudeau tossed strong woman that dared to challenge the PM out of the party, and had little to say when the PMO office protected the former defense minister and had woman who were complaining about sexual misconduct ignored.

I don't think that she'd be great in the top job for NATO, and how they would even consider someone that's part of a government that basically lied to NATO about spending is beyond me.

But I'd rather have her in NATO then running the country.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I feel like carney is even more of a green zealot than the current guy.

Oh well, at this point all I can do is sit back and watch the circus

Neither Party has great leadership options on the bench. Its a sad state of affairs for Canadian Politics.

[Erick Estrada]

It's too bad we just couldn't burn things down and start from scratch like some companies do when the bringing in new management.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I feel like carney is even more of a green zealot than the current guy.

Oh well, at this point all I can do is sit back and watch the circus

I don't know if he is or not, but it would be good to have someone with a strong financial background as leader. I'd love to see the former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England debate Pierre P about his plans to fire the current BoC governor.

[Azure]

I would vote for a party led by Carney.

Loads of experience too. Knows how government works, has a strong background in the financial side.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's too bad we just couldn't burn things down and start from scratch like some companies do when the bringing in new management.

We could if the Conservatives would pick a leader who's palatable to most of the country.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would vote for a party led by Carney.

Loads of experience too. Knows how government works, has a strong background in the financial side.

Carney v. Pollivere in debates would be incredible. He'd absolutely dismantle that weasel and his bitcoin fantasies.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But I'd rather have her in NATO then running the country.

Something tells me there’s a grammatical error in there.