Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[calf]

Putting more money into lower income people's pockets should have more bang-for-the-buck than ensuring they have less. That extra money is going to things like food, groceries, local services, etc as they spend money they didn't previously have.

Assuming they work for a large profitable company, the money not being paid to employees is going back to shareholders. Let's assume that trickle down economics works, under the knowledge that wealthy people/companies, whose main motivation is to get wealthier and wealthier, will all of the sudden start just dolling out cash simply because they have more money, which will help the economy. They've got to let a year pass to see how their performance has been (should be great given their lower cost base), declare bonuses and dividend, distribute them to shareholders, then the shareholders have to cash out for that money to get spent, with the goal of that activity boosting activities enough to naturally raise demand to raise revenues and profits economy wide. It's pretty inefficient and has a lot of dependencies, compared to ensuring people have enough money in their pocket to live.

That's not to mention the effect of parents having less financial stress, the ability to afford medicine, ensuring their kids are healthy and fed and are able to spend time raising them, etc, and the spinoff effects on our health, education, and social support systems. Ensuring people aren't in poverty should mean we're spending less on those things in the long run as the cost of investment into prevention should be less than throwing money around to treat symptoms.

[bizaro86]

2k

Originally Posted by calf

Putting more money into lower income people's pockets should have more bang-for-the-buck than ensuring they have less. That extra money is going to things like food, groceries, local services, etc as they spend money they didn't previously have.

Assuming they work for a large profitable company, the money not being paid to employees is going back to shareholders. Let's assume that trickle down economics works, under the knowledge that wealthy people/companies, whose main motivation is to get wealthier and wealthier, will all of the sudden start just dolling out cash simply because they have more money, which will help the economy. They've got to let a year pass to see how their performance has been (should be great given their lower cost base), declare bonuses and dividend, distribute them to shareholders, then the shareholders have to cash out for that money to get spent, with the goal of that activity boosting activities enough to naturally raise demand to raise revenues and profits economy wide. It's pretty inefficient and has a lot of dependencies, compared to ensuring people have enough money in their pocket to live.

That's not to mention the effect of parents having less financial stress, the ability to afford medicine, ensuring their kids are healthy and fed and are able to spend time raising them, etc, and the spinoff effects on our health, education, and social support systems. Ensuring people aren't in poverty should mean we're spending less on those things in the long run as the cost of investment into prevention should be less than throwing money around to treat symptoms.

Yeah, adding money to poorer people is better for the local economy - that's why the covid stimulus was so effective. Someone who has less is much more likely to spend that immediately. Wealthier people are more likely to save it or spend it on international travel/outside the country.

Minimum wage should be set at a reasonable level and then automatically adjusted for inflation from there. I'd be inclined to catch up adjust for inflation since it went to $15 and then add a cpi escalator going forward

[TheIronMaiden]

How I imagine MelBridgeman interacts with clerks at the grocery store.


Clerk: will that be all

MelBridgeman: yes

Clerk: have a nice day

MelBridgeman: YOU SHOULD BE EMBARSSASED FOR WORKING THIS JOB.

Clerk: WTF

MelBrideman: What? I was only wishing you well to help you improve your life?!

[KelVarnsen]

I doubt Mel goes to the grocery store

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think you are trying to have a different conversation than I am.

I’m not sure why you decided to respond to my OP then. My point was that the UCP shouldn’t be bragging about how they’re “ensuring that our province remains a great place to work” when they haven’t done anything to help working people, especially the most vulnerable ones, and have in fact taken steps to make things worse for workers in this province.

Can we at least agree on that much?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah, adding money to poorer people is better for the local economy - that's why the covid stimulus was so effective.

Geez if only there was another option that could be more readily and easily accessible for lower wage earners to put more money in their pockets than waiting for a once in a lifetime pandemic and government bailout.

Hopefully the UCP are working round the clock to figure one out so that our local economy can start thriving.

[GioforPM]

Mel, was this you?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Geez if only there was another option that could be more readily and easily accessible for lower wage earners to put more money in their pockets than waiting for a once in a lifetime pandemic and government bailout.

Hopefully the UCP are working round the clock to figure one out so that our local economy can start thriving.

I feel we're like 1 or 2 more election cycles away from a "Send Your Child to Work" program.

"Lil' Riggers: Sponsored by Pembina"

[PepsiFree]

Poor Mel takes another L.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Geez if only there was another option that could be more readily and easily accessible for lower wage earners to put more money in their pockets than waiting for a once in a lifetime pandemic and government bailout.

Hopefully the UCP are working round the clock to figure one out so that our local economy can start thriving.

I mean, I was posting that to agree with you. I said I think minimum wage should be higher and indexed to inflation.

[belsarius]

I hate it when I try to look up a statistic and it ruins my bias.

Just thinking on indexing minimum wage toward CPI, I thought, well CPI tends to have a lot of noise at the minimum level, lots of things are unaffordable so it might skew the results. I thought housing is something that should be easy to find historically and maybe that's a better match since it is the majority of most people's budget.

Turns out in 1990 rent for a 1bdrm apartment was $428 a month, with a minimum wage of $4.50. Assuming full time employment that was 55% of your wages.

Ok, lets see when min wage went up in 1992 to $5. $452 a month ends up at 52%.

Ok, decent baseline, how does that match up with today? 1 bdrm apartment is $1,360, and with $15 minimum wage... 52% of income again.

But you can't live alone on minimum wage. Get a roomate in a 2bdrm and the % are actually better today than in 1990 - 31% of income compared to 34%

So while there are a plethora of other expenses, and it seems like more people trying to live on minimum wage (source needed - personal bias), the cost of renting an apartment in Alberta is pretty consistent when compared to the minimum wage.

Not really trying to make a point, other than this was not what I expected based on my own biases and I found it interesting.

[TheIronMaiden]

Very interesting. I would be curious to see the differences in supply and quality of 1bdrm appts.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I was posting that to agree with you. I said I think minimum wage should be higher and indexed to inflation.

The sarcasm was generalized, not directed towards you

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Very interesting. I would be curious to see the differences in supply and quality of 1bdrm appts.

Also, it depends where you work. My kid pays $1K per month for a room in Banff. Not a 1 BR apt. A room.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That was exactly what you said! You forgot what you said mere hours ago?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Very interesting. I would be curious to see the differences in supply and quality of 1bdrm appts.

That's the thing, location is important for those numbers to be comparable. On Reddit especially, it seems people want to pay Forest Lawn prices but live in the nicer areas of town, and particularly the desirable (and thus, expensive) inner city neighbourhoods.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I was posting that to agree with you. I said I think minimum wage should be higher and indexed to inflation.

Yikes sounds like the Robert Reich School of Economics.

Wage Push Inflation: Inflationary Spiral

If prices rise, workers may demand more even higher wages to keep up with the increased cost of living, leading to a cycle of wage and prices increases

While wage push inflation can improve workers purchasing power temporarily, it will erode overall econmic stability over time.

Wouldn't be very helpful to those people in the long run.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Poor Mel takes another L.

Oh No sir dear Pep, Mel is always collecting those DUBS.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yikes sounds like the Robert Reich School of Economics.

Wage Push Inflation: Inflationary Spiral

While wage push inflation can improve workers purchasing power temporarily, it will erode overall econmic stability over time.

Wouldn't be very helpful to those people in the long run.

Because inflation won’t exist if they don’t get raises?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because inflation won’t exist if they don’t get raises?

Huh? Inflation is a multi-faceted phenomenon with multiple contributing factors. So the answers is no.

Educate

https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/docume..._wage_push.pdf