Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

It was downright evil of the Feds to start that "Alberta is calling" campaign back in mid 2022 to encourage more people to move to Alberta

https://zgm.ca/work/alberta-is-calling/

Are you disputing that we are underfunded on immigration or did you think this was clever?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I agree with you on all points with 2 clarifications.

1) the average person could have a teacher quality retirement plan if they put aside the same amount of money that teachers contribute to their pensions.

As Slava pointed out, there’s a big difference in security between a defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension. I’d also be curious to compare the investment returns of the big teachers pensions funds with average RRSP returns. The size of the teachers funds gives them a lot of heft.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

2) no routine exposure to violence is sadly becoming less reasonable of an assumption for a teaching career.

Fair enough.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are you disputing that we are underfunded on immigration or did you think this was clever?

What is the source that Alberta is underfunded in regards to immigration?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As Slava pointed out, there’s a big difference in security between a defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension. I’d also be curious to compare the investment returns of the big teachers pensions funds with average RRSP returns. The size of the teachers funds gives them a lot of heft.

That's true, although I think in general that security is more necessary in the de-accumulation phase, and it can be addressed with annuities. People always complain that they don't get anything back after death/guarantee period if they annuitize, but of course that's how a teacher's pension works as well

[corporatejay]

nm

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What's my worry? I'm literally paying for this. Who else should worry about this?

So what? They’re paying yours. Every worker is paying for every other worker’s salary. Do you think money in the private sector is just magically waved into existence by an employer? Do you think when you buy milk at the grocery store you’re paying the cow? lol

If someone said you can spend an extra $50 per year and teachers will get a 20% raise, OR, you can take a 8% pay cut and teachers will get nothing, saving you the $50 per year, which would you choose?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is anyone here vilifying teachers? Quotes?

I’ve seen people say teaching is a good job. But it’s quite a spin to call that vilification.

YMMV, but I think any job that pays in the top 25 per cent, has a guaranteed pension*, and doesn’t involve routine exposure to violence or injury, is a good job.

* If teachers’ pensions are so bad, it’s odd that teachers retire on average 4 years earlier than the general Canadian population.

Of course they do they are forced to save money. If you ensured that 18% of your income was saved each year you do would retire earlier than average. Even if you just saved 14% each year you could retire earlier than 65. The forced savings is why teachers have good retirements.

That one is guaranteed and the other is not is not the driving factor between the difference in retirement date. It is simply the contribution amount.

A quick google suggests only 15-20% of people max out rrsps.

Also if you were curious about investment returns you could have spent all of 10 seconds googling

https://www.atrf.com/investment-resu...g%20the%20plan.

Which XGRO outperforms a very typical 80/20 globally diversified etf with home country bias.
https://www.blackrock.com/ca/investo...acts-en-ca.pdf

But one should note that comparing two things with dramatically different goals is not how we should be comparing performance despite performance being similar.

[#-3]

corporatejay,

Don't you think instead of worrying about how the feds wont give us more money, we could just stop lighting billions on fire annually with with UPC cronyism and right wing ideological pet projects that are doomed before they start? For some reason I thought you were all about personal accountability and it's time for Alberta to take some personal accountability


Having that sweat sweat Keystone money back would probably help us fund those issues, and Coalmine money, and war room money, and Tylenol money back (not the type that causes autism?), or the Private Surgery money back, or Sky palace money back, or lost investment revenue on cancelled energy projects .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is anyone here vilifying teachers? Quotes?

I’ve seen people say teaching is a good job. But it’s quite a spin to call that vilification.

Poster #1

Their shocked Pikachu faces whenever they bitch and moan about class sizes. I was in CBE from 1980 to 1994. Teachers complained about class sizes that whole time. I was in classes in Churchill with over 30 kids on a regular basis. One class had 34, I recall. Thirty-two was common. To get uppity about class sizes like that when these teachers grew up in my era knowing full well that's the size of a class drives me up the wall. You don't get to pretend you didn't know this was the deal.

…except class sizes are now in the 40 range for most core classes. I’d be a lot less “uppity” if I only had 32. So confidently incorrect goes on to post the following:

I don't like how we're pretending each teacher is inventing lesson plans for each course. That's such gaslighting. There are lesson plans and curriculums and ready-made materials galore. They can also re-use much (and sometimes all) of their previous lesson plans from year to year. They don't have to re-invent the wheel every day, so I think when you say things like that it turns would-be supporters into eye rollers that stop giving a hoot

Teachers take ideas, but many quality teachers invent, reinvent, and adjust lesson plans tailored to their class. I have never taught the same way year after year, and quite frankly doing so is a super outdated practice that only a few teacher still subscribe to. It is really important that teachers design their own plans and adjust and even overhaul every year because then, they can understand what they are looking for better, and respond to student need better. Furthermore, even with a lesson plan, there’s a thing teachers do now called formative assessment, which means we are expected to collect data about student learning without grading and adjust our plans in response, so yes we do change our plans daily. These are basic fundamentals of good pedagogy that’s very different from the 90’s, this is because our understanding of learning changed and the job evolved…but sure, Poster #1 misunderstands what we actually do in the modern classroom, and then accuses us of gaslighting based on that misunderstanding. And then continues:

Four hours at home after an 8-hour day is such a crock of sht. That obvious baloney does not help their case at all and absolutely turns people like me off when they actually are starting with support.

I know so many teachers, dude. My family is half teachers as is my friend group.

Not one works four hours a day after the school day.

Which is literally wrong again. Even the laziest teacher has to be involved with an extracurricular and join a committee as a bare minimum, which automatically commits them to afterschool hours. On top of that our job isn’t only planning, teaching, and marking, we have piles of paperwork to do such as IPP’s and Benchmarking data. Now I stress that NONE of these paperwork are unreasonable, but when teachers spend most of their prep time marking and prepping the next lesson (elementary teachers have little to no prep time) this means most of this work falls outside of work hours. But yes, this poster has friends who are teachers so what you’re hearing from literal teachers on this board telling you about the long work hours outside the classroom must be a lie.

On to Poster #2

Majority of parents in my kids classes have had enough with the public sector and the constant asks.

I agree students are #1. But unfortunately - I don't believe that if you gave teachers a 10% raise a year - it's going to make them teach better.

So question teachers - if AB was to throw enough money at the teacher number size so that all classes maxed out at 20 kids. Would you take a pay cut and max out high end at $90k?

Sure, it’s not that anyone here is outright calling teachers mustache twirling villains, but can you not see that there are paternalistic undertones to what Poster #2 is saying? Somehow this person thinks they know better, they don’t think we’ll teach better with [insert random number]% a year raises…under what basis was this argument formed from? (FYI if you want actual data, look up Alberta’s PISA results under the legacy of the Alberta Advantage, and then try looking up our current Grade 6 PAT results…that the UCP has withheld because students are scoring in the 30% range.) And then comes up with an odd hypothetical with made up numbers for what reason other than to “test” our morals? Why does this person feel like they are entitled to an explanation on such a bizarre premise?

Poster #3

There be ####ery afoot...you want me to deal with it? Pay me or fix it yourself.

It'll do absolutely nothing to ameliorate class sizes which teachers will no doubt whine about a few more years down the road, it'll do nothing to resolve administrative nonsense, and it'll do nothing to fix any underlying issues.

They just want more money. And they'll trot out the same talking points then as they do now.

"It’s not about the money!! It’s about the class sizes! Think of the children!!"

I don’t understand why I need to prove how genuine I am when I say I want better learning conditions for kids, but somehow, this poster knows better than I do about my reasons for wanting to strike. So much so that they invalidate a child centered angle in favour of a personal gain angle that they think far more accurately adheres to the collective consciousness of 51,000 employees that they aren’t even a part of. When someone tells me my motives aren’t putting students first- literally the reason I went into the profession, what other interpretation do I have other than I am being called a liar and have hidden motives?

Also, what “administrative nonsense” is this person referring to? That’s another rage baiting sound bite often used by people who don’t understand that funding for administration in public education is tightly capped to ensure funds are diverting properly to classrooms. Do they know what a principal does? I currently work at CBE head office, please tell me what part of my job is administrative nonsense.

Again, you may disagree with me on whether these comments constitute as vilifying, but as I’ve said before, no one here is calling us the devil incarnate and no one will, but if you read between the lines, these are some pretty patronizing, reductionist, and condescending comments about the needs and motives of teachers from people who appear to lack the kind of knowledge they should have to make those kinds of remarks. These kinds of statements covertly vilifies teachers to erode public trust with unsupported hints of laziness, entitlement, and lying. And this brings up my last point which is a recurring issue in discussions surrounding education- everyone thinks they have a deep understanding of it because they’ve personally experienced it, which leads to unfair judgements being made based off of personal bias and anecdotes rather than evidence; and this kind of rhetoric that leads to people nickel and diming fellow middle class neighbors over manufactured outrage (such as pornography are in our schools, trans athletes are dominating girls sports, teachers’ real intentions for striking is because they’re greedy) instead of holding the government to account over all its long history of irresponsible expenditures.

As shown in the posts above, most of these overreaching perspectives are grounded upon zero supporting evidence other than the odd anecdotes (such as I was in school in the 90’s or half my friends are teachers) or misinformation here or there. Besides Anti-Vaxxers (…and I guess now anti-Tylenolers??) and flat earthers, I’ve never seen anyone else talk about another person’s profession so confidently incorrect while possessing zero actual understanding of the field of education and the science of learning itself.

[Wolven]

Well said @Point Blank.

It is also important to note that at the same time that we have posters on a message board being unsupportive of their fellow workers, you also have the elected leader of the government who is responsible for paying these workers out in the media.

She is gaslighting the public to try and convince everyone that the UCP are properly funding education (they are not).
And that the UCP really care about kids (absolutely nothing they have done would suggest they care and most policies and budgets would suggest they hate kids).
And then on top of that Smith suggests that the union is mismanaging or stealing the money! (Seems pretty obvious that if anyone is stealing our money it is her)

With the conservatives every accusation is a confession.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That's true, although I think in general that security is more necessary in the de-accumulation phase, and it can be addressed with annuities. People always complain that they don't get anything back after death/guarantee period if they annuitize, but of course that's how a teacher's pension works as well

I don’t think that’s the entire picture though. The benefit of the DB plan is that the accumulation phase means that you’re guaranteed to hit your target, and you can’t outlive your money. With a DC plan (or one where you just save the same amount), you run both risks. I know they’re kind of joined, but not entirely in my view.

Say I’m saving at the same rate as a DB plan, and the markets suck (or I make some poor decisions) in the couple years ahead of my retirement. With the personal plan, you might well be best delaying a year or two, because retiring and drawing an income into a decline is a massive risk. You don’t have that risk with the DB plan, and you just retire anyway.

And leading up to that, it’s all professionally managed and you don’t think about anything. One major issue with the DC plan is inertia. People set them up, and invest purely in a high interest account. Or purely into a mutual fund of on sort or another. Once that’s set, they never change it (generalizing), and this kind of inaction can have huge consequences. Same goes for savings plans people set for themselves. Maybe they start with $100/month and that’s fine. But twenty years later they’re still saving $100/month despite their income being much higher, and that $100 is simply not enough money. Those are all issues that the DB plan handles for you. Sure, some of that is forced savings, but the truth is a lot of people need that forced element (which is also a CPP benefit!)

Then you get to the point about decumulation and outliving your money. That’s obviously in favour of the DB plan.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don’t think that’s the entire picture though. The benefit of the DB plan is that the accumulation phase means that you’re guaranteed to hit your target, and you can’t outlive your money. With a DC plan (or one where you just save the same amount), you run both risks. I know they’re kind of joined, but not entirely in my view.

Say I’m saving at the same rate as a DB plan, and the markets suck (or I make some poor decisions) in the couple years ahead of my retirement. With the personal plan, you might well be best delaying a year or two, because retiring and drawing an income into a decline is a massive risk. You don’t have that risk with the DB plan, and you just retire anyway.

And leading up to that, it’s all professionally managed and you don’t think about anything. One major issue with the DC plan is inertia. People set them up, and invest purely in a high interest account. Or purely into a mutual fund of on sort or another. Once that’s set, they never change it (generalizing), and this kind of inaction can have huge consequences. Same goes for savings plans people set for themselves. Maybe they start with $100/month and that’s fine. But twenty years later they’re still saving $100/month despite their income being much higher, and that $100 is simply not enough money. Those are all issues that the DB plan handles for you. Sure, some of that is forced savings, but the truth is a lot of people need that forced element (which is also a CPP benefit!)

Then you get to the point about decumulation and outliving your money. That’s obviously in favour of the DB plan.

Sounds like we should all be pushing for defined benefit pensions, rather than getting mad at the people who have them.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don’t think that’s the entire picture though. The benefit of the DB plan is that the accumulation phase means that you’re guaranteed to hit your target, and you can’t outlive your money. With a DC plan (or one where you just save the same amount), you run both risks. I know they’re kind of joined, but not entirely in my view.

Say I’m saving at the same rate as a DB plan, and the markets suck (or I make some poor decisions) in the couple years ahead of my retirement. With the personal plan, you might well be best delaying a year or two, because retiring and drawing an income into a decline is a massive risk. You don’t have that risk with the DB plan, and you just retire anyway.

And leading up to that, it’s all professionally managed and you don’t think about anything. One major issue with the DC plan is inertia. People set them up, and invest purely in a high interest account. Or purely into a mutual fund of on sort or another. Once that’s set, they never change it (generalizing), and this kind of inaction can have huge consequences. Same goes for savings plans people set for themselves. Maybe they start with $100/month and that’s fine. But twenty years later they’re still saving $100/month despite their income being much higher, and that $100 is simply not enough money. Those are all issues that the DB plan handles for you. Sure, some of that is forced savings, but the truth is a lot of people need that forced element (which is also a CPP benefit!)

Then you get to the point about decumulation and outliving your money. That’s obviously in favour of the DB plan.

Great post. Suggesting that the teachers pension is just like going out and saving your money is super disingenuous IMO and to Cliffs point which was not well addressed there are simply way more (and cheaper) investment opportunities by being part of a giant pool investment vehicle than by yourself fumbling around on ETFs or mutual funds.

While the above is an amazing (and often under appreciated- by most teachers I know) benefit, I still think teachers should get a healthy raise here. There’s simply no reason why we need them to be so far below the average AB wage earner wage increases over time and it’s genuinely disgusting. The demands of the job have risen (unquestionably, IMO), and we need to keep incentivizing people into the profession to keep up as reversing a shortfall will be difficult unless we want standards in education to drop (we don’t- see the USA for societal impacts of poor education).

It’s pretty egregious to not have a PST, waste a bunch of money on random #### as others have pointed out and then cry foul because commodity forecasts look poor over the next couple quarters. And that’s the other part, oil looks iffy 2 to 4 Qs out but let’s get real it’ll come back up and so will gas. This government can find the money and they should in this instance. You don’t need to go strike up fights with every public sector group in the province.

And my main annoyance is funding for private schools when you’re saying you can’t afford adequate pay for teachers in the public. I actually find that pretty disgusting and unethical, to be honest.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Sounds like we should all be pushing for defined benefit pensions, rather than getting mad at the people who have them.

Who’s mad? I don’t think I’ve seen a single person angry that the teachers have a DB pension. It’s obviously an advantage though, so you have to factor that in.

Teaching is funny though. We all spend 12 years (or more) in school, so everyone thinks they know something about the profession and how things should be. It’s no different than a bunch of people who watch hockey all the time, so we all think we know how Craig Conroy should be doing things.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who’s mad? I don’t think I’ve seen a single person angry that the teachers have a DB pension. It’s obviously an advantage though, so you have to factor that in.

Are we reading different message boards?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who’s mad? I don’t think I’ve seen a single person angry that the teachers have a DB pension. It’s obviously an advantage though, so you have to factor that in.

Teaching is funny though. We all spend 12 years (or more) in school, so everyone thinks they know something about the profession and how things should be. It’s no different than a bunch of people who watch hockey all the time, so we all think we know how Craig Conroy should be doing things.

People get angry when CPP expansion comes up and call it a tax and not savings…….

It is a DB pension with a 100% employer match.

I don’t think you’d find the support for implementing mandatory teachers style pensions broadly.

Your post well identified the benefit. It’s the forced savings driving the value here.

[edslunch]

My company offered a bonus to switch from DB to DC at the turn of the century. It was during the dot-com boom and who imagined staying at the same company for the next twenty years (which I did), so I took it. Thankfully I lost the paperwork to compare how DB would have turned out, but I do remember it was not indexed and may have had limited to no survivor benefits so I’m not regretting my choice.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Sounds like we should all be pushing for defined benefit pensions, rather than getting mad at the people who have them.

This whole thing in a nutshell right here.

Another worker has something you covet? Don’t be mad at them or argue they shouldn’t have it or should have less elsewhere, pull up your bootstraps and push for that same thing for yourself.

Way, way too many people locked into this idea that others shouldn’t have it better because they already have it good, or wanting to push others down in hopes it raises themselves up.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This whole thing in a nutshell right here.

Another worker has something you covet? Don’t be mad at them or argue they shouldn’t have it or should have less elsewhere, pull up your bootstraps and push for that same thing for yourself.

Way, way too many people locked into this idea that others shouldn’t have it better because they already have it good, or wanting to push others down in hopes it raises themselves up.

Originally Posted by you&me

... A lot of this reads like crabs in a bucket...

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but as a parent, it seems insane to me to watch a bunch of other (presumably) parents argue against what's best for the education of their children.

From the perspective of quality education, you'd think most parents would want teachers to be paid well; to have excellent working conditions, which ergo translates into better learning conditions for their children through smaller class sizes and even more engaged, better teaching (presumably, a happier, less stressed teacher is a better teacher).

Absolute lunacy.

[CliffFletcher]

Holy smokes. Nobody has said teachers shouldn’t have DB plans.

This is such a weirdly sensitive topic.

Person A: “Hey, that’s a good job you have, with good benefits.”

Person B: “Why are you such a hater?!?!”

Let’s try something:

“Accounting is a good job.”