Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

To be fair though, the average pre-1990 worker never expected to live so long. Retire at 65, die at 75. Too many pre-1990 workers are still alive today, sorry (not sorry).

There really should be a memorandum on healthcare after 90. After that age you pay out of pocket.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

There really should be a memorandum on healthcare after 90. After that age you pay out of pocket.

And if you can't afford it, you do get the option of driving the rocket car with touchy steering and no airbags.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

To be fair though, the average pre-1990 worker never expected to live so long. Retire at 65, die at 75. Too many pre-1990 workers are still alive today, sorry (not sorry).

I don't think that was ever really true. There has been much less death from childhood diseases and accidents over time, but once someone made it to 65 their life expectancy was always pretty high.

Stats can says this:

Life expectancy of 65-year-olds
In 1920–1922, Canadian men who had lived to age 65 could expect to live for 13 more years, and women could expect to live for 13.5 more years (to age 78.0 and 78.5 respectively). The expected total life span of 65-year-olds was substantially higher than life expectancy at birth: 19.2 years higher for men and 18.0 years higher for women.

In 2009–2011, 65-year-old men were expected to live until they were 83.8, while 65-year-old women were expected to live until the age of 86.7. This means that from 1920–1922 to 2009–2011, the life expectancies of 65-year-olds increased by 5.8 years for men and 8.2 years for women. This is a much smaller gain than the 20-year increase in life expectancy for newborns during this same period.

And most of that increase happened by the 60s (when cpp started) according to the chart here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...016002-eng.htm

The voters and governments of the time had the information to conclude they were putting that economic burden onto future generations and chose to do it anyway.

[WideReceiver]

That’s the point I make when someone says “I’m 65 so should only live another 12 (or so) years. That’s life expectancy.”

No, at 65 your life expectancy is likely about age 85. Many people don’t understand this.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't think that was ever really true. There has been much less death from childhood diseases and accidents over time, but once someone made it to 65 their life expectancy was always pretty high.

Stats can says this:



And most of that increase happened by the 60s (when cpp started) according to the chart here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...016002-eng.htm

The voters and governments of the time had the information to conclude they were putting that economic burden onto future generations and chose to do it anyway.

The dependency ratio is the third rail of politics in this country. Politicians can’t even remark that seniors, on average, use more public resources than working-age adults without seniors losing their minds. Never mind pointing out that the average Canadian receives far more in public services in their lifespan than they pay in taxes. Hard to grapple with the difficult tradeoffs we’re confronted with if most voters can’t even bring themselves to recognize there’s a problem in the first place.

I sympathize with the no-win situation politicians are in. Try to put the country’s long-term finances on a stable footing by introducing the GST? Your reward is getting destroyed in an election, and watching your opponents cut the tax anyway once they’re in power. Try to do the same for the viability of pensions by increasing the eligibility age for OAS? Bye-bye, and welcome to a new government that scraps the legislation and restores the former policy.

The Canadian electorate has shown zero willingness to endure any sacrifice to ensure the viability of our public services, and continues to reward leaders who punt problems down the road for future governments to deal with.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The dependency ratio is the third rail of politics in this country. Politicians can’t even remark that seniors, on average, use more public resources than working-age adults without seniors losing their minds. Never mind pointing out that the average Canadian receives far more in public services in their lifespan than they pay in taxes. Hard to grapple with the difficult tradeoffs we’re confronted with if most voters can’t even bring themselves to recognize there’s a problem in the first place.

I sympathize with the no-win situation politicians are in. Try to put the country’s long-term finances on a stable footing by introducing the GST? Your reward is getting destroyed in an election, and watching your opponents cut the tax anyway once they’re in power. Try to do the same for the viability of pensions by increasing the eligibility age for OAS? Bye-bye, and welcome to a new government that scraps the legislation and restores the former policy.

The Canadian electorate has shown zero willingness to endure any sacrifice to ensure the viability of our public services, and continues to reward leaders who punt problems down the road for future governments to deal with.

The one thing that has been fixed (ironically given the discussion) is CPP. The changes in 1990s made it sustainable going forward and is a big feather for the Cretien/Martin Liberals imo. That's better than continuing to dig a bigger hole every year. The OAS changes Harper tried would have been another good step in making our system sustainable, but were overturned immediately when his government fell.

[puffnstuff]

Following requests from Postmedia, the province has withheld survey results on an Alberta pension plan and renewable energy while appearing to ignore the results of engagements on municipal political parties and expanding alcohol sales to grocery and convenience stores

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-consultations

Other results have apparently similarly been disregarded, going back to 2023 and the Preston Manning-led Public Health Emergencies Governance Review panel, which twice disclosed public feedback upon requests by Postmedia.

The most common replies#stressed a greater emphasis on medical expertise in future emergencies, including a stronger role for the chief medical officer of health. But in November 2023, the province introduced#the Public Health Amendment Act, which did the reverse and gave politicians, not doctors, the final say on health emergencies

[Fuzz]

Oh, wait, you thought we were going to read those? No, no, this was just a distraction while we went ahead and did what we already planned to do, and called it "consultation" because Albertans are easy rubes.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that looking at your participation in a DB pension from a rate of return perspective id the wrong metric though. It implies that you could do better on your own and frankly speaking, I'm not sure that a lot of people could. Sure, on a pure rate of return it isn't rocket science, but that pension that is guaranteed income for as long as you live is a significant factor for retirees. Its removing the longevity risk for people and that is an enormous hurdle both in terms of them physically not outliving their money, but also in the sense of the psychological pressure that aspect causes for people.

And, lets not kid ourselves, to meet that return and meet that outcome requires saving discipline that is simply non-existent for a lot of people. The maximum contribution today is about $3800/year and if that didn't happen automatically for people, what percentage of people would put that away? How many people would think "it's only $3800, so next year I'll just save $7600 because I really want to go to Mexico this year?" I suppose what I'm getting at here, is that there is a societal benefit to this program as well as the benefits for individuals.

I'm not sure if you're missing what we're saying. I'm not arguing about the merits of the DB vs DC pension fund (DB's are better because it's guaranteed). I'm not arguing about whether CPPIB is good at their job (they're not because of high salaries and fees to internal employees and external managers).

What I'm saying is that the DB pension you get via CPP is much worse than a typical DB pension because CPP was underfunded for so long and was unsustainable. To properly fund CPPIB, the government had three options: (1) they could have cut pensions for current retirees to align their benefits with what they paid in; (2) they could have had the government make up the difference by injecting capital into CPP (3) they could have made everyone else make up the difference.

The government took option 3, so everyone born after a certain year (1965ish) subsidizes everyone born before that year. That is what makes CPP unfair and it will be unfair FOREVER!!! At some point, CPP will be a raw deal for everyone across the country (when everyone born before 1965 dies)

But its equally unfair for everyone across the country born after 1960-something. Just because Alberta CAN exploit the policy choices made by governments in the 1990s doesn't mean Alberta should exploit that policy. Alberta Pension Plan is a really dick move designed to appease really petty and thoughtless people.

There are serious subjective flaws in (1) equalization and (2) other federal redistribution mechanisms that send money from Alberta to Quebec / Atlantic Canada. People who have that view point should focus on fixing those transfer mechanisms.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

There really should be a memorandum on healthcare after 90. After that age you pay out of pocket.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. One should be able to opt out of expensive end-of-life care to receive the money when they're young and can spend it far more effectively.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I'm not sure if you're missing what we're saying. I'm not arguing about the merits of the DB vs DC pension fund (DB's are better because it's guaranteed). I'm not arguing about whether CPPIB is good at their job (they're not because of high salaries and fees to internal employees and external managers).

What I'm saying is that the DB pension you get via CPP is much worse than a typical DB pension because CPP was underfunded for so long and was unsustainable. To properly fund CPPIB, the government had three options: (1) they could have cut pensions for current retirees to align their benefits with what they paid in; (2) they could have had the government make up the difference by injecting capital into CPP (3) they could have made everyone else make up the difference.

The government took option 3, so everyone born after a certain year (1965ish) subsidizes everyone born before that year. That is what makes CPP unfair and it will be unfair FOREVER!!! At some point, CPP will be a raw deal for everyone across the country (when everyone born before 1965 dies)

But its equally unfair for everyone across the country born after 1960-something. Just because Alberta CAN exploit the policy choices made by governments in the 1990s doesn't mean Alberta should exploit that policy. Alberta Pension Plan is a really dick move designed to appease really petty and thoughtless people.

There are serious subjective flaws in (1) equalization and (2) other federal redistribution mechanisms that send money from Alberta to Quebec / Atlantic Canada. People who have that view point should focus on fixing those transfer mechanisms.

Well, suffice it say that we are going to disagree on a number if things here. I understand that younger workers are subsidizing the retirement of older ones and this kind of thing is not uncommon with DB plans.

As far as CPPIB and whether they do a good job, they clearly do. I read the articles earlier this year in the Globe and Mail as well, and while it was interesting, the costs have gone up because they're competing internationally for talent. So, you want to invest in private equity and alternative assets? You need people who can do that both in terms of expertise and having them with access. That's not cheap. And it's hilarious to see that proponents of an APP just think that we can have that with out the increased cost to participate in these areas. This isn't the kind if thing where you just open a Questrade account and YOLO into MSTR and cross your fingers.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The dependency ratio is the third rail of politics in this country. Politicians can’t even remark that seniors, on average, use more public resources than working-age adults without seniors losing their minds. Never mind pointing out that the average Canadian receives far more in public services in their lifespan than they pay in taxes. Hard to grapple with the difficult tradeoffs we’re confronted with if most voters can’t even bring themselves to recognize there’s a problem in the first place.

I sympathize with the no-win situation politicians are in. Try to put the country’s long-term finances on a stable footing by introducing the GST? Your reward is getting destroyed in an election, and watching your opponents cut the tax anyway once they’re in power. Try to do the same for the viability of pensions by increasing the eligibility age for OAS? Bye-bye, and welcome to a new government that scraps the legislation and restores the former policy.

The Canadian electorate has shown zero willingness to endure any sacrifice to ensure the viability of our public services, and continues to reward leaders who punt problems down the road for future governments to deal with.

You figured out how politicians think.

What do I have to do today to stay in power. Who cares about tomorrow.

Not always the best system if you’re looking out for everyone’s best interest.

[troutman]

Is there any research on the quality of life for the increased life expectancy of 5.8 years for men and 8.2 years for women? Seems to me many elders are warehoused in care homes.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is there any research on the quality of life for the increased life expectancy of 5.8 years for men and 8.2 years for women? Seems to me many elders are warehoused in care homes.

Well if you factor the senior care profiteers then it all nets out

[puffnstuff]

How do you factor in the wait times to get into an assisted living facility?
Friends parents have been waiting for 14 months now.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

How do you factor in the wait times to get into an assisted living facility?
Friends parents have been waiting for 14 months now.

Markets where demand exceeds supply tend to be the most profitable markets; however, a long wait time does suggest costs could be increased even more.

[undercoverbrother]

Lab Access in Alberta

When I last needed Lab work done it was months wait (I seem to think it was privatized then.)


I was able to book next lab service yesterday (I think it back to being run by AHS now)


Thanks UCP

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by SebC

Markets where demand exceeds supply tend to be the most profitable markets; however, a long wait time does suggest costs could be increased even more.

Or a good business opportunity with relatively low risk.

Who’s joining me?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Markets where demand exceeds supply tend to be the most profitable markets; however, a long wait time does suggest costs could be increased even more.

Or a market where the consumer isn't the one bearing the full cost.

It couls just be an agency problem.

[Fuzz]

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...D0A440D6645F50


Even her message of New Years hope can't help but taking shots at the feds like toddlers. Maybe leave that out and mention the plight of Jasper? Pathetic leadership.