[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's the wrong question. The better question is: what is it about you such that nobody is willing to pay you more than $31k?

Your talking points from Regan era economics are getting tired.

We are discussing a type of labour which is essentially a commodity. It's not priced based on the value of the labour provided to the business owner, but is based on the balance of labor supply and labor demand. If labor supply is above labor demand business owners can pay below the value of the work recieved and still attract workers. When labor supply is below labor demand wages go up, potentially even to the value of the work provided (presumably an owner can't over pay as they will go out of business). Lots of work has been done to understand the impact of minimum wage increases, and some very interesting results from studies of Big Mac pricing across different minimum wage jurisdictions. I would suggest you read this work if you think increases in minimum wage lead to less employment, because they do not.

You seem to either misunderstand or ignore the power balance that frequently exists in over supplied labour markets that lead to predatory wages which is what required the creation of unions and a minimum wage.

Regarding your trickle down, supply side position on corporate tax rates and "growing the pie" of investment. You may want to take a look at what the tech, banking, pharmaceutical, and energy industries have done with their cash windfalls at various points over the last decade. I will give you a hint. They have had so much money they were forced to "invest" it in such productive things as:

1. Share buy backs;
2. Increasing dividends;
3. Massive executive bonus packages;
4. Straight up hoarding cash.

None of these very common practices "grow the investment pie". They do not lead to hiring or increased productivity. They lead to one thing, the concentration of wealth in a place where it mostly sits idle.

Can't believe I got sucked into this on a hockey forum.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This thread is a fascinating look into the window of people who've been gaslit by the AB conservatives and corporations their whole lives. It's like watching stockholm syndrome unfold in real time

Yet, they’’ll happily take handouts themselves in the form of corporate tax cuts and welfare though. It’s totally different though haha

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Your talking points from Regan era economics are getting tired.

We are discussing a type of labour which is essentially a commodity. It's not priced based on the value of the labour provided to the business owner, but is based on the balance of labor supply and labor demand. If labor supply is above labor demand business owners can pay below the value of the work recieved and still attract workers. When labor supply is below labor demand wages go up, potentially even to the value of the work provided (presumably an owner can't over pay as they will go out of business). Lots of work has been done to understand the impact of minimum wage increases, and some very interesting results from studies of Big Mac pricing across different minimum wage jurisdictions. I would suggest you read this work if you think increases in minimum wage lead to less employment, because they do not.

You seem to either misunderstand or ignore the power balance that frequently exists in over supplied labour markets that lead to predatory wages which is what required the creation of unions and a minimum wage.

Regarding your trickle down, supply side position on corporate tax rates and "growing the pie" of investment. You may want to take a look at what the tech, banking, pharmaceutical, and energy industries have done with their cash windfalls at various points over the last decade. I will give you a hint. They have had so much money they were forced to "invest" it in such productive things as:

1. Share buy backs;
2. Increasing dividends;
3. Massive executive bonus packages;
4. Straight up hoarding cash.

None of these very common practices "grow the investment pie". They do not lead to hiring or increased productivity. They lead to one thing, the concentration of wealth in a place where it mostly sits idle.

Can't believe I got sucked into this on a hockey forum.

Thanked because of its correctness, not that I think it will change anyone's mind.

Now what to do with my idle wealth - the mattress I keep it under is starting to angle a little too much.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Your talking points from Regan era economics are getting tired.

We are discussing a type of labour which is essentially a commodity. It's not priced based on the value of the labour provided to the business owner, but is based on the balance of labor supply and labor demand. If labor supply is above labor demand business owners can pay below the value of the work recieved and still attract workers. When labor supply is below labor demand wages go up, potentially even to the value of the work provided (presumably an owner can't over pay as they will go out of business). Lots of work has been done to understand the impact of minimum wage increases, and some very interesting results from studies of Big Mac pricing across different minimum wage jurisdictions. I would suggest you read this work if you think increases in minimum wage lead to less employment, because they do not.

You seem to either misunderstand or ignore the power balance that frequently exists in over supplied labour markets that lead to predatory wages which is what required the creation of unions and a minimum wage.

Regarding your trickle down, supply side position on corporate tax rates and "growing the pie" of investment. You may want to take a look at what the tech, banking, pharmaceutical, and energy industries have done with their cash windfalls at various points over the last decade. I will give you a hint. They have had so much money they were forced to "invest" it in such productive things as:

1. Share buy backs;
2. Increasing dividends;
3. Massive executive bonus packages;
4. Straight up hoarding cash.

None of these very common practices "grow the investment pie". They do not lead to hiring or increased productivity. They lead to one thing, the concentration of wealth in a place where it mostly sits idle.

Can't believe I got sucked into this on a hockey forum.

Individuals participating in the labour market should not be considered commodities per se. Each individual can contribute a unique amount of value to an employer. Two employees making minimum wage can (and almost certainly will) provide two different qualities of work and therefor different amounts of value to the employer.

Like any market, the value of your labour is simple to calculate. It is the amount someone is willing to pay you - just like any other transaction. When you say "pay below the value of work" you are falling into a trap whereby you are assuming there is an arbitrary value to the work. There isn't. There isn't an arbitrary value to anything. There is only a buyer and a seller.

[Freeway]

Anyway, next two scheduled committee meetings are Sept. 14 and Oct. 19. At that point we're into the November budget deliberations for the 2023-26 cycle, which means we'll probably get a better sense of where things are going.

[powderjunkie]

This take would've been better when this deal fell apart, but those meeting dates remind me now about the rushed vote before summer break in 2019. I remember saying it was a foolish for the city to rush ahead with the vote, as it was a golden opportunity to identify and establish clarity on some of the inevitable loose ends...which might include sidewalk/road requirements (I'm not saying those specific cost details would have emerged in the next 6 weeks, but the apparent fuzziness about exactly who was on the hook for those 'cost TBD items' could easily have been resolved then.

It's ultimately probably irrelevant as the pandemic/inflation were the real killers, but the city pissed away a good chance to get a few more 'wins' with a pending vote and mixed feelings among the populace. As we saw it play out, the next steps were still glacially slow and any supposed urgency to vote was false.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This take would've been better when this deal fell apart, but those meeting dates remind me now about the rushed vote before summer break in 2019. I remember saying it was a foolish for the city to rush ahead with the vote, as it was a golden opportunity to identify and establish clarity on some of the inevitable loose ends...which might include sidewalk/road requirements (I'm not saying those specific cost details would have emerged in the next 6 weeks, but the apparent fuzziness about exactly who was on the hook for those 'cost TBD items' could easily have been resolved then.

It's ultimately probably irrelevant as the pandemic/inflation were the real killers, but the city pissed away a good chance to get a few more 'wins' with a pending vote and mixed feelings among the populace. As we saw it play out, the next steps were still glacially slow and any supposed urgency to vote was false.

The fuzziest things in 2019 were how the real estate options were being captured. A couple council members specifically objected to them not being included in the valuation and voted against the deal as a result.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You have tried to make two mutually exclusive points by claiming that a dilemma exists while also claiming that one part of that dilemma either doesn't doesn't exist or is a minor factor.

BoLevi,

Can you now admit you're trolling in this thread, or truly don't understand the arguments at play here? I ask because you have conveniently ignored this request:

Originally Posted by Mull

Quote me x2.

Quote my text side by side that is mutually exclusive.

Don’t write my “claims” for me and mis interpret them.

Quote my text then write “this is mutually exclusive with this:” and then quote me again.

Now that takes a bit of work but you were firing off responses to many other users in this thread since I posted it, so I waited 24 hours or longer before posting this response.

The reason I ask this was you keep changing my intent and arguments by rewriting my posts.

If I am being "mutually exclusive" you should be able to take my text in my words and paste it side by side and simply say these two statements are mutually exclusive.

If you're unable to do that, it shows to the readers that you don't understand enough to do so.

[calgaryred]

I come excited to hear news on an arena, left disappointed

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

BoLevi,

Can you now admit you're trolling in this thread, or truly don't understand the arguments at play here? I ask because you have conveniently ignored this request:



Now that takes a bit of work but you were firing off responses to many other users in this thread since I posted it, so I waited 24 hours or longer before posting this response.

The reason I ask this was you keep changing my intent and arguments by rewriting my posts.

If I am being "mutually exclusive" you should be able to take my text in my words and paste it side by side and simply say these two statements are mutually exclusive.

If you're unable to do that, it shows to the readers that you don't understand enough to do so.

My point is that if corporate tax rates being reduced won't have a positive impact on attracting investment, then the cities don't have a dilemma at all.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

My point is that if corporate tax rates being reduced won't have a positive impact on attracting investment, then the cities don't have a dilemma at all.

You harped and harped I was being mutually exclusive.

Quote me, side by side, don't change my words and type them out, quote my exact text.

Or you clearly don't understand my point if you can't do that

[dammage79]

Flames and the City of Calgary really need a new barn. It's getting close to the point where a literal new barn will be an upgrade.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

You harped and harped I was being mutually exclusive.

Quote me, side by side, don't change my words and type them out, quote my exact text.

Or you clearly don't understand my point if you can't do that

Do you believe that corporate tax rates being reduced would not have a positive impact on attracting investment?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Anyway, next two scheduled committee meetings are Sept. 14 and Oct. 19. At that point we're into the November budget deliberations for the 2023-26 cycle, which means we'll probably get a better sense of where things are going.

So what are the expectations by November? The committee makes a proposal to the City, the City possibly adds it to their budget, then negotiations with CSEC start over?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Do you believe that corporate tax rates being reduced would not have a positive impact on attracting investment?

Come on- just quote me if I am being mutually exclusive. This is crazy.



But out of good faith I will still answer you, despite your poorly worded question with the "not" in there- lowering corporate tax rates would have a positive impact on attracting investment.


Now.. you made the charge over and over I am being mutually exclusive. Fine- if you understand my argument, quote me.


Or you simply are a troll like others said.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This thread is a fascinating look into the window of people who've been gaslit by the AB conservatives and corporations their whole lives. It's like watching stockholm syndrome unfold in real time

I'm sure I've written this before on CP and maybe this thread but I feel like repeating myself: under no circumstances will the NHL allow any owner to move the Flames away from Calgary. They're in a profitable and dedicated market. Full stop. If you really believe this team is on the brink of moving over not getting a fancy new arena you are engaged in pure mental fantasy.

You can repeat it as much as you want , but eventually they will need a new stadium or will move.

If you argument is not in the next decade that is fine , but under no circumstances is completely wrong . The second a rich owner who has access to a stadium overbids for the Flames and drives up the arbitrary value of a NHL franchise and any future expansion fees the Flames would be sold and moved if it becomes apparent no stadium is coming

No one actually believes no stadium is coming eventually . It is just posturing and negotiating

[Mull]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So what are the expectations by November? The committee makes a proposal to the City, the City possibly adds it to their budget, then negotiations with CSEC start over?

I wonder if the City will propose that the Flames have to pay less then 123% of the cost this time?


God I want to buy season tickets but god the flames make it so hard to support them when they are shady as f.


https://www.nhl.com/flames/fans/arena

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

Come on- just quote me if I am being mutually exclusive. This is crazy.



But out of good faith I will still answer you, despite your poorly worded question with the "not" in there- lowering corporate tax rates would have a positive impact on attracting investment.


Now.. you made the charge over and over I am being mutually exclusive. Fine- if you understand my argument, quote me.


Or you simply are a troll like others said.

I'm just trying to clarify your view on this one issue. Does lowering tax rates have a positive, neutral or negative impact on attracting investment? I'm genuinely curious about your position.

Your position on this should inform your position on whether jurisdictions have a dilemma or they don't.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You can repeat it as much as you want , but eventually they will need a new stadium or will move.

If you argument is not in the next decade that is fine , but under no circumstances is completely wrong . The second a rich owner who has access to a stadium overbids for the Flames and drives up the arbitrary value of a NHL franchise and any future expansion fees the Flames would be sold and moved if it becomes apparent no stadium is coming

No one actually believes no stadium is coming eventually . It is just posturing and negotiating

Other than a portion of the CP community, there doesn't seem to be a lot of public support for a new stadium. I haven't encountered anyone that thinks we should gift the Flames hundreds of millions of dollars. I think the politicians realize this and will largely avoid the issue moving forward. Or kick the can down the road.

The Flames are going to have to put substantially more funds into a new building than they originally hoped. Calgarians are not as dumb as Edmontonians or most municipal voters in the US. Although this is changing in the US too, I think. People are starting to realize all across North America that the grand economic benefits of a pro sports franchise are just a myth.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm just trying to clarify your view on this one issue. Does lowering tax rates have a positive, neutral or negative impact on attracting investment? I'm genuinely curious about your position.

Your position on this should inform your position on whether jurisdictions have a dilemma or they don't.

lol
Quote me where I am being mutually exclusive.

You made the claim over and over.
I have asked you to quote me multiple times, and responded to your questions.


Quote me - my text, my words, without you interpreting it and changing it, or we all know you don't grasps the argument enough/ trolling