Alberta Politics Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

For someone who is worried about people losing their jobs in one way it certainly appears as though you are not to be too concerned about contributing to it in another.

I rarely go to McDonald's but I always make it a point not to use the kiosk.

Typically the person at the register is new, and inexperienced. We spend so much time as consumers figuring out what the machine needs in order to do a better job that we forget humans are the same, except better and more adaptable.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I get the feeling we are at an economic tipping point, but that no one knows what the scale is, or what the effects will be or really anything.

Lots and lots of anxiety, and in these cases, I think the best thing for policymakers to do is pretty much nothing except for small tweaks to the social safety net.

I agree with this statement. As far as the tweaking is concerned though, if this maximum 34% wage increase only affects 10% of working Albertans do you consider it too big of a change? It would be very interesting to see the actual breakdowns, for all we know there could be 90% of that 10% who make over $13.50/hour. For any workers currently earning more than $13.50/hour the raising of minimum wage to $15 equals an 11% or less bump in pay.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by jammies

All else aside, this is like arguing that if increasing the speed limit on a highway from 100 km/h to 120 km/h has a minimal impact, it will also have a minimal impact if you raise it to 800 km/h.

Change is not linear. There are tipping points where a very small change can make a gigantic difference in outcome, and there are times when what are perceived to be radical changes make very little difference. The main problem I have with this proposed minimum wage change is that it could go either way and not much thought seems to have been put into finding out which.

So where is this tipping point then, c'mon Rachel sure the f%#@ can't answer that question, can you?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I guess all the money patrons were spending at that restaurant(or any business) that closed down will simply go under their mattress. There's no chance they would spend that money at other businesses. Since there's no chance of that, then by default there would be no chance of those other businesses seeing growth and creating new jobs. No chance any of that happens at all. I guess the only thing we know for certain is that raising the minimum wage can't possibly have good benefits that outweigh the bad.

I find it interesting how people seem to try to justify their argument by creating a timeline of events and then stopping as soon as it's convenient for their argument.

Phase 1- raise minimum wage

Phase 2- employer goes out of business, employees can't work there anymore

Phase 3- ???? (What happens then? Armageddon? Zombie apocalypse?)

As opposed to

Phase 1- Maintain current minimum wage

Phase 2- ?????

Phase 3- Profit! (For employers)

Well, I'd be surprised if any mom and pop restaurant made any sort of substantial net income (like, anything above $10K/yr). I'd say most are barely above break even, considering that they seem to have no money for material capital improvements.

Hey, want to really help things out? Do the following:

- 90% tax on income over $150K
- treat all dividend income and capital gains as normal income
- remove tax free gains on the sale of your primary residence.

Hell, I'm almost tempted to say also kill RRSPs and TFSAs.

You will see none of these, because your politicians are greedy.

[woob]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I spent a significant amount of my 20s earning minimum wage or not much higher. I regularly got a GST refund cheque, and relied on it for such extravagances as buying clothes.

The parts you seem to have tremendous difficulty understanding are:

• The overwhelming majority of people earning minimum wage are young people who soon transition into higher paid work.
  
• Entrepreneurs don't have to create and run businesses. Instead of opening a restaurant or running a landscaping business, they can simple work somewhere else as employees instead. Then there's no business. No employees.
  
• When minimum wage is raised higher many of those jobs simply disappear, and youth unemployment rises dramatically. And high youth unemployment is bad for society.

Have you gotten around to digging up the numbers on how many minimum wage workers in Alberta are over 26 years old or have children? Or are you one of those people for whom numbers and facts don't matter, and it's all about abstractions and sentiment?

I just want to commend you on a wonderfully formatted post.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, I'd be surprised if any mom and pop restaurant made any sort of substantial net income (like, anything above $10K/yr). I'd say most are barely above break even, considering that they seem to have no money for material capital improvements.

Hey, want to really help things out? Do the following:

- 90% tax on income over $150K
- treat all dividend income and capital gains as normal income
- remove tax free gains on the sale of your primary residence.

Hell, I'm almost tempted to say also kill RRSPs and TFSAs.

You will see none of these, because your politicians are greedy.

Is this a joke?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is this a joke?

Shazam!

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is this a joke?

Every major change to the tax code over the past 30 years has been to favour capital investment over labour.

We have now been told that this a failure.

So put it back the way it was.

Sales and VAT taxes are extremely regressive and are very harmful to low income earners. So we should get rid of those too.

Hell in super-enlightened Europe many countries have a "social benefit" tax on capital gains. Some of them even have an annual tax just for holding equities.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, I'd be surprised if any mom and pop restaurant made any sort of substantial net income (like, anything above $10K/yr). I'd say most are barely above break even, considering that they seem to have no money for material capital improvements.

Hey, want to really help things out? Do the following:

- 90% tax on income over $150K
- treat all dividend income and capital gains as normal income
- remove tax free gains on the sale of your primary residence.

Hell, I'm almost tempted to say also kill RRSPs and TFSAs.

You will see none of these, because your politicians are greedy.

Sorry is the $10k/year a typo? Or is that above what the owner pays himself?

I'm kinda with peter12 on this one, I can't tell if this post is serious or meant to be sarcastic.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I spent a significant amount of my 20s earning minimum wage or not much higher. I regularly got a GST refund cheque, and relied on it for such extravagances as buying clothes.

I meant to ask this earlier, but during what years were you working at minimum wage?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, I'd be surprised if any mom and pop restaurant made any sort of substantial net income (like, anything above $10K/yr). I'd say most are barely above break even, considering that they seem to have no money for material capital improvements.

Hey, want to really help things out? Do the following:

- 90% tax on income over $150K
- treat all dividend income and capital gains as normal income
- remove tax free gains on the sale of your primary residence.

Hell, I'm almost tempted to say also kill RRSPs and TFSAs.

You will see none of these, because your politicians are greedy.

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen because anyone that's earning incomes at that level would probably leave.

[CliffFletcher]

95-97 I was making around $8 or $9 an hour working at bookstores, approx 30 hours a week.

[AltaGuy]

I'm all for a major shakeup of the tax code, but I think there could be a slight - erm - tsunami of fleeing capital under those proposals.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I'm all for a major shakeup of the tax code, but I think there could be a slight - erm - tsunami of fleeing capital under those proposals.

This is why I keep saying that economic changes have to be slow and steady.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you both feel that someone is making more of a contribution to society by being unemployed or on welfare than they would by being a tax paying worker?

I'm not sure what your point is. Given rising costs, including rising minimum wage, is actively costing people jobs right now, perhaps you should tell me which you feel is preferable.

I just can't wrap my head around how you continually attack people working these jobs as somehow less important than others making the same contribution to the workforce. As far as prices going up, we the consumers will dictate what a place can charge us, if the price is too high we don't buy it.

Don't conflate the value of the task with the importance of the individual, please. These are different things. Also, stating that a low value task has low value is not an attack on an individual doing those jobs. I am quite sure nearly all of us have performed low value tasks. And for nearly all of us, they were stepping stones as we learned, grew, and eventually took on better jobs that require greater skills.

Big companies like macdonalds can absorb these extra costs with missing a beat, if you disagree you're simply not looking at the facts. While a smaller business may be put in jeopardy, they will have options to address it. If the end result is they are no longer a profitable business and close down, it may reduce the number of people they employed however the money those companies were making will go to the remaining employers who are able to run a business without needing tax payers to subsidize their work force. This in turn will create growth within those companies which will lead to jobs for those who were left jobless when the non profitable company went belly up.

Umm. If I am reading this right, you believe that we will make the economy stronger by putting people out of work so that the fewer people who have jobs can make more money, which in turn will create more jobs?

In reality, the higher wages is an added expense and the increased unemployment reduces potential customers, neither of which encourages growth.

The lack of empathy towards workers by some posters in this thread is shocking. You're a single mom trying to keep your kids off the streets? Deal with it! You're a young adult who grew up in poverty and are trying to work towards becoming educated in a higher paying field or industry? Figure it out!

And now we are back to emotional rhetoric.

But FWIW, I grew up in a single-mother household and we certainly were not 1%ers. Going to McDonalds once a month was a treat. And yes, we dealt with it. And as far as education and landing in higher paying industries, both my sister and I figured it out. No, it isn't easy. But it certainly wasn't worse than creating a world where we could have been satisfied flipping burgers for a living.

And the argument of creating MORE social assistance programs to help these people without an expectation of having employers who choose to run a business only because they can make money while keeping people poor being held accountable to contribute comes off as extremely hypocritical.

I can only assume this is in response to someone else's comment. However, casting aspersions the way you are is not a convincing argument.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

95-97 I was making around $8 or $9 an hour working at bookstores, approx 30 hours a week.

Those were the days. A 25¢/hr raise was incredible! Hell, I went from $7.25 to $7.75 and felt like I was rich!

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is why I keep saying that economic changes have to be slow and steady.

Heh, for me - this is why I think we're headed for a revolution or something. Income and - especially - wealth disparity are just too large, and growing. But the fixes are so problematic and I ain't got no plan. So Vive La Revolucion?!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

95-97 I was making around $8 or $9 an hour working at bookstores, approx 30 hours a week.

Do you remember how much you were paying for rent and groceries at that time? Because the minimum wage has only gone up between 24-40% since then, I would guess that since housing prices have more than doubled inflation has outpaced the wage which you claim was liveable for you at the time

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Umm I think a citation is required here. You're basically saying that the cost on a large pop at McDonalds is less then a penny

same on a coffee.

A friend of the family used to manage a movie theatre and said much the same thing when it came to soda and popcorn. The money is made on concession sales and not the tickets sold.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Macdonalds restaurants in different regions have different prices, so I'm sure if it meant the difference between them closing their doors or staying profitable they would choose staying profitable. And while I understand the point about individual franchisees owning different locations, when you are making a 5000% profit on every soft drink or coffee you sell it is very difficult to argue they aren't making money. I know someone who's brother owns 7 franchises, that is his only business and it has made him a millionaire. Meanwhile he complains about having to pay overtime on stat holidays.

Lets no forget that franchise owners have to invest quite alot of money to get the business up and running at an incredible risk. Somehow they have to make that money back before you start talking about profits.

Ohhhh and it's not just about selling soda and coffee.

Profitable seems to be a dirty word and I have to wonder what you would consider fair before an employer has to cut back on staff and hours.