Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah but the funny thing was that he paid me in cash on the first day, and then made me buy him dinner on the way home to teach me a valuable lesson of some kind that probably makes no sense today, but my old man thought was awesome.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Sorry for making ridiculous claims

I've busted you four times in the past two days making fundamental errors with numbers and basic facts.

1. Claiming a $130,000 shortfall is a loss of profits of $130,000. (In case you still haven't figured this one out you would need $130,000 to go from -$130,000 to zero, and no profit. You would then need an additional $130,000 to make $130,000 in profit.)
2. Claiming that selling a drink for $1.50 is 5000 times what it cost to make it at 3 cents
3. Claiming minimum wage has only gone up between 24-40% since the mid 90s
4. Claiming that inflation has outpaced minimum wage

And that's just the stuff I bothered to reply to. Every time someone points out the basic flaws in your arguments you just double down on your ignorance and write longer and longer posts with fewer and fewer concrete facts.

You're arguing from emotion, and making up numbers to suit your agenda. You might as well be Joe Ceci. However, your complete lack of knowledge of costs and wages in 90s tells me that you're either too young or weren't living in Alberta then.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah but the funny thing was that he paid me in cash on the first day, and then made me buy him dinner on the way home to teach me a valuable lesson of some kind that probably makes no sense today, but my old man thought was awesome.

I paid taxes on $3.65 per hour. Your turn.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hard to compare prices over time, and blame inflation, when the quality of the product is changing drastically.

The standard of the quality is not the benchmark. The average home price doesn't change the demand or need for that item.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The standard of the quality is not the benchmark. The average home price doesn't change the demand or need for that item.

So you didn't grasp a single thing I said.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I've busted you four times in the past two days making fundamental errors with numbers and basic facts.

1. Claiming a $130,000 shortfall is a loss of profits of $130,000. (In case you still haven't figured this one out you would need $130,000 to go from -$130,000 to zero, and no profit. You would then need an additional $130,000 to make $130,000 in profit.)
2. Claiming that selling a drink for $1.50 is 5000 times what it cost to make it at 3 cents
3. Claiming minimum wage has only gone up between 24-40% since the mid 90s
4. Claiming that inflation has outpaced minimum wage

And that's just the stuff I bothered to reply to. Every time someone points out the basic flaws in your arguments you just double down on your ignorance and write longer and longer posts with fewer and fewer concrete facts.

You're arguing from emotion, and making up numbers to suit your agenda. You might as well be Joe Ceci. However, your complete lack of knowledge of costs and wages in 90s tells me that you're either too young or weren't living in Alberta then.

Lol.

I've actually addressed all of those issues you "called me out on"

And I think most people who have been reading understand how the initial error was made and what my point was, and even after I acknowledged the typo you are still holding it against me. So you are saying you still believe I am trying to convince people that when a fountain pop which costs $0.03 in materials is sold for $1.50 that they are making 5000 times what the cost is rather than they are making 5000% profit as I clarified? Sounds like you are really reaching here

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Lol.

So you are saying you still believe I am trying to convince people that when a fountain pop which costs $0.03 in materials is sold for $1.50 that they are making 5000 times what the cost is rather than they are making 5000% profit as I clarified? Sounds like you are really reaching here

Consider that maybe the $0.03 in materials is the true cost, but to get it to the retail place requires a delivery cost, and workers to dispense.

Using your example, if you think the price should be, $1.00 instead of $1.50, how much less should the truck driver get paid?

Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the costs of doing business.

[Mr.Coffee]

One of the best posts in this discussion that should be re-iterated is the question about how others or society needs to dictate "what's the right income".

What is too much money if it's generated from a business on the proverbial backs of others?
What is too little to adequately survive?

None of the people in favour of minimum wage increase have really answered this, and if you take a stab, please also explain who should be the ones to truly define these questions in a fair way. Government? CP poll?

It's always either too much, or too little.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So you didn't grasp a single thing I said.

Improvements add to the cost, but it is all relative to the time period, as the new more expensive products are brought in, the products or technologies they are replacing are phased out. Also builders bring in a lot of improvements to materials to reduce costs. Parts are imported from automated factories locally or from overseas, these factors reduce costs as well. Things like appliances can be bought for much cheaper these days. A high efficiency furnace while more expensive today than a regular efficiency model is probably still a similar percentage of the overall cost of building a home today as a crappy furnace from the 1950's was for a new home build back then.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And I think most people who have been reading understand how the initial error was made and what my point was, and even after I acknowledged the typo you are still holding it against me. So you are saying you still believe I am trying to convince people that when a fountain pop which costs $0.03 in materials is sold for $1.50 that they are making 5000 times what the cost is rather than they are making 5000% profit as I clarified?

Nope, I'm just pointing out that your posts show that you don't understand even the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue. You make too many basic errors, and you get evasive when people point it out to you.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Improvements add to the cost, but it is all relative to the time period, as the new more expensive products are brought in, the products or technologies they are replacing are phased out. Also builders bring in a lot of improvements to materials to reduce costs. Parts are imported from automated factories locally or from overseas, these factors reduce costs as well. Things like appliances can be bought for much cheaper these days. A high efficiency furnace while more expensive today than a regular efficiency model is probably still a similar percentage of the overall cost of building a home today as a crappy furnace from the 1950's was for a new home build back then.

So, you agree that home prices haven't outpaced minimum wage? Do you even recall why you brought the topic up?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Consider that maybe the $0.03 in materials is the true cost, but to get it to the retail place requires a delivery cost, and workers to dispense.

Using your example, if you think the price should be, $1.00 instead of $1.50, how much less should the truck driver get paid?

Your posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the costs of doing business.

This was brought up earlier, please go back and read the posts if you'd like detailed clarification. In a nutshell though $0.03 is the material cost, syrop, water and cup. The labour and utility costs for how long it takes to pour that drink are probably another $0.02-0.03. The point was not that they should reduce the price, but that some companies can handle a raise in minimum wage due to extremely high profit margins. People argued that was only on drinks and implied I was cherry picking by picking the item with the highest profit margin, they were asked to give examples of things at McDonalds where they take a loss on the sale, no one could come up with any examples, someone else made some points suggesting McDonalds has very high profit margins on all their profits. Captain has mixed emotions regarding the order kiosks. And one poster seems so disappointed with the fact that something I said was making sense he's accusing me of misleading everyone everyone because I accidentally wrote that they were making 5000 times the cost instead of a 5000% profit, clarified it and I'm pretty sure most people understood the point initially but for some reason he just can't let it go.

[nik-]

People keep talking about it because the example you use for profit margins in a business shows you probably don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[Corral]

here's what i know about this minimum wage debate.

if you walk into a typical grocery store in Calgary you could pay as much as $4.50 for a single loaf of bread and another $3.00 for 2 litres of milk. Yes you could find it for less - but this $7.50 for both is not for purchasing anything special like organic milk or fancy bread.

So that's 1/2 hour of work before taxes at the $15 min wage.

It would be interesting to know if the same milk and bread only cost $2.50 total in the mid 1990s when apparently min wage was only $5 per hour. maybe it did. But i do think the basic staples these days are very pricey for those on min wage. So i'm all for raising it. Frankly could care less what others think unless they too are working for near min wage.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So, you agree that home prices haven't outpaced minimum wage? Do you even recall why you brought the topic up?

I do not agree with that. The point I was making may be better explained using a car as an example. The first year cruise control or automatic transmissions were introduced they were a very expensive part of your car. But as the technology became older the percentage its cost in relation to the overall cost of the car went down. It partially has to do with the fact that other items were introduced but even with all the additions of new technology taken out of the price of a car, if you could buy a new 2016 base model car with the most recent included technological upgrade being something like airbags, that new car would still be more expensive today than a new car with all the exact same features from the first year airbags were available in cars. I don't know if I'm explaining the point I'm trying to get across very well but hopefully you can kind of understand what I mean.

Another important thing to mention is that when you buy a home, the materials and such have a much higher percentage of the overall purchase price when determining the price of building a new home to purchase, but over time the land is what becomes more valuable than the materials. If you bought a house that was built in 1950 you are likely going to pay more for it than any technologically or quality superior new build that is in a suburb because of the land value. Improved quality doesn't really inflate the real estate market, land value does. Two homes built the exact same will have a completely different price based on where they are built.

[CaptainCrunch]

In the last couple of years, grocery prices have really accelerated, but you have to know that there are some external circumstances that have lead to that. Corporate tax increases hit prices at multiple levels, as do increases in wages up and down the line, transportation increases utility cost increases.

These are all effects that have happened. When the carbon tax hits, its going to jump again, and when the minimum wage increases keep going up so will the cost of basic consumer goods.

Honestly and somebody pointed it out, its more difficult to compare prices in the 70's and 80's to now, even in food because of the increased requirements for not only food safety but manufacturing.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Mortgage rates were close to that rate about 10 years ago and houses we still double the price, but that doesn't matter right? What matters is at this moment the historically low interest rates which are bound to go up make a situationally convenient argument that you think supports your position. Right now the price is still double even if you take those rates into account, I'm sure bringing up the fact that property taxes were a fraction of the price as well doesn't matter to you as well, I mean taxes don't count right?

Were they?

I bought a house in 2005, 2008 and 2011. 4.69, 4.75 and variable. I'm not sure when they were close to 7.5%. Why do you keep just making things up?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Nope, I'm just pointing out that your posts show that you don't understand even the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue. You make too many basic errors, and you get evasive when people point it out to you.

I went back and read my post regarding the 130k and really don't see what part does not make sense to you, the employer will incur an additional $130k in expense, if his current profit before the change is that same amount then he would be at zero. If he is currently making double that much then he would be left with roughly half without going to deeply into the tax part of it. Could you actually quote and specify exactly what parts you are in disagree to with? Ok I've made a typo on the fountain pop profit, my bad. I made a calculation on the minimum wage from 1995 or 96 based on another posters claim of what it was back then, I was still a couple of years away from working my first job at that time and hadn't check the exact numbers, however my point was still valid as I underestimated the average home price increase while doing so, but oh well let's not focus on that part of it as it actually pertains relevance to the discussion.

And as far as your accusation that I'm being evasive when people point something out to me, I think most people here, even those who disagree with my position on a topic would say that for better or worse I don't exactly shy away from an opportunity to defend my views.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Were they?

I bought a house in 2005, 2008 and 2011. 4.69, 4.75 and variable. I'm not sure when they were close to 7.5%. Why do you keep just making things up?

http://www.ratehub.ca/5-year-fixed-m...e-rate-history

[V]

Those look to be about 2% high across the board, based on all of the times I've had to re-up over the last 12 years.