Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[troutman]

Originally Posted by troutman

Climate change could end us all.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119

Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Climate change is dangerous

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Climate change is dangerous

That's a great point

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by troutman

Climate change could end us all.

Just like the Amazon deforestation , then acid rain , then the ozone , all ended us all

I’m sure there were ones before but that’s just in my lifetime

Fear is big business

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Just like the Amazon deforestation , then acid rain , then the ozone , all ended us all

I’m sure there were ones before but that’s just in my lifetime

Fear is big business

We fixed two of those through changes in regulations. Deforestation is still an issue, and it's contributing to climate change. Sadly, disinformation is an even bigger business.

[Jason14h]

Oh it’s not that I don’t believe these are/ were issues

There’s a big difference between it’s an issue and humans will take the proper steps to mitigate the risks and solve the problems Vs “it will end us”

Just read this thread last few pages - there are people who the fear of climate change makes them think the world is a horrid place and on the cusp on ending

[PepsiFree]

The key to fixing something is to not think it’s important enough to fix.

Always gets it done.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Oh it’s not that I don’t believe these are/ were issues

There’s a big difference between it’s an issue and humans will take the proper steps to mitigate the risks and solve the problems Vs “it will end us”

He said "it could end us" which implies it's solvable. There isn't anything to fear except an unwillingness to make the required sacrifices to fix climate change. If we were seeing the same attitude that solved acid rain and the ozone hole then we'd be fine. It's scary that we're not.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The key to fixing something is to not think it’s important enough to fix.

Always gets it done.

The key is certainly sitting at home and posting on message boards about how humanity is doomed and the world has never been a worse place and how they have given up though !

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

He said "it could end us" which implies it's solvable. There isn't anything to fear except an unwillingness to make the required sacrifices to fix climate change. If we were seeing the same attitude that solved acid rain and the ozone hole then we'd be fine. It's scary that we're not.

We’ll by most estimates we as a planet are investing 600 billion towards climate change initiatives , so it’s not like it’s getting ignored !

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The key is certainly sitting at home and posting on message boards about how humanity is doomed and the world has never been a worse place and how they have given up though !

I’m doing my part by responding to this post about those posts!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The key is certainly sitting at home and posting on message boards about how humanity is doomed and the world has never been a worse place and how they have given up though !

At very least it’s got to be closer than posting about how deforestation is make believe and it was all just fear mongering for the profit.

Probably didn’t even have to read a book to come up with that one. Big fan of efficiency posting.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I didn’t say for 95% of people in Canadas lives had gotten better . Guess what - Canada is 40million out of almost 8 billion !

Canada is a relatively spoiled country. Actually one of the most spoiled countries on the planet

For almost everyone else on the planet - women , minorities , and the third world the world is much better then anytime in history

You’re not wrong that there are many examples where improvements have and continue to be made. But those improvements only happen when the will to make changes exists, they’re not some naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s important to remember that just because a change for the better has occurred in some areas doesn’t mean it can’t be reversed over time or that it cancels out a different area where there has been regression.

In the case of women you can look to very recent events such as the overturning of roe v wade in the states or the taliban retaking control of Afghanistan to see very obvious examples where their rights and quality of life have been negatively impacted in spite of improving statistics in global averages for starvation or life expectancy.

Vigilance keeps things moving forward, complacency leads to regression.

The only people who it may be getting worse for (over the part 50-60 years) is the middle class white man in the developed world. And worst is relative speaking - life is still way way better for this class then anytime in history just not as advantages as the past

Unless you consider all minimum wage earners to be middle class white men and can explain how their wages remaining frozen for years while costs continually increase during that same period isn’t making their lives worse it’s pretty obvious that the first sentence is simply false.

I’m not sure how you can equate people having less economic mobility than they previously did to them having a better life overall.

Income inequality ? Try not having food (starvation is at an all time low globally ) , health care ? Worldwide health infant mortality rates are at all time lows and life expectancy all time highs .

These things can change in a hurry and by means that can be completely out of our control so while it’s great that they have been improving it is by no means a guarantee that they can’t regress.

Affordable housing ? There’s affordable housing available in tons of places. You just don’t want to live there , you want to live in high demand locations (globally speaking)

Tell that to someone who can only find work in low wage industries. There’s only a finite number of available jobs in the world and they aren’t all in places that have an abundance of affordable housing.

The world is not a pretty ####ed up place these days . Get off the internet or learn human history if you think this. You just have access to all the worlds “news” at your fingertips which are designed to create an audience !

Stop reading sensationalism social media headlines and instead read about how much things have actually gotten better worldwide for groups / people with actual problems.

I know this comment was directed at a different poster and while I can’t say what they are basing their views on I can say that I myself don’t base my views solely on what I read in the news or on the internet but rather on the multiple daily interactions that I have with people who are currently struggling to get ahead in life.

There’s no shortage of people in this world who could show a lot more gratitude for what they have in life but dismissing the real issues people who are struggling face just because access to food banks and universal healthcare has extended the average life expectancy is equally ignorant IMO.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

You sure you want that comma in there?

I dunno; if I stopped using straws I’d want to go fishing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Unless you consider all minimum wage earners to be middle class white men and can explain how their wages remaining frozen for years while costs continually increase during that same period isn’t making their lives worse it’s pretty obvious that the first sentence is simply false.

50-60 years ago there were all sorts of low wage jobs in Canada making stuff. Garment work, low end assembly/manufacturing jobs, etc.

Free trade sent all those jobs to poor countries, where they can be done cheaper. That reduced domestic demand for low-skill labour and suppressed wages.

On the other hand, it provided a giant boost in standard of living for the people who got those jobs in developing countries, many of whom came from a subsistence agriculture type background (and had the lack of health care and food insecurity that comes with that).

And the lower cost meant that many more workers could be employed, vs getting replaced by machines more quickly in the west. The low cost also stimulated demand (eg I buy my kids new clothes when they wear out because they're cheap, when I was a kid jeans with a hole got patched).

On a global basis that shift was a huge improvement in average living standards worldwide. Although you're certainly correct that minimum wage earners in the west are a demographic that hasn't seem improvements for quite some time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

50-60 years ago there were all sorts of low wage jobs in Canada making stuff. Garment work, low end assembly/manufacturing jobs, etc.

Free trade sent all those jobs to poor countries, where they can be done cheaper. That reduced domestic demand for low-skill labour and suppressed wages.

I’d argue that there are other factors at play in why wages have been suppressed, I’m sure you can guess the main one that I would bring up. The overall demand for “low-skill” labour really hasn’t decreased domestically, if it did we wouldn’t have things like the TFW program.

On the other hand, it provided a giant boost in standard of living for the people who got those jobs in developing countries, many of whom came from a subsistence agriculture type background (and had the lack of health care and food insecurity that comes with that).

Giant boost might be a little too generous. The jobs lost here compared to the jobs gained elsewhere were not apples to apples. The factory worker who gained a job in a developing nation but still lives in poverty isn’t earning what the factory worker here who could own a home, car, etc was making. With one worker losing their reasonably well paying job and now likely having to work a poverty wage job so that someone else could also have a poverty wage job it’s hard to argue any kind of overall net benefit. If there was a rating system for quality of life you’d be basically trading a 7/10 and 1/10 quality of life for two 2/10 quality of life’s. That may be an oversimplification but I think it helps explain where I’m coming from as far as saying creating new jobs doesn’t always mean improvements to overall quality of life.

And the lower cost meant that many more workers could be employed, vs getting replaced by machines more quickly in the west.

Come on now bizaro, you know that employing people isn’t some act of benevolence on the part of businesses no matter how much they try to convince people that their goal is job creation. Those businesses will replace those workers as soon as the technology exists to do so regardless of which jurisdiction they work in. I’d argue that reducing the wages actually accelerates that process because it leaves companies more money to invest in the research and development of new tech.

The low cost also stimulated demand (eg I buy my kids new clothes when they wear out because they're cheap, when I was a kid jeans with a hole got patched).

I think there may be a bit of confirmation bias in that statement. I’m sure when you were a kid there were probably people who could afford to replace ripped jeans while many others couldn’t. Lower prices may have contributed to giving you and others the ability to do so now, but I would imagine so did higher wages. I don’t know if there’s much evidence of consumer prices dropping significantly when labour costs are reduced through outsourcing.

On a global basis that shift was a huge improvement in average living standards worldwide. Although you're certainly correct that minimum wage earners in the west are a demographic that hasn't seem improvements for quite some time.

I still think it’s difficult to gauge exactly how big of a net improvement it actually made. Looking at just the garment industry it’s pretty widely acknowledged that the conditions in factories in developing nations are what many here would consider to be sweat shop conditions.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’d argue that reducing the wages actually accelerates that process because it leaves companies more money to invest in the research and development of new tech.

I would argue that even that isn't always the case. We recently farmed most of our finance clerks out to eastern europe. We were also looking at technology to fill the holes. Paying these people $5 an hour is way cheaper than anything we could develop technologically so we gave up on that and went to the exploitation route.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Just like the Amazon deforestation , then acid rain , then the ozone , all ended us all

I’m sure there were ones before but that’s just in my lifetime

Fear is big business

Ozone is a great example, because it illustrates how global accords work to eliminate threats to the climate and humanity.

The Montreal Protocol (1987) worked to reduce and then end the use of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. As a result the hole in the ozone reached its maximum size in 2006 and has since been healing.

And all of this happened in your life time, something to be proud of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

[GGG]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I would argue that even that isn't always the case. We recently farmed most of our finance clerks out to eastern europe. We were also looking at technology to fill the holes. Paying these people $5 an hour is way cheaper than anything we could develop technologically so we gave up on that and went to the exploitation route.

But exploitation is the first step in raising standards of living. It would be nice to have international standards to prevent it and redistribute wealth but in the absense of that structural change exporting of labour is the starting point. Once there is money to be fought over labour can organize to fight for their piece of the money. When the pie doesn’t exist at all there is no opportunity.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’d argue that there are other factors at play in why wages have been suppressed, I’m sure you can guess the main one that I would bring up. The overall demand for “low-skill” labour really hasn’t decreased domestically, if it did we wouldn’t have things like the TFW program.

TFW program is definitely a downside for low wage labour in Canada. It's basically the same idea (outsourcing) but bringing the low wage foreigners to Canada instead of sending the work there. I think it's probably over-used.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Giant boost might be a little too generous. The jobs lost here compared to the jobs gained elsewhere were not apples to apples. The factory worker who gained a job in a developing nation but still lives in poverty isn’t earning what the factory worker here who could own a home, car, etc was making. With one worker losing their reasonably well paying job and now likely having to work a poverty wage job so that someone else could also have a poverty wage job it’s hard to argue any kind of overall net benefit. If there was a rating system for quality of life you’d be basically trading a 7/10 and 1/10 quality of life for two 2/10 quality of life’s. That may be an oversimplification but I think it helps explain where I’m coming from as far as saying creating new jobs doesn’t always mean improvements to overall quality of life.

Giant boost is absolutely a matter of perspective. I think the difference between being a starvation level subsistence farmer going to a low-wage factory job is bigger than the difference from going from a high-wage factory job to a minimum wage service industry job, but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Come on now bizaro, you know that employing people isn’t some act of benevolence on the part of businesses no matter how much they try to convince people that their goal is job creation. Those businesses will replace those workers as soon as the technology exists to do so regardless of which jurisdiction they work in. I’d argue that reducing the wages actually accelerates that process because it leaves companies more money to invest in the research and development of new tech.

This is objectively wrong. I've made equipment vs labour decisions in a large business before, and we always did it exactly the same way. "Which of these choices is cheaper considering cost of capital and cost of labour". Labour at $2/hour gets replaced with machines a lot slower than labour that is $25/hour. Machines aren't free, and while businesses aren't benevolent giving jobs for no reason, they also aren't vile destroying jobs when it would be cheaper to keep people vs machines just so they can twirl their mustaches and cackle.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think there may be a bit of confirmation bias in that statement. I’m sure when you were a kid there were probably people who could afford to replace ripped jeans while many others couldn’t. Lower prices may have contributed to giving you and others the ability to do so now, but I would imagine so did higher wages. I don’t know if there’s much evidence of consumer prices dropping significantly when labour costs are reduced through outsourcing.

100% that's a n=1 observation on my part, anecdotal. I think my financial position is probably similar to my parents at the same ages, but my financial attitudes are different, so maybe not a good comparison.

But you can absolutely find actual data to support my contention that clothing prices are relatively lower than they were when I was a kid. I have a 7 year old and a 9 year old kid getting those new jeans, and I turned 8 in Feb 1994. In Feb 1994, the CPI reading for Clothing and Footwear was 97.6. As of April 2023 (most recent available) CPI for Clothing and Footwear was 97.5. No inflation in the last nearly 30 years.

Total all-items CPI over that time period is 83%, so the 0% for clothing and footwear is a huge outlier. I'm pretty confident lower labour rates in developing countries is the primary cause of that - if you have a different opinion on the cause of that I'd be interested to hear it.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I still think it’s difficult to gauge exactly how big of a net improvement it actually made. Looking at just the garment industry it’s pretty widely acknowledged that the conditions in factories in developing nations are what many here would consider to be sweat shop conditions.

I'm 100% not making a value judgement that buying stuff from poor people at low wages is a "good" thing. Every economic choice has winners and losers, and there should definitely be good safety standards everywhere, not just in the west. But the topic was about how has standard of living changed for the 95% of people in the world, and for the global poor globalization has moved many people from food-insecure subsistence farming with little access to education/healthcare to paid factory work with low-but-stable wages. That is far, far from ideal but a big improvement nonetheless.