Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Everything is a choice.

Exactly, so this particular study and its methodology is only account for a very specific set of choices made by a specific couple and shouldn't be applied broadly to an entire population.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Livable wage is a wage required to break the cycle of poverty. You're missing the point if you're trying to argue they shouldn't be in that position in the first place.

Yes, there are some obvious considerations that can't be placed nicely in a spreadsheet to come up with an exact number. A single person with no kids isn't the same as a single mother with three.

But you're completely missing the point if your argument is that they should have a secondary education, career and a nice house with a white picket fence before assessing how much someone needs to have a child...and then arguing that's what a livable wage is.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Exactly, so this particular study and its methodology is only account for a very specific set of choices made by a specific couple and shouldn't be applied broadly to an entire population.

It’s a theoretical family, using modest considerations to mimic what an average Canadian family would require as a living wage. It’s not rocket science.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Oh, so they should have made proper choices throughout their life to avoid being in poverty.

And if they didn't? Tough ####. Gotcha.

What about personal responsibility? We live in a country with socialized healthcare and free abortions.

Making dumb decisions to buy a car that you cant afford or to drink/smoke/party your rent money are one thing, but having a child, a person that is going to depend on you for nearly 2 decades, when you are not in a situation to provide that support is completely different and not comparable.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

What about personal responsibility? We live in a country with socialized healthcare and free abortions.

Making dumb decisions to buy a car that you cant afford or to drink/smoke/party your rent money are one thing, but having a child, a person that is going to depend on you for nearly 2 decades, when you are not in a situation to provide that support is completely different and not comparable.

So what do you want to do to to the impoverished with children?

A family who's in poverty with children should just stay impoverished forever? Maybe round up the children and slaughter them so they get a second chance?

Not only for this generation but next generation we should be focusing on breaking that cycle. But instead you're arguing that the parent does not deserve to be educated and therefore their children are likely to end up in similar situations (of course not a certainty).

Or do you want to try and break that cycle? Yes personal responsibility matters, but we're talking about the impoverished. The argument should be more than just "haha, sucks to be you, make better choices like I did."

[Enoch Root]

But is it the responsibility of small business owners? Or are you talking about a responsibility of the state?

[Oling_Roachinen]

If a small business owner didn't want to go bankrupt for paying a livable wage he should have thought of a billion dollar idea. If Apple can be a trillion dollar company, there's no excuse for them to fail it's on them.

Less sarcastically, I do think a small business owner should be able to provide at least near a livable wage or else I don't see the benefit of it. If it's only going to stay afloat by keeping it's employees in poverty and using cheap labour to make a profit? Good riddance.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If a small business owner didn't want to go bankrupt for paying a livable wage he should have thought of a billion dollar idea. If Apple can be a trillion dollar company, there's no excuse for them to fail it's on them.

That is a moronic reply.

So a business shouldn't exist unless it is a billion dollar idea???

That is the equivalent of saying: they should just stay in school so they can get a better job.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That is a moronic reply.

So a business shouldn't exist unless it is a billion dollar idea???

Sort of like poor people with children shouldn't be accounted in livable wage assessments?

Yeah, both arguments are moronic. That was the point.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So what do you want to do to to the impoverished with children?

A family who's in poverty with children should just stay impoverished forever? Maybe round up the children and slaughter them so they get a second chance?

Not only for this generation but next generation we should be focusing on breaking that cycle. But instead you're arguing that the parent does not deserve to be educated and therefore their children are likely to end up in similar situations (of course not a certainty).

Or do you want to try and break that cycle? Yes personal responsibility matters, but we're talking about the impoverished. The argument should be more than just "haha, sucks to be you, make better choices like I did."

Really??? Round up children to be slaughtered? The image you are trying to paint me with is laughable.

The answer is pretty simple for those are those situation: Private Charity.

Charity's that provide beds / foods / education to single parents and their children. Food banks that provide a family a meal when they are in a pinch. Scholarships for children of low income parents so they can go to school and break the cycle. The list goes on...

The government should not be propping up bad decision makers, this only propagates them.

The good will of a community will help the rest that are truly in need of help.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

The good will of a community will help the rest that are truly in need of help.

Seriously?

Then why do we have poverty today. Forget the world, why in Calgary?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Let's just increase minimum wage to $35/hour. The community will help the businesses that are truly in need of help.

[Tacopuck]

Because scarcity of goods exists. Until we have effectively free and limitless energy AND the replicator from star trek we will always have some level of poverty.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Seriously?

Then why do we have poverty today. Forget the world, why in Calgary?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Oling_Roachinen]

But the government should not be trying to reduce poverty? We should leave that up to the good nature of the community?

The same community that will cry if their taxes go up a couple bucks? The same community filed with people who think that poor people having children is a personal responsibility mistake they should have to endure to teach them a perverse leasson? Yeah, no. I'm good with the minimum wage going up to fight poverty and provide (somewhat close to...) a livable wage.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, quite interesting.

I think the argument is there that a high minimum wage props up bad decision makers just as much as a low minimum wage props up bad business owners. The truth is, there are many in-between that benefit. There just simply isn’t much grounding in an argument that suggests we shouldn’t be propping up poor decision makers, because very little of that would have the impact you want, and very much of it is entirely subjective.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But the government should not be trying to reduce poverty? We should leave that up to the good nature of the community?

The same community that will cry if their taxes go up a couple bucks? The same community filed with people who think that poor people having children is a personal responsibility mistake they should have to endure to teach them a perverse leasson? Yeah, no. I'm good with the minimum wage going up to fight poverty and provide (somewhat close to...) a livable wage.

They do through working condition / safety / labour laws, through socialized healthcare, through public transportation.... Which are all paid for by taxpayers.

Taxpayers that are made up by buisness owners that provide jobs for people to work. So why impose a cost on a buisness that is going to reduce their taxable income of income AND reduce the number of people working who would have otherwise paid taxes on their income.

Private charities are also incentivized to operate more leanly than a government agency meaning a higher percentage of the capital invested in programs aimed to reduce poverty will go towards effective results. This is because private charities exist on the basis on the funding recieved by individuals and corporatations, if results are not achieved the individuals and corps will not want to allocate their charitable donations to that charity and move it somewhere else that is. Compare this to government agencies which get funding from taxation and it's at the discretion of a small group of individuals.

So with relation to the minimum wage, as a government mechanism to reduce poverty it may not be the most efficient way of utilizing capital and resources.

Tax dollars have to be respected for what they are, a % of the collective labour within the jurisdiction.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Less sarcastically, I do think a small business owner should be able to provide at least near a livable wage or else I don't see the benefit of it. If it's only going to stay afloat by keeping it's employees in poverty and using cheap labour to make a profit? Good riddance.

Honest question, what does the NDP's lightbulb/showerhead racket pay their employees?

It's strictly a tax driven business with no tangible profits to speak of.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, quite interesting.

I think the argument is there that a high minimum wage props up bad decision makers just as much as a low minimum wage props up bad business owners. The truth is, there are many in-between that benefit. There just simply isn’t much grounding in an argument that suggests we shouldn’t be propping up poor decision makers, because very little of that would have the impact you want, and very much of it is entirely subjective.

I don't disagree with the idea that low minimum wage props up bad buisness owners, but I'd add that it is kept in check through having to risk your own capital, versus the governments history of increasing spending (from all political stripes).

Its about distributing of risk

[FireGilbert]

My first job at the MacLeod Trail Chevron paid a minimum wage of $5.90/hour. Where I currently live the minimum wage is $19/hour. I'll try to outline the pros and cons of a high minimum wage:


Pros: All full time workers make a living wage. Students can make enough with evenings and weekends to avoid poverty. Overall society is more equal.

Cons: The money has to come from somewhere and businesses will find savings elsewhere through increased prices, reducing staff and opening hours or giving fewer raises to higher paid employees. This ultimately hurts the middle class.

Looking back that $5.90 seems ridiculously low. I was expected to work for "experience" instead of a fair living wage. The Aussie way seems too high though, especially the penalty rates for weekends. The cost of living here is crazy.

Governments need to find a sweet spot between proving a living wage to all while allowing business and the middle class to thrive. The $15/hour in Alberta might be a good balance.

[CliffFletcher]

We don't have guess what a society with higher base wages and security for all workers looks like, we just have to look to countries like France. The people in low-skilled positions in France have better wages and benefits. The trade-off is chronically high unemployment, especially among the young. A great many 26 year olds in France have never worked at all. Many of those low-skilled, entry jobs we have in Alberta simply don't exist in France because they're not economically feasible.

It might be a trade-off we want to make - people who have jobs have better jobs, but more people don't have jobs at all. But we shouldn't pretend it isn't a trade off.