The "Build a Better Democracy" Thread

[Mister Yamoto]

Pay politicians more.

It amazes me how weak the candidates are, but should it? The best and the brightest in society look at politics and think why bother.

A Prime Minister or a premier should make a wage comparable to what a CEO gets. Justin Trudeau doesn't even make Bartkowski money.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Facts Council: It was actually 51%.

Thanks,I mixed up my Smiths. Danielle Smith was shouting 55% yesterday.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Pay politicians more.

It amazes me how weak the candidates are, but should it? The best and the brightest in society look at politics and think why bother.

A Prime Minister or a premier should make a wage comparable to what a CEO gets. Justin Trudeau doesn't even make Bartkowski money.

Do you think that money changes who runs?

And

Since CEO salary is not correlated with job performance why do you believe we will get better candidates by increasing the Salary substantially.


I think the process to become Prime Minister is not attractive even to high performers and the job of MP backbencher seems to not at all be challenging. You'd need to make the work engaging first before worrying about compensation.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by mister yamoto

pay politicians more, based on approval numbers and tangible accomplishments.

fyp

[You Need a Thneed]

A non-partisan facts council, something like GGG described is going to be absolutely essential for healthy democracies going forward. How to implement them is going to be interesting.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A non-partisan facts council, something like GGG described is going to be absolutely essential for healthy democracies going forward. How to implement them is going to be interesting.

I think having a government funded group of experts deciding what is true is a pretty slippery slope towards a 1984 style Ministry of Truth.

The better way to deal with that is with effective journalism and an informed citizenry. Bill Smith lost, and I think the big reason was a plurality of Calgarians saw through the BS. I would rather trust voters to suss out the truth than have a government panel of experts deciding. Free speech is important, and is a slippery slope when you let a group of experts decide what's true.

Because really, if you have a group of experts deciding what's true instead of voters, why even have a democracy? Wouldn't it be easier for that same group of experts to pick qualified people to run things?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't disagree necessarily, as I mentioned, a small business provision would have to be in place somehow. But wouldn't you also agree that corporate executives pocketing millions per/year while their lowest level employees need to hold multiple jobs to sustain families and provide liquidity to the economy is out of whack and something that needs adjustment? You do get to choose who's qualified to have equity by choosing who you hire, no? It's not like profit sharing is some crazy idea. I don't see this arbitrary line where some positions deserve it over others (obviously on a scale).

What you are talking about is pretty much how I've been compensated my entire life via commission and or profit sharing. Hit it out if the park, you live like a king, just show up and put in no effort, you're dipping into your line of credit. What most people can't accept is the second part. They are unwilling to share in the failure when they stink the joint up. If you want to reap the rewards, prepare to share in the failures too. You don't want to share in the risk? You'll get paid a conservative wage to offset the risk to your employer.

There's no employee more effective in the world than a salesperson in debt. Trust me, I was that guy for a lot of years. When you have to kill what you eat, self motivation is easy to come by.

I can think of six guys off the top of my head, I've worked with over the years, that leveraged a stinky commission sales job, into owning 20+ million dollar dealerships. And becoming that fat cat you talk of. And nobody, gave those guys a preferential pay plan over other staff, or people in the industry. They worked hard, took out second mortgages, sold off everything they had, and took massive risks to succeed. They earned the right to hoard it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think having a government funded group of experts deciding what is true is a pretty slippery slope towards a 1984 style Ministry of Truth.

The better way to deal with that is with effective journalism and an informed citizenry. Bill Smith lost, and I think the big reason was a plurality of Calgarians saw through the BS. I would rather trust voters to suss out the truth than have a government panel of experts deciding. Free speech is important, and is a slippery slope when you let a group of experts decide what's true.

Because really, if you have a group of experts deciding what's true instead of voters, why even have a democracy? Wouldn't it be easier for that same group of experts to pick qualified people to run things?

I think you have this election wrong, Almost half of people voted for Smith, a man without a platform, as a result of him lying to the electorate. Him having a plan and not was the difference not the ability of the public to suss out the truth. Danielle Smith after the election was over continued to lie. She is one of the quote "journalists" you want to do better.

I don't think a government run truth committee works though for the reasons you state which is why I think it has to be groups of people running in the campaign running the truth ministry. Essentially if you block your opponents clean add they will block yours so you are incentivized to compromise or to #### down advertising all together. Not sure which way it would go.

I think the difference between selecting truth is that facts are empirical and based on a common set of facts you can debate policy to who leads. For example global warming is occurring but with that knowledge you can support doing nothing just as well as you can support a ban on ICE tomorrow.

But if we can't at least debate on a common set of empirical facts democracy doesn't work.

Though ideally the CBC would lead this new approach and other journalists will follow and we don't need the truth commission

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think having a government funded group of experts deciding what is true is a pretty slippery slope towards a 1984 style Ministry of Truth.

The better way to deal with that is with effective journalism and an informed citizenry. Bill Smith lost, and I think the big reason was a plurality of Calgarians saw through the BS. I would rather trust voters to suss out the truth than have a government panel of experts deciding. Free speech is important, and is a slippery slope when you let a group of experts decide what's true.

I was watching Global or CTV (wish I could remember) at about 6PM on election day where they were talking about the mayoral candidates. When doing a quick intro about the election, one issue between Smith/Nenshi was described like this:

"Bill Smith has said that city taxes have increased by 51% since Nenshi's time in office, a claim that Nenshi disputes."

When local media, even on election day is still phrasing major election issues like that, it is extremely concerning. Many journalists and news programs are failing the electorate and keeping them ignorant about facts.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by pylon

What you are talking about is pretty much how I've been compensated my entire life via commission and or profit sharing. Hit it out if the park, you live like a king, just show up and put in no effort, you're dipping into your line of credit. What most people can't accept is the second part. They are unwilling to share in the failure when they stink the joint up. If you want to reap the rewards, prepare to share in the failures too. You don't want to share in the risk? You'll get paid a conservative wage to offset the risk to your employer.

There's no employee more effective in the world than a salesperson in debt. Trust me, I was that guy for a lot of years. When you have to kill what you eat, self motivation is easy to come by.

I can think of six guys off the top of my head, I've worked with over the years, that leveraged a stinky commission sales job, into owning 20+ million dollar dealerships. And becoming that fat cat you talk of. And nobody, gave those guys a preferential pay plan over other staff, or people in the industry. They worked hard, took out second mortgages, sold off everything they had, and took massive risks to succeed. They earned the right to hoard it.

Those aren't really the "fat cats" I'm really concerned about. I'm more concerned about businesses pulling in profits in the billions that have employees on welfare. If Walmart was a country they'd be China's 5th largest trading partner. That is not a corporation anymore, it's a nation, and an economic impactor far beyond that of a car dealership with 20 employees.

As long as we're doing stories, I worked for "Canada's Best Employer" for many years. There I get to see everyday on the home page of my computer how the company brought in XBillions in profits that quarter while the 40 year old mail-room guy who works just as long and hard as anybody else in there has to deliver flyers every morning before coming to work so he continue to provide a life for his family. Meanwhile, his bosses, the people patting themselves on the back for being Canada's Best Employer take their quarterly retreat somewhere.

There's a severe imbalance here. I'm not saying it has to be balanced, but it should not be this out of whack. I guarantee those people can take their quartlerly retreats AND the mailman can be paid like a proper employee and it wouldn't even make a blip on the company's bottom line. Nobody works 1000s or millions of times harder than anyone else. The people at the top of these companies continue to shell out bonuses for themselves and their buddies vs letting their precious "trickle down" actually happen. The supposed trickle down only happens if you adhere to the other to the other parts of the theory (ie, having your cost of labour rise with everything else as a business grows). And, again, hiding that in top level bonuses/salaries completely negates any chance at a trickle down effect. But these people know that.

[Ozy_Flame]

I agree with the idea of a Facts Council. This council should be vetting all information that gets fed to our decision makers, and needs to be based on non-partisan, unbiased, scientific data. Data should be provided in high detail reports, visualizations, models, and other documentation that cannot be refuted. There should be absolutely no debate about methodology as to how the numbers came to be.

For city governance sake, data should always be compared against other municipalities, and have benchmarks. More data science is absolutely required around Council decision making.

[CaptainCrunch]

Violently over throw the proletariat, shoot all the lawyers and install strict government controls over the economy. Everyone gets paid the exact same salary, doctors, lawyers, truck drivers.

Use old people as a food source.

Create a truth division that re-defines the word democracy and pump out propaganda about how amazing it is to work in a democracy.

Have a election every 4 years where voters can vote on line, and run false candidates against the party, no matter who the people vote for the vote counts towards the party.

Oh and start referring to the people as the people.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There's a severe imbalance here. I'm not saying it has to be balanced, but it should not be this out of whack. I guarantee those people can take their quartlerly retreats AND the mailman can be paid like a proper employee and it wouldn't even make a blip on the company's bottom line. Nobody works 1000s or millions of times harder than anyone else. The people at the top of these companies continue to shell out bonuses for themselves and their buddies vs letting their precious "trickle down" actually happen. The supposed trickle down only happens if you adhere to the other to the other parts of the theory (ie, having your cost of labour rise with everything else as a business grows). And, again, hiding that in top level bonuses/salaries completely negates any chance at a trickle down effect. But these people know that.

During the most prosperous and egalitarian era of our history (post WW2 to the 80s), the struggle between capital and labour was a genuine struggle. Capital's inherent advantages had been trimmed back by the enormous loss of wealth in the two great wars, while labour in a boom economy was strong enough to contest and win many concessions.

Since then, capital has beaten down labour, curb-stomped it, rolled it into a ditch, set it on fire, and is now pissing on the ashes. Inherited wealth is growing faster than earned wealth. Big piles of money are growing and growing and growing with the irresistible power of gravity. The value of labour is decreasing relentlessly, as globalization and automation find cheaper and cheaper ways to deliver goods and services. A class of skilled knowledge-economy workers, making up maybe 20 per cent of the population, is still doing quite well. But their numbers will decrease as automation and AI climb the skills tree.

If people think politics are polarized now, wait until we have 40 per cent unemployment, another 40 per cent in fragile and temporary work, and a 1 per cent made up of people who have never worked a day in their lives and yet live like godlings. It's doubtful democracy can survive much longer than a few more decades without a fundamental correction to the system.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Mom never taught you to share?

What would be wrong with all of a company's employees' gaining something from the progress of the company? In fact, economic models are built on finding equilibrium between revenue and cost to maximize production, not to maximize profit. That cost includes cost of labour rising along with everything else. And hiding that in bonuses for people at the top is not helping the problem.

To play devil's advocate here would you then also be in favor of employees sharing economic risk in times of economic trouble for the company?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

To play devil's advocate here would you then also be in favor of employees sharing economic risk in times of economic trouble for the company?

They already do. They are the expendable ones when things go south and lose their jobs. If they are lucky they just forgo bonuses, get benefits trimmed, and salaries cut.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They already do. They are the expendable ones when things go south and lose their jobs. If they are lucky they just forgo bonuses, get benefits trimmed, and salaries cut.

They aren’t on the hook for debt or other liabilities though.

If they want a “fair share” of the profits, then they should be paying their “fair share” of costs and accepting the same liabilities as the owners. They should also be buying into the company when they join, not just getting hired on with no investment

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

1) We need a Facts council. The major political parties each nominate a person to a fact council.

You know, I read "facts council", but in my head, I hear "ministry of truth".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

To play devil's advocate here would you then also be in favor of employees sharing economic risk in times of economic trouble for the company?

Who's better able to endure risk - someone making 40k a year with 100k in equity, or someone making 300k a year with 2 million in equity?

What strikes a lot of people as unfair is the way the executive class secures themselves a no-fail situation. Company doing well? Then you get your 300k salary, 300k bonus, and your stock option values soar to 750k. Company does poorly? Employees get fired, benefits cut, salaries froze. Executives still making 300k in salary and a 300k bonus. They're in a position where their fail state is what 95 per cent of people regard as a win state beyond their wildest dreams.

So what's their risk? Losing out on the stock options? Gosh, I guess that means you'll have to make due with the house in Priddis, the vacation property in Arizona, private school for the kids, and retirement at 60 to a life of global travel and fine dining. Those dreams of retirement at 55, a third house on Salt Spring Island, and handing the kids enough money that they'll never have to work a day in their lives may have slipped away. A cruel disappointment, no doubt, but I imagine most will dust themselves off and get on with life.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

They aren’t on the hook for debt or other liabilities though.

If they want a “fair share” of the profits, then they should be paying their “fair share” of costs and accepting the same liabilities as the owners. They should also be buying into the company when they join, not just getting hired on with no investment

What about the investment of their lives to help prosper the owner's business?

Does having a base-level employee's wage increase from $8/hr to $10/hr on the backs of billions in corporate profit mean bring them to the level of having to be sharing the same liability as their owners and CEOs still making millions or hundreds of millions?

I have no problem with the wages being rolled back with corporate loss as well (as long as it goes across the board). In that instance the company would have the choice all businesses have: roll back wages and keep all employees, or cut employees to keep the wage function intact. If your business can't function by physically losing those employees, well then maybe you should be allocating some more profits to your lower-employees and looking at taking a bit from the top-end.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by pylon

I'd like to do the reverse of this. If you are paying property tax, you're vote counts 2-1.

Have you really thought this through? My parents (in their late 60s) recently sold their house because they wanted to downsize in their retirement. They now rent an apartment and no longer pay property tax. You're proposing that they should be partially disenfranchised after they combined for over 80 years in the workforce, paying taxes and contributing to the Canadian economy all that time? Prior to their deaths, my grandparents also sold their homes and moved into assisted living retirement facilities where they didn't pay any property tax. Three of my four grandparents (all except my father's mother) served in WWII. How well do you think your proposal to make the votes of retired war veterans count less than the votes of other citizens would be received? Good lord that's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

If you are under 30, of sound mind and body, and you haven't contributed income tax or had a job for a minimum of 6 months, or continuous employment in the previous 6 months, you can't vote, because you simply aren't contributing to the system, and shouldn't have a say in how taxes are spent.

Here's a completely far-fetched, totally unrealistic hypothetical scenario for you: let's imagine OPEC decides to increase its output substantially, which in turn leads to a world-wide crash to the price of oil and causes tens of thousands of hard-working Albertans to be unemployed for six months (or longer, in many cases). Do you really think those people should be disenfranchised?

There is literally zero excuse as a Canadian citizen to be unemployed if you are able bodied.

I'm sure all the people posting in the "Layoffs in the oil patch" thread appreciate your sympathy.