|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm
To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense.
Shows the number of people in each salary range, and then you could subtract 25k from 35k, to get the # of people who make 25k-35k, and so on. And then you could plot the probability distribution function thing, that'll look like a bell shaped curve, with a long right tail. From my initial inspection, the wage gap between the rich and the poor is quite reasonable. If I was going to draw my own curve of what I thought was optimal, I think it'd be somewhere at that level.
50% of people earn $35-50k in Canada, and so having <1% of people earning 250k+ is reasonable to me.
Anyway, at the end of the day, I think we need to focus on being more competitive and improving that TPF term in the Cobb-Douglas if we want to be academic, instead of regulating every industry to extinction.
We're by no means the worst but economic inequality has been increasing and while we're not doing a terrible job of ensuring equal opportunity in Canada, there's still a good portion of our population that can't even imagine pursuing higher education because their financial situation has them in a bind.
As for the Cobb-Douglas, I'm not familiar, but the notion the we're "regulating every industry to extinction" imo speaks more of ideology than reality. And your colorful vocabulary speaks to that. Maybe.
|
met Ed Broadbent at the Rabba Fine Foods at Isabella and Yonge.
I heard him talking to someone in another part of the store ...
and then i arrived in the lineup right behind the guy.
he is bigger and taller than i expected... and he definitely has a "stage presence".
i said "excuse me sir, you're ed broadbent right?"
he replied.. "no, i'm Joe Clark"
lolz.
we talked for a couple of minutes while waiting in line to pay for our groceries
he seems like a really cool guy.
|
On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here:
Not really. People at the higher taxes will likely save less, but they probably won't consume any less.
|
On September 21 2015 11:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:met Ed Broadbent at the Rabba Fine Foods at Isabella and Yonge. I heard him talking to someone in another part of the store ... and then i arrived in the lineup right behind the guy. he is bigger and taller than i expected... and he definitely has a "stage presence". i said "excuse me sir, you're ed broadbent right?" he replied.. "no, i'm Joe Clark" lolz. we talked for a couple of minutes while waiting in line to pay for our groceries he seems like a really cool guy.
whatttt? I live 2 blocks away and go to that Rabba all the time and Ive never seen anyone remotely interesting. Unlike the 4 seasons, thats where the action is at.
|
i met Gina Carano @ Rabba when she was promoting some line of dolls back when she was coming to the MMA ring with an EA/RA3 shirt.
met the former leader of the provincial PCs,Tim Hudak buying TTC tickets at Wellesley subway station.
again, amazing "stage presence".
lot's of action in hte neighbourhood man.
people say Canadian politics is boring, but the guys i've met in person have been ultra charismatic and funny as hell. all these guys can control and work a room at any party or event.
the only one i took an instant dislike to was Ken Dryden.
|
|
|
The latest polls are bumming me out a fair amount. Come on Ontario, don't be dumb. For some stupid reason you get to choose our government and yet again you seem to be falling for the snake oil the Conservatives are dishing out.
Though I will note that I've been closely watching the polls since about May or so, and those EKOS polls (like the one featured in that Star article) tend to favor the Conservatives more than most of the other polls. Even when the NDP had a fairly substantial lead in all other polls in summer, EKOS still showed the Conservatives as either ahead or equal, so I'd take them with a grain of salt. Other polls coming out right now still show either a small NDP lead or a close tie, or in a couple cases, a small Liberal lead (which because of how the seats work out, conflates to the Conservatives having more seats than anyone else despite being in second or third place in terms of percentage of the vote).
If the Conservatives win a minority while not even having the most votes out of all parties, then it will be the final nail in the coffin for our electoral system being broken.
|
Us Quebecers get a lot of shit for having wanted to separate (though the majority didn't want to), but honestly if we reelect Stephen Harper, or rather, if the ROC reelects Stephen Harper while the vast majority of Quebec doesn't, I'll feel grossly under represented again in my parliament. And if he pulls some sort of hat trick and our voting system gives him a majority, I'll lose muchos faith in the Canadian representative "democracy".
I'm unhappy. You people are failing me  . I could I be patriotic in the event that my friends out west fuck me for over a decade of Harper? Honestly don't fuck me on this. That's honestly my breaking point. I've been trying to play nice but I'm tired of that shit.
|
On September 25 2015 04:11 Djzapz wrote:Us Quebecers get a lot of shit for having wanted to separate (though the majority didn't want to), but honestly if we reelect Stephen Harper, or rather, if the ROC reelects Stephen Harper while the vast majority of Quebec doesn't, I'll feel grossly under represented again in my parliament. And if he pulls some sort of hat trick and our voting system gives him a majority, I'll lose muchos faith in the Canadian representative "democracy". I'm unhappy. You people are failing me . I could I be patriotic in the event that my friends out west fuck me for over a decade of Harper? Honestly don't fuck me on this. That's honestly my breaking point. I've been trying to play nice but I'm tired of that shit.
I feel you. I know a fair number of people getting fairly apathetic towards voting and the whole election in general already (that was probably why the Conservatives rigged it so that the campaign was twice as long as normal. People will get sick of hearing about it and stop caring enough to go vote) because it feels like no matter what we do, we can't deal with the 50-somethings and seniors that blindly vote Conservative every time and because of how our system is, it keeps giving them way more power than they should have. Though unlike you, I've practically already lost all faith in our electoral system. The fact that I have friends from out of town right now living in the city since they are attending university who probably won't be able to vote where they are currently living.
I was talking with my relatives from the Maritimes and they echoed what you said basically word for word. Conservative is practically a swear word out there yet even if the Conservatives get no seats, or even one or two, in the Maritimes it won't matter because they will still win because of Ontario, the rural vote in the prairies, and maybe BC (though BC seems to be changing frequently with who is leading there).
The fact that the entire Conservative campaign so far has been insulting to the average person's intelligence certainly makes it even worse for me. Here, the Conservative incumbent in my riding is going 150% into fear mongering right now and filling the local newspaper with attack ads on Mulcair with regards to the whole situation in Syria. Luckily, he's not doing as well in the polls and is probably gonna lose to the NDP candidate.
edit: at least on the upside, Elizabeth May seems to be going for the jugular when it comes to attacking Harper in this French language debate.
|
Oh but we're not different, I've completely lost faith in our electoral system. First past the post is disgustingly unfit for a country with 3 major parties and we need to change it. However, with the current political climate, it's almost impossible because even if the NDP or the liberals get elected, it'll probably be a minority government and since parties which are NOT in power are actually more interested in undermining opposing parties than actually governing the country, they'll probably just cockblock any bill that'd change the electoral system for no reason other than to fuck with the party in power. And the conservatives couldn't give less of a shit about democracy, they've shown quite clearly that they tower well above the smallfolks. So we're boned, obviously for the upcoming elections but also for the foreseeable future.
The obvious problem with the notion of modifying or updating an electoral system is that the electoral system will naturally give an advantage to the party which will naturally not want to change it.
Anyway my point and I want to say this again because I've been pissed all day. If Harper is reelected, next time Quebec starts making a fuss and the notion of separation gets tossed around, know that that shit is not fucking helping. Put a scummy haughty conservative government on top of a left-leaning province and the god damn tension rises. Don't act surprised when that happens.
|
On September 25 2015 10:04 Djzapz wrote:
Oh but we're not different, I've completely lost faith in our electoral system. First past the post is disgustingly unfit for a country with 3 major parties and we need to change it. However, with the current political climate, it's almost impossible because even if the NDP or the liberals get elected, it'll probably be a minority government and since parties which are NOT in power are actually more interested in undermining opposing parties than actually governing the country, they'll probably just cockblock any bill that'd change the electoral system for no reason other than to fuck with the party in power. And the conservatives couldn't give less of a shit about democracy, they've shown quite clearly that they tower well above the smallfolks. So we're boned, obviously for the upcoming elections but also for the foreseeable future.
The obvious problem with the notion of modifying or updating an electoral system is that the electoral system will naturally give an advantage to the party which will naturally not want to change it.
Anyway my point and I want to say this again because I've been pissed all day. If Harper is reelected, next time Quebec starts making a fuss and the notion of separation gets tossed around, know that that shit is not fucking helping. Put a scummy haughty conservative government on top of a left-leaning province and the god damn tension rises. Don't act surprised when that happens.
Just finished casting my vote for Conservative.
How is a scummy, haughty conservative government that gives provincial governments more power than ever before along with more funding than ever before with no strings attached making Quebecers and Maritimers upset? What Federal will has Ottawa imposed on you as a left leaning province? I am against Ottawa imposing a one size fits all policies across regions. The rest of Canada gives Quebec 8 billion in Equalization payments to do with whatever your little left leaning province's heart desires. All I ask is that you have the same consideration and keep your left leaning policies the fuck out of the prairie region.
Trudeau is the one who doesn't give a shit about democracy. When he was asked which country he admires most he said China because they could go green by dicatate, to hell with democratic or parliamentary process. Realizing he gaffed right away, he baselessly accused Harper of wanting those dictatorial powers he just answered would be great to have. Do you have a source of Harper hating democracy?
news.nationalpost.com
|
On September 21 2015 05:15 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense.
In some ways it is a bit of a subsidy though.
Think about it this way. If an employee is making a livable wage, are they being supported by the government through any kind of assistance programs? No. That's the entire idea behind a living wage. It's enough to support you (and potentially your family) without outside support.
When someone is being paid less than a living wage, and receives government support, that support is coming out of our tax dollars. Any job that does not allow someone to live without government support is in a sense subsidized. Every job like that should not exist in our society, because it essentially handing money to the companies they work for under the guise of being a productive job.
I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely; however, only under the condition that basic necessities are already there for everyone anyways. Things like shelter, food, clothing, access to electricity and heating, transportation (even if public), internet access (it's pretty much impossible to operate in our current society without it), etc should be accessible to everyone, without exception. All these basic necessities need to be covered for everyone in my view. If the free market cannot do that, then the government needs to step up to provide these necessities or force companies to pay a wage that allows for that to happen (that was what the minimum wage was initially designed for after all). And I'm saying this as someone in that "35k-50k" range. I don't want any handouts; I take pride in the fact that I work hard for everything I have, but I really hate seeing people in need of it when there really is so much to go around in our country.
|
On September 29 2015 08:00 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 05:15 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense. In some ways it is a bit of a subsidy though. Think about it this way. If an employee is making a livable wage, are they being supported by the government through any kind of assistance programs? No. That's the entire idea behind a living wage. It's enough to support you (and potentially your family) without outside support. When someone is being paid less than a living wage, and receives government support, that support is coming out of our tax dollars. Any job that does not allow someone to live without government support is in a sense subsidized. Every job like that should not exist in our society, because it essentially handing money to the companies they work for under the guise of being a productive job. I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely; however, only under the condition that basic necessities are already there for everyone anyways. Things like shelter, food, clothing, access to electricity and heating, transportation (even if public), internet access (it's pretty much impossible to operate in our current society without it), etc should be accessible to everyone, without exception. All these basic necessities need to be covered for everyone in my view. If the free market cannot do that, then the government needs to step up to provide these necessities or force companies to pay a wage that allows for that to happen (that was what the minimum wage was initially designed for after all). And I'm saying this as someone in that "35k-50k" range. I don't want any handouts; I take pride in the fact that I work hard for everything I have, but I really hate seeing people in need of it when there really is so much to go around in our country.
I'm saying the minimum wage is NOT a subsidy, and I read your first two paragraphs twice and I don't understand if you're saying that the minimum wage is a subsidy. Saying it "kind of is" doesn't really take into account the nature of what a subsidy is, where it comes from, how it's distributed. Subsidies are transfers of public funds going toward specific problems, whereas the minimum wage is a form of regulation which prevents the private corporations from existing if they can't afford their employees decent "living wages", though frankly they get less than that with minimum wages.
Now there is probably much to say about the pros and cons of the minimum wage approach vs. the direct subsidies you're bringing up, but the gist of it is the minimum wage approach takes money from the employer, thus forcing the employer, to an extent, to perform properly. I mean I haven't thought this entire question through because your approach is frankly new to me, but then what would prevent employers from grossly underpaying their employees even though they could afford to pay more, simply because you know you're able to afford them a lifestyle that's equivalent to whatever the government would pay with public money instead.
This would just be a mess of exceptions and other cockery that a reasonable minimum wage handles adequately IMO.
|
Just found out Mulclair wants to eliminate capital gains on people who buy rental properties. Even more tax free gains and pumping up real estate. It'll cost 500 million a year and people were whining about TFSA's (where most people park it in cash and GIC) rofl.
All 3 leaders are so determined to keep the gravy train going for RE. I guess that's one thing they have in common.
|
On September 29 2015 08:00 Impervious wrote:
I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely;
lots of people who work retail get paid for 4 hours while working 7. wage theft is rampant and its getting worse.
a lot of retail is based on minimum wage and making up excuses for getting people to do work outside their official work hours. i worked retail from age 15 until i got into 2nd yaer university co-op. it got me enough cash to pay for 1st year of university and kept me going in high school.
it was hilarious watching the retailers constantly getting you to do unpaid work before and after your "official shift". wage theft was rampant. i'd watch people work 6 or 7 hours and get paid for 4
my solution was to rob these places blind... it was tough enough to get a job.. much less find a job with no wage theft.
mimimum wage laws are pretty much useless. i think decades ago they were effectively enforced.
|
On September 29 2015 08:00 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 05:15 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense. In some ways it is a bit of a subsidy though. Think about it this way. If an employee is making a livable wage, are they being supported by the government through any kind of assistance programs? No. That's the entire idea behind a living wage. It's enough to support you (and potentially your family) without outside support. When someone is being paid less than a living wage, and receives government support, that support is coming out of our tax dollars. Any job that does not allow someone to live without government support is in a sense subsidized. Every job like that should not exist in our society, because it essentially handing money to the companies they work for under the guise of being a productive job. I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely; however, only under the condition that basic necessities are already there for everyone anyways. Things like shelter, food, clothing, access to electricity and heating, transportation (even if public), internet access (it's pretty much impossible to operate in our current society without it), etc should be accessible to everyone, without exception. All these basic necessities need to be covered for everyone in my view. If the free market cannot do that, then the government needs to step up to provide these necessities or force companies to pay a wage that allows for that to happen (that was what the minimum wage was initially designed for after all). And I'm saying this as someone in that "35k-50k" range. I don't want any handouts; I take pride in the fact that I work hard for everything I have, but I really hate seeing people in need of it when there really is so much to go around in our country.
Can we see how this works with Europe and its refugee/immigration problem before we implement terrible policies? A free lunch and confusing entitlements as rights is great until you run out of other peoples money
|
On September 29 2015 12:27 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 08:00 Impervious wrote:On September 21 2015 05:15 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense. In some ways it is a bit of a subsidy though. Think about it this way. If an employee is making a livable wage, are they being supported by the government through any kind of assistance programs? No. That's the entire idea behind a living wage. It's enough to support you (and potentially your family) without outside support. When someone is being paid less than a living wage, and receives government support, that support is coming out of our tax dollars. Any job that does not allow someone to live without government support is in a sense subsidized. Every job like that should not exist in our society, because it essentially handing money to the companies they work for under the guise of being a productive job. I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely; however, only under the condition that basic necessities are already there for everyone anyways. Things like shelter, food, clothing, access to electricity and heating, transportation (even if public), internet access (it's pretty much impossible to operate in our current society without it), etc should be accessible to everyone, without exception. All these basic necessities need to be covered for everyone in my view. If the free market cannot do that, then the government needs to step up to provide these necessities or force companies to pay a wage that allows for that to happen (that was what the minimum wage was initially designed for after all). And I'm saying this as someone in that "35k-50k" range. I don't want any handouts; I take pride in the fact that I work hard for everything I have, but I really hate seeing people in need of it when there really is so much to go around in our country. Can we see how this works with Europe and its refugee/immigration problem before we implement terrible policies? A free lunch and confusing entitlements as rights is great until you run out of other peoples money
Oh cheesy Thatcherisms... sigh
|
On September 25 2015 10:04 Djzapz wrote:
Oh but we're not different, I've completely lost faith in our electoral system. First past the post is disgustingly unfit for a country with 3 major parties and we need to change it. However, with the current political climate, it's almost impossible because even if the NDP or the liberals get elected, it'll probably be a minority government and since parties which are NOT in power are actually more interested in undermining opposing parties than actually governing the country, they'll probably just cockblock any bill that'd change the electoral system for no reason other than to fuck with the party in power.
I believe both Lieral and NDP want to change the first past the post system so Ideally some form of reform hould happen after the next election... It`s in both of their platforms unless they changed it since the last 6 months I looked it up.
How was the debate on foreign policy last night? I'm planning on watching it later tonight. Any good bits or key points I should look for?
|
Canada11218 Posts
I only saw a part of it because I was coaching. I need to find the whole debate now.
I was rather frustrated with Mulcair at one point.
But in regards to pipelines, he talks about wanting to create the 40,000 jobs here, in Canada, rather than send them off to the States with Keystone. I'm all ears because I like the idea of encouraging value added jobs in Canada. But then he pivots and starts talking about environmental regulation... which sure,that's important, but I think that was a great place to say HOW he intends to create those jobs, and tag in the environment stuff at the end. Because economy-only conservative fence sitters are going to tune out at the environment regulation, but I think there's an argument to be made to money-minded conservatives. It's one of the most intriguing ideas I've heard from Mulcair ever since he got elected party leader, but I've yet to hear any substance on the matter.
They've basically got my vote this election because I want the Conservatives to be forced to retool and become a better party so that I want to vote for them again. But I'm frustrated that they're not going policy wonk in those moments (but maybe a debate is no the best forum for that sort of thing.)
|
On September 29 2015 08:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 08:00 Impervious wrote:On September 21 2015 05:15 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 04:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 21 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2015 01:52 IntoTheheart wrote:
I mean, despite being "second-class," I was still able to get my security papers to clear in a week (standard time according to the secretary) at a military college so I guess it's not the end of the world. My current understanding is that:
Conservatives: Currently in power and regardless of how well or poorly they do, get a lot of hate from where I live;
Liberals: Young leader: will win Kingston (where I live) regardless of whether or not I vote
NDP: Will probably bankrupt us, not voting for them. :/ The idea that the NDP would bankrupt us was pretty much planted by the other parties and is consistently planted by the opposing party of the more left-of-center party. At this point I've heard it so many times, it's clear that people don't know what the hell they're talking about. The NDP showed no signs of being fiscally irresponsible. Sure they're idealistic, but I don't doubt they can run a budget. Hell, it's the liberals who plan to run a deficit, and if the NDP's budget happens to be unworkable because they find out that they can't draw that much money from corporate taxes, they'll just do what every single party has done historically: not live up to their promises. And remember, it was under Mulroney that debt to GDP ratio went from 70% to over 100%, then it went down when they weren't sitting and under Harper it went from 70 to 85% again (though it's more understandable). If you want fiscal responsibility, I don't think the NDP looks as bad as the people who run against them work so hard to make you believe. I'm a gun owner, and everyone in this community is against the NDP and the Liberals because they're viewed as "anti-gun"' but I personally can't stand for Trudeau, the excitable silly guy who frankly probably doesn't have the wits necessary to be PM, nor Harper who does have the intelligence but not the morals. They're parties which voted for C-51 and that should never have happened. Haven't we learned any lessons from the US? On September 21 2015 01:56 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think I'll be voting Liberals, even though I don't like like Trudeau. I'm from Alberta, and I used to be a big Conservative guy... And currently, I'm really not a fan of the NDP, there's too much focus on equality and not enough focus on equal opportunity. For example, the $15 minimum wage that'll be implemented by 2018 is imo, quite unfair to others, when an new Accounting grad will make $18-$20/hour. It will also make the price of fast food, retail, low-education service products go up, and thus in a way, it's a double whammy negative for hard working people with university/college degrees, or tech diplomas. Although increasing the minimum wage does have diminishing returns, I feel like gradually going up does actually help with equality and eventually the economy. A $15 wage will cause some inflation but you'll also give adequate buying power to a whole bunch of people who'll now be able to consume more, which will make accountants more valuable. Essentially, the mcdonalds worker used to make $11 and now he makes $15, and the accounting grad now makes $22 because products move off the shelves more since the people who otherwise would be broke can actually afford some luxuries. In this case, you've actually made some progress regarding equal opportunity because the mcdonalds wage can be used toward paying of school and whatnot. I understand that you can't have the minimum wage at $40 without an insane staple economy, but I think that most businesses can afford to pay their employees more and stay competitive provided that their competitors need to pay their employees more too. In the end, people who make $15/hr don't save it, they spend it and it goes right back to the businesses who can sell more volume. Poor people will consume more, at the expense of others consuming less (the people paying the higher taxes to pay for the minimum wage subsidy). This link here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htm To say the minimum wage is a subsidy is to distort reality quite badly IMO. The money is not public money, it's private and it has non negligible returns for the economy. I've never heard the minimum wage being referred to as a subsidy before and frankly it's because it makes no sense. In some ways it is a bit of a subsidy though. Think about it this way. If an employee is making a livable wage, are they being supported by the government through any kind of assistance programs? No. That's the entire idea behind a living wage. It's enough to support you (and potentially your family) without outside support. When someone is being paid less than a living wage, and receives government support, that support is coming out of our tax dollars. Any job that does not allow someone to live without government support is in a sense subsidized. Every job like that should not exist in our society, because it essentially handing money to the companies they work for under the guise of being a productive job. I'd love to see the minimum wage removed completely; however, only under the condition that basic necessities are already there for everyone anyways. Things like shelter, food, clothing, access to electricity and heating, transportation (even if public), internet access (it's pretty much impossible to operate in our current society without it), etc should be accessible to everyone, without exception. All these basic necessities need to be covered for everyone in my view. If the free market cannot do that, then the government needs to step up to provide these necessities or force companies to pay a wage that allows for that to happen (that was what the minimum wage was initially designed for after all). And I'm saying this as someone in that "35k-50k" range. I don't want any handouts; I take pride in the fact that I work hard for everything I have, but I really hate seeing people in need of it when there really is so much to go around in our country. I'm saying the minimum wage is NOT a subsidy, and I read your first two paragraphs twice and I don't understand if you're saying that the minimum wage is a subsidy. Saying it "kind of is" doesn't really take into account the nature of what a subsidy is, where it comes from, how it's distributed. Subsidies are transfers of public funds going toward specific problems, whereas the minimum wage is a form of regulation which prevents the private corporations from existing if they can't afford their employees decent "living wages", though frankly they get less than that with minimum wages. Now there is probably much to say about the pros and cons of the minimum wage approach vs. the direct subsidies you're bringing up, but the gist of it is the minimum wage approach takes money from the employer, thus forcing the employer, to an extent, to perform properly. I mean I haven't thought this entire question through because your approach is frankly new to me, but then what would prevent employers from grossly underpaying their employees even though they could afford to pay more, simply because you know you're able to afford them a lifestyle that's equivalent to whatever the government would pay with public money instead. This would just be a mess of exceptions and other cockery that a reasonable minimum wage handles adequately IMO.
Ok, here's a hypothetical situation.
Company A pays its workers $12 an hour. Company B pays its workers a wage of $15 an hour. The living wage is at $15 an hour. Employees of Company A receive a variety of different support programs through welfare to top them up to that $15 an hour wage (and costing a fair bit in bureaucratic inefficiencies in the process). Which company is likely to make more money for each man hour worked?
Here's a 2nd hypothetical situation.
Company A pays its workers $12 an hour. Company B pays its workers a wage of $15 an hour. The living wage is at $15 an hour. Company A receives money from the government to prop up the wages to $15 an hour to compensate for that. Which company is likely to make more money for each man hour worked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
