CPCFTW

You want me to debate this? To debate if the government is destroying Canada, if Harper is turning Canada into "dick cheyney ville", if Mulcair is the only person who can stop it, and if all public schools should be taught that the democratically elected government is destroying our environment and nation? I'm sorry but I'll pass on that "debate".

That's an agency problem between management and owners (excessive management risk-taking to focus on short-term profits)... or simply poor management. I believe you meant the morality of free markets... in which case I would argue that the risk of being part of a fractional percentage of private employees who were promised, but not delivered retirement benefits, is heavily outweighed by the risk of excessive government intervention and oppression. History is filled with wars caused by overzealous or oppressive governments... I can't think of any wars started by rioting pensioners.

I haven't, but I do think it's something policymakers should consider... I don't think getting a ROI over the 1-2% yield on long term bonds should be that hard to beat. Good point here, but I was referring to underground transit where there is no cellphone service. User fees could be a good idea to mitigate some of the costs or make an operating profit though. I never suggested a license to spend, but I do think internet connectivity and faster public transit are two good places to spend to enhance the productivity of a service economy.

I agree with you on most things, but I do think some infrastructure in Canadian cities is crap. I would think spending heavily on infrastructure in Toronto specifically could do a lot of help for the economy. From what I recall, Toronto has the worst commute times in the world, and they will only get worse as the GTA is growing very quickly. That certainly isn't conducive to a productive society. Investing in world class public transit in the GTA (and maybe expanding some roads/highways) would improve the efficiency and productivity in an area containing 1/5th of the Canadian population. For example, if 1-way commute times in the GTA are 1 hour on average, and we managed to reduce that in half, then 6 million people will have an extra hour of time per day. That time can be used for improving their quality of life/happiness, working more, innovating, etc. I'd also suggest offering free wifi in public transit so people can work/study while commuting. The problem is Dalton bankrupted Ontario for his windmills, so we can't expect much from him. And the feds were given a mandate to balance the budget, so it doesn't make any sense to blame them.

How does this happen? Come on, they're separated by two words.

I think it depends on the party in power... When you come to power promising a bell for every bicycle like the liberals, then there might be a honeymoon period until the reality of the costs and waste is exposed. When you come into power promising cuts, savings, and pragmatism, I don't think there's much of a honeymoon period.

You didn't point out anything to anyone with half a brain. For some reason you used a sample of 10 employees to show that 1 employee taking an extended leave (5 months!!!) will throw the numbers way off. Do you really think 1 in 10 public workers needs back surgery, or some other 5 months of extended sick leave every year? I've worked for a company of 300-500 people for several years and I can't recall even one person taking an extended leave due to health issues. Come on, how stupid do you think we are? 1 in 10 employees do not need 5 months of sick leave every year. The reality is that public sector workers can, and do take many "sick" days off during the summers or because of a Monday morning hangover. You don't need an extended leave to abuse the system. They may work 4 day weeks for 2/4 summer months (8 "sick" days), and then legitimately be sick for 3-5 more during the remainder of the year and bank the rest. That is pretty typical of a public sector employee from my experience (and I grew up in Ottawa, so I know a lot of public sector employees).

I think you're missing the point. It's not a question of whether others would like to also have summers off and bankable sick days, and PD days, and defined benefit pensions. It's a question of whether the taxpayer should be paying undergrads 50-75k + pensions + ridiculous benefits for 8 months of work. Even if you are a champion of the public sector, you could reduce unemployment simply by paying teachers less, hiring more of them, and reducing class sizes. There's no reason to pay them that much for 8 months of work in this economy.

It's funny that you think they're highly trained.

Except that they are paid an annual salary equivalent to what most make in a full year of work. An arts grad who went to teacher's college shouldn't start at 50k for 8 months (equivalent to 75k), plus benefits. There's no shortage of unemployed arts grads who will work for far less.

But didn't he need a mental health day!? Oh right.. That's what we in the private sector call the weekend. That reminds me.. I'm pretty sure many public sector workers also get additional holidays such as personal development days and mental health days on top of these bankable sick days.. And don't get me started on teachers' summer vacation!

Nope. But they're never paid more than the employers can afford (except when it results in bankruptcy) which is more than I can say for public sector workers.

That's the problem. The people that do have the time don't pay anything in.

You wouldn't like my alternatives. Tax everyone far less, make them pay their own way. If you have the sniffles, you have to decide whether you want to pay $20 to see the doctor for 10 minutes, or if you want to just drink plenty of fluids and get some rest. Perhaps a RHSP.

More nonsense. Private sector workers are paid what their employers can afford. Bankable sick days and defined benefit pensions are simply not affordable in the private sector. Public sector workers are paid whatever the elected government is willing to force the private sector to pay them in order to appease the public sector unions. A manufactured public sector class is not a middle class. It is an elite class with benefits/compensation/job security that is almost unheard of among the unwashed non-elite masses who foot the bill.

I'm not necessarily talking about the US-style system... I'm not a fan of their system either. In fact, I think that any public system is pretty much doomed to failure with our aging demographics, longer retirements, ballooning costs, etc. No one wants to die. The percentage of our national budgets dedicated to health care is ludicrous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png 23% health care. 20% social security. Pretty simple way to eliminate the budget deficit and slash taxes dramatically... stop giving people a free ride.

Lower taxes.

Oh noes... better give them more sick days and perhaps some taxpayer funded backrubs!

There's some pretty weak arguments in here.. First of all, disability is cheaper than sick days. Also, disability is harder to abuse than sick days. Disability is there for a reason. Is the best argument you socialists can come up with that we should give everyone ridiculous amounts of bankable sick days in case one of them happens to get extremely ill? Are public sector workers too good for the disability pay that the private sector that foots the bill for those bankable sick days has to accept? What nonsense. This is pretty simple. It is another case of public sector workers taking the taxpayer to the cleaners for benefits that don't exist in the private sector. It's just like defined benefit pension plans which are being slowly torn down. It is government elitism, plain and simple. Without these ridiculous benefits, the government wouldn't have to lay anyone off. The potential cost savings are enormous. Let's hope something is done about these sick days... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily a bad investment at this point. The initial investment was bad, but the subsequent "loans" are just attempts to mitigate losses. Going back to my previous example, let's say you owed me 10k on jan 1. It's either take a bath on the 10k initial loan, or write it down to 5k and lend that 5k to you until july 1 (subject to above conditions). If you don't pay back that 5k, I'm no worse off then if I had simply written off 10k from the start. That's my understanding of the situation (greece has already defaulted, but the question is if creditors lose 100% or x%). I'm pretty sure banks and hedge funds have been buying greek debt as well. The purpose of the ecb purchases is to drive down yields so that the greeks can roll over their debts at lower interest rates. But that just pushes the marginal investor away from greek debt.. I'm fairly certain other investors are still in the game (I doubt ecb is rolling over 100% of greek short term debt).

Afaik there have been plenty of penalties for this "malinvestment" (I would argue most investors have enough diversification that a greece default would not significantly impact their portfolios were it not for the spin-off effects on global assets). The way I understand it.. But I have stopped paying too much attention lately.. Is that investors are lending MORE to greece to help them pay off already written down debt. From my understanding it is like if I lent you $10000, then you said you couldn't pay, then I wrote it down to $5000 and lent you that $5000 (ie. Rolled over the debt) to pay me back on the condition that you stop eating out at restaurants every night and move into a cheaper condo. You may have to make some sacrifices that I don't, but just because I'm richer than you doesn't mean I should hurt more than you.

By "spend", I mean cutting taxes or tax breaks for job creation. I've put forward many suggestions to this effect in other threads.

Nonsense. It is the perfect time to be cutting. No time like the present. Private sector is shrinking due to the recession.. Why put the burden of supporting a bloated public sector on a shrinking private sector? To create false demand and drive prices up for the true consumers? Public paper pushing jobs aren't the answer. That money should be spent on creating private sector jobs that actually benefit the economy.

Exactly. However, Canadians may be surprised that for once their elected government is actually doing what they said they'd do!

Good idea to ease our way into the housing market correction. I wouldn't mind the rules being relaxed again when prices have corrected or if RE cools off.