CPCFTW

Then please feel free to explain what you are saying. Am I not allowed to use adjectives?

Should I insert a disclaimer that my posts are my opinion? I thought that was implied.

Why would we need crown corporations? Just give private companies some grants and tax breaks for northern exploration.

That 8.1B for 11.7% of GM gives GM a 69B valuation. They are now trading at a valuation of 45B (ie. 11.7% is worth 5.2B). It will be a long time before Canada recoups losses from the bailout, and even when they do, the annualized real rate of return will be laughable. Not to mention Canada has effectively borrowed money for the bailout so we purchased this equity stake on margin (that 8B could have went towards debt repayment for a greater ROI). Basically we borrowed at our cost of debt (I'm not exactly sure how government debt repayment works.. I assume they just don't roll over short term bonds, but it would be around 1.5-2% if debt repayment is at current yield levels) to finance an investment in an asset that has realized a -36% ROI. The government bailed out the CAW, plain and simple. Deal with reality instead of trying to spin the truth.

Wtf are you even arguing? GM would be bankrupt without the government bailouts. Hence the operating costs (including salaries, pensions, and benefits) were paid for by the low interest government loans that could not be obtained in the financial markets. This saved CAW jobs as GM would have been bankrupt without the government bailout. Unless CAW employees are also bankruptcy lawyers, they would not have had jobs anymore. How hard is that to understand?

The problem with Air Canada is that it is in an industry with tiny profit margins, a huge amount of fixed costs, and mostly uncontrollable variable costs such as fuel. There are not a lot of places to make cost-saving cuts, but bloated labour costs from ridiculous pensions for unskilled labour is definitely one of them. Being a CSR at an airline is no more a career than being a CSR at Wal-Mart. If you want a pension, get a real career. A DC pension is more than fair.

How old are you? Have you worked a day in your life? This type of idealism can only come from a young sheltered kid who has never lifted a finger in his life. Yes, you can pull anyone off the street to work in retail. Almost everyone in Canada had their first job working in retail or some other unskilled labour. Everyone is unique and therefore possesses unique knowledge and skills, but not everyone's uniqueness is valued by a business. Someone might have unique skills at playing video games and a profound knowledge of movies, tv shows, actors, and other celebrities, but that doesn't mean that a company has to value those skills and knowledge when negotiating salary. FWIW, the retail associates that actually possess unique interpersonal skills and persuasion/selling ability (and that can handle those "Maury" customers) can do very well for themselves. They can move to a job that provides better sales commissions, and eventually move into management or salaried sales positions outside of retail.

The video was ok but that music sucked. If that's the culture we'll be missing out on then I'm all for separation! But seriously, if Quebecois want more independence, they should be voting for a conservative party. Conservatives want to reduce the size and power of the federal government and give more autonomy to the provinces. The social views of the conservative party may not align with Quebec's, but most conservatives believe in less interference from a federal power and more freedom for a province to choose its own social initiatives. As the federal government reduces tax rates on corporations and individuals, that will provide more opportunity for provincial governments to raise taxes to implement their own social policies. If federal corporate tax rates are cut to 10%, then a conservative province like Alberta believing in low taxes to attract business and stimulate growth might set their corporate tax rate to only 10%, resulting in a combined 20% corporate tax rate. With the lower tax revenue they would provide less government funded social services and rely on businesses to provide maximum employment to minimize the social burden. Meanwhile a province like Quebec might choose to set corporate tax rates to 20% for a combined 30% corporate tax rate. They would have higher tax revenues to provide more social services and a larger "safety net", but there would likely be higher unemployment due to the tax advantages for businesses to locate in provinces other than Quebec. Voting for a party like the NDP, who will just say whatever will get them the most votes, does nothing to advance any movement towards greater autonomy.

They do have that freedom. But if the individual is not valued or does not possess any unique knowledge or skills, the company has the freedom to hire someone who will work for the wage they have set.

Because that argument is asinine. Air Canada revenue is over 2.5 billion a quarter and you guys think the CEO getting paid 4 million a year is the reason the company was nearly bankrupt. Hmmmm was it the 4 million CEO compensation or the 2 billion pension deficit that almost bankrupted the company? Then management tries to cut labour costs by negotiating a more reasonable pension for unskilled labour and you claim that they are evil for doing their job of trying to make the company profitable rather than on the verge of bankruptcy.

Does a bankrupt company need employees?

Hahaha "pension holidays". You mean not going bankrupt holidays? Companies would have just gone bankrupt earlier without those "holidays" because the union pension demands are unreasonable and a company can't compete in a globalized environment while taking on investment risk for unskilled labourers. Companies have done everything they can to extend their lives for the worker's benefit by hiding the true economic impact of pension liabilities from creditors and investors, and by seeking government bailouts.

That's interesting, I thought the CAW and Air Canada workers needed an auto company and airline to work for. Which employer hired these unions after Air Canada and GM went bankrupt?

What you need to understand is that lefties think that everyone is a victim of the evil politicians, corporations, and CEOs. That man was simply provoked by the corporations not hiring him and not giving him a huge pension and a rich CEO sweeping his gf away in his Ferrari. We need to put our criminals into a prison of hugs and once they have hugged every Canadian, we have to force the corporations to give them a sweet job and pension. Then they will be rehabilitated and everyone will be happy except that brain damaged guy and his family and friends.

And who do you think pays a disproportionately larger share of taxes to fund that safety net? Those who "reaped disproportionally larger rewards". I have nothing against progressive taxation. I only contest the idea that the wealthy are somehow indebted to society. They pay more taxes then everyone else based on their higher income and progressive taxation

The company probably went bankrupt due to poor assumptions on the pension's costs. A DC plan requires no government guarantee because the funds are the employee's. If employees want to hardball employers and demand they take on the risk of the return on the plan's assets, then the risk of bankruptcy should be on the employee and not the Canadian taxpayer. The simple solution is to stop demanding unreasonable defined benefit plans.

I said DB plans guaranteed by the government are sucking at the government's teat. Time for a re-read.

And who paid more to support "our society"? Wealthy people aren't indebted to society when they die. They paid taxes into supporting/enhancing it their whole lives.

That just takes away choice from people's lives. You are basically telling people they have to spend their money and shouldn't save for their children's future. They have to spend all their money and trust a nanny state to provide for their children. Such a greedy and disgusting mentality. People should have the freedom to live for their children. It is arguably the reason for our existence. Death is inevitable, but the greatest insult is to take someone's legacy and redistribute it to others.

That's not true. You just have to work harder than them. Their great great great great grandparents worked hard to earn that wealth for them, not for you or I. You're just a defeatist. And also jealous.

You just said you're going to make the government pension when you retire. I assumed you worked in the public sector and had a defined benefit pension plan guaranteed by the govt. I guess you meant CPP and OAS? As long as you save enough for retirement then there is nothing wrong with that. It is the people who live your lifestyle on a 20-40k income and then think they are entitled to retire comfortably on the taxpayer's dime that are the problem. Eg. customer service workers at Air Canada.

What's your point? If I want to work hard so that my bloodline can succeed in the future, it's not "unfair" to future generations that their great great great grandparents didn't work as hard as me.

Exactly. The government defined benefit pension is the government's teat. People in the private sector can't live it up while they're young and then just retire comfortably to a guaranteed pension. The problem with people these days is they want to spend $100 going out every weekend from the ages of 18-35, and go on a vacation every year, and then point their fingers at the people who took a break from partying to blame them for being poor. If you saved that $100 every weekend for 10 years from 25-35 at 5% interest, you would have about 67k saved up. You'd also have earned money through tax deductions assuming those investments were made into an RRSP. With re-investment of tax returns, realistically, you could have well over 100k saved up by the time you are 35 assuming you forego the weekend partying for 10 years. You could also have used all the time you saved passed out until 3pm on weekends to continue to educate yourself and earn a higher salary over that time period. Or to work an additional part time job. There are plenty of other ways people's consumption expenditures could be changed if they seriously wanted to be part of the wealthy. People blow their money partying and travelling their whole youth, and then when they are poor and can't retire and want the people who worked hard so they could have fun later in life to subsidize them partying their whole lives. If you work in the government, you are automatically granted the right to have the taxpayer subsidize your lavish lifelong partying lifestyle. It really is the story of the grasshopper and the ant. Except the ant has found a loophole: work in the government.

But how could they retire comfortably without a taxpayer guaranteed defined benefit pension plan? Only the elite executives who steal our money and eat kittens can retire comfortably without the intervention of governments and unions!

And how did they get rich in the first place? Hard work or the hard work of their parents.