dialamah

Our US office had lower wages than our Canadian offices, but cost of living was lower in the States too. Perhaps that was reversed for the tech industry, I dunno. Two of our guys moved down there and liked that they're wages bought them a house they couldn't afford here. Anyway, it seems that between 2000 and 2017, wages in Canada grew while wages in the States did not. But I admit I am confused: just a few months ago you were pissed that we were paying people too much, compared to other countries, including the States, IIRC. What changed between then and now?

Uh, the rate of pay is an industry wide standard. So if we wanted to hire an engineer with a specific discipline from another country, we had to pay him what the standard rate is for those specialized engineers who were born and raised in Canada. We had to provide information on what we paid our other engineers and we had to submit a copy of our offer letter to CIC to demonstrate that the new guy wasn't getting paid less. We also had to explain why we weren't "hiring Canadian". Sure, companies could certainly figure out how to fool the gov and shaft both immigrant and Canadian workers and probably some do. But to suppose this is happening across the board is to suppose that most business owners are crooks. I am sure you remember how well that went down when JT made some comment about small businesses and tax breaks.

Also, companies are required to pay the going rate if they bring in immigrant workers. I know this because I used to fill out the forms and provide the proof required that we were paying them the same money we paid our Canadian sourced workers. Not to mention, out of country workers aren't stupid; they know what their colleagues get paid and they expect to get paid the same. The only people who might be undercutting wages are companies who hire people who don't come in on some kind of employment visa, who are unaware of worker protections in Canada and who are unskilled. Compared to our overall immigration, such people are the minority.

I think expansion of right-to-die policies is one answer. Keeping people alive who have painful, debilitating illnesses with no chance of cure is expensive. If such individuals want to die, or have previously chosen to die once their cognitive abilities decline to a certain point, I think that should be ok. Stringent safeguards would have to be in effect, of course. Of course, there is also the fabled ice-floe solution to the aging population. (j/k)

Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me that immigrants can't, at least partially, make up for a falling birthrate and aging population. Economic health is determined expansion: more demand for good and services, more jobs. Fewer people means less demand, business contraction, fewer jobs. More people means more demand, business expansion, more jobs. In the short term, while us baby boomers retire and die off, there will be expansion in medical services demand and jobs. Right now there are chronic shortages for nurses, doctors and lab techs to name a few. That sector is looking at immigrants to make up the shortfall, which I suppose is why I see so many immigrant-derived health care workers. Skilled trades in Canada are also experiencing a manpower shortage, and guess what? They are also looking for immigrants to make up the shortfall. Labor shortage does drive up wages, so perhaps more immigrants available to do those jobs will keep wages lower. Given the opposition of some people to a minimum wage of $15 because of hardship to businesses, I don't quite understand their objection to immigration that may help keep wages low. In any case, the effect on wages seems to be small, applies primarily to other immigrants and low-wage workers. Its kind of funny that not so long ago low-income families and women who had multiple kids were derided for only having kids to they'd get more "government money" and now the idea of rewarding (Canadian-born) women for having more babies is met with favor. There just seems something very inconsistent about the economic argument against immigration. Especially since the unemployment rate of immigrants is within 1% of the unemployment of Canadian-born; the idea that there is a huge group of unemployed immigrants is suspect. Even immigrants from African countries are 72% employed, compared to 84% Canadian born; immigrants from the Philipines have the highest employment rate at 82%. The idea that immigrants are primarily unskilled is suspect given that most of the growth in immigrant employment was in professional, scientific and technical services; finance, insurance, real estate and leasing services; manufacturing as well as health care and social assistance,". It may be true that immigration isn't the entire answer to a shrinking population, but it seems to be pretty important. Who benefits by pushing the narrative that immigration isn't helpful, or that immigrants aren't working, or that immigration drives down wages?

People behaving as the "other" gender has been known throughout human history. Cultures steeped in Abrahamic religions have shunned, punished and killed those people. (I assume cultures in India and China are the same, but I don't know for sure). Some animust cultures accepted and honored those people. If longing to be "the other gender" has been known throughout human history, that should be your first clue that its not just a fad led by "the evil Liberals". Second clue is that societal non-acceptance of tansgender people leads kids to commit suicide. Nobody commots suicide because they couldn't change their "raincoat". There is scientific support for transgenderism, 10 seconds found this: Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to findings to be presented in Barcelona, at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting, ECE 2018. These findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people. Conservative desire to maintain status quo and traditions is laudable, but not at the expense of science, not to mention people's lives.

I hear you. Sometimes I think its too bad I came here looking for insight; I may well have a skewed view of **Conservatives and their underlying values. Nonetheless, by and large, **liberal/progressive posters have seemed more reasonable, logical and humanistic. Also less bitchy and whiny. Perhaps one day I will find a group of conservative-types who will change my impression. **Qualification: not all Conservative posters, not all Liberal/progressive posters.

I didn't know who Farrakhan was, so checked out your claim. Seems like the Democrats who socialized with him did disavow him, though it took some pressure - rightly applied, imo. When will we see your hero Trump disavow white supremacists or apologize for his bigotry and hate? When will Twitter be able to clamp down on hate speech without also clamping down on republicans? They managed to eliminate ISIS related hate speech from their platform, but so much more difficult to eliminate the hate among your own countrymen, eh? They knew each other, apparently, but "mentor" seems to be an overstatement. In any case, mentor or not, you also "forgot" to mention this: However, in 1952 Byrd avowed that “After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization,” and throughout his long political career (he served for 57 years in the United States Congress) he repeatedly apologizedfor his involvement with the KKK:

What is wrong with condemning all hate speech exactly?

A kid lies. Lots of people believe her. When the truth come out, people who think they might fit the description of "bigot" are butthurt because a kid lied and lots of people believed her. Everybody else shake their heads, assume (or at least hope) the parents had a firm discussion with her (and her brother) about lying. The butthurt people use the opportunity to slam Muslims and Liberals generally, and Trudeau specifically. Not to mention dismissing or minimizing any future attacks on Muslim women.

Bigots are more likely to find a home with conservatives. Just look at Donald Trump. Also, consider that Twitter cannot design an algorithm that would effectively ban White Supremacy because so many Republicans (aka conservatives) would be banned. But external experts Motherboard spoke to said that the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters. So it’s no surprise, then, that employees at the company have realized that as well. The rest of your post appears to be some weird mix of conspiracy theories and science denial, so I will just leave you to it.

Well, we will just have to disagree then.

Ask and you shall receive ... https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism Of course, that one won't satisfy you because it doesn't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism", right? Google "Global Terrorism Index 2018"; it provides an in-depth review of terrorism around the world since 1998. That report explicitly examines Islamic terrorism, along with terrorism inspired by other ideologies. It also discusses radicalization and trends. Even Wikipedia is a better source for Islamic terrorist incidents than the Religion of Peace website, because it provides actual links to the incidents. I found one incident that authorities didn't know who the shooters were, but the Religion of Peace website claimed it as terrorism. That incident is not included in the Wikipedia link. If people are going to use garbage sites to support their opinion, I am going to call them out on it.

That isn't what I said. Maybe you could get someone nearby to read it and explain it to you.

That isn't what I said. Maybe you could get someone nearby to read it and explain it to you.

That isn't what I said. Maybe you could get someone nearby to read it and explain it to you.

They will all tell you they follow Allah's command, whether it's to accept Jews/Christians/unbelievers as brothers and friends, to ignore them or to kill them; to forgive apostates, ignore them or to kill them, whether to welcome their gay members, or shun them. Tired of your stupid questions, though. You need new material; I'll watch for it.

Anything to avoid a few facts, eh? The Media Bias Fact Check does their own assessment of media; in this case, they merely noted that the ReligionofPeace site uses Robert Spencer as a source. Spender is a well-known alt-right figure**, and that the SPLC had put him on their hate list. If you want to use that sort of "logic" to accept without question the information from TheReligionofPeace, that's up to you of course. But you may as well quit calling yourself 'moderate', 'reasonable' or even 'well-informed'. **Oops, I am thinking of Richard Spencer. Nonetheless, whether Robert Spencer deserves SPLC center designation, he is very ani-Muslim.

What can I say, pick stupid sources, get laughed at. Where did I say Churches aren't getting attacked? Please be aware that thanks to sites like the one you referenced falsehoods are deliberately and accidentally spread. For instance, and I have no doubt this is included in your link, there were reports of many Christians killed in Nigeria in February and March of this year. Many people asked why "This was being ignored in MSM media", even though it could be found in MSM. But even more important, most sources - especially the right-wing and/or anti-Muslim ones, failed to mention that Christians had also carried out their own massacre, attacking and killing about 130 Muslims. It's also not made clear in Western media that the conflict is not primarily religious in nature, but is a conflict between herders and farmers, which has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change. Facts matter. Sources matter. Figure it out.

How does one tell a murderous Canadian guy from the non-murderous variety?

Love your "source" (snicker). From Media Bias Fact Check: So stupidly gullible.

Yes, worried about Islamic extremism and radicalisation. Unlike you, DoP and Argus, who are worried about Muslims, as evidenced by this comment: Muslim terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All Muslims subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree. Argus isn't just worried about *extremists*, but about all Muslims because they 'share the same ideology'. And you are defending this statement, so you are also worried about *all Muslims* and not just the extremists. And DoP, of course, who refuses to acknowledge that there are any Quranic verses Muslims could legitimately use to pursue a peaceful life. So do you think the Muslim majority in Nigeria and Lebanon are concerned about "all Muslims", or just the extremists? Do you think they'd be bothered by the notion that Argus (and you and DoP) cannot or refuse to recognize the difference between them and terrorists? Funny, isn't it? I posted reasonably and "quietly", didn't use any caps, didn't call anyone names or even insult anyone - and here you are, full on caps, name calling and full of accusation. Who is throwing a histrionic fit, I wonder? Btw, you don't know why I stopped posting for a while. Or why I decided to post again, here. Why is it that people of your ilk become unglued if someone posts opinions, ideas or facts they don't like? Can't handle a different viewpoint? By the way, how do you like being lumped in with killers just because you, like them, don't like Muslims or Islam? You didn't answer that question. Though your hysterical response certainly gives me a clue.

I don't watch CNN, or CBC for that matter. I read this forum; this is where I got my learning on Conservatives. Before I came here 4 years ago I was much more apolitical, I didn't even really know what differentiated Liberals from Conservatives. It's been an education, and not a fun one. You are right, not all Canadian or even American conservatives are bigots, perhaps not even many. Nonetheless, the Conservative ideology accepts bigotry more readily than does the Liberal ideology. Thus, a bigot is more likely to find a home with conservatives than liberals. Not long after I started reading this forum, I noticed that conservative types seemed awfully fond of assigning people to "the other side" and then insulting them. I thought maybe this was some kind of bias on my part, so I took a few hours and counted back through a variety of threads. Turns out that the conservative posters were nearly twice as likely to insult liberals than the other way around. Of course, this is a pretty small sample, so I can't say it's germane to the larger world of conservatives vs. liberals - but I do see a similar trend on FB as well. Insulting "the other" is a divisive tactic. Further, it is conservatives/republicans who are most concerned about refugees, immigrants, Mexicans and Muslims coming into "their" country. It is conservatives who tend to want to punish women for having abortions, people for being gay or transexual. Who is 'dividing people into groups' there? Not liberals. Conservatives are no less divisive than liberals; take some responsibility for your "side", instead of always pretending that conservatives have some moral high ground on creating cohesion in society. They don't. LMAO, say the residents of entire communities who have already had to relocate due to climate change. LMAO say the mayors along the Florida Coastline, as they try to figure out how to protect their cities from the inevitable effects of climate change. LMAO say scientists as they watch landscapes change, animals migrate due to climate change. No doubt you'll be laughing till the effect of climate change hits your pocketbook or your life. I try to avoid 'extremes' on either side; I double check and research both liberal claims and conservative claims. You are so sure you know everything about me, eh? I admit, I don't know very much about the oil sands, really - one side says they leave a huge mess (plausible), and the other side says that the mess can be cleaned up (plausible). I support the pipeline and believe it is the safest way to move oil. I don't think we can give up oil all-of-a-sudden or completely, until we have more viable green alternatives and more buy-in from the climate change deniers. It'll come eventually, I'm sure, and hopefully not too late. I think Alberta has a valid complaint against BC, but I also think Alberta (and Alberta residents) could show a little more concern for the environmental effects of the oil industry. Two can play at that game, eh?

How about this then ... You, DoP, Argus and many other people belong to a group we'll call "Concerned about Islam in the West", CAITW for short (this is to avoid using offensive terms). This group shares the basic belief that Islam is dangerous, and that Muslims in Western nations could or will change the culture due to their misogynistic and barbaric religious beliefs. Most of this group does not believe violence is the answer to the problem of Muslims taking over Western Nations, but some do (Alexandre Bissonet, NZ killer) and others support that although they may never take action themselves. Most of these people just talk about how dangerous and barbaric Muslims are as a whole, especially online. So if I wrote: "CAITW terrorists are committing their act in the name of a political/religious ideology. All CAITWs subscribe to this ideology to a greater or lessor degree." Would you think it fair to include you, Argus & DoP in with those of the CAITW's who kill, merely because you happen to share similar ideas and feelings about Muslims? If not, why do you think it's fair to include *all Muslims* in the actions of those who kill in the name of Islam? Especially given that the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism and deny that it is a valid teaching of Islam. I do think I'm smarter than you, DoP and Argus, because I'm not driven by fear to justify hatred of Muslims. Every time you call me names, I guess I'll understand that for you, the truth hurts.