Canuckistani

In BC our min wage was 16,600 for the longest time until a new premier, desperate to be liked raised it to 21k, working full time. In Vancouver rents are higher than you describe above. With continued downward pressure, and pressure not to raise that min wage because we want to remain competitive and boost productivity, how long before that income does start to lookt like the 3rd world? Especially once you take off all taxes (payroll, HST, etc) and other govt levies (MSP, etc)? I don't understand why Michael is so in favor of us moving in this direction.

By your first sentence we should bring in tons of people to work for 3rd world wages - we would be more competitive, have lower unemployment and make Canada more attractive to investment. Also make it a shitty country to live in. A country will always have a range of jobs that need doing with a range of salaries. Countries like Germany and Sweden seem to do very well with a smaller spread.

Which developed countries do you consider non-socialist and which developed countries aren't running on borrowed time? Sweden and Denmark are mixed economies, same as everybody else. They may be a bit further toward the socialist end of the spectrum than the US - which ain't exactly rocking either.

Don't know why you defend immigration so much then - this is exactly what I'm talking about. Does it really make sense to import people to lower the wages of Canadians? With unemployment where it is, does it make sense to bring in 250,000 temp workers on top of 250,000 immigrants? Reminds me of Grapes of Wrath where the foreman explains they got no 25 cent a bushel peaches to pick, but they got all kinds of 20 cent peaches. And in the end, when they couldn't sell the peaches because people had no money, they burned them to keep the price high and prevent the starving workers from getting access to them.

I thought the whole reason for temp workers was that the company could not find Canadians to take those jobs at the prevailing wage. In fact I thought there was a law against paying temp workers less, and there's been an outcry because the govt is now allowing employers to pay temp workers 15% less. How this benefits Canadians as a whole is beyond me. Just lowers wages for Canadians.

People voted against it because the govt denied it had plans to harmonize the tax before the election, then brought it in immediately after, with evidence they had been working towards harmonization even before the election. We were sick of a govt that had overstayed its welcome and became too arrogant. The biggest push against this tax came from the right. I voted no, not because I thought the old system was better or cost me less in taxes, but because of the way the tax was brought in. I think people are also tired of the BC liberals lowering corporate and high income taxes, and bringing in regressive taxes or "user fees" instead - I certainly am. It's very likely that the NDP will form the govt in BC next year. People know that very likely means an increase in taxes, bit will vote for them because they will see those taxes as more fair because they take the most from the people with the most to give. As long as the NDP can restrain itself this time around they have a good chance to get and stay in power for a while.

Of course. Who can blame him, he won despite the best efforts of the CPC to subvert the process. But I'm sure he's pretty calm about possibly having to fight another election, he'd win by a landslide.

Some sit and observe, don't cover anything but seek to uncover. Some say they've found the truth from that, but you'll never know unless you try it yourself.

Highschool was a long time ago, but I didn't see my liver at the time, I remember that much. There might have been some talk about livers, but they didn't show me my liver. You're a pretty credulous person, huh, just take livers on faith? Really? We have different concepts of what a liver is? Who am I? What does exist mean? I'm not sure I even exist how you likely mean - didn't you watch the Matrix? All you really know is that what you think is you is having an experience reading this. But who is it that thinks he's you and is aware of you having the experience reading this? DID?

We do it all the time. I believe I have a liver, but certainly don't know for sure. And with liver at least we're both talking about the same thing. With God, my guess is we're not. I can't really know God because my consciousness is so much less than "his" and I can't really know if I'm just kidding myself about the whole deal. I guess I'm an Epistemological solipsist.

To me experience is primary validation - for myself, since nobody can share my experience. I'm also aware that this experience can be totally autistic - ie with no input from the outside world at all - so I have no idea if it generalizes to everybody. So I'm agnostic to that point. Also, what I call my experience of God may just be my own ego reflecting back at me, so I'm agnostic as to the existence of this overarching intelligence. I could just be kidding myself. But sages thru the ages seem to agree with me.

I'm pretty well an atheist as far as the monotheistic God is concerned - I really doubt His existence as I understand it. But I can't prove it, so I wouldn't get into an argument with somebody that He does not exist. Really, before 2 people agree on a definition of God, any discussion about it is useless.

If they would just quit spreading lies like climate change and other claims that directly contradict the truth as received by Stephen Harper, maybe he'd leave them alone. But they'd have to get off their pampered little assess and invent something useful, like drugs that allow the population to free their minds and open to the greatness that is Harper. Or ones that instill an autonomic bowing reflex when a 1 percenter happens to be unfortunate enough to find himself among them.

I'm an agnostic - I don't know if there is a God for sure. But experience and reading lead me to believe there is an overarching intelligence in the universe - I would call that God, tho it's certainly not the God of monotheism. So your argument goes too far - it's possible to think something might exist but lacking solid proof to also be open to the idea that I'm mistaken. Many atheists on the other hand, are certain there is no God. To me that's as foolish as being certain there is one with no proof either way, in the way we usually understand proof. Agnosticism seems like the only rational position to take, IMO.

Well, in that case he had me fooled.

Welcome to the forum, with your "constant cheer leading for a very narrow and biased point of view, complete with adolescent insults" just doesn't sound all that welcoming.

Seems like a very backhanded welcome to me. First you criticize him, then welcome him? Shouldn't that at least be the other way around?

most studies seem to show that about 1/3 of job losses in manufacturing in Ontario can be attributed to our resource exports. (Not just oil, but all of them). We have some Dutch disease but aren't dying from it. I think Mulcair wanting to tax the oil industry more is very reasonable. Look at all the revenue Norway gets from their oil vs us.

Richard Dawkins. Atheism (ie certainty there is no intelligence directing the universe) isn't really any a defensible position than certainty that there is. Fundamentalist applies to someone interpreting their scriptures in a literal way, so it doesn't really apply here.

A good example of how to do something right is the Israeli system of airline security. Much less intrusive and very effective. We in the west like to go with the big showy stuff and prevent yesterday's attacks. Obviously nothing we do can stop all suiciders or just cleaver terrorists, but the Olympics should probably hire Israeli advisors on how to do the most with the least.

I guess we're all statists now. The definition is so broad there isn't a country around that doesn't qualify. Essentially satism = having an actual state, since that is exactly what a state is, serving the interests of the collective. Or the 1% of the collective, anyway.

National education? Seriously? No non-socialist states anywhere in that case.

The Nazis decreased their spending to 0, post war. Totally right wing, got rid of the Nazi state altogether.

This just shows how confused you are and you're actually arguing against yourself. Governments that want arms have two choices: they can own the means of production, ie socialism, or they can buy the arms from the private sector, ie capitalism. The Nazis did not make their own arms, they weren't socialist. The entire manufacturing industry was dependent on govt demand? Did you mean arms manufacturing? Because otherwise this statement is patently rediculous. If you did mean arms manufacturing, then it's patently obvious. You use leftism and socialism interchangeably. Maybe that's where you get into trouble. Leftism is a much more broad category. Social democrats are left. They're not socialists, they just see a little more room for state involvement in the economy than the (sane) rightists do. No state can function without some involvement in the economy.

See the quotes I supplied above. What is your point then? Canada entered recession in November. Harper couldn't foresee this in October?