Canada's richest 1% getting richer

[TimG]

And what do you consider to be excessive? What exactly do you know about government pensions? How would you compare them to, say, the pensions for the CAW?

Defined benefit plans are, by definition, excessive because they leave the taxpayer/company on the hook for any short falls. They are not part private sector compensation anymore unless the company set them up years ago.

That said, Canadian governments have not been as stupid as US governments when it comes to promising workers pensions so paying them out may still be practical (in the US many cities are simply reneging because they have no money). But that does not mean that we can do nothing moving forward. The defined benefit pensions need to go for new workers.

Here is an article that illustrates exactly why public sector pension make it harder to ensure equality of opportunity by diverting funds for the poor to a relatively wealthy group of retirees:

http://blogs.the-ame...s-for-illinois/

Illinois already has the highest unfunded pension liabilities of any U.S. state. This has forced the state to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its education budget, lowered its credit rating, and given it the highest borrowing costs of any state in the nation.

Edited February 1, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

It's not brainwashing its reality, he who knows the ways of the invisible hand, benefits from the invisible hand.

I guess that's a very small percentage of the population then. It seems to me that, in refernce to the statistics, only people who work as business owners (and by extension, shareholders), CEO's etc. who have control over the profits that come into a business have much of a chance to see any significant increase in income over an extended period, at least in these last few decades.

Liberal arts degree= waste of money. Get a trade, get a business degree, go work in a mine, oil rig, farm to pay for school.

What does this have to do with the general statistics in the OP? Even if you had a good trade, I find it unlikely that jobs in the trades have seen much of an increase in income (except in keeping up with inflation)...unless of course you own a contracting business or any other successful businesss in the trades.

The 99% do get a share in the profits, they get paid wages and benefits on a competitive basis with other labourers, however the labour pool is large, and the 99% of other people on this planet want the same piece of the action as people in the developed world. Thats the most efficient foreign aid there is, everyone on earth is far richer than 50 yrs ago.

No. The 99% income bracket have been getting a share of the revenue (yes, paid in wages/benefts...and decreasing benefits in many cases I may add), but in terms of income, 99% of workers have statistically been getting about zero share of the profits (incomes haven't increased since 1982). Those who control the profits have, according to the stats, been keeping virtually all of the profits for themselves or shareholders etc. (minus taxes they must pay)

I can't speak for the last 50 years, but for the last 30 years, there's a lot of people in the middle to poorer classes in ie: Africa and Latin America/Carribean who haven't seen much economic growth flow their way. Social development (health, education) yes in many cases, but income growth no if not negative and only improving in the last 10 yrs. If income inequality has grown in Canada and the US, it has become rampant in many countries there. Income inequality has also grown dramatically in China, and unemployment has risen since the mid-80's, though has remained stagnant since about 2003.http://www.indexmund...yment_rate.html . Domestic consumption in China has been dropping since the 1990's and has dropped virtually every year over the last decade. This means the Chinese masses are manufacturing things but are decreasingly able to buy them themselves, increasingly relying on the West to buy their goods. http://monthlyreview...ation-and-china (see pg 5 for consumption stats). The question is: yes the Chinese encomy is growing, but who is benefitting?

Theres no issue with income equality...

Over the last 30 years, during the West-imposed free-trade drive, Income inequlity has grown in the US and Canada, as well as much and very likely most of the rest of world. Clearly's there's an issue. Between-country inequality has been shrinking but within-country inequality has been increasing: http://unctad.org/en...r2012ch3_en.pdf

business owners have a larger market with all the emerging markets and are making a killing at it.

They sure are. Too bad Western business interests and governments haven't been giving many developing countries much of an even playing field in international terms of trade. Just look at the WTO. Funny how Western countries like the US espouse the tenets of free-trade & reduced state market intervantions internationally, yet they're fine with continuing their own argiulture and other subsidies domestically like a bunch of hypocrites.

If consumers didn't buy my goods, they would starve...If there werent business, the employees wouldnt have a job and we'd be like subsaharan africa.

If consumers didn't buy your goods, you would starve too. Both your and my statements are essentially correct, it's a two-way street. That's how capitalism works. Business owners, wage-workers, and consumers work together to create economic growth. Without one of these groups, or one of these groups doing well, the capitalist economy would collapse and the other groups would be in deep doo-doo.

My point is that you, as a business owner, are very valuable to the economy, but so are wage-workers (and consumers), and that business-owners/CEO's/investors etc. are not the only ones responsible for the increase in economic growth/profit the last 30 yrs, yet they've seen virtually all of the increase in income. On a person-to-person comparision, i'd argue business owners generally contribute much more value to the economy than any other group. Therefore, they defintely deserve the highest share, per-head, of the profits. But you couldn't get the profits you do without your other labourers, it's economically impossible. You obviously hire workers to increase your profits, if you didn't make more profit why hire them? Wage-workers deserve at least some small increase in income and share of the profits, don't they? Something other that zero?

I pay my employees based on what other employers pay, and right now its also a lot. $20/hr for unskilled; 18$/acre if you have your own piece of machinery at seeding time. If I don't pay that level I don't get any workers.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of your actions specifically. Plus I don't know your business. It's natural for a business owner to pay the lowest price for labour. I'm saying there's something a bit unfair with the system as it has functioned the last 3 decades.

The system does work, it rewards people who work and punishes those who take shortcuts.

I guess you haven't been reading the" business" section of the newspaper the last 5 years? 10 years?

We rich people risk a lot, and contribute a lot more than the 99%.

As I said above, on a per-head basis, yes you're almost certainly correct (ie: you are more vauable than any of your other employees). But if you're saying that 1% of the actors within the economy contributes a lot more to it overall than the other 99% (who are both workers for you and consumers of your goods/services) than I'd say there's a good chance you're wrong. ie: if you had 99 labourers working for you, who creates more profit in total for the business/economy overall?: Your own work/investment, or that of your 99 employees combined? See what I'm saying?

[Moonlight Graham]

Are you aware that sub saharan africa is why govt shouldn't be providing foreign aid? South east asia got sweet nothing from the western world and its booming, Africa is still waiting for its handouts. Market liberalization made asia the fastest growing economy these days, heck even communist China figured that one out.

Africans don't need handouts, they need to be treated fairly and equaitable in the international marketplace by the more powerful countries and their corporations. Foreign aid almost always comes with strings attached that benefits the donor countries.

South east asia got sweet nothing from the western world and its booming,

How much military protection does the US and other countries give ie: Taiwan, Japan (that has zero nukes), and South Korea? How much foreign aid did the US and other western countries give to countries like South Korea during/following the Korean War and Japan following WWII? How much private foreign direct investment do Western investors pump into and out of China per year?

Market liberalization made Asia the fastest growing economy these days, heck even communist China figured that one out.

No, careful, context-specific, strongly state-directed liberalization and outward orientation (among other variables) helped these economies grow. It is very signficantly due to these Asian countries NOT being forced to implement blanket, context-lacking, US-directed market liberalization (such as in many regressed Africa and Latin America/Carribean economies in the 80's/90's ) which has allowed these countries to grow. There's a big difference between blanket free-trade, market-controlled openness, and state-managed openness.

[Moonlight Graham]

We may be in a slow growth phase now which means that the real incomes of the aggregate may not rise any more and there is no government policy that will change it.

Maybe not, but better government regulation in the US likely could have prevented the current recession, especially the "casino-capitalist" within the finance sector and the predatory actions of bank lenders.

Exactly, capitalist systems must be unequal by their nature. The dividing line between 'fair' inequality and 'unfair' inequality is completely arbitrary and therefore not a useful discussion point. That is why I think we should be talking about policies to ensure 'equality of opportunity' rather than changes to relative wealth.

Isn't it the most useful discussion we should be persuing? It's the entire philsophy of our society's economic and social well-being! What is "fair" and what is "unfair"? How much fairness should determined by freely working markets and how much should be determined by civil society and government that has interests in other social factors?

[Moonlight Graham]

Sorry. I should have qualified: governments have limited ability to make things better. They can make them a lot worse.

I think government can both make things better and make things worse. So can business execs. It's extremely dependent on the context of the gov't policy or the actions of businesses. Thinking such as "gov't usually makes things worse, so we should put all our trust in the free markets" is too simplitic and leads to bad policy, as proven in many different countries historically. On the flip side, thinking such as "big business usually screws things up, we should put most of our faith in government intervention " is also far too simplistic and leads to bad policy. Policies should be context-speciific based on desired outcomes.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, that's not a given at all. Our society gives you the option to make money. And yet look around you. In any case, "classes" are almost always defined relative to the economic standards of the time, as in quintiles or top 1% or whatever. No matter how rich everyone gets, there will always be a bottom quintile and a top 1%.

True, but the gap in income/wealth between the top 1% or 20% and bottom 1% or bottom 20% will/can change in an economy. That's the focus of this debate.

[Moonlight Graham]

You also set the tone with your opening post:

Sounds pretty bitter to me.

Bitter? Maybe. PO'd, ya. Jealous and vengeful? I wouldn't say so. Agruing what I believe to be just/unjust? yes.

Your problem is you have fallen into the mindset of judging a system by the equality of outcomes. No good policy can come from such a mindset because it is mindset that is primarily driven by greed and jealously. i.e. you won't be happy till all of the rich people are gone.

Never in this thread have I said I wanted rich people not to be rich. In fact, I've argued the opposite numerous times. Rich people deserve to be rich, but the obviously productive (or else economic growth would not have occured) other 99% of workers deserve at least a little bit of the growth spoils as well in terms of income.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

As soon as one starts talking about "owning the means of production", it all becomes Marxist nonsense.

How does me using a single Marxist term/concept in my analysis suddenly discredit my entire analysis as " Marxist nonsense" (nor does it make me a "Marxist" or "Communist"). Marx had some brilliant & useful economic concepts, some flawed concepts, and some horribly wrong concepts.

When I say the means of production, I mean that business owners own almost everything used in the production of goods/services other than the labour, which he rents out and renumerates via wages. Because they own the means of production, the owner(s) control the collection of profits derived from the production & sale of goods. Therefore, the owner(s)(including share-holders) keep all the profits for themselves except for taxes and the wages they pay their workers based on (usually) the lowest market price can get away with paying them. No matter how much profit is created from the work of a productive or innovative employee(s), the employee(s) will only see any of that profit in wages based on (usually, unless the owners/manager is really nice and gives bonuses/raises) the minimum $$ the owner can afford to pay him based on supply/demand of his labour. According to the stats in the OP article, 99% of working people saw about zero % sharing of the profits they helped produce over the last 30 yrs. I suspect all the rest of the profit (minus taxes/benefits etc.) has gone to the owners (& shareholders, CEO's, managers etc. ie: those who control profit distribution): much of it deserved since the owner has invested a lot of money in the means of production [ie: factory,materials etc.] and his own innovative ideas/work (and other things you quote below) to make that profit, but not all his profit is deserved since he/she could not have made all of that profit without his/her employees & their production/innovations. Logically, the owner would not hire employees if they did not increase the owners profits, therefore a portion of a company's profits are created by the employees (not just the owner), but the employee has no access/control of this profit so can't share in it.

This is essentially a Marxist analysis of capitalist production, if you can find logical holes in it, please point them out.

The means of production in that context is a factory or oil well. But that is not the real means of production. Factories aren't just there, out of thin air, to be distributed evenly among the population. The real means of production is the mind of a man (or woman) who can plan that factory or oil well, to design its systems, to develop its business model, to run it efficiently and survive against its competitors. And no one owns someone's mind and its output other than that person themselves.

[Shady]

There are a number of reasons why the government pays reasonable pensions, among them, that working for the government sucks, and the pensions and benefits help retain skilled people who would otherwise flee in droves for other opportunities. They don't call it the golden cuffs for nothing.

And what do you consider to be excessive? What exactly do you know about government pensions? How would you compare them to, say, the pensions for the CAW?

How does working for the government suck? Pensions and salaries above what market conditions dictate, more holidays, sick days that you can exchange for money if you're not sick, and a 9 - 5 work day. Yeah, most people would hate that.

[blueblood]

Bitter? Maybe. PO'd, ya. Jealous and vengeful? I wouldn't say so. Agruing what I believe to be just/unjust? yes.

Never in this thread have I said I wanted rich people not to be rich. In fact, I've argued the opposite numerous time. Rich people deserve to be rich, but the obviously productive (or else economic growth would not have occured) other 99% of workers deserve at least a little bit of the growth spoils as well in terms of income.

Everyone on the planet deserves the lifestyle of mark Cuban et. Al. That's not up for debate. However that is not possible.

The issue is the fact that there is nothing stopping somebody from going out to get them in this country provided they do what is necessary to achieve it. My employees don't deserve a percentage of what I produce, without people like me they have no job, none. we offer a privilege that allows both parties to be further ahead than they were before. You and I both know that if said rich person stops investing, the rich person is still rich, however the worker has nothing. Employees are just another expense on the balance sheet and as has been the trend over the last 20 yrs, said employees are easily replaceable by those with a better attitude who don't feel they deserve things and feel privileged by having the job and income that goes with it.

[blueblood]

How does me using a single Marxist term/concept in my analysis suddenly discredit my entire analysis as " Marxist nonsense" (nor does it make me a "Marxist" or "Communist"). Marx had some brilliant & useful economic concepts, some flawed concepts, and some horribly wrong concepts.

When I say the means of production, I mean that business owners own almost everything used in the production of goods/services other than the labour, which he rents out and renumerates via wages. Because they own the means of production, the owner(s) control the collection of profits derived from the production & sale of goods. Therefore, the owner(s)(including share-holders) keep all the profits for themselves except for taxes and the wages they pay their workers based on (usually) the lowest market price can get away

with paying them. No matter how much profit is created from the work of a productive or innovative employee(s), the employee(s) will only see any of that profit in wages based on (usually, unless the owners/manager is really nice and gives bonuses/raises) the minimum $$ the owner can afford to pay him based on supply/demand of his labour. According to the stats in the OP article, 99% of working people saw about zero % sharing of the profits they helped produce over the last 30 yrs. I suspect all the rest of the profit (minus taxes/benefits etc.) has gone to the owners (& shareholders, CEO's, managers etc. ie: those who control profit distribution): much of it deserved since the owner has invested a lot of money in the means of production [ie: factory,materials etc.] and his own innovative ideas/work (and other things you quote below) to make that profit, but not all his profit is deserved since he/she could not have made all

of that profit without his/her employees & their production/innovations. Logically, the owner would not hire employees if they did not increase the owners profits, therefore a portion of a company's profits are created by the employees (not just the owner), but the employee has no access/control of this profit so can't share in it.

This is essentially a Marxist analysis of capitalist production, if you can find logical holes in it, please point them out.

What the Marxist analysis fails to take into account is innovation from other business owners who come up with products that take the place of labour. When these products are created, there is less need for the employee than before, yet owner still gets rich. What it also fails to take into account is that thheyre owner at any time can say screw you all, I'll take my ball and go home and do it myself.

All aspects of a business expense column are designed to make the owner more wealthy, machinery, fuel, labour, marketing, etc. The owner spends/Invests that money In hope of a return. A tv advertisement, a new machine, an employee at the end of the day all serve the same purpose and are no different from each other. The only outlier is the owner, he coordinates and comes up with a plan to utilize these things to make money.

In a nutshell, the ontario power company is just as "entitled" to say GMs profits as the workers on the assembly line.

Venezuelans are learning that lesson right now.p, and they as a country are poorer for it.

[Michael Hardner]

How does working for the government suck? Pensions and salaries above what market conditions dictate, more holidays, sick days that you can exchange for money if you're not sick, and a 9 - 5 work day. Yeah, most people would hate that.

Are you serious ? Would you take a job that pays 10K more than you make now to sit in a room for 8 hours a day and do nothing ?

[WIP]

What the Marxist analysis fails to take into account is innovation from other business owners who come up with products that take the place of labour.

And what the capitalist fails to take into account is that most of this so called innovation is for the purpose of marketing - to create an unnecessarily complex array of similar products with slightly varying product features, all intended to dazzle and confuse the potential buyer so that they have to finally shut down their higher level reasoning and critical thinking skills and make a purchase based on gut instinct.

The modern capitalist system has created a glut of products, and for purposes of creating demand for the products, their marketing divisions employ increasingly sophisticated neuromarketing techniques, often based on expensive and sophisticated psychological and neuroscience studies on test groups.

And, this sorryassed system that creates mostly impulsive, neurotic, unhappy consumers spending themselves into debt to buy the latest....whatever the hell the latest big thing is....is about to come crashing down at our feet! Because a system of banking and commerce that has been designed to function on the basis of endless, continuous growth is out of synch with the reality of living on a finite planet with finite resources! This should be a no-brainer to even the most clueless, but the inevitable end to modern capitalism is a concept that is never mentioned on mainstream media, whatever it calls its political stance.

Venezuelans are learning that lesson right now.p, and they as a country are poorer for it.

Really! Some Venezuelans would beg to differ:

Why was there no concern for poverty in Venezuela during all those years that a corrupt light-skinned Spanish ruling class consumed most of the money in royalties from foreign oil companies? For decades, Venezuela's indigenous population had been one of the poorest and most exploited in the Americas. Despite the vast oil wealth and other resources, Venezuela was characterized by extreme poverty. This situation began to change with the ascendance of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

And how has Chavez been doing in recent years? On balance, it seems he's done a lot better than the U.S., Europe and other western nations you would want them to emulate. In the last ten years, the number of Venezuelans living in extreme poverty (those who experience two of the five indicators of poverty) has decreased from 11.36% to 6.97%, a reduction of almost one half. At the same time, life expectancy and total population have increased significantly, showing the impact of better and more comprehensive health care services.

So, if there's corruption and pilfering in Chavez's Government, it's a lot less than before - when it had the CIA-approved governments. And, the oil wealth is being distributed to the population much more equitably than most other oil-rich nations.

[WIP]

Are you serious ? Would you take a job that pays 10K more than you make now to sit in a room for 8 hours a day and do nothing ?

See, this is what sickens me about you liberals! For some reason, having the approval of conservatives is so important, you are willing to carry water for them rather than examine the demonization of public sector workers across our border in the U.S. - Michigan, Indiana, Florida, Texas, Ohio, New York, California, New Jersey etc. etc.. Rather than ask:'why have my wages declined against the cost of living compared to public sector wages and benefits?' the low voltage, dimwitted low wage worker over there, would rather cut the teachers, police, fire dept., public works etc. down to their miserable level. How has that been working out for them lately?

[Michael Hardner]

See, this is what sickens me about you liberals! For some reason, having the approval of conservatives is so important, you are willing to carry water for them rather than examine the demonization of public sector workers across our border in the U.S. - Michigan, Indiana, Florida, Texas, Ohio, New York, California, New Jersey etc. etc.. Rather than ask:'why have my wages declined against the cost of living compared to public sector wages and benefits?' the low voltage, dimwitted low wage worker over there, would rather cut the teachers, police, fire dept., public works etc. down to their miserable level. How has that been working out for them lately?

You misunderstand - I was asking a hypothetical question, not saying that federal workers do nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

You misunderstand - I was asking a hypothetical question, not saying that federal workers do nothing.

Further, he seemingly has no relevant examples in Canada, which is further removed from the issue.

[cybercoma]

My employees don't deserve a percentage of what I produce, without people like me they have no job, none.

They don't deserve a percentage of what they produce, you mean. Without people like them, you would have no production.

[cybercoma]

Employees are just another expense on the balance sheet

They're human beings for Christ sake. Thinking and feeling human beings with families and loved ones. People like you are what's wrong with our society. Treating people like they're nothing more than cogs or tools to get what you want. Disgusting. It's so unconscionably unethical to treat people as nothing more than means to an end. I hope to God you don't actually own a business because you must be a real piece of.... work, as an employer.

[cybercoma]

What the Marxist analysis fails to take into account is innovation from other business owners who come up with products that take the place of labour.

Actually, that's one of the keys to Marxist analysis. You would know that if you knew anything about Marx.

[Bonam]

They're human beings for Christ sake. Thinking and feeling human beings with families and loved ones.

That's right, they're thinking human beings who freely choose to accept a job at blueblood's company. If they feel that their compensation is not appropriate, for whatever reason, they are free to look for other opportunities elsewhere. That's the great thing about a free society. If blueblood really treats his employees poorly as you believe, then they are free to quit and go elsewhere. This leaves people with a lot more freedom than any alternatives to capitalism that have yet been tried.

[WIP]

You misunderstand - I was asking a hypothetical question, not saying that federal workers do nothing.

Why were you asking it as a hypothetical question? I was assuming you were trying to be ironic while perching on that fence in the middle of the road.

I've mentioned at least once previously that sociologists who focus on status in social hierarchies, find that most people are more concerned with the lives (especially the earnings) of those just above them and below them on the social ladder, and not those who are too far ahead in wealth and income.

When inequality increases the divides in a population, competition becomes more ruthless, and envy of those perceived slightly ahead, as well as fear of those just behind and catching up, increases. In a more equal society - like we had 40 years ago, where there is a broad middle class, people tend not to as conscious of the differences as they see most people around them at or near the same level. But in this day and age, few of us have any peers because income stratification has stretched out the pack and made virtually everyone either in front, or behind everyone else. This status consciousness even affects the obscenely wealthy.....unless they're number one, there is always some other billionaire who is front of them!

But, the issue here is how most in the middle see the public sector workers. I've noticed whenever these issues have come up locally, nationally or in U.S. states, that in every example, the public sector workers are not getting richer, they are just better able to hold their own against cuts to wages and pensions and benefits that have decimated the private sector working class since the 80's -- as outsourcing removed heavy industry - the main center of private sector unions. As manufacturing jobs left, service sector and light manufacturing jobs (which remained mostly non-union) had no bargaining power to improve their wages and working conditions....even though corporate profits and CEO salaries continued climbing exponentially.

So, after effectively busting the private sector unions, Republicans and now Conservatives over here, have turned their guns on the public sector unions. And once the public sector unions are decertified or effectively ruined, those in the private sector today will see even further attacks against their earning power.

But the response of a lot of low-wattage, dimwitted working class people, is to join the attack on the public sector workers every time they see a misleading propaganda story against government workers in the newspaper. And I suspect the motives have nothing to do with anything factual....they usually know next to nothing aside from a headline on the front page of the Sun! It's back to those underlying concerns about social status....where admit it or not, the donut shop clerk will feel a little better about themselves if one more group ahead of them is knocked down to their level. It doesn't improve their lives....on the contrary, the risk of losing a good employee if he or she decides to join the police force, fire dept., become a teacher etc. disappears once those jobs are turned into crap like everyone else's jobs! Then the deck is stacked with all of the cards in favour of the business owner, and just about everyone will be working for minimum wage with no benefits!

[Bonam]

No matter how much profit is created from the work of a productive or innovative employee(s), the employee(s) will only see any of that profit in wages based on (usually, unless the owners/manager is really nice and gives bonuses/raises) the minimum $$ the owner can afford to pay him based on supply/demand of his labour. According to the stats in the OP article, 99% of working people saw about zero % sharing of the profits they helped produce over the last 30 yrs. I suspect all the rest of the profit (minus taxes/benefits etc.) has gone to the owners (& shareholders, CEO's, managers etc. ie: those who control profit distribution): much of it deserved since the owner has invested a lot of money in the means of production [ie: factory,materials etc.] and his own innovative ideas/work (and other things you quote below) to make that profit, but not all his profit is deserved since he/she could not have made all of that profit without his/her employees & their production/innovations. Logically, the owner would not hire employees if they did not increase the owners profits, therefore a portion of a company's profits are created by the employees (not just the owner), but the employee has no access/control of this profit so can't share in it.

This is essentially a Marxist analysis of capitalist production, if you can find logical holes in it, please point them out.

An employees share of the profit IS their wage/salary/compensation. That is the "hole" in your "logic". And it is precisely the share of the profit that they agree to when they accept the job. Many companies offer stocks/bonuses to their employees in addition to or instead of just cash, thus tying part of their compensation to the company's performance and profit.

People are entitled to precisely that portion of a company's profits that they agree to in their contract, whether that is their employee contract or the rules associated with being a shareholder.

[Bonam]

But in this day and age, few of us have any peers because income stratification has stretched out the pack and made virtually everyone either in front, or behind everyone else.

This is factually incorrect. Look at an income distribution graph some time.

But, the issue here is how most in the middle see the public sector workers. I've noticed whenever these issues have come up locally, nationally or in U.S. states, that in every example, the public sector workers are not getting richer, they are just better able to hold their own against cuts to wages and pensions and benefits that have decimated the private sector working class since the 80's -- as outsourcing removed heavy industry - the main center of private sector unions.

Pensions are a dumb idea to begin with. People should save for themselves, rather than hoping the company or agency they signed up to work at will still be around 50 years later to pay for their retirement.

As manufacturing jobs left, service sector and light manufacturing jobs (which remained mostly non-union) had no bargaining power to improve their wages and working conditions....even though corporate profits and CEO salaries continued climbing exponentially.

It wasn't the lack of bargaining power, it was the competition from billions of other workers around the globe willing to work for much less. And hundreds of millions are rapidly being lifted out of poverty around the world as a result.

Then the deck is stacked with all of the cards in favour of the business owner, and just about everyone will be working for minimum wage with no benefits!

Only in your favorite scenario of eternal economic downturn and civilizational collapse. In reality, during times of growth, which represent the vast majority of the time, wages increase substantially above the minimum as employers scramble to attract enough workers to their companies. That is of course as it should be. The converse however also needs to be true, during times of economic downturn, wages and workforces need to be able to decrease, but unions prevent this from happening, thus causing companies to go into bankruptcy and government into debt.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Bonam

[WIP]

Are the oligarchs starting to get worried that the great unwashed teeming masses may be starting to focus their wrath upon them? You might think so judging from the links cited in this post on the Progressive Economics Forum with the author noting that the wealth class's favourite attack dogs have been unleashed to spin the story away from the 1%. It's always entertaining to read about Terence Corcoran bleating about "class warfare," while he goes about trying to do his part sowing division among that large 99% and keep everyone at each other's throats!

[Argus]

Defined benefit plans are, by definition, excessive because they leave the taxpayer/company on the hook for any short falls. They are not part private sector compensation anymore unless the company set them up years ago.

Defined Benefit Pensions are the wisest move for the government in my opinion. First, these plans help attract people and keep them. Second, the plan is tied into the Canada Pension Plan. Regardless of what the employee contributs to the CPP during his lifetime, most of what he would get back is forfeited, as his government pension gets reduced by the amount of his CPP (not entirely but most of it).

Now correct me if I'm wrong. If you get a private pension, that has no affect on your CPP pension, is that correct? In other words, you get your private pension, plus 100% of whatever you're destined for from CPP?

Here is an article that illustrates exactly why public sector pension make it harder to ensure equality of opportunity by diverting funds for the poor to a relatively wealthy group of retirees:

http://blogs.the-ame...s-for-illinois/

That's not an article. It's a one sided opinion lacking almost all details.

This is an article

Public pensions are a problem all over the country, but they are a special problem in Illinois, mostly because the state has failed, for decades, to make proper contributions into its pension funds. Illinois, more than most states, has used its pension funds as a vehicle for off-balance-sheet borrowing, financing high spending without high taxes by making unfinanced pension promises.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/illinois-is-pension-basket-case-you-forgot-about.html

So tell me, why is it the fault of the 'greedy employees' that the Illinois government failed, for decades, to properly fund their pension plans despite many warnings over that period?