Jump to content

How Long Can it Go On?


Smoke

Recommended Posts

How long can public sector growth outpace private sector growth before there are economic ramifications? At what point does the "cart get turned upside down". What would be the ultimate balance? News articles have been reporting Canadians are too far in personal debt. Are Canadians also living above their means collectively as well (ie. social programs)? Will the new Trudeau gov't., Provincial gov'ts. and municipalities allow the trend to continue or will they curtail growth in the public sector?

http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/public-sector-crowding-out-private-job-growth-hampering-employment-opportunities-in-canada

Edited by Smoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that the federal and provincial public sectors have declined considerably over the years; the increase is at the municipal level.

As for the premise of Professor Di Matteo's claim-- that governments hiring people increases the unemployment rate because it reduced the opportunity for the private sector to hire people-- that's typical Fraser Institute puro.

Look, go ahead and say that you want the public sector cut back so that your taxes can be lower. Just be honest. Don't try and frame it in a way that makes it sounds like you're interested in increasing employment opportunities for the little guy, because it's just laughable.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that the federal and provincial public sectors have declined considerably over the years; the increase is at the municipal level.

As for the premise of Professor Di Matteo's claim-- that governments hiring people increases the unemployment rate because it reduced the opportunity for the private sector to hire people-- that's typical Fraser Institute puro.

Look, go ahead and say that you want the public sector cut back so that your taxes can be lower. Just be honest. Don't try and frame it in a way that makes it sounds like you're interested in increasing employment opportunities for the little guy, because it's just laughable.

-k

It's much more fundamental than lower taxes.

The bigger the public sector gets in relation to the private sector, the less ability the private sector has to grow because more and more of its resources are being diverted to support the public sector. The public sector doesn't create wealth, it just distributes it. Everyone can't work for the government unless you are a communist.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that the federal and provincial public sectors have declined considerably over the years; the increase is at the municipal level.

As for the premise of Professor Di Matteo's claim-- that governments hiring people increases the unemployment rate because it reduced the opportunity for the private sector to hire people-- that's typical Fraser Institute puro.

Look, go ahead and say that you want the public sector cut back so that your taxes can be lower. Just be honest. Don't try and frame it in a way that makes it sounds like you're interested in increasing employment opportunities for the little guy, because it's just laughable.

-k

So you don't think the two are related....OK

Edited by Smoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF one is going to pick on the public workers let start with management because they usually have higher wages and higher pensions than the private except for companies like the auto etc. As I said before, keep picking on the middle-class-incomer and all what we be left is the higher incomer and they don't like parting with their none of their money, BUT they can survive better with deceases in pay and pensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF one is going to pick on the public workers let start with management because they usually have higher wages and higher pensions than the private except for companies like the auto etc. As I said before, keep picking on the middle-class-incomer and all what we be left is the higher incomer and they don't like parting with their none of their money, BUT they can survive better with deceases in pay and pensions.

It's not about picking on public workers or how much they are paid. It's about the size of the public sector in relation to the private sector which has to support it. Believe it or not, we can only afford so much government before supporting it becomes a real drag on the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about picking on public workers or how much they are paid. It's about the size of the public sector in relation to the private sector which has to support it. Believe it or not, we can only afford so much government before supporting it becomes a real drag on the economy.

So employers are just dying to hire more people but they can't because they have to pay taxes?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So employers are just dying to hire more people but they can't because they have to pay taxes?

-k

Let's all become public employees then. Problem solved. Wait a minute, who is going to pay us?

To be a bit politically incorrect here. Two indians supporting themselves and ten chiefs, ain't going to work.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So employers are just dying to hire more people but they can't because they have to pay taxes?

Are you arguing that society could function with the public sector providing 100% of the employment? If not then it follows that there is curve with a peak somewhere between 0 and 100%. Wilber is simply stating that this peak exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's all become public employees then. Problem solved. Wait a minute, who is going to pay us?

To be a bit politically incorrect here. Two indians supporting themselves and ten chiefs, ain't going to work.

If the complaint is that high levels of taxation are preventing business from hiring people, well, overall taxation levels have been shifting from business to individuals for many years. Businesses should theoretically be hiring more people than in years past. Cybercoma started a thread some time ago to discuss the relationship between business tax rates and employment. Spoiler: not so much.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you arguing that society could function with the public sector providing 100% of the employment? If not then it follows that there is curve with a peak somewhere between 0 and 100%. Wilber is simply stating that this peak exists.

Look, I'm just pointing out that the idea presented in OP's article-- that unemployment would decrease if government didn't hire so many people-- is a load of crap.

If you want to argue for smaller public sector employment based on budget realities that's completely reasonable. But trying to frame it as creating opportunity for Joe Worker is just retarded.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to argue for smaller public sector employment based on budget realities that's completely reasonable. But trying to frame it as creating opportunity for Joe Worker is just retarded.

I agree with that. At a macroeconomic level government spending does deny capital to private enterprise but I don't think we would see much difference from a few % shift one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the complaint is that high levels of taxation are preventing business from hiring people, well, overall taxation levels have been shifting from business to individuals for many years. Businesses should theoretically be hiring more people than in years past. Cybercoma started a thread some time ago to discuss the relationship between business tax rates and employment. Spoiler: not so much.

-k

Taxation is taxation, there is only so much money to be divided up regardless of who it comes from. You tax a business, you limit its ability to hire and make it less competitive as an exporter. You tax individuals, you limit their ability to consume the products a business produces which in turn limits it's ability to grow. We expect certain things from government so taxes are necessary but they can also stifle an economy.

If you want't to grow GDP, making the private sector smaller in relation to the public sector is not the way you are going to do it. You will do the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scary. Only NL of all places has reversed the trend. We need to pass legislation that the public sector shall not exceed the population of the country.

So you're saying that public sector employees should not outnumber the population of Canada? That's impossible anyways, even in a communist country, given that kids and retired people and people in hospitals and jails don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that public sector employees should not outnumber the population of Canada? That's impossible anyways, even in a communist country, given that kids and retired people and people in hospitals and jails don't work.

It was intended as a joke. Kind of like "a billion here, a billion there and soon you are talking about real money".

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long can public sector growth outpace private sector growth before there are economic ramifications? At what point does the "cart get turned upside down". What would be the ultimate balance? News articles have been reporting Canadians are too far in personal debt. Are Canadians also living above their means collectively as well (ie. social programs)? Will the new Trudeau gov't., Provincial gov'ts. and municipalities allow the trend to continue or will they curtail growth in the public sector?

http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/public-sector-crowding-out-private-job-growth-hampering-employment-opportunities-in-canada

I want to see data over time to see if this is a trend, or just a normal cycle.

The Fraser Institute is infamous for shrieking "catastrophy" where none exists.

Sure the private sector wants a piece of profitable public services. So what?!

We need the profits to fund our services.

The Fraser Institute is always willing to manipulate and distort data for that purpose.

I want to see all the data.

.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxation is taxation, there is only so much money to be divided up regardless of who it comes from. You tax a business, you limit its ability to hire and make it less competitive as an exporter. You tax individuals, you limit their ability to consume the products a business produces which in turn limits it's ability to grow. We expect certain things from government so taxes are necessary but they can also stifle an economy.

If you want't to grow GDP, making the private sector smaller in relation to the public sector is not the way you are going to do it. You will do the opposite.

I'm not advocating for growing the public sector, I'm pointing out that trying to promote slashing public sector jobs as a means of reducing unemployment is patently stupid.

The OP's article points out that federal and provincial public sectors have shrunk steadily over the years, and so what they're really talking about is growth of municipal government as an employer. So why don't you guys get together and make a list of municipal services that you want axed. I'm guessing that the first and only item on that list will be "safe injection sites", but maybe you'll surprise me. Then make a list of services that are municipally done in your area that are mandatory but you think should be privatized, like maybe garbage removal and snow removal, if those aren't already privatized in your town.

And add up the expected savings from eliminating "safe injection sites" and privatizing garbage removal etc, and let me know whether you think the resulting change to your property taxes is going to result in enough savings to make dent in your property taxes that will let you Go Forth And Stimulate The Economy. I know what my property taxes are, and even a significant reduction to the city's spending isn't going to make a significant difference to my disposable income.

Your argument is that if Joe Average had more disposable money then he could spend more money on local businesses to increase employment. Ok, I agree. If that's what the Fraser Institute is advocating for, I'm all for it. Get back to me when the Fraser Institute does a study about why incomes are so flat and why all the economic growth is going to the people at the top of the food chain.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is that if Joe Average had more disposable money then he could spend more money on local businesses to increase employment. Ok, I agree. If that's what the Fraser Institute is advocating for, I'm all for it. Get back to me when the Fraser Institute does a study about why incomes are so flat and why all the economic growth is going to the people at the top of the food chain.

-k

There can be a lot of reasons and one is the cost of government which has to be paid for by the private sector.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that the federal and provincial public sectors have declined considerably over the years; the increase is at the municipal level.

As for the premise of Professor Di Matteo's claim-- that governments hiring people increases the unemployment rate because it reduced the opportunity for the private sector to hire people-- that's typical Fraser Institute puro.

Look, go ahead and say that you want the public sector cut back so that your taxes can be lower. Just be honest. Don't try and frame it in a way that makes it sounds like you're interested in increasing employment opportunities for the little guy, because it's just laughable.

-k

Wow, for a compassionate, cheerful, communicating, inclusive, sunny ways left winger, you sure have made a lot of assumptions and put a lot of discouraging words in my mouth. But don't worry you're a left winger, you can't help it.

Maybe you could point out where I said the things you are saying I said. Oh wait.....you won't be able to because.....well...I didn't say them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be a lot of reasons and one is the cost of government which has to be paid for by the private sector.

We could pay for it by nationalizing some of our resource sectors. Look at Norway for example, they built a $500 billion nest egg from their oil resource and they're over here now getting wealthier off our's.

Of course we have a bunch of governments that couldn't get their poop together if the country depended on it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could pay for it by nationalizing some of our resource sectors. Look at Norway for example, they built a $500 billion nest egg from their oil resource and they're over here now getting wealthier off our's.

Of course we have a bunch of governments that couldn't get their poop together if the country depended on it so.

Oh, the NEP all over again. We know how well that worked. Where are you going to find the billions to buy out those asset's existing owners, or are you just going to steal them and make us an international pariah for investment.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, for a compassionate, cheerful, communicating, inclusive, sunny ways left winger, you sure have made a lot of assumptions and put a lot of discouraging words in my mouth. But don't worry you're a left winger, you can't help it.

haha ok...

Maybe you could point out where I said the things you are saying I said. Oh wait.....you won't be able to because.....well...I didn't say them.

All the stuff I am talking about is in the article you linked to. Did you actually read the article you linked? Did you actually have any intention of talking about the article you linked, or did you just want to talk about things at a "small government GOOD! big government BAD!" type level?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...