31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[square]

Really? They're responsible? That means they did something wrong. What was it? Please enlighten us. Did they conspire with the Saudis to lower the international price of oil, for example?

Yes blame the Party that's been in office for 10 months and inherited at bad economy. For get everything the Conservatives did for 9 and a half years.

[Argus]

Yes blame the Party that's been in office for 10 months and inherited at bad economy. For get everything the Conservatives did for 9 and a half years.

But I haven't blamed the party that's been in office for 10 months.

[square]

So who is to blame the Conservatives? the Liberals? Or should we just agree that governments have little effect on the economy?

[Argus]

So who is to blame the Conservatives? the Liberals? Or should we just agree that governments have little effect on the economy?

Governments can affect the economy. The current state of affairs has a lot of causes, but the major one is the drop in the price of oil, which no government can be blamed for. Although the previous Alberta governments can certainly be blamed for being so utterly unprepared for a predictable event.

I would say, however, that government in Canada is starting to become responsible for economic malaise by the extraordinarily lengthy and complicated bureaucratic roadblocks it is putting in place of all resource extraction efforts from logging to mining to oil and gas development and transmission. It shouldn't take years and years of hearings and study to get approval for a mine or pipeline. And, of course, the higher you raise taxes and other costs (like electricity costs) to employers, the less people they will employ.

[TimG]

I still want to solve those problems but I have an open mind to doing it differently for full time workers.

Why? Because you think full time employment is a bad thing and you want to create incentives to eliminate full time positions. The most idiotic thing the US has ever done with their social safety net is make healthcare a responsibility of the employer. You want to take that mistake and multiply it.

Workers compensation is actually a good example.

Workers comp is a bad example because it the cost of the program is influenced by the employer's attitude towards safety. Therefore it is extremely logical to make the employer pay so they have an incentive to ensure worker safety. It is also not a social program. It is pay-by-risk insurance. Edited August 14, 2016 by TimG

[square]

Governments can affect the economy. The current state of affairs has a lot of causes, but the major one is the drop in the price of oil, which no government can be blamed for. Although the previous Alberta governments can certainly be blamed for being so utterly unprepared for a predictable event.

I would say, however, that government in Canada is starting to become responsible for economic malaise by the extraordinarily lengthy and complicated bureaucratic roadblocks it is putting in place of all resource extraction efforts from logging to mining to oil and gas development and transmission. It shouldn't take years and years of hearings and study to get approval for a mine or pipeline. And, of course, the higher you raise taxes and other costs (like electricity costs) to employers, the less people they will employ.

How many km's of pipeline did the Conservatives get build?

[cybercoma]

For Old Age Security and GIS, at my day job I put 5% of my gross pay into an RRSP plan and my company matches that amount, chipping in another 5%. Ill retire with at least a few hundred thousand dollars depending on when I retire.

GIS and OAS are not CPP. They're not RRSPs. They're means tested benefits for the poor.

Child Care Benefits aren't necessary as long as workers are paid enough.

Again, they're intended to help keep children out of poverty.

I would roll income assistance for the disabled, and for the elderly into the existing "Welfare" program. If these people haven't paid into retirement plans, or if they got injured outside of work, or were born with a disability clearly we need to take care of them. But combine the whole thing into a single program called "Income Assistance".

Fair enough.

This is going to shift a lot of the burden from tax payers to employers, so we can reduce taxes on businesses to offset that... even if it means not taxing them at all.

It's just a shift from paying it one way to another.

[Argus]

How many km's of pipeline did the Conservatives get build?

The Conservatives, at least, tried to amend the regulations to speed things up. The Liberals have amended things to slow things down further.

[dre]

GIS and OAS are not CPP. They're not RRSPs. They're means tested benefits for the poor.

Again, they're intended to help keep children out of poverty.

Fair enough.

It's just a shift from paying it one way to another.

Increasing wages would help keep children out of poverty too.

And it isnt just a shit, its a shift to more efficient way. If I need to give you some money, then I should just give it to you, instead of giving it to a third party to redistribute. That redistributive layer skims a bunch of money of the top to pay for itself leaving you with less.

[dre]

Why? Because you think full time employment is a bad thing and you want to create incentives to eliminate full time positions.

Not I want them to give the money directly to these workers instead of giving it to the government to give to the workers. Then I want to tax companies less to make up the difference. There's no incentive to reduce full time positions.

And I want all full time workers to pay taxes.

[dre]

You will take what you can get, even if it pays less than that, and then search out part-time work to supplement your income.

Id rather live in a first world country where we don't have a large amount of people forced to work 70 hours per week to survive.

Full time employment at the minimum wage should be enough to pay for a bare-bones life without any public subsidies.

[Argus]

Id rather live in a first world country where we don't have a large amount of people forced to work 70 hours per week to survive.

Full time employment at the minimum wage should be enough to pay for a bare-bones life without any public subsidies.

What you seem to be ignoring in all your opinions about giving poor people more money is that money has to come from others. It's not going to come from rich people, since they have all kinds of way so hiding their cash and expensive accountants to help them figure it out. So it's going to come from the middle class, who are already highly taxed.

And if you're suggesting that this wouldn't be more expensive we've already been over that in the guaranteed income topic.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

There's no incentive to reduce full time positions.

This is the core of the issue. Any increase in costs to business will have consequences. No amount of wishful thinking will make these consequences go away. If these increased costs are a direct consequence of hiring people then companies will respond by:

1) Reducing jobs by investing in automation;

2) Outsourcing jobs to countries with lower costs;

3) Reducing the number of hours part time employees are able to work;

4) Reducing base wages of non-minimum wage staff or simply refusing to offer pay increases.

Now you want to argue that competition means companies cant afford to do these things but the insidious thing about government regulation is it eliminates competition as a factor because it affects everyone. i.e. non-minimum wage employees might not be happy about a pay cut but all of the other employers face the same costs and are doing the same thing then the employee has no choice but to suck it up.

You can, of course, continue to argue the sky is purple but that does not make it true.

Bottom line: increasing costs for businesses has consequences.

You need to address these consequences instead of pretending they don't exist.

Edited August 15, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

What you seem to be ignoring in all your opinions about giving poor people more money is that money has to come from others. It's not going to come from rich people, since they have all kinds of way so hiding their cash and expensive accountants to help them figure it out. So it's going to come from the middle class, who are already highly taxed.

And if you're suggesting that this wouldn't be more expensive we've already been over that in the guaranteed income topic.

You clearly haven't read a single thing Iv said.

[?Impact]

2) Outsourcing jobs to countries with lower costs;

Exactly, that is why we need to have huge import duties because the multi-national corporations own the politicians who created this free for them trade to trade our economy (i.e. the average Joe) down. Don't like to have fair wages, fair safety practices, environmental responsibility, then just outsource to a nation that doesn't protect workers, human rights, or the the environment. The flat screen that everyone is whining about the unemployed having is not an excuse to make it cheap so the unemployed can have it.

[TimG]

Exactly, that is why we need to have huge import duties

And what happens when other countries do the same thing? Do you really believe that Canada can maintain its standard of living without exporting anything to anyone? What do you think would happen to manufacturers and tech companies that can no longer buy the best equipment in the world and are forced to use whatever crap Canadian companies are selling?

Whether your like it or not our economy depends on international trade. We can't close the borders.

I don't know if you notice all of the announcementsconcessions that the Libs have been giving China on visas and TFWs recently. You see China is threatening to block Canadian canola exports with some arbitrary regulation. The rule is "under consideration" and you bet the Libs were told privately that they had to give concessions or canola exports would be blocked. That should really illustrate why closing the borders is not a real option anymore.

Edited August 15, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

That should really illustrate why closing the borders is not a real option anymore.

It is not about closing the borders, it is about levelling the playing field. Today the playing field is tilted way to far to support the multi-national corporate masters who own the Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats. The answer to unions, regulation, and other progressive policies that actually improve the life for the average Joe has been to circumvent them through free ride for the few.

[dre]

This is the core of the issue. Any increase in costs to business will have consequences. No amount of wishful thinking will make these consequences go away. If these increased costs are a direct consequence of hiring people then companies will respond by:

1) Reducing jobs by investing in automation;

2) Outsourcing jobs to countries with lower costs;

3) Reducing the number of hours part time employees are able to work;

4) Reducing base wages of non-minimum wage staff or simply refusing to offer pay increases.

Now you want to argue that competition means companies cant afford to do these things but the insidious thing about government regulation is it eliminates competition as a factor because it affects everyone. i.e. non-minimum wage employees might not be happy about a pay cut but all of the other employers face the same costs and are doing the same thing then the employee has no choice but to suck it up.

You can, of course, continue to argue the sky is purple but that does not make it true.

Bottom line: increasing costs for businesses has consequences.

You need to address these consequences instead of pretending they don't exist.

Reading not your strong suit? Employers HAVE no extra costs.

Lets say a company has ten employees at today's minimum wage. They make 21 thousand. But the Market Basket Measure in their city is 23 thousand and we are now going to make these low income earners pay 10% income tax, so that's an additional 2300 dollars the worker has to earn. The employer now has to pay an addition 23 000 dollars in additional wages, but since those wages are tax deductible, the company is really going to only pay about 13k more.

The company is now covering the real cost of production, and is internalizing the cost of their workers who are not longer eligible for any subsidies.

NOW. IF we decide we want to subsidize these companies like we were before, then simply deduct that 13k from their tax bill and they are now paying EXACTLY as much for labor that they were before.

Get rid of all social programs (and government ofices and employees) targeted at low income earners (who no longer need them), and take ALL the remaining social programs, and consolidate them into a single program called "Income Assistance". The program would help people that cant find full time work, or are disabled, or too old to work and unable to pay for their retirement.

[dre]

And what happens when other countries do the same thing? Do you really believe that Canada can maintain its standard of living without exporting anything to anyone?

We have seen strong economic growth and wage growth in increasing standards of life in basically closed economies before. And almost all our trade is with the United States, and trade with them is fine because they have a similar society, standard of life, regulations, wages, etc.

We should only have free trade agreements in countries where Canadians would be willing to live in.

[Pateris]

In the 19th Century, Britain got rich while much of Europe did not, largely because Britain opened it's borders to trade, in many cases reducing tariffs unilaterally. Bastiat comments on this in his essay around 1850 as France put up more and more walls to trade, yet the people got poorer and poorer. Just look up Bastiat's petition in support of the candlemakers: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html. This is a ridiculous basis, but it clearly shows how protectionism does not help a country.

[TimG]

Reading not your strong suit? Employers HAVE no extra costs.

Raise the minimum wage and it is an additional cost. Any other claim is sophistry.

The company is now covering the real cost of production

This is claim that I reject entirely. Companies pay the going rate for labour based on what people are willing to work for. The presence of social programs is irrelevant to company, however, they may *increase* the wages the employer has to offer because no one will work for less than what welfare offers. There is no scenario where people would work for less because of the presence of social programs.

The idea that healthcare, education and numerous other services provided to workers represents a "subsidy" to employers is wrong from a philosophical perspective too.

We, as a society. decide what social programs to offer.

Any company that locates here pays taxes on profits because they benefit from these social programs.

The decision on what social programs to offer should not involve corporations.

Edited August 15, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

We have seen strong economic growth and wage growth in increasing standards of life in basically closed economies before. And almost all our trade is with the United States, and trade with them is fine because they have a similar society, standard of life, regulations, wages, etc.

We should only have free trade agreements in countries where Canadians would be willing to live in.

Some Canadians live in Egypt. Is that a country you'd support a free-trade agreement with?

[dre]

Raise the minimum wage and it is an additional cost. Any other claim is sophistry.

I explained very carefully why you are wrong. If the increase in wages is offset by a tax break of the same size, then there's no additional cost.

This is claim that I reject entirely. Companies pay the going rate for labour based on what people are willing to work for.

Right and the going rate for labor is partially based on subsidies to workers. If the government pays for part of what they need to live, it becomes possible for them to work for lower wages. This puts downward pressure on the labor market for low income workers.

There is no scenario where people would work for less because of the presence of social programs.

Sure there is. I already laid out a bunch of those scenarios. In the USSR there was often no direct wages at all, because the government provided everything.

And that is what you are really pining for here. Socialism, and government distortion of markets.

Edited August 15, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

I explained very carefully why you are wrong. If the increase in wages is offset by a tax break of the same size, then there's no additional cost.

It is a cost. Tax breaks may defray the cost for some employers but not all (e.g. charities are tax exempt). The fact that you want to use tax breaks as a way to balance the cost makes your rube-goldburg schema even more absurd.

Right and the going rate for labor is partially based on subsidies to workers. If the government pays for part of what they need to live, it becomes possible for them to work for lower wages. This puts downward pressure on the labor market for low income workers.

As I said, the presence of social programs is not going to convince someone to take a job at a lower wage. If the programs did not exist the people in question would be more desperate and would likely accept even lower wages. The only effect social programs have on wages is to increase them because not working at all becomes a viable option which gives the employee more bargaining power. Edited August 15, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

You clearly haven't read a single thing Iv said.

I have, but I've also read economics texts which seem to make most of what you say sound like wishful thinking.