Toyota creates more problems for Conservatives

[mirror]

Conservatives have also made a huge blunder attacking Canada's health care system which is something of a religion for Canadians. Yes it has some problems that all Canadians seem to aware of, but these issued are being addressed.

The article below on Toyota explaining their decision to locate in Canada is an interesting read because it explains how business people usually will make decisions which are in the best interests of the company they represent. What is fascinating about it is that the reasons are because of Canada's fabulous social services, primarily health care and education. And one of reasons for Toyota's success is because they think long term.

Paul Krugman: Why jobs head north

Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.

Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-SUVs, in Ontario, Canada. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

[cybercoma]

How does this at all hurt the Conservatives, who have never once supported an "American" health care system?

Does this also make our supreme court look bad, since they too have spoken against our system?

[mirror]

Yes the decision does make our supreme court look bad but I am sure it will be rectified by our politicians when they return to Ottawa in the Fall.

Conservatives more than any other party has supported two tier health care which is the deathnail for the public system. All they are doing by this is acting as shrills for these US companies who hope to come in and take over Canada's system. Fortunately most Canadians see through the charade.

[cybercoma]

Yes the decision does make our supreme court look bad but I am sure it will be rectified by our politicians when they return to Ottawa in the Fall.

Conservatives more than any other party has supported two tier health care which is the deathnail for the public system. All they are doing by this is acting as shrills for these US companies who hope to come in and take over Canada's system. Fortunately most Canadians see through the charade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, so Conservatives have supported a two-tier system. True. This means they want to support a public system and allow for private care in the industry as well. Yeah that's right....I said....CONSERVATIVES WANT A PUBLIC SYSTEM, as well as a private system.

Saying a two-tier system is designed to destroy the public system is nonsense; it kind of defeats the purpose of supporting a TWO-tier system if you're only going to have one tier.

Find me one conservative who advocates an american style system.

[Argus]

Yes the decision does make our supreme court look bad but I am sure it will be rectified by our politicians when they return to Ottawa in the Fall.

Conservatives more than any other party has supported two tier health care which is the deathnail for the public system. All they are doing by this is acting as shrills for these US companies who hope to come in and take over Canada's system. Fortunately most Canadians see through the charade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh stick it. I'm tired of the squealing zealots of the far left snivelling endlessly about "two-tier" as if it's some great evil about to destroy the world. Most Canadians now favour the introduction of private health care - an example of how miserably your communist-style system has failed them despite massive amounts of money being poured into it, and massive fearmongering campaigns by the Liberals, NDP and their gullible compadres like yourself.

There is no sign of any improvement in the system, and few Canadians expect any improvement, despite Martin's "fixed for a generation" BS and the billions and billions of new money. So let's bring in the private sector and see if they can get the job done.

[Canuck E Stan]

Better do your homework on Toyota. They are exploiters.They pay less,they are not unionized,they hire people on a contract basis,6-12 months at a time and renew their contracts if they want to. They DO NOT pay benefits to these contract people and hey, that means they DO NOT pay health care benefits. Most of their workers are hired and work this way. How do I know? I have a brother-in-law who has been on contract with them for three years trying to get hired on full time.Ontario and Feds have given them$$$ to build in Ontario. You read too much Toyota and Liberal PR, life for these workers is not all that rosey.

[cybercoma]

Better do your homework on Toyota. They are exploiters.They pay less,they are not unionized,they hire people on a contract basis,6-12 months at a time and renew their contracts if they want to. They DO NOT pay benefits to these contract people and hey, that means they DO NOT pay health care benefits. Most of their workers are hired and work this way.  How do I know? I have a brother-in-law who has been on contract with them for three years trying to get hired on full time.Ontario and Feds have given them$$$ to build in Ontario. You read too much Toyota and Liberal PR, life for these workers is not all that rosey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's an easy solution, don't work for them. As far as I've read and been told by people who work for them, they pay less but give you much better benefits.

No one is being 'exploited' here in Canada and to suggest otherwise is just wrong. We enter willingly into employment contracts and we are allowed to leave freely, unlike sweat shops in other countries where women and children have been murdered for trying to leave.

[Renegade]

mirror,

Since we have had universal health care for some time, maybe you'd care to explain why there has been an exodus of manufacturing jobs from Canada to the US and to other countries around the world.

Maybe you can explain why companies are only now discovering that Canada has universal public health care, and why they didn't rush in some time ago.

[mirror]

Not all business people are smart or principled. Look at Costco which is the anti Wal-Mart. Costco pays its employees an average of $27. per hour, 42% higher than its closest rival. Costco will be around for a lot longer that Wal-Mart I predict.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

[Renegade]

Not all business people are smart or principled. Look at Costco which is the anti Wal-Mart. Costco pays its employees an average of $27. per hour, 42% higher than its closest rival. Costco will be around for a lot longer that Wal-Mart I predict.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mirror, was this in response to my post? How does this relate whether a business would choose to locate in Canada? BTW, where was the quote from?

BTW, you may think that long-term that Costco will be around for a lot longer than Wal-mart, that remains to be seen, however past history seem to indicate that Wal-mart has been a lot more successful than Costco. Also they have completely different business models and target different markets.

[mirror]

I suppose there are two schools of thought around business ventures. Screw your employees or treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. The head of Costco makes 10% of the inappropriate average CEO wages, because he is not obsessed by greed.

I remember last Christmas one of the most hated companies in Vancouver - Impark had an amnesty for parking ticket violators because their corporate image was so bad. They remind me a lot of Wal-Mart.

How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart

[geoffrey]

I suppose there are two schools of thought around business ventures. Screw your employees or treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. The head of Costco makes  10% of the inappropriate average CEO wages, because he is not obsessed by greed.

I remember last Christmas one of the most hated companies in Vancouver - Impark had an amnesty for parking ticket violators because their corporate image was so bad. They remind me a lot of Wal-Mart. 

How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So mirror, let me get this straight. Because Costco pays more, and because Toyota likes universal health care, the conservatives are damaged? This a key example of how the left defends their stances on issues, using emotional tactics. Oh how we love Costco, but it still puts small business out of business just like Wal-mart. So really, you have nothing with that example.

Wal-mart has a bad image, but people continue to shop there. This means either of two things: a) It doesn't have a bad image... or B ) Canadian consumers, those that you are apparently out to defend, don't care about the thousands of small businesses that walmart has destroyed, and shop there simply because of that greed that you yourself said is so destructive to a company.

Toyota also employs over 200,000 American workers, way more than they do in Canada.

So really, your argument has no factual ground at all. Great to see jobs coming to Canada, but to say that the conservatives would destroy these jobs (I'm somewhat assuming thats what your implying through bringing partisan politics into the issue), is absolutely ridiculous.

[Redneck Yokel]

Argus said it correctly.

[stubblejumper]

Allot of foreign companies are moving to countries with public healthcare,especially US based ones. Because in the US,they must supply their employess with med insurance amongst other things. Which in Con think is akin to a payroll tax. It is cheaper to operate here with no insurance costs then in the USA.

No what do cons say about corp taxes being the only competitive advantage we have. I would say somewhere there is a cost eff. rateing on tax vs cost vs health care, etc. Maybe corporate tax cuts are not the answer or if they are then maybe we should charge them a premium for health services.50% cost share,still cheaper then America.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::How does this at all hurt the Conservatives, who have never once supported an "American" health care system?

No they just support the American system as a 2nd tier to our system!!!!

Insurance driven healthcare?????? Ever had any dealings with insurance companies?

NOT MANY I BET IF YOU SUPPORT THAT AS A 2ND TIER TO OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!

[stubblejumper]

Speaking on insurance companies. What do you think the cost to our healthcare system is for insurance claim referrals for physio,massage,chiro,etc.

I bet it makes up at least 5-10% per annum.

[Redneck Yokel]

No they just support the American system as a 2nd tier to our system!!!!

I see exactly what you're saying. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE CHOICES! You're absolutely right....... or perhaps a little too far left of it...

[Melanie_]

Argus said it correctly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll have to point it out...I wouldn't want to miss such an historic first...

[mirror]

No they just support the American system as a 2nd tier to our system!!!!

I see exactly what you're saying. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE CHOICES! You're absolutely right....... or perhaps a little too far left of it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want choices for the rich not the middle class and the poor.

No matter how much you want 2 tier health care in Canada, I don't see it happening as the vast, vast majority of Canadians want a single tier publically funded health care system.

[Renegade]

mirror,

Since you are againt a choice for people paying for additional choices for healthcare, can I take it you would favour banning private schools as well?

[mirror]

If people want to travel to the USA to pay for some medical procedure that's up to them, just don't ask canadian taxpayers to help foot the bill. Everyone should be able to access their costs to the health care system on the 'net so at least we know how money money we are individually costing the system. I understand Alberta sends out an annual staement to everyone showing how much each Albertan cost the system.

Yes, that is my preference to abolish private schools, because the major problem in our society is tolerance for others. Private schools bred differences which ultimately lead to intolerance IMO. I don't think that people should be allowed to get away from people who are intellectually or physically challenged which is one of the main reasons for private schools existence.

[Renegade]

Well, at least you're consistant.

Your solution however is to bring us down to the lowest common denominator and take away our right to choose, which is what people object to.

Should one be able to buy a better car because one can afford it?

Should one be able to buy a better food because one can afford it?

Should one be able to buy a better childcare because one can afford it?

By logical extension of your argument you would answer no to all of these. Do you see you are curtailing free choice?

[mirror]

Well, at least you're consistant.

1 Your solution however is to bring us down to the lowest common denominator and take away our right to choose, which is what people object to.

2 Should one be able to buy a better car because one can afford it?

3 Should one be able to buy a better food because one can afford it?

4 Should one be able to buy a better childcare because one can afford it?

5 By logical extension of your argument you would answer no to all of these. Do you see you are curtailing free choice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answers

1 wrong

2 yes

3 no

4 no

5 wrong, as not suggesting it for the luxuries in life

[Renegade]

So you only want people to have no choice for the things they need? If they don't need them, then you're ok that they have choice?

[mirror]

Contrary to what we have been programmed by our MSM we have an abundance of all the material things we need in Canada.

I actually think we should have a guaranteed minimum for all our citizens in terms of food, clothing, shelter, health & dental care, and education, the basic necessities in life. After that you are on your own to decide whether you want a second home, a second car, etc. All this government energy which means taxes, spent on trying to investigate people whether or not they are eligible for EI, social assistance etc., is a huge waste of money. Yes some people, a few, will rip off the system. So what? Let's use our government tax dollars in more productive ways such as encouraging R & D so we can seriously address global warming, health care research, mining without polluting, agricultural improvements, saving our oceans, etc.

Our tax system could use a major overhaul as well, to lose all these loopholes, resulting in reducing government bureaucracy.