There is Provincial and Federal levels for a reason. No one cares about Provincial issues. People want a party that can lead.
People don't care about provincial issues? Education and health care do not matter? They are under provincial jurisdiction.
I'm talking about polititcians at each level. Serious politicians (I use that term loosely) are in Federal because real progress can be done. Federal trumps provincial. Provincial Level is practice for the federal if they make it. Members of the Federal level will listen to provincial but will eventually insert their bills over them.
Odd segue in this thread tho...you were saying everyone voted for Harper and won't admit it...I say I don't think anyone lives in his riding, and you then comment on provincial politics? My point was that we vote for MPs, not the prime minister.... and unless anyone here is in his riding, we couldn't have voted for him. Did I vote for a PC MP? Fuck no! And I'm pretty sure most of the Canadians here did not either. The popular majority vote was not PC.
I am just trying to blend provincial and federal politics in one to show how messy of a government that it makes.
Of course I didn't mean everyone voted for PC federally but enough to form a majority. - which is effectively running the country now even influencing non-pc provincial govts. - alta.
I know we vote for MPs, alberta is now one province where the outcome did not end in enough votes for pcs. This outcome still has no effect on the PC Federal govt we have now. Maybe a few issues sure but ultimately Alberta is still being influenced and driven by the Federal PCs.
edit - A majority of the population has voted on the PCs platforms for multiple terms now. Harper is the leader of the party so ultimately the majority of Canada has voted on what harper stands for.
Yet when politics is brought up around work, friends etc usually the conversation is against Harper. I haven't found many people that voted pc federally. Yet here Canada is run by a PC majority.
There is Provincial and Federal levels for a reason. No one cares about Provincial issues. People want a party that can lead.
People don't care about provincial issues? Education and health care do not matter? They are under provincial jurisdiction.
Kind of a big deal right? Our oil affects the entire country so our provincial elections get national coverage....changing parties here is a big deal. I feel for ya - it would suck to see Harper signs and billboards everywhere ugh. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next election with alberta's extra seats. Also, Mulcair just made proportional representation part of the ndp platform. Could be huge. I'm hoping leadnow.ca's strategic voting campaign catches on so we can get that psycho out of office. The vote splitting on the left is really hurting us.
I think you are mistaking me for someone who is Anti-Harper. While I do not agree with the recent anti-terror bill, I believe Harper has done a fairly decent job as Prime Minister, similar to Chretien really. While certainly his arrogance shines through, he is a decisive decision maker, and certainly not a "Mr. Dithers" Proportional representation from the NDP sounds very similar to the Triple E Senate proposed by teh Reform Party in the 90s. Which is more akin to the US style of government, where checks and balances are more pronounced, however roadblocks in passing legislation can happen when you do not control both houses. The President in the US can veto bills, the PM cannot. The US style of government causes plenty of back deals and shady lobbying between industry and the parties as the Senate and House jocky to get legislation passed. In Canada you would create the "Whip", just like in the US. None of this sounds very left leaning, very un-NDP. This is my point, they are all similar in ideology really. We spend all of our time worrying about what the government is doing and the banks run the world. "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Nathan Rothschild
^^^^rather than re-posting quotes to make it shorter
The citizens of Canada have to play the hand that's dealt in terms of deciding a political outcome. We have no choice. The majority seems to favour what at the core PCs bring to the game. Not saying you are anti-harper. Just making a point that a lot of people don't come right out and say they support the PCs. Doesn't really matter the leader. It just happens to be Harper.
^^^^ PC's are safe and in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Most Canadians are right there. If the decision comes down t leadership, which it invariably does as you said, who are you going to trust? Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper? Trudeau is playing Robin Hood with his plans to tax the rich and give to the "poor" (if making under $90,000 is poor). He is "young and exciting" and "handsome". Comes from a political heritage. Mulcair is not a bad guy, he just appears to be all over the place at times. He lacks charisma and tends to get into verbal attacks in the House. I think he likes to see himself on 6pm newscasts. Harper is arrogant. He is too secretive and is a micro-manager. He is involved for sure.
All of these are strengths or faults depending on your view. In the end, nothing will change.
^^^ I like your character assessment of the current leaders. Alta should question what's to come given that a Federal NDP leader does indeed seem to be all over the place at times. NDP seems to go with the idea of the day politicking. Federal and Provincial.
Liberals - well if anything at least they consistently stay on the fence.
Harper - arrogant, secretive, micro-manager, yes Micro-managers don't trust their employees - given the field Harper is leading can you blame him?
Trudeau isn't really on the fence though, he is raising taxes, and that is something most Canadians are not in favour of, UNLESS, of course, you pandor to the majority of the electorate and say we are going to punish anyone who makes too much money by raising their taxes 4 percent (think about that, another 4000 dollars a year if you make 100,000). In turn, he will take that money, and instead of better roads, schools, military, health care, etc; he is going to HAND OUT about $500 a MONTH to the average family of four. So in essence, his math dictates that he taxes anyone making north of $200000 (a small percentage of the population) 4 percent more, and then GIVES the middle class $6000 a year! How does this math work... Liberals as an electorate are middle of the road, the institutional elite, media etc. Now he is going after the middle class, and buying votes. He is the one who scares me the most, he is a little too left for me in the finance department. Sounds unsustainable.
^^ I posted these questions a few posts back - "Do you think their campaign promise of raising the minimum wage in Alberta to $15 by 2018 will happen?
If so how will they accomplish that?
If not why"?
To address your last post though
Trudeau is befuddling all of us with numbers and stats (Something Bill Clinton was very good at doing). So we all just think "hey this is great I don't have to worry about my taxes going up because I am not in that bracket and I get $500/month extra"! He is on the fence hoping this gamble of buying votes will work. If it doesn't he has lost nothing.
NDP - has no plans and when they do have one they will revert to the old standby "We are compassionate and we will make this work".
At least with Harper he can come out and say "Here Canadians, here is a little extra a month without raising your taxes. It's not much but it's the best I can do for now" Somehow that reasoning I can deal with. It is an honest decision made by increments all while being opposed.
Became sidetracked and didn't answer your question, all apologies.
They can (and probably will) raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. This really only effect you and I, the consumer. Government employees all make at least that, so your tax dollars do not go up. They may actually pay more taxes, so in a way, it is a way of getting corporations to pay more taxes without upping the corporate tax rates too much. But in the end, if you eat at a restaurant and the server costs the owner 33% more than he/she did three years earlier, those monies are recovered from the customer. The bigger concern (which NO ONE is addressing) is the number of temporary or part time workers we have in this country.They are the ones who cannot make ends meet due to lack of hours, not wages. But I digress, I think they will do it, after all they have a majority in the Legislature. I cannot imagine the lobbyists of big corporations would care that much, especially big oil, as few of their employees make near minimum wage (perhaps gas jockeys but not many others, and I was a gas jockey a couple of times in my younger days so it is not an insult) The NDP wants everyone to live a comfortable life, just not TOO comfortable. I will tell you this much, the unions in Alberta are doing cartwheels.
^^^^^ Temporary and part-time work is an issue, certainly, but there are many places in BC where a full time job at minimum wage does not earn you nearly enough to live on. I've never lived in Alberta but assume that Calgary is an expensive place, although not as expensive as Vancouver.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
With all due respect oftenreading, I have heard this argument often and my response is twofold: 1) if it is too expensive to live somewhere, move. Human history is littered with people having to move to improve living conditions. North America was created because of this. I had to move to Fort McMurray for a decade, but I went from a minimum wage worker to a professional. Luck? Perhaps. But I had an opportunity and I took it. 2) Life choices. When I was scraping by, it was no one else's fault but mine. But I was LEARNING. Life is a lesson, some of us learn, others don't. If you have ended up a lifetime minimum wage worker, something tells me you have made a series of poor life decisions and have not LEARNED anything. Perhaps you have a few bad habits. Make some Changes.
These things are in your control. What isn't is companies using shady tactics like temporary or part time work forces to avoid paying benefits, etc. I believe in corporate conscience, but I am not for a free ride.
With all due respect oftenreading, I have heard this argument often and my response is twofold: 1) if it is too expensive to live somewhere, move. Human history is littered with people having to move to improve living conditions. North America was created because of this. I had to move to Fort McMurray for a decade, but I went from a minimum wage worker to a professional. Luck? Perhaps. But I had an opportunity and I took it. 2) Life choices. When I was scraping by, it was no one else's fault but mine. But I was LEARNING. Life is a lesson, some of us learn, others don't. If you have ended up a lifetime minimum wage worker, something tells me you have made a series of poor life decisions and have not LEARNED anything. Perhaps you have a few bad habits. Make some Changes.
These things are in your control. What isn't is companies using shady tactics like temporary or part time work forces to avoid paying benefits, etc. I believe in corporate conscience, but I am not for a free ride.
Some people are more mobile than others. Some don't even have the money, or connections, or ability to move elsewhere, because they are supporting others (parents, kids). I didn't specify "lifetime minimum wage earners"; even if you are working for a couple of years at minimum wage it should at least provide for the basic bare necessities.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
You have your opinion, I have mine. Looking for the government to solve all of your problems is lazy and a cop out. If providing for you and your family is the most important thing, then you do it. The amazing thing is when you choose this path, generally good things happen. There was a time when being a man meant something, and although the world has changed, a real man puts his family first. If there is a drought and farmers are suffering, the government helps. They are hard working people. If there is a flood and your area is in a state of emergency, the government helps. If you are caught in a rut and can't make enough money, get off your arse and make it happen yourself, don't rely on the government.
That's funny, I would think that working full time for a business is the opposite of relying on the government to solve your problems. It's not like the businesses don't get help from the government.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
*sigh* you want to keep arguing, so I'll placate you. I'll type slower... Working is not relying on government for a handout. Working a mindless unskilled profession and expecting the government to force employers to pay you like a skilled professional is. If you don't care that all those costs will end up on your lap, therefore decreasing your own standard of living, I guess it is a moot point. I will also end this discussion with you because I never appreciate anyone becoming subversive and attempting at the most to put words in my mouth or at the least attempt to misrepresent what I am writing to sway anyone else reading this thread. I have family in BC, I grew up in Princeton. I am keenly aware of the political leanings in Bring Cash. And don't worry, I will retire there so I do not have to pay for my prescription drugs, if I ever need them
*sigh* you want to keep arguing, so I'll placate you. I'll type slower... Working is not relying on government for a handout. Working a mindless unskilled profession and expecting the government to force employers to pay you like a skilled professional is. If you don't care that all those costs will end up on your lap, therefore decreasing your own standard of living, I guess it is a moot point. I will also end this discussion with you because I never appreciate anyone becoming subversive and attempting at the most to put words in my mouth or at the least attempt to misrepresent what I am writing to sway anyone else reading this thread. I have family in BC, I grew up in Princeton. I am keenly aware of the political leanings in Bring Cash. And don't worry, I will retire there so I do not have to pay for my prescription drugs, if I ever need them
Fact is, those jobs need to be done by someone 1thought. And those people need to be able to make a living wage. Plain and simple.
I will type this slow for you............no need for anyone to be rude or condescending in this thread. It undermines anything you have to say, and will not help you change anyone's mind.
*sigh* you want to keep arguing, so I'll placate you. I'll type slower... Working is not relying on government for a handout. Working a mindless unskilled profession and expecting the government to force employers to pay you like a skilled professional is. If you don't care that all those costs will end up on your lap, therefore decreasing your own standard of living, I guess it is a moot point. I will also end this discussion with you because I never appreciate anyone becoming subversive and attempting at the most to put words in my mouth or at the least attempt to misrepresent what I am writing to sway anyone else reading this thread. I have family in BC, I grew up in Princeton. I am keenly aware of the political leanings in Bring Cash. And don't worry, I will retire there so I do not have to pay for my prescription drugs, if I ever need them
No need to type slower on my account, 1Thought; I can read just fine. And I think the rest of us who participate in this thread can also read, and understand the points we are both making. You seem to have fairly low standards for subversion, if you think that's what I was doing.
$15/hour isn't a "skilled professional" rate, although if you know a plumber, electrician, or programmer who works at that rate please let me know as I'm sure I have some work for them. $15/hour is less than job-site labourers make in our area, so I'm certainly not advocating for unskilled work to be paid at the same rate as skilled. I'm just advocating for those who work at those jobs in a legitimate fashion full time to not still be living in poverty.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Rude or condescending is twisting what I am saying, so I clarified it.
I am not trying to "change anyone's mind". In fact the original conversation involved a question from pjwillneaverleave Now this is a public forum and you can say what you want, but do not twist responses or do what the media does and grab one line out of a quote and jump on it. It is low and it is subversive. You believe minimum wage should be higher, good. I simply answered a question posted by pjwillneverleave. Maybe you should comment on the question and have a well thought out point of view, as opposed to being reactionary and henpecking my responses. All of this is said, with the utmost respect of course.... Cheers
We have the 8th highest minimum wage in the world. Furthermore, Many countries, such as Sweden, Finland (both very socialist) Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy have no minimum wage laws, but rely on employer groups and trade unions to set minimum earnings through collective bargaining. Minimum wage rates vary greatly across many different jurisdictions, not only in setting a particular amount of money, for example US$7.25 per hour under certain states' laws (or $2.13 for employees who receive tips, known as the tipped minimum wage), $9.47 in the US state of Washington, and £6.50 (for those aged 21+) in the United Kingdom, but also in terms of which pay period (e.g. Russia and China set monthly minimums) or the scope of coverage. Some jurisdictions allow employers to count tips given to their workers as credit towards the minimum wage levels. India was one of the first developing countries to introduce minimum wage policy. It also has one of the most complicated systems with more than 1200 minimum wage rates.
There are arguments as to whether minimum wage laws actually help or hinder the people below the "poverty line"
According to the supply and demand model shown in many textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:
If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. …The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity.Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages.
According to the supply and demand model shown in many textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:
If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. …The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity.Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages.
Textbooks written by market hawks are one thing, reality is another. I have never seen evidence of an appreciable increase in unemployment directly following an increase in Federal Minimum Wage. If such an increase was demonstrable, wouldn't neocons be shouting it from the rooftops?
Arguments in favor of minimum wage laws Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
Removes financial stress and encourages education which results in better paying jobs. Positive impact on small business owners and industry. Results in job growth/creation. Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average. Increases incentives to take jobs, as opposed to other methods of transferring income to the poor that are not tied to employment (such as food subsidies for the poor or welfare payments for the unemployed) Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks. Hence increases circulation of money through the economy. Encourages efficiency and automation of industry. Removes low paying jobs, forcing workers to train for, and move to, higher paying jobs. Increases technological development. Costly technology that increases business efficiency is more appealing as the price of labor increases. Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees. Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid. Encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing money through illegal means, e.g., selling illegal drugs
Arguments against minimum wage laws Opponents of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
Minimum wage alone isn't effective at alleviating poverty, and in fact produces a net increase poverty due to disemployment effects. As a labor market analogue of political-economic protectionism, it excludes low cost competitors from labor markets and hampers firms in reducing wage costs during trade downturns. This generates various industrial-economic inefficiencies. Hurts small business more than large business. Reduces quantity demanded of workers, either through a reduction in the number of hours worked by individuals, or through a reduction in the number of jobs. May cause price inflation as businesses try to compensate by raising the prices of the goods being sold. Benefits some workers at the expense of the poorest and least productive. Can result in the exclusion of certain groups (ethnic, gender etc.) from the labor force. Small firms with limited payroll budgets cannot offer their most valuable employees fair and attractive wages above unskilled workers paid the artificially high minimum, and see a rising hurdle-cost of adding workers. Is less effective than other methods (e.g. the Earned Income Tax Credit) at reducing poverty, and is more damaging to businesses than those other methods. Discourages further education among the poor by enticing people to enter the job market. Discriminates against, through pricing out, less qualified workers (including newcomers to the labor market, e.g. young workers) by keeping them from accumulating work experience and qualifications, hence potentially graduating to higher wages later. Slows growth in the creation of low-skilled jobs Results in jobs moving to other areas or countries which allow lower-cost labor. Results in higher long-term unemployment. Results in higher prices for consumers, where products and services are produced by minimum-wage workers (though non-labor costs represent a greater proportion of costs to consumers in industries like fast food and discount retail
The province which lead the way in raising minimum wages and leans left of center politically has little to brag about. From 2013:
The overall poverty rate in BC remains the worst in Canada. While the poverty rate dropped from 10.5% in 2010 to 11.3% in 2011, BC holds its place at the bottom and remains one of only two provinces without a provincial poverty plan. BC child poverty rates rose in 2011 to 93,000 – an increase of 7,000 children – which makes BC now tied with Manitoba for the worst child poverty rate in the country. BC held this shameful title for almost 8 consecutive years until last year, when it rose to 2nd last. First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition noted today in a press release that when you delve deeper into family types the numbers get worse. For lone-parent mothers the poverty rate soared moving from 16.4% to 24.6%, representing 27,000 children. For two-parent families with children the numbers experiencing poverty grew as well by 10,000 to a total of 61,000 children. This is shocking for a one-year time period. While the BC government is reticent to implement a provincial poverty plan, they did attempt to work with seven cities across BC to establish local poverty strategies. No funding was given to the cities and regions were left to develop their own initiative based on local services. Since this announcement in April 2012, there has been no update from the BC government on the status of these ‘plans’ or poverty in these communities. Looking at the recent numbers, the patchwork anti-poverty programs and focus on jobs is not enough to address poverty.
When you read things like this "anti-poverty" in Canada, and then watch the news and see thousands of Tunisians stranded waiting to get to refugee camps, without a home, you begin to realize poverty in Canada is a first world problem. Instead of nitpicking everything I write, there are the facts, all from reliable sources. Of course there is plenty more information out there. I invite you to read some of it. I'm sure Notley's Crew has looked at this long and hard when they made it a campaign promise of an election they had no idea they were going to win
The province which lead the way in raising minimum wages and leans left of center politically has little to brag about. From 2013:
The overall poverty rate in BC remains the worst in Canada. While the poverty rate dropped from 10.5% in 2010 to 11.3% in 2011, BC holds its place at the bottom and remains one of only two provinces without a provincial poverty plan. BC child poverty rates rose in 2011 to 93,000 – an increase of 7,000 children – which makes BC now tied with Manitoba for the worst child poverty rate in the country. BC held this shameful title for almost 8 consecutive years until last year, when it rose to 2nd last. First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition noted today in a press release that when you delve deeper into family types the numbers get worse. For lone-parent mothers the poverty rate soared moving from 16.4% to 24.6%, representing 27,000 children. For two-parent families with children the numbers experiencing poverty grew as well by 10,000 to a total of 61,000 children. This is shocking for a one-year time period. While the BC government is reticent to implement a provincial poverty plan, they did attempt to work with seven cities across BC to establish local poverty strategies. No funding was given to the cities and regions were left to develop their own initiative based on local services. Since this announcement in April 2012, there has been no update from the BC government on the status of these ‘plans’ or poverty in these communities. Looking at the recent numbers, the patchwork anti-poverty programs and focus on jobs is not enough to address poverty.
When you read things like this "anti-poverty" in Canada, and the. Watch the news and see thousands of Tunisians stranded waiting to get to refugee camps, without a home, you begin to realize poverty in Canada is a first world problem.
The province which lead the way in raising minimum wages and leans left of center politically has little to brag about. From 2013:
The overall poverty rate in BC remains the worst in Canada. While the poverty rate dropped from 10.5% in 2010 to 11.3% in 2011, BC holds its place at the bottom and remains one of only two provinces without a provincial poverty plan. BC child poverty rates rose in 2011 to 93,000 – an increase of 7,000 children – which makes BC now tied with Manitoba for the worst child poverty rate in the country. BC held this shameful title for almost 8 consecutive years until last year, when it rose to 2nd last. First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition noted today in a press release that when you delve deeper into family types the numbers get worse. For lone-parent mothers the poverty rate soared moving from 16.4% to 24.6%, representing 27,000 children. For two-parent families with children the numbers experiencing poverty grew as well by 10,000 to a total of 61,000 children. This is shocking for a one-year time period. While the BC government is reticent to implement a provincial poverty plan, they did attempt to work with seven cities across BC to establish local poverty strategies. No funding was given to the cities and regions were left to develop their own initiative based on local services. Since this announcement in April 2012, there has been no update from the BC government on the status of these ‘plans’ or poverty in these communities. Looking at the recent numbers, the patchwork anti-poverty programs and focus on jobs is not enough to address poverty.
When you read things like this "anti-poverty" in Canada, and the. Watch the news and see thousands of Tunisians stranded waiting to get to refugee camps, without a home, you begin to realize poverty in Canada is a first world problem.
Well said!
Yep, well said. Befuddled with numbers or see the truth.
The province which lead the way in raising minimum wages and leans left of center politically has little to brag about. From 2013:
The overall poverty rate in BC remains the worst in Canada. While the poverty rate dropped from 10.5% in 2010 to 11.3% in 2011, BC holds its place at the bottom and remains one of only two provinces without a provincial poverty plan. BC child poverty rates rose in 2011 to 93,000 – an increase of 7,000 children – which makes BC now tied with Manitoba for the worst child poverty rate in the country. BC held this shameful title for almost 8 consecutive years until last year, when it rose to 2nd last. First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition noted today in a press release that when you delve deeper into family types the numbers get worse. For lone-parent mothers the poverty rate soared moving from 16.4% to 24.6%, representing 27,000 children. For two-parent families with children the numbers experiencing poverty grew as well by 10,000 to a total of 61,000 children. This is shocking for a one-year time period. While the BC government is reticent to implement a provincial poverty plan, they did attempt to work with seven cities across BC to establish local poverty strategies. No funding was given to the cities and regions were left to develop their own initiative based on local services. Since this announcement in April 2012, there has been no update from the BC government on the status of these ‘plans’ or poverty in these communities. Looking at the recent numbers, the patchwork anti-poverty programs and focus on jobs is not enough to address poverty.
When you read things like this "anti-poverty" in Canada, and the. Watch the news and see thousands of Tunisians stranded waiting to get to refugee camps, without a home, you begin to realize poverty in Canada is a first world problem.
Well said!
Yep, well said. Befuddled with numbers or see the truth.
What do you mean? That isn't a proper sentence and I don't catch the drift of it. Please elaborate.
They both like it, let's face it, they want the exposure. If they say just the right quote, the media jumps all over it and they are all over the news, pushing their agenda. However, it is more IMPORTANT federally, as you can gain a foothold in the national media and perhaps become a rising star, a la John Baird. He was really good in the scrum, the media wanted to talk to him. However, it can backfire, as the media is based on negativity, and "exposing" the government for its failures. While this is an important aspect of the media, the problem is the successes of government are rarely reported upon. So if you say the wrong thing in a media scrum, as Joe Oliver learned recently with his flippant comment about letting Harper's grandchildren worry about future debt, you end up plastered all over each media outlet, and the government takes the hit. You were right to say Harper is a micro manager because of the lack of political talent at his disposal.
Comments
Of course I didn't mean everyone voted for PC federally but enough to form a majority. - which is effectively running the country now even influencing non-pc provincial govts. - alta.
I know we vote for MPs, alberta is now one province where the outcome did not end in enough votes for pcs. This outcome still has no effect on the PC Federal govt we have now. Maybe a few issues sure but ultimately Alberta is still being influenced and driven by the Federal PCs.
edit - A majority of the population has voted on the PCs platforms for multiple terms now. Harper is the leader of the party so ultimately the majority of Canada has voted on what harper stands for.
Yet when politics is brought up around work, friends etc usually the conversation is against Harper. I haven't found many people that voted pc federally. Yet here Canada is run by a PC majority.
Proportional representation from the NDP sounds very similar to the Triple E Senate proposed by teh Reform Party in the 90s. Which is more akin to the US style of government, where checks and balances are more pronounced, however roadblocks in passing legislation can happen when you do not control both houses. The President in the US can veto bills, the PM cannot.
The US style of government causes plenty of back deals and shady lobbying between industry and the parties as the Senate and House jocky to get legislation passed. In Canada you would create the "Whip", just like in the US.
None of this sounds very left leaning, very un-NDP. This is my point, they are all similar in ideology really.
We spend all of our time worrying about what the government is doing and the banks run the world.
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
Nathan Rothschild
The citizens of Canada have to play the hand that's dealt in terms of deciding a political outcome. We have no choice. The majority seems to favour what at the core PCs bring to the game.
Not saying you are anti-harper. Just making a point that a lot of people don't come right out and say they support the PCs. Doesn't really matter the leader. It just happens to be Harper.
PC's are safe and in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Most Canadians are right there.
If the decision comes down t leadership, which it invariably does as you said, who are you going to trust?
Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper?
Trudeau is playing Robin Hood with his plans to tax the rich and give to the "poor" (if making under $90,000 is poor). He is "young and exciting" and "handsome". Comes from a political heritage.
Mulcair is not a bad guy, he just appears to be all over the place at times. He lacks charisma and tends to get into verbal attacks in the House. I think he likes to see himself on 6pm newscasts.
Harper is arrogant. He is too secretive and is a micro-manager. He is involved for sure.
All of these are strengths or faults depending on your view. In the end, nothing will change.
I like your character assessment of the current leaders.
Alta should question what's to come given that a Federal NDP leader does indeed seem to be all over the place at times. NDP seems to go with the idea of the day politicking. Federal and Provincial.
Liberals - well if anything at least they consistently stay on the fence.
Harper - arrogant, secretive, micro-manager, yes
Micro-managers don't trust their employees - given the field Harper is leading can you blame him?
In turn, he will take that money, and instead of better roads, schools, military, health care, etc; he is going to HAND OUT about $500 a MONTH to the average family of four.
So in essence, his math dictates that he taxes anyone making north of $200000 (a small percentage of the population) 4 percent more, and then GIVES the middle class $6000 a year!
How does this math work...
Liberals as an electorate are middle of the road, the institutional elite, media etc.
Now he is going after the middle class, and buying votes.
He is the one who scares me the most, he is a little too left for me in the finance department.
Sounds unsustainable.
I posted these questions a few posts back - "Do you think their campaign promise of raising the minimum wage in Alberta to $15 by 2018 will happen?
If so how will they accomplish that?
If not why"?
To address your last post though
Trudeau is befuddling all of us with numbers and stats (Something Bill Clinton was very good at doing). So we all just think "hey this is great I don't have to worry about my taxes going up because I am not in that bracket and I get $500/month extra"! He is on the fence hoping this gamble of buying votes will work. If it doesn't he has lost nothing.
NDP - has no plans and when they do have one they will revert to the old standby "We are compassionate and we will make this work".
At least with Harper he can come out and say "Here Canadians, here is a little extra a month without raising your taxes. It's not much but it's the best I can do for now"
Somehow that reasoning I can deal with. It is an honest decision made by increments all while being opposed.
Alta will not be NDP next time.
They can (and probably will) raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. This really only effect you and I, the consumer. Government employees all make at least that, so your tax dollars do not go up.
They may actually pay more taxes, so in a way, it is a way of getting corporations to pay more taxes without upping the corporate tax rates too much.
But in the end, if you eat at a restaurant and the server costs the owner 33% more than he/she did three years earlier, those monies are recovered from the customer.
The bigger concern (which NO ONE is addressing) is the number of temporary or part time workers we have in this country.They are the ones who cannot make ends meet due to lack of hours, not wages.
But I digress, I think they will do it, after all they have a majority in the Legislature. I cannot imagine the lobbyists of big corporations would care that much, especially big oil, as few of their employees make near minimum wage (perhaps gas jockeys but not many others, and I was a gas jockey a couple of times in my younger days so it is not an insult)
The NDP wants everyone to live a comfortable life, just not TOO comfortable. I will tell you this much, the unions in Alberta are doing cartwheels.
1) if it is too expensive to live somewhere, move. Human history is littered with people having to move to improve living conditions. North America was created because of this. I had to move to Fort McMurray for a decade, but I went from a minimum wage worker to a professional. Luck? Perhaps. But I had an opportunity and I took it.
2) Life choices. When I was scraping by, it was no one else's fault but mine. But I was LEARNING. Life is a lesson, some of us learn, others don't. If you have ended up a lifetime minimum wage worker, something tells me you have made a series of poor life decisions and have not LEARNED anything. Perhaps you have a few bad habits. Make some Changes.
These things are in your control. What isn't is companies using shady tactics like temporary or part time work forces to avoid paying benefits, etc. I believe in corporate conscience, but I am not for a free ride.
The amazing thing is when you choose this path, generally good things happen.
There was a time when being a man meant something, and although the world has changed, a real man puts his family first.
If there is a drought and farmers are suffering, the government helps. They are hard working people. If there is a flood and your area is in a state of emergency, the government helps.
If you are caught in a rut and can't make enough money, get off your arse and make it happen yourself, don't rely on the government.
I'll type slower... Working is not relying on government for a handout.
Working a mindless unskilled profession and expecting the government to force employers to pay you like a skilled professional is.
If you don't care that all those costs will end up on your lap, therefore decreasing your own standard of living, I guess it is a moot point.
I will also end this discussion with you because I never appreciate anyone becoming subversive and attempting at the most to put words in my mouth or at the least attempt to misrepresent what I am writing to sway anyone else reading this thread.
I have family in BC, I grew up in Princeton. I am keenly aware of the political leanings in Bring Cash. And don't worry, I will retire there so I do not have to pay for my prescription drugs, if I ever need them
I will type this slow for you............no need for anyone to be rude or condescending in this thread. It undermines anything you have to say, and will not help you change anyone's mind.
$15/hour isn't a "skilled professional" rate, although if you know a plumber, electrician, or programmer who works at that rate please let me know as I'm sure I have some work for them. $15/hour is less than job-site labourers make in our area, so I'm certainly not advocating for unskilled work to be paid at the same rate as skilled. I'm just advocating for those who work at those jobs in a legitimate fashion full time to not still be living in poverty.
I am not trying to "change anyone's mind". In fact the original conversation involved a question from pjwillneaverleave
Now this is a public forum and you can say what you want, but do not twist responses or do what the media does and grab one line out of a quote and jump on it. It is low and it is subversive.
You believe minimum wage should be higher, good. I simply answered a question posted by pjwillneverleave.
Maybe you should comment on the question and have a well thought out point of view, as opposed to being reactionary and henpecking my responses.
All of this is said, with the utmost respect of course.... Cheers
Minimum wage rates vary greatly across many different jurisdictions, not only in setting a particular amount of money, for example US$7.25 per hour under certain states' laws (or $2.13 for employees who receive tips, known as the tipped minimum wage), $9.47 in the US state of Washington, and £6.50 (for those aged 21+) in the United Kingdom, but also in terms of which pay period (e.g. Russia and China set monthly minimums) or the scope of coverage. Some jurisdictions allow employers to count tips given to their workers as credit towards the minimum wage levels. India was one of the first developing countries to introduce minimum wage policy. It also has one of the most complicated systems with more than 1200 minimum wage rates.
There are arguments as to whether minimum wage laws actually help or hinder the people below the "poverty line"
According to the supply and demand model shown in many textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:
If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. …The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity.Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages.
Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
Removes financial stress and encourages education which results in better paying jobs.
Positive impact on small business owners and industry.
Results in job growth/creation.
Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average.
Increases incentives to take jobs, as opposed to other methods of transferring income to the poor that are not tied to employment (such as food subsidies for the poor or welfare payments for the unemployed)
Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks. Hence increases circulation of money through the economy.
Encourages efficiency and automation of industry.
Removes low paying jobs, forcing workers to train for, and move to, higher paying jobs.
Increases technological development. Costly technology that increases business efficiency is more appealing as the price of labor increases.
Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees.
Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.
Encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing money through illegal means, e.g., selling illegal drugs
Opponents of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
Minimum wage alone isn't effective at alleviating poverty, and in fact produces a net increase poverty due to disemployment effects.
As a labor market analogue of political-economic protectionism, it excludes low cost competitors from labor markets and hampers firms in reducing wage costs during trade downturns. This generates various industrial-economic inefficiencies.
Hurts small business more than large business.
Reduces quantity demanded of workers, either through a reduction in the number of hours worked by individuals, or through a reduction in the number of jobs.
May cause price inflation as businesses try to compensate by raising the prices of the goods being sold.
Benefits some workers at the expense of the poorest and least productive.
Can result in the exclusion of certain groups (ethnic, gender etc.) from the labor force.
Small firms with limited payroll budgets cannot offer their most valuable employees fair and attractive wages above unskilled workers paid the artificially high minimum, and see a rising hurdle-cost of adding workers.
Is less effective than other methods (e.g. the Earned Income Tax Credit) at reducing poverty, and is more damaging to businesses than those other methods.
Discourages further education among the poor by enticing people to enter the job market.
Discriminates against, through pricing out, less qualified workers (including newcomers to the labor market, e.g. young workers) by keeping them from accumulating work experience and qualifications, hence potentially graduating to higher wages later.
Slows growth in the creation of low-skilled jobs
Results in jobs moving to other areas or countries which allow lower-cost labor.
Results in higher long-term unemployment.
Results in higher prices for consumers, where products and services are produced by minimum-wage workers (though non-labor costs represent a greater proportion of costs to consumers in industries like fast food and discount retail
The overall poverty rate in BC remains the worst in Canada. While the poverty rate dropped from 10.5% in 2010 to 11.3% in 2011, BC holds its place at the bottom and remains one of only two provinces without a provincial poverty plan.
BC child poverty rates rose in 2011 to 93,000 – an increase of 7,000 children – which makes BC now tied with Manitoba for the worst child poverty rate in the country. BC held this shameful title for almost 8 consecutive years until last year, when it rose to 2nd last.
First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition noted today in a press release that when you delve deeper into family types the numbers get worse. For lone-parent mothers the poverty rate soared moving from 16.4% to 24.6%, representing 27,000 children. For two-parent families with children the numbers experiencing poverty grew as well by 10,000 to a total of 61,000 children. This is shocking for a one-year time period.
While the BC government is reticent to implement a provincial poverty plan, they did attempt to work with seven cities across BC to establish local poverty strategies. No funding was given to the cities and regions were left to develop their own initiative based on local services. Since this announcement in April 2012, there has been no update from the BC government on the status of these ‘plans’ or poverty in these communities. Looking at the recent numbers, the patchwork anti-poverty programs and focus on jobs is not enough to address poverty.
When you read things like this "anti-poverty" in Canada, and then watch the news and see thousands of Tunisians stranded waiting to get to refugee camps, without a home, you begin to realize poverty in Canada is a first world problem.
Instead of nitpicking everything I write, there are the facts, all from reliable sources. Of course there is plenty more information out there. I invite you to read some of it.
I'm sure Notley's Crew has looked at this long and hard when they made it a campaign promise of an election they had no idea they were going to win
Befuddled with numbers or see the truth.
That isn't a proper sentence and I don't catch the drift of it. Please elaborate.
Which politicians like the media scrum better Federal or Provincial?
However, it can backfire, as the media is based on negativity, and "exposing" the government for its failures. While this is an important aspect of the media, the problem is the successes of government are rarely reported upon.
So if you say the wrong thing in a media scrum, as Joe Oliver learned recently with his flippant comment about letting Harper's grandchildren worry about future debt, you end up plastered all over each media outlet, and the government takes the hit.
You were right to say Harper is a micro manager because of the lack of political talent at his disposal.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-jumps-into-3-way-race-with-conservatives-liberals-1.3079391