Not sure why people are having such a hard time with this. Usually if sometime doesn't work on the second try it's not going to work, unless an alteration is made.
Ontario gets it right with move to higher minimum wage
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
That's why we're testing out a basic minimum income.
It's going to be difficult to get a dumb job in the future so we'll need to invest in higher education as well.
You figure able bodied people should be entitled to a guaranteed income w/o working? The debt is already unmanageable! ... Idiots!!
It all depends on what your meaning of "something" is.
Covers everything you try that doesn't work!
For jebus on crack sakes.
You liebarrels want to run sh!t and your brains are on mars.
Even crackheads know you can't run a deficit forever.
( after you buy the votes then everyone starves in the street, like haitins after Hitlary took all the money.)
...and if they don't, their first session of midnight dental rearrangement teaches them quick enough.
But Liebarrels? nope, they just won't learn.
You liebarrels want to run sh!t and your brains are on mars.
Even crackheads know you can't run a deficit forever.
( after you buy the votes then everyone starves in the street, like haitins after Hitlary took all the money.)
...and if they don't, their first session of midnight dental rearrangement teaches them quick enough.
But Liebarrels? nope, they just won't learn.
Strange that the right wingers in the US and Canada never figured that out. Maybe you should email them.
I actually am open to the idea of a basic minimum income in principle, and I'll explain that in a moment. I also support increased funding for universal compulsory education and trades and professional training for the unemployed.
Though a basic minimum income could mean higher taxes, at least people can negotiate their salary expectations down if necessary to get a foot into the job market. Education can also allow a person to negotiate a higher wage due his ability to generate more profit.
A minimum wage still just hurts the very people it sets out to help.
Now, if we look at history, we find that anti-immigrant sentiment grows alongside the welfare state. To protect from that, I could see the establishment of free economic zones like Svalbard. In Svalbard, taxes are low but there exists no social assistance. If you're a Norwegian, you're shipped off to the mainland to apply for social assistance. If not, you're sent back to your home country.
Consequently, everyone in Svalbard is self sufficient and so Norway can welcome people to Svalbard with open arms, but not to the Norwegian mainland.
Along the same lines, I could see doing something similar for Canada's port cities including the island of Montreal. In others, people who choose to live in these free economic zones would pay lower taxes, could trade tariff-free, and work, study, and do business there without a visa but no one living there could enjoy social assistance. In other words, if you want to live there, you support yourself or move out.
If an entire island is too big in your opinion, then land within one kilometre of a waterway.
This would eliminate anti-immigration sentiment towards those who live in a free economic zone since they would pose no financial risk to the taxpayer.
Wouldn't that be more a Socialist trait than a Conservative trait?
Until the Creditors decide enough is enough and either call the money in or raise the interest rates!
Reagan ran up the first major deficit and he was followed by the two Bushes who added to it. It actually went down slightly under Clinton and Obama and is on the rise once again under Trump.
Ditto for Canada. Trudeau greatly increased the debt, but Mulroney tripled it. It went down under Chretien and up again under Harper.
The problem with conservatives is that the debt doesn't really bother them despite their claims to the contrary, as they can use it as an excuse to cut back all sorts of social services.
That might have more to do with the economic situation at the time than who was actually the leader.
BC was in the same boat after we finally ousted the dippers in 2001. The bank account was empty with financial obligations that fr outstripped revenue. It took billions to pay that off and get the province on a sound financial footing again. Now a bunch of losers that don't care about future generations have managed to squeak a new dipper in and he is already well on the way to ruining our delicate economy in less than a month. Just like trudOWE did federally.
When did BC pay anything off? The provincial debt has grown steadily every year since 2007.
Couldn't have said it better myself! BUT BUT BUT he's going to eliminate poverty, and restore mental health and eliminate addiction issues.
(not to mention paying two bureaucraps handsomely to accomplish this)
Would you quit making things up please?
Obama pretty much created more debt then all the previous president combined!
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly $10,699,805,000,000.
As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at $19,573,445,000,000."
National debt, deficit added under President Barack Obama - Business Insider
Our unpayable debt basically STARTED with U.N.Trudeau Sr.
"Justin Trudeau following his dad's bad fiscal planning
A new study by the Fraser Institute suggests Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking the nation’s finances down the same black hole of never-ending deficits and debt that his late father did when he was prime minister in the 1970s and early 1980s...
...Di Matteo says that aside from global wars and economic downturns, “the only other time the federal government kicked off a deficit spending spree and expanded the size and role of the federal government, was in the mid-1960s and 1970s under (Liberal prime ministers) Lester Pearson and then Pierre Trudeau.”
That is, Di Matteo warns, until the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in 2015.
He notes that Pierre Trudeau never once delivered a balanced budget during his 14 years as prime minister from 1969 to 1984 (interrupted only briefly by the nine-month Joe Clark Progressive Conservative government of 1979 to 1980), leaving behind a massive, for the time, $37.2 billion annual deficit in his final year in office."
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/07/justin-trudeau-following-his-dads-bad-fiscal-planning
Last edited:
I'm sure as Hell aren't excusing Trudeau Sr. or Mulroney, but you do have to be careful when making comparisons based on figures. Comparing "bottom lines" is especially dangerous unless you take into account every component used to arrive at the "bottom line".
Sure. Would you please learn to read graphs and check your facts before posting nonsense?
US National Debt history.
Lucky Sperm billionaire CEO unhappy that he has to pay his workers $3 more an hour
The CEO of Canada’s largest grocery and drugstore chain has warned his shareholders that minimum wage hikes across Ontario and Alberta will cost his company an additional $190 million in expenses next year.
Ontario is set to raise minimum wage from $11.60 an hour to $14 by January 1, 2018, and then to $15 an hour the following year. Alberta’s minimum wage will be $15 an hour by 2018 — it is currently $12.20 an hour.
Just for context: at a wage of $15 an hour, on a regular 40-hour work week, an Ontario-based Loblaws employee will take home a grand total of $31,200 in before-tax income. After taxes and other deductions like EI and CPP (assuming the employee is permanent), the employee’s annual net salary will amount to just $25,877.
That is indeed, a far, far cry from Galen G. Weston’s personal compensation, which was estimated to be over $5 million in 2016 alone. In Mr. Weston’s world of course, $5 million is a mere drop in the bucket — the net worth of the Weston family overall, who control more than 200 food and clothing companies across Canada, the U.K. and Ireland (think Selfridges, Holt Renfrew) was at a healthy $10 billion as of 2016, according to Forbes Magazine.
Loblaws, to its credit, is one of Canada’s largest private sector employers, employing more than 192,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the country, according to details in its 2016 annual report. There is no denying that with a labour force that large, a minimum wage hike in Ontario and Alberta will pose a significant financial threat to the company’s bottom line.
But the company has been on a spectacular growth trajectory of late — this quarter it reported a profit of $358 million, $200 million more than a year ago. In 2016, Loblaws net earnings were $990 million; a year prior they were only $589 million. It’s worth adding that the grocery business is not an easy one. Margins are generally very thin, and profits don’t tend to ever run into billion-dollar territory.
For shareholders at least, Loblaws short-term game is one worth being part of. But in the long-run, Weston’s disdain of minimum wage hikes might be slightly misguided. The more money people earn, the higher their purchasing power.
For companies like Loblaws, boosting local consumer demand is paramount to its continued profitability. Sure, $190 million a year in additional costs is a financial drag, but think about how much more the company could make in the long run if a significant chunk of Canada earns a healthy living wage.
https://news.vice.com/story/loblaws-billionaire-ceo-unhappy-that-he-has-to-pay-his-workers-3-more-an-hour
The CEO of Canada’s largest grocery and drugstore chain has warned his shareholders that minimum wage hikes across Ontario and Alberta will cost his company an additional $190 million in expenses next year.
Ontario is set to raise minimum wage from $11.60 an hour to $14 by January 1, 2018, and then to $15 an hour the following year. Alberta’s minimum wage will be $15 an hour by 2018 — it is currently $12.20 an hour.
Just for context: at a wage of $15 an hour, on a regular 40-hour work week, an Ontario-based Loblaws employee will take home a grand total of $31,200 in before-tax income. After taxes and other deductions like EI and CPP (assuming the employee is permanent), the employee’s annual net salary will amount to just $25,877.
That is indeed, a far, far cry from Galen G. Weston’s personal compensation, which was estimated to be over $5 million in 2016 alone. In Mr. Weston’s world of course, $5 million is a mere drop in the bucket — the net worth of the Weston family overall, who control more than 200 food and clothing companies across Canada, the U.K. and Ireland (think Selfridges, Holt Renfrew) was at a healthy $10 billion as of 2016, according to Forbes Magazine.
Loblaws, to its credit, is one of Canada’s largest private sector employers, employing more than 192,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the country, according to details in its 2016 annual report. There is no denying that with a labour force that large, a minimum wage hike in Ontario and Alberta will pose a significant financial threat to the company’s bottom line.
But the company has been on a spectacular growth trajectory of late — this quarter it reported a profit of $358 million, $200 million more than a year ago. In 2016, Loblaws net earnings were $990 million; a year prior they were only $589 million. It’s worth adding that the grocery business is not an easy one. Margins are generally very thin, and profits don’t tend to ever run into billion-dollar territory.
For shareholders at least, Loblaws short-term game is one worth being part of. But in the long-run, Weston’s disdain of minimum wage hikes might be slightly misguided. The more money people earn, the higher their purchasing power.
For companies like Loblaws, boosting local consumer demand is paramount to its continued profitability. Sure, $190 million a year in additional costs is a financial drag, but think about how much more the company could make in the long run if a significant chunk of Canada earns a healthy living wage.
https://news.vice.com/story/loblaws-billionaire-ceo-unhappy-that-he-has-to-pay-his-workers-3-more-an-hour
Well if you were earning $15/hr you could afford it..
Why a $15 minimum wage is good for business
'Boosting the economy from the bottom up': Why minimum wage hikes are a good thing
The Conservative/Republican trickle down method of giving tax breaks to the rich, and helping the wealthy just isn't working.
There is now a bigger divide between the have and have nots.. or the 1%'ers and the other 99%.
Government's need to starting boosting the economy from the bottom up, because 1% of the population just isn't spending the cash as fast as the other 99% are able too..
Trump talks about making America Great Again, well when America was "Great" the CEO made a fraction of what they make today (back in the 50's), and the working stiff made a whole lot more where only one member of the household could support a family. Now-a-days it generally takes 2 to support a family.
Donald Trump reveals when he thinks America was great
Last edited: