Western Expresso

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

lol what??? How can you say that his arguments lack substantial evidence. Look no further than the offshore holdings of the mega rich in Switzerland or the cayman islands to see what happens when you put the squeeze on those who drive the economy.

You are grossly over-simplifying a complicated situation. Tax havens will always exist no matter how "rich-friendly" your country is. The only thing we can do is make it harder or riskier for people to illegally offshore their cash. You might also want to consider that correlation does not equal causation.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

You wanna help people? Raise the minimum wage and cut the corporate tax rate.

I agree with your first point but not your second. Harper lowered Canada's corporate tax rates. How has that helped our country?

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I will kindly say I may get to reading all that, as it is a decent amount of information, later.

I cannot speak directly to your claim that "I'm sorry but anyone who needs to pay below-poverty wages or low and regressive taxes to stay in business do not deserve to be doing business in our country" because that too sounds like ideology, but on the other hand I place value in people as well. I do not believe in underpaying people, I believe in paying people what they deserve and providing incentive to grow one's capacity to contribute...

...but I also believe in earning your money, not expecting your money. This is a difficult factor to accurately assess these days... who is working and underpaid, who isn't working but is pretending they are, who will emerge from poverty if helped and who will stay there. I'm not judge, jury, and executioner on this subject at all, as I don't want to decide peoples' fates. However, I want to hear more about what the government can do for its people rather than what it needs from its people.

There are of course, experts who may not agree. I might do some digging.

My personal experience that I'm speaking from is literally talking to those who left, personally knowing those who left, and knowing those who couldn't be convinced to come here. Talking to landlords and developers who cannot attract headquartered national tenants in Winnipeg, so for me it's from the horse's mouth.

Maybe addressing inequality could spur economic activity, but in Winnipeg we have built up a wall to some of these ideas because we've seen money thrown at problems for decades, and haven't gotten far. We've seen our attempts at socialism fall flat on their face much like the NDP after 16 years of power. Additionally, we have a native population struggling with poverty, and many of these problems stem from historical trauma. That's a deeper issue than merely diverting money, which Manitoba has already done.

You can take that with a grain of salt if you wish but these are not wild assumptions, these are professional casualties to a welfare mindset, their tales as told to myself, and likely to others on this board.

The other consideration is as follows: If corporation A is deciding between Winnipeg and Vancouver, and all economic motivators being equal, they will choose Vancouver, because it's Vancouver and not Winnipeg. We need to offer MORE advantages and not less to be competitive.

I'll get around to reading those links and deciphering their findings, and might find some of my own as well in the future.

So when jobs are continued to be lost because of automation and globalization, what do we do? Still pay everyone "what they are worth"? That will be peanuts compared to a laborer in China or compared to the relatively much-more-productive robot that will replace their food service, retail, transport, financial analyst, or whatever job. There will simply not be enough opportunity available for these displaced workers to find similar paying jobs even if they tried or are trained. We have been down this road before with the steam engine, electricity, computers, etc., but its different this time. The unsustainable growth we have seen in the 20th century is going to slow down dramatically and the signs are obvious (i.e. growing consumer debt, real estate bubble in Canada, student loan bubble in the US, growing % of GDP in the financial industry, etc.). I politely ask you to consider how do we have a stable economy and society if all the capital stays with the owners of these global and highly-automated companies, while their share of society's wealth, grows?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I politely ask you to consider how do we have a stable economy and society if all the capital stays with the owners of these global and highly-automated companies, while their share of society's wealth, grows?

Get in the game, save and invest. Canadian banks are profitable and safe.

Canadian banks and public companies in Canada are mostly owned by Canadians. Either through stock, mutual funds or pension funds.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Get in the game, save and invest. Canadian banks are profitable and safe.

Canadian banks and public companies in Canada are mostly owned by Canadians. Either through stock, mutual funds or pension funds.

Lol, get in the game? This isn't about me. I am not worried about myself... I am worried about my country. Banks are only profitable and safe if they can keep handing out debt like they are. How will all this debt be repaid if people's job are replaced and they are unable to find similar-paying work? You appear to have glossed over much of what I have been posting on this topic.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I agree with your first point but not your second. Harper lowered Canada's corporate tax rates. How has that helped our country?

Actually that part went quite well.

Originally Posted by djforsberg

So when jobs are continued to be lost because of automation and globalization, what do we do? Still pay everyone "what they are worth"? That will be peanuts compared to a laborer in China or compared to the relatively much-more-productive robot that will replace their food service, retail, transport, financial analyst, or whatever job. There will simply not be enough opportunity available for these displaced workers to find similar paying jobs even if they tried or are trained. We have been down this road before with the steam engine, electricity, computers, etc., but its different this time. The unsustainable growth we have seen in the 20th century is going to slow down dramatically and the signs are obvious (i.e. growing consumer debt, real estate bubble in Canada, student loan bubble in the US, growing % of GDP in the financial industry, etc.). I politely ask you to consider how do we have a stable economy and society if all the capital stays with the owners of these global and highly-automated companies, while their share of society's wealth, grows?

You're taking a broad and simple statement and adding a complex topic that wasn't the slightest bit involved in our discussion

We've been down this road before, so we should know how to deal with this even better. What I do not appreciate at all is when individuals do not prepare, spend themselves into debt, and then turn to the government and their friendly neighbourhood taxpayer.

I believe in the free market but still have my tendencies for a little bit of protectionism when it comes to the economic protection of the citizen. It doesn't fit perfectly cleanly into any political leaning, hence why it is my own and not necessarily the stance of any party or politician that I may support.

I think the we should not pay people peanuts, but holy shit, if we're heading towards automation... what are people doing to prepare? We have a high minimum wage so wages won't dip below that (so I dunno why you bring up peanuts).

Do we prepare for the new problem or do we make others who ARE prepared pay for it?

Are we proactive? How many smart phones and xboxes do these future victims of automation have? When struck with the plausibility of losing employment, do they seek further training or do they wait for a government cheque?

These can be sink or swim moments. And I do believe we need to help people, but not through merely redistribution, but by enabling people to adapt to a changing workplace. We need people to SWIM to buy us time as we do that. If we just toss money at the problem, we end up like Manitoba after 16 years of NDP. I'm happy to be a part of a society of that helps swimmers.

Ultimately, your last sentence sums up our disagreement... "while their share of society's wealth grows..."

Dude, that's THEIR wealth. The businessman in me applauds their new discoveries enabling higher production/profit. The man in me worries for the workforce, no doubt.

When I'm talking about financial difference makers, whether in this post or previous, I'm not talking about the 0.0001%! I'm talking about everyone above the annual $200,000 mark that just got taxed by Trudeau. Hell, I'm talking about anyone who works hard, and is looking for ways to either work harder or provide solutions for the market that push them into a higher tax bracket (that welcome gift of a higher tax rate waiting).

People keep saying "the rich get richer"... no shit they do, they're GOOD at what they do, and those who are good at what they do, who find more ways to produce, who find solutions in times of problems (like you mentioned with automization), those people will ALWAYS get richer. Those who work and those who innovate get rewarded.

Find a country where the rich don't get richer and I'll tell anyone to leave that country! The experts at making money can't make money there!


In order to swim, you have to make yourself irreplaceable. That requires some ingenuity and some elbow grease. Perhaps we've become to entitled to our own economic progress, and are too shocked *gasp* that we need to adapt! The individual needs to step up for themselves. Society cannot help someone who doesn't help themselves because that help is temporary.

We keep talking about society's problems without addressing our own. My job, for one, is unaffected by automation... yes, I'm preaching from an ivory tower... and I want out society to be helpful, but that goes beyond redistributing wealth, taking/giving, and it goes beyond punishing corporations for finding creative solutions to grow. But the workforce should train themselves to be lightfooted... if a high tide comes in an swallows up those unwilling to move, you can't just tax your way out of that.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Actually that part went quite well.

Examples, please.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Actually that part went quite well.


You're taking a broad and simple statement and adding a complex topic that wasn't the slightest bit involved in our discussion

We've been down this road before, so we should know how to deal with this even better. What I do not appreciate at all is when individuals do not prepare, spend themselves into debt, and then turn to the government and their friendly neighbourhood taxpayer.

I believe in the free market but still have my tendencies for a little bit of protectionism when it comes to the economic protection of the citizen. It doesn't fit perfectly cleanly into any political leaning, hence why it is my own and not necessarily the stance of any party or politician that I may support.

I think the we should not pay people peanuts, but holy shit, if we're heading towards automation... what are people doing to prepare? We have a high minimum wage so wages won't dip below that (so I dunno why you bring up peanuts).

Do we prepare for the new problem or do we make others who ARE prepared pay for it?

Are we proactive? How many smart phones and xboxes do these future victims of automation have? When struck with the plausibility of losing employment, do they seek further training or do they wait for a government cheque?

These can be sink or swim moments. And I do believe we need to help people, but not through merely redistribution, but by enabling people to adapt to a changing workplace. We need people to SWIM to buy us time as we do that. If we just toss money at the problem, we end up like Manitoba after 16 years of NDP. I'm happy to be a part of a society of that helps swimmers.

Ultimately, your last sentence sums up our disagreement... "while their share of society's wealth grows..."

Dude, that's THEIR wealth. The businessman in me applauds their new discoveries enabling higher production/profit. The man in me worries for the workforce, no doubt.

When I'm talking about financial difference makers, whether in this post or previous, I'm not talking about the 0.0001%! I'm talking about everyone above the annual $200,000 mark that just got taxed by Trudeau. Hell, I'm talking about anyone who works hard, and is looking for ways to either work harder or provide solutions for the market that push them into a higher tax bracket (that welcome gift of a higher tax rate waiting).

People keep saying "the rich get richer"... no shit they do, they're GOOD at what they do, and those who are good at what they do, who find more ways to produce, who find solutions in times of problems (like you mentioned with automization), those people will ALWAYS get richer. Those who work and those who innovate get rewarded.

Find a country where the rich don't get richer and I'll tell anyone to leave that country! The experts at making money can't make money there!


In order to swim, you have to make yourself irreplaceable. That requires some ingenuity and some elbow grease. Perhaps we've become to entitled to our own economic progress, and are too shocked *gasp* that we need to adapt! The individual needs to step up for themselves. Society cannot help someone who doesn't help themselves because that help is temporary.

We keep talking about society's problems without addressing our own. My job, for one, is unaffected by automation... yes, I'm preaching from an ivory tower... and I want out society to be helpful, but that goes beyond redistributing wealth, taking/giving, and it goes beyond punishing corporations for finding creative solutions to grow. But the workforce should train themselves to be lightfooted... if a high tide comes in an swallows up those unwilling to move, you can't just tax your way out of that.

You are completely missing my point. Its OK though, as I've learned how to deal with people like yourself who, after being provided facts and research, fail to look past politics and ideology to at least try to understand the gravity of the pending problem we have (i.e. its so not about laziness/entitlement, and everyone being replaced cannot just figure shit out as there won't be as much opportunity there waiting for them)... and that's to walk away. Before I do though, I will add a few things: Seriously, consider the lack of high-paying jobs there already is. Its laughable to think everyone working low-skill jobs now can just "buck up" and prepare themselves for the coming tides. If everyone were to get an engineering degree, for instance, jobs won't all of a sudden just appear out of thin air. I should also mention that it is laughable to think that the current minimum wage is "high". Do you even live in a big city? Do you know how much it costs to live today? I challenge you to stop thinking on a micro level, assuming this is about giving people handouts, and start thinking on a macro level and consider how we can function as a society as a whole with high economic inequality.

[djforsberg]

Its pretty sad that as soon as wealth redistribution gets brought up, there are cries of socialism, entitlement and laziness, yet wealth redistribution is what helped get us out of the Great Depression and WWII, leading to a robust middle class which is now being torn apart and shrunk by greedy and ideological baby boomers who tell the future generations to suck it up and get out there "like they did". I'd like to see how the baby boomers would have fared in their time with real estate and education costs, and stagnant wages that we see today.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Its pretty sad that as soon as wealth redistribution gets brought up, there are cries of socialism, entitlement and laziness, yet wealth redistribution is what helped get us out of the Great Depression and WWII, leading to a robust middle class which is now being torn apart and shrunk by greedy and ideological baby boomers who tell the future generations to suck it up and get out there "like they did". I'd like to see how the baby boomers would have fared in their time with real estate and education costs, and stagnant wages that we see today.

I think your views are well-informed and timely. The labour market is becoming an encreasingly insufficient mechanism for wealth distribution, for a whole bunch of reasons. Over the long run countries will come to rely on income policies to supplement the labour market and to preserve some semblance of social harmony. This will not be a commie conspiracy, but a reasoned response to technological factors that are reshaping the world.

I have to bite on the "self made man -- Horatio Alger" arguments that pop up in these discussions. This line of reasoning has been buttressed in recent years by evangelicals preaching the "prosperity gospel". Not doing well? Try harder...or pray! There are many people who have made their own success, but there are many more who have inherited wealth. In addition, the playing field for success is anything but level. Children with access to private tutors, schools, early stage investors when they are older have huge advantages. Born on third base but think they hit a triple. A lot of studies have shown that the best predictors of educational attainment are family income and parental education levels. These are complex issues. We have to see the world as it is, not the way we think it should be.
Anyways I just wanted to say your comments were a breath of fresh air from my perspective.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I think your views are well-informed and timely. The labour market is becoming an encreasingly insufficient mechanism for wealth distribution, for a whole bunch of reasons. Over the long run countries will come to rely on income policies to supplement the labour market and to preserve some semblance of social harmony. This will not be a commie conspiracy, but a reasoned response to technological factors that are reshaping the world.

I have to bite on the "self made man -- Horatio Alger" arguments that pop up in these discussions. This line of reasoning has been buttressed in recent years by evangelicals preaching the "prosperity gospel". Not doing well? Try harder...or pray! There are many people who have made their own success, but there are many more who have inherited wealth. In addition, the playing field for success is anything but level. Children with access to private tutors, schools, early stage investors when they are older have huge advantages. Born on third base but think they hit a triple. A lot of studies have shown that the best predictors of educational attainment are family income and parental education levels. These are complex issues. We have to see the world as it is, not the way we think it should be.
Anyways I just wanted to say your comments were a breath of fresh air from my perspective.

Thank you for the kind words. It should come to no surprise that I totally agree with you.

[Urban recluse]

Something new brewing for local urbanists and friends

http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipe...form=hootsuite

[Cam]

Originally Posted by Spocket

When I was younger, sure, I'd have been happy. Now it worries me because it's a clear sign of climate change. Makes me wonder how hot things will get.

Winters today aren't as cold as when I was a kid.

It isn't. Humans aren't capable of noticing the difference of less the a half a degree on average. I point this out, not to undermine your point, but whenever people do this it legitimizes the people who go "it's been a cold winter, so much for climate change, ha ha." I think this is worth opposing.

[bomberjet]

Us puny humans are looking at things on such a small scale. We look back at 100 years of weather data. Okay. The Earth is billions of years old apparently. Sea levels rise and fall regularly over that period of time. So do global temps. We had an ice age 12,000 years ago, then a mini ice age and temps are still rising today.

Is it due to humans, no. Are humans maybe contributing to increasing the rate of warming, maybe. We don't actually know.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

We look back at 100 years of weather data.

Hundreds of years with direct measurements. Tens of thousands of years with ice cores. Millions of years with geologic data. That's how we know about ice ages to begin with.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Are humans maybe contributing to increasing the rate of warming, maybe. We don't actually know.

Actually, we do. It's only a matter of how much. We KNOW that there's a massive spike in greenhouse gasses in recent decades. We KNOW that we've caused it. We KNOW that it causes global temperatures to rise.

Yes, there are natural changes in climate that account for some of it. But the overwhelming consensus is that it doesn't account for nearly as much as we're seeing.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

It's definitely getting warmer, especially in the Arctic
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...arming-summers

[bomberjet]

Let me clarify. I am not disputing that humans are contributing to climate change. Its to what level. The ice cores, all that, I understand it and its science. But there are so many natural processes that we do not understand, we have no clue. We only have small snapshots of what's going on.

Sure the ice cores from millions of years ago show lower levels of CO2 than we have today. That's fine. What does it actually mean though? Its simply a measurement.

Sure greenhouse gases are higher now. But is that what's actually causing all these changes? Or is it simply one factor amongst many that are causing it? If we were to cease all human activity now, what would it mean? Lower levels of gases but that's about it. Doesn't mean climate change would cease and the polar bears will be saved.

Anyways, we could go on about this forever. I'm not moron Trump who thinks it's phony. We just need to remember that because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. All of us included.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Maybe I'm the only one who's very grateful and excited for this extremely mild winter and early spring... To each their own.

It was neither a mild winter nor an early spring.

Mean temps this past winter and averages:

Dec 2016 -13°/-13°
Jan 2017 -13°/-16°
Feb 2017 -10°/-13°
Mar 2017 -5°/-6°

Apr 2017 (through the 20th) 5°, the average mean for April is 4°, as the rest of the month is forecast to be very (seasonally) cold, April will likely end at or below average.

Last day of any snow cover at YWG was April 2nd, normal to slightly late. It was really a very average Winnipeg winter, just slightly above normal for Jan. and Feb. and a typical (so far) spring.

Then again, a lot of people here say it's 40 below for 8 months of the year so in that respect I guess it was mild.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Cam

It isn't. Humans aren't capable of noticing the difference of less the a half a degree on average. I point this out, not to undermine your point, but whenever people do this it legitimizes the people who go "it's been a cold winter, so much for climate change, ha ha." I think this is worth opposing.

That's the average difference. That doesn't mean it's only half a degree in every single place on earth.

[Cam]

Originally Posted by Spocket

That's the average difference. That doesn't mean it's only half a degree in every single place on earth.

True, but for every place in which it is noticeable (if there are any) then that has to be counteracted somewhere else (to maintain the average). People in these places can thus observe the exact opposite and use that to confirm their biases. It's best to not legitimize this type of thinking and just stick to the science.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

It was neither a mild winter nor an early spring.

Mean temps this past winter and averages:

Dec 2016 -13°/-13°
Jan 2017 -13°/-16°
Feb 2017 -10°/-13°
Mar 2017 -5°/-6°

Apr 2017 (through the 20th) 5°, the average mean for April is 4°, as the rest of the month is forecast to be very (seasonally) cold, April will likely end at or below average.

Last day of any snow cover at YWG was April 2nd, normal to slightly late. It was really a very average Winnipeg winter, just slightly above normal for Jan. and Feb. and a typical (so far) spring.

Then again, a lot of people here say it's 40 below for 8 months of the year so in that respect I guess it was mild.

You do understand how global warming works right ?

It doesn't mean it will be warmer here. It may just get a lot colder in fact. It's not the co2 up there that's just warming the entire planet. It's the oceans that are warming. When that happens the ocean currents change and don't bring that nice tropical air that warms the planet up in the norther hemisphere.

Think England. It should be a bitter cold place like us in winter. It isn't. Thanks to those ocean currents.

If the water changes its temp enough those warm currents will shift. And that can mean disaster for places like England. As they will start to get a cold climate like here. Same as Vancouver. These are all places artificially warmed by ocean currents.

The ocean is like a big dark blue heat absorbing blanket. The more it absorbs. The worse it will be. Hence the polar ice caps melting isn't just about sea rise lvl. The more dark blue ocean we expose the worse for the climate.
Amd the polar ice caps are shrinking.

It's also documented through those ice cores that this has happened before. Due to volcanic eruptions . But one worrying thing that can happen is the ocean currents shut down completely. When that happens and it has before. Then we are thrown into An ice age.

So no matter what happens. We are fucking up the natural cycle of the planet faster then ever before.