Western Expresso

[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 —, 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 — 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.

[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 — 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.

[Urban recluse]

Something new brewing for local urbanists and friends

http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/20...iscussion-series.html?platform=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/201...sing-its-bulwark-against-warming-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 — 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 — up the natural cycle of the planet faster then ever before.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Cam

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.

A month of drastically warmer weather (5+ degrees warmer) amounts to a .5 degree increase for the year. It's climate change, so small shifts in a norm can quickly become drastic changes in weather.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

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 — up the natural cycle of the planet faster then ever before.

You make several points. The purpose of my post was not to deny that global warming is occurring, but to point out that that past winter and the spring so far have only been roughly in accordance with historical averages.

Even if there were no humans on the planet the climate would be warming as we are coming out of the Little Ice Age which ended around the middle of the 19th century. Human activity is accelerating the warming.

It is certain that the oceans are warming. Some suggest that the warming oceans will result in a slowing of the jet stream resulting in a slowing of "weather" so to speak. This will most likely result in more extreme weather. Global warming will not affect all locations equally. The highest latitudes will experience the greatest warming. Although our past winter was roughly seasonal in terms of average temperatures, it was unusually marked by, give or take, 2 week periods of weather that was either 10 degrees above seasonal or 10 degrees below. As I write, the temperature is about 12 or 13 degrees below the seasonal norm. If this was July it would be 14° today, extremely chilly.

As for the UK, more so than proximity to the ocean, it is the Gulf Stream that keeps the country much warmer than the latitude would suggest. London is at the same latitude as Gimli, Edinburgh is as far north as Thompson, yet both have temperate climates similar to Vancouver Island, though not nearly as wet. If the Gulf Stream weakens, it is expected that the climate of NW Europe will become significantly colder, especially in winter. In contrast, Halifax, which is, within a degree or so, nearly as far south as the French Riviera, has a climate not as influenced by the Gulf Stream and has much colder winters. A similar phenomenon occurs on Asia's east coast. Vladivostok is as far south as Nice but despite its coastal location has winters nearly as cold as Winnipeg, and colder than Minneapolis.

From a personal perspective, and with a memory going back quite a number of decades, the climate is certainly not warming here. The summers in particular seem colder than I remember. I'll look back on the records, but the extended heat waves (32° or above for 3+ days) do not seem to occur as regularly. The real hot days (35°+) also seem to occur less frequently.

[blueandgoldguy]

Those numbers you posted are incorrect. You also didn't post November temps which happened to be the warmest on average in the recorded history of Winnipeg.

Month Avg High Avg Low 16/17 Avg Low 16/17 Avg Low (Celsius)
November '16......-0.5.......-9.2............7.2.........................-1.1
December '16......-8.5.......-17.8.........-9.3.........................-17.4
January '17........-11.3......-21.4.........-9.2.........................-17.1
February '17.......-8.1.......-18.3.........-5.8.........................-14.2
March '17..........-0.8........-10.7.........-1.2.........................-9.3

So in the past 5 winter months, every single average low has surpassed the historical average low, and in some cases significantly so. 3 of the 5 winter months of 16/17 were above the historical average and I would consider all three to be significantly above this (2 degrees celsius or greater) while the 2 months which were below were not so significant (less than 1 degree celsius).

A few trends I have noticed over the past several years....

- We seem to be receiving more warm weather days in October and November. Related to this is the lack of snowfall in October. It seemed every year or every other year, there would be a significant amount of snowfall (over the course of a day or two) that would take place at least once in mid to late October. I think it has been 4 or 5 years since we have had any significant dump (5 - 10 am) or really any snow in October since 2012 or 13. That's very unusual. In fact, it seems like our first big dump of snow hasn't been happening until mid-November. This certainly was not the norm a decade ago.

-smaller and more frequent snowfalls in the 1 - 5 cm range. I seem to remember city officials commenting on this with regards to snow-clearing. Before it was commonplace for our snowfalls to be less frequent but larger amounts. This last winter would probably be an exception to this trend as the majority of our snow came after tow significant dumps in December.

- More cold days in May. Apparently our Mays have become noticeably colder (or more cold days say 5 degrees of more below average) than 30 years ago. Of note was that snowfall we had a couple years ago in late May. I don't ever recall a snowfall so late in the year.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Those numbers you posted are incorrect. You also didn't post November temps which happened to be the warmest on average in the recorded history of Winnipeg.

Month Avg High Avg Low 16/17 Avg Low 16/17 Avg Low (Celsius)
November '16......-0.5.......-9.2............7.2.........................-1.1
December '16......-8.5.......-17.8.........-9.3.........................-17.4
January '17........-11.3......-21.4.........-9.2.........................-17.1
February '17.......-8.1.......-18.3.........-5.8.........................-14.2
March '17..........-0.8........-10.7.........-1.2.........................-9.3

So in the past 5 winter months, every single average low has surpassed the historical average low, and in some cases significantly so. 3 of the 5 winter months of 16/17 were above the historical average and I would consider all three to be significantly above this (2 degrees celsius or greater) while the 2 months which were below were not so significant (less than 1 degree celsius).

A few trends I have noticed over the past several years....

- We seem to be receiving more warm weather days in October and November. Related to this is the lack of snowfall in October. It seemed every year or every other year, there would be a significant amount of snowfall (over the course of a day or two) that would take place at least once in mid to late October. I think it has been 4 or 5 years since we have had any significant dump (5 - 10 am) or really any snow in October since 2012 or 13. That's very unusual. In fact, it seems like our first big dump of snow hasn't been happening until mid-November. This certainly was not the norm a decade ago.

-smaller and more frequent snowfalls in the 1 - 5 cm range. I seem to remember city officials commenting on this with regards to snow-clearing. Before it was commonplace for our snowfalls to be less frequent but larger amounts. This last winter would probably be an exception to this trend as the majority of our snow came after tow significant dumps in December.

- More cold days in May. Apparently our Mays have become noticeably colder (or more cold days say 5 degrees of more below average) than 30 years ago. Of note was that snowfall we had a couple years ago in late May. I don't ever recall a snowfall so late in the year.

I used the average mean temps rather than average daily maximum and minimum. I did not post November 2016 temps as November is an autumn month and I was replying to a previous comment about winter and spring. I did acknowlege that January and February were above seasonal, but overall it was a relatively average winter, in terms of temperatures, but very much "up and down". Both January and February had extended thaws which followed bitterly cold starts to each respective month.

Snow in October in faily uncommon and when it happens it usually melts quite soon after. I am quite certain that there has been no snow on the ground for Hallowe'en trick-or treating since either '95 or '96. November has been terribly unpredictable in recent years. The last two have been milder than normal, while Nov 2014, esp. the last half, was bitterly cold, and Nov 2013 was also below seasonal. First lasting snow usually arrives during the second or third week of November, sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes later, and sometimes not until December. I remember the falls being longer (like last year) in the 1970s and earlier arrivals to winter in the 80s.

You are abslutely right about May becoming colder. Except for last year, every single May since 1998 has has had average daily maxima slightly to significantly below average. May 2016 was above average though and had a unique weather event. It reached 35.2° on the 5th, which was not only a record for that date but was the hottest day of 2016 and the earliest date on the calendar that it has ever reached 35°, May 8, 1874 being the previous earliest, or May 19, 1948 if you want to use only YWG statistics (previous records were maintained at St. John's College). Yes, that snowfall on Victoria Day a few years back was very unusual. I do remember snow once in June, I believe in 1978.

[1ajs]

eh anyone herd of this place has some neat modernist design going on hiden away along the sain just stumbled up on it in google maps
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8943685,-...fB5sbPW9wCiPJ_j6b5xcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Electric Ashlar]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-city-council-april-24-1.4083961

East Regina is getting a bigger Costco; west Regina's getting a new neighbourhood

Council to vote on new Coopertown neighbourhood, Costco relocation

CBC News Posted: Apr 25, 2017 6:05 AM CT| Last Updated: Apr 25, 2017 6:05 AM CT
Coun. Mike O'Donnell expressed concerns about the neighbourhood initially, saying it was akin to attaching a Moose Jaw-sized neighbourhood to Regina.

Mister O'donnell was one of my teachers.

As a relocator I relish the prospect of more bizznazz.

As a Historian,I insist that any new ground broken should have archeological 'Test Digs' before the plan is fully implemented...because who knows what history is being paved over by the bypass.


Humans in America '115,000 years earlier than thought'
April 26, 2017

Humans in America '115,000 years earlier than thought'
A concentration of fossil bone and rock. The unusual positions of the femur heads, one up and one down, broken in the same manner next to each other is unusual. Mastodon molars are located in the lower right hand corner next to a large rock comprised of andesite which is in contact with a broken vertebra. Upper left is a rib angled upwards resting on a granitic pegmatite rock fragment. Credit: San Diego Natural History Museum
High-tech dating of mastodon remains found in southern California has shattered the timeline of human migration to America, pushing the presence of hominins back to 130,000 years ago rather than just 15,000 years, researchers said Wednesday.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-humans-america-years-earlier-thought.html#jCp


Its location a mystery for centuries, huge Indian city may have been found in Kansas
BY ROY WENZL
[email protected]

ARKANSAS CITY
Make note of the name Etzanoa, a long-lost city. Donald Blakeslee says he’s found it.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article145026439.html#storylink=cpy

[pappcam]

Can you keep your pointless drivel out of this thread?

[one_brick_at_a_time]

I second that.