National Economy

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Wigs

For real. We might have a 6 day/60-72hr work week if not for the progress that Unions made over the decades.

Count me among those who aren't very impressed with unions these days, but one still has to give credit where credit is due.

I'm actually a bit worried by how discredited they've become, as it leaves a huge void for credible workers' rights advocacy with apparently no one to fill it.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Count me among those who aren't very impressed with unions these days, but one still has to give credit where credit is due.

I'm actually a bit worried by how discredited they've become, as it leaves a huge void for credible workers' rights advocacy with apparently no one to fill it.

The tide might turn again. I didn't have "leader of union speaks to cheers at Republic National Convention" on my bingo card, but here we are.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Count me among those who aren't very impressed with unions these days, but one still has to give credit where credit is due.

I'm actually a bit worried by how discredited they've become, as it leaves a huge void for credible workers' rights advocacy with apparently no one to fill it.

Yes, and a lot of it comes from how public sector unions (especially for non-essential bureaucrats) have become too powerful and unwieldy, and sucks up too much oxygen in the organized labour space. Given how well compensated public civil servants are, it's a mystery why they need such powerful unions. It only makes sense for essential public sector workers like healthcare professionals to have unions.

Legislatively, private sector unions should be afforded more protections and rights, whereas public sector unions should be weakened to re-balance.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The tide might turn again. I didn't have "leader of union speaks to cheers at Republic National Convention" on my bingo card, but here we are.

The rank-and-file has been moving towards more conservative parties for a while (GOP in the US, CPC in Canada, RN in France) so I guess it's only a question of time before the leadership starts to do the same.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think you have inadvertently summed up the peril of not focusing on intensification and generally focusing society on building up our cities. From a previous comment it sounds like 10 years ago you had a change of perspective of urban matters and, from the length of your commute, it's not a stretch to think that you have moved to a generally less urban and/or central area. Your commute is long, mentally taxing, and it burns you out after a couple of weeks. Fortunately, as the business owner you have the flexibility to take mental health days and work from home to recharge. Meanwhile, you take the perspective that people who live in more central areas are close enough to work to warrant mandatory in-office work (though a 20-minute trip anywhere in a city these days is a pipedream for most).

Here's the thing, the inevitable result of letting the market decide everything related to planning and development is widespread dispersion of employment and atomization of housing. Your long commute would become the norm for many and there's just no way to effectively serve that model with transit, relegating most trips for most people to the private automobile. We definitely cannot build enough highways and network capacity to accommodate a widespread shift away from urban patterns of development to dispersed low-density forms of development.

You undoubtedly have good reason to do a 150km round-trip commute 90% of the time, all while pulling long hours. I do too, with nearly the same distance (~70km each way) and frequently one-of-the-first-in, one-of-the-last-out work habits. But I do my trip on the GO Train and, while long, I couldn't be further away from miserable and burning out every couple of weeks. If I had to drive that every day, I simply would take a job that requires it. Density and the transit that makes feasible is the answer and the market wouldn't provide that if left unfettered to its own devices.

I got burned out when I was working from home too - it has more to do with the fact that I pretty much work all the time. The commute and having a kid has added another layer to it. I'm pretty used to the cycle.

I appreciate your post, however Ontario has the exact opposite of a free market when it comes to development.

The Greenbelt means that now to reach affordability you have to drive past 50km of farms.

The Greenbelt also makes it way easier for municipalities to jack up development fees while making property taxes artificially low - both of these drive up the purchase prices of homes.

Lastly, prior to Greenbelt and Places to Grow, we didnt have a free market either. It was just focused on low density instead.

Remove all the dumb zoning rules, make cities get their revenue from property taxes, and remove the Greenbelt and Places to Grow, and the result will be appropriate density.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPCAA156NRUG#

No idea what this supposed to prove

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Yes, and a lot of it comes from how public sector unions (especially for non-essential bureaucrats) have become too powerful and unwieldy, and sucks up too much oxygen in the organized labour space. Given how well compensated public civil servants are, it's a mystery why they need such powerful unions. It only makes sense for essential public sector workers like healthcare professionals to have unions.

Legislatively, private sector unions should be afforded more protections and rights, whereas public sector unions should be weakened to re-balance.

I think you have it backwards. Public sector has basically maintained the same level of unionization. It's the private sector which has seen a precipitous decline in unionization. And I'm not sure that workers as a whole would be left better off, if public sector unions went away. The decline of those private sector unions is what has led to labour's tanking share of GDP and growing inequality as capital (particularly in unproductive sectors like housing) gets returns beyond labour. If public sector unions went away, whatever minimal competitive pressure exists on employers to hold up standards would probably go too.



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPCAA156NRUG#

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The rank-and-file has been moving towards more conservative parties for a while (GOP in the US, CPC in Canada, RN in France) so I guess it's only a question of time before the leadership starts to do the same.

For sure: conservative parties have long represented the social interests of the working class, who are naturally socially conservative - whether they're "old stock" or immigrants.

But conservative parties never represented working class economic interests. They either represented the elite or, arguably in more recent years, the moneyed non-elite.

They might just be paying lip service to the economic interests of the working class, but this is the first time they've even done that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

For sure: conservative parties have long represented the social interests of the working class, who are naturally socially conservative - whether they're "old stock" or immigrants.

But conservative parties never represented working class economic interests. They either represented the elite or, arguably in more recent years, the moneyed non-elite.

They might just be paying lip service to the economic interests of the working class, but this is the first time they've even done that.

I mentioned some time ago that most of the world's biggest fortunes now support the Democrats on the US political chessboard these days.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I mentioned some time ago that most of the world's biggest fortunes now support the Democrats on the US political chessboard these days.

You sure about that? In 2024? The VP nominee is practically a Thiel appointee. And Musk is out there basically salivating about Trump. Techbros are also increasingly all in on TESCREAL and it's driving some wild political ideologies that borders on old school Eugenics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL

I don't think it's so clear cut anymore. And I think there's a large enthusiasm gap. The elites backing Trump are enthusiastic and generous. Meanwhile the ones who back Biden aren't nearly as generous and are usually moderate old dudes who mostly care about climate change and wealth inequality not getting France 1789 levels.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Modern labour laws have largely made unions unnecessary.

What do you think minimum wage should be?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What do you think minimum wage should be?

Same as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

Do you make minimum wage?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Same as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

Do you make minimum wage?

Abolished then? But those countries have strong unions and high taxes. That's the philosophy you want to follow?

I don't make minimum wage, but I did when I was young.

Do you pay minimum wage?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Concentration =/= Productivity

Productivity is focusing on tasks with the greatest leverage.

It's your boss's job to determine which tasks have the greatest leverage, and to change what you're focusing on when he/she sees that you're focusing on the wrong thing.

It is far easier for your boss to do that when everyone is at the office.

The reason organizations are returning to the office is for your boss's benefit (and their bosses), as they are ultimately accountable for the performance of the organization.

There are huge differences across jobs & industries which tend to muddy the WFH vs. Anti-WFH debate and make blanket generalizations unhelpful; but for the most part, there are better metrics with which to gauge productivity & employee performance than seeing their butt in a chair or being able to look over their shoulder and see what they're doing.

In a job like mine where time is billed to clients and most communication is with outside consultants & trades for example, performance is pretty self-evident and not really affected by in-office presence - as long as hours are being billed and clients are being kept happy, more oversight or monitoring by management doesn't add any value (on the contrary, it's an inefficient use of someone else's time). For others, mileage may vary depending on their company, field, and role.

In any case, the productivity angle is only one part of the WFH debate. The other big point is that workers almost universally like to at least have the option to work remotely. It's a ultimately a low-cost (or in many cases, even cost-positive) way to boost morale and attract & retain talent.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Yes, and a lot of it comes from how public sector unions (especially for non-essential bureaucrats) have become too powerful and unwieldy, and sucks up too much oxygen in the organized labour space. Given how well compensated public civil servants are, it's a mystery why they need such powerful unions. It only makes sense for essential public sector workers like healthcare professionals to have unions.

Legislatively, private sector unions should be afforded more protections and rights, whereas public sector unions should be weakened to re-balance.

Because when the government obliges you to organize (which is why we have public sector unions), they've been smart enough to do it well?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You sure about that? In 2024? The VP nominee is practically a Thiel appointee. And Musk is out there basically salivating about Trump. Techbros are also increasingly all in on TESCREAL and it's driving some wild political ideologies that borders on old school Eugenics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL

I don't think it's so clear cut anymore. And I think there's a large enthusiasm gap. The elites backing Trump are enthusiastic and generous. Meanwhile the ones who back Biden aren't nearly as generous and are usually moderate old dudes who mostly care about climate change and wealth inequality not getting France 1789 levels.

Of course they do because realistically the tax burden should be shifting to taxing these massive tech companies. Why are we taxing our doctors’ meagre capital gain when the Musk douchebag is fighting for a $56 Billion paycheque that he’s greedy and deluded enough to think he’s worth?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqqndqndpq5o.amp

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Modern labour laws have largely made unions unnecessary.

As someone who's worked in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces and seen way too many competent, hard working people get arbitrarily fired in the latter, this couldn't be more untrue.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Abolished then? But those countries have strong unions and high taxes. That's the philosophy you want to follow?

I don't make minimum wage, but I did when I was young.

Do you pay minimum wage?

I'm okay with unions as long as:

1. Membership is optional for employees.
2. Companies can hire replacement workers when union members go on strike.
3. Companies can terminate the employment of union members if they decide to go on strike, using whatever severance plan was agreed on in the previous CBA.
4. Union membership fees come 100% out of the employee's salaries.

My main issue with unions is that they make it next to impossible to fire a bad employee.

And to answer your other question we pay substantially more than minimum wage for entry level positions.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Mister F

As someone who's worked in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces and seen way too many competent, hard working people get arbitrarily fired in the latter, this couldn't be more untrue.

I don't disagree that for the employee it is obviously better to be in a union, however employers should be allowed to terminate anyone's employment as long as they are willing to pay the price (severance + damage). You can't force employers to keep someone on board that they don't want to work with.

[Nite]

Canada set to be fastest growing economy in G7 in 2025, IMF forecasts

The International Monetary Fund is upgrading its forecast for the Canadian economy, projecting it will now grow by 1.3 per cent this year and by 2.4 per cent in 2025, according to a report released Wednesday.

In both readings, the forecasts were increased by one-tenth of a percentage point from the IMF’s initial world economic outlook released in April.

For 2025, Canada is projected to be the fastest growing economy among the G7 and other advanced economies. The U.S. economy will rank second at 1.9 per cent and the U.K. third at 1.5 per cent growth next year.

https://financialpost.com/news/imf-f...conomy-g7-2025

With both interest rates and house prices falling in 2024, i can see a big rebound in housing in 2025 and it's related activities and more borrowing in the rest of the economy to fuel growth in 2025. The US deficit fueled growth in the last 2 years is already slowing down fast as they are not getting as much bank for buck anymore. and at some point they can not keep running such huge deficits.