Federal Government & Politics II

[ConundrumNL]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

While I'm sympathetic to the critique from the left about neoliberal economic policies since Reagan and Thatcher, I have some critiques about the alternative - which is to offer universal programs with no means test, and to have the state actually run programs end-to-end, like the government actually building an in-house dental claims team.

Universal social programs sounded really great on paper until CERB. I was all for Universal Basic Income until we actually experimented with it during the pandemic, paying millions of people a living wage with no questions asked. This blew up the deficit and injected a lot of money into the economy, and we are paying for it with higher inflation and a deficit that is harder to service because interest rates had to be increased to tame that same inflation.

Similarly, a lot of people on the old left tend to think that the state-run enterprises of the 1970s were better at producing goods and services in the public interest, even if they may have been more inefficient or if the lack of competition led them to be laggards when it came to innovation or customer service. I personally think that a lot of the crown corporations that were privatized in the 1990s (AC, CN, Petro Canada, etc.) didn't really become more efficient, nor more innovative, nor provide better customer service because there isn't much competition in the private sector in a lot of these areas to begin with (a lot of them are natural monopolies or just plain monopsonies). But I also don't think that crown corporations necessarily serve the public interest any better. In countries like China, the massive state-owned enterprises really don't provide better working conditions for their workers, nor do things like creating a massive spying apparatus and social credit score serve what we would think to be "the public interest" in the West. Even leaving the extreme example of China aside, I don't know if LCBO is any better at reducing the harms of alcohol and I don't know if ICBC offers better rates and better service than Belair Direct or Intact would.

I agree with you.

A balance needs to be stuck between the two models, but of course nether side wants that (it's all or nothing). Balance is something our political environment is lacking.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Universal social programs sounded really great on paper until CERB. I was all for Universal Basic Income until we actually experimented with it during the pandemic, paying millions of people a living wage with no questions asked. This blew up the deficit and injected a lot of money into the economy, and we are paying for it with higher inflation and a deficit that is harder to service because interest rates had to be increased to tame that same inflation.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you can't be serious about $2000 a month being a living wage.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by jonny24

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you can't be serious about $2000 a month being a living wage.

Yeah, I forgot that it was only $2,000/month. Better than nothing, but nothing you can live on if that was your only source of income.

I'm still supportive of CERB and think it was the right thing to do during an emergency, but it lasted too long, and - at least from my pov - discredited UBI as a serious policy for at least a generation.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yeah, I forgot that it was only $2,000/month. Better than nothing, but nothing you can live on if that was your only source of income.

I'm still supportive of CERB and think it was the right thing to do during an emergency, but it lasted too long, and - at least from my pov - discredited UBI as a serious policy for at least a generation.

It discredited it because it showed like more recent randomized pilot studies that it does more harm than good. And in the case of CERB and studies we didn't even need to pay for it. Add that cost and the impact would be horrible.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jonny24

I agree with a lot of what you said, but you can't be serious about $2000 a month being a living wage.

It's not really a living wage but it's enough to encourage parts of the population to work less. If you're a 20-something paying 800 a month in rent with roommates it looks pretty good.

Usually when I've heard UBI proposals, part of the idea was to cut back on other entitlements and save some money through lower administration costs. And everyone was supposed to get it, even high income earners, adding more sense of fairness and evening out the level of redistribution. CERB wasn't like this at all. It was a new program, the old programs didn't go away, and it was selectively paid out. I guess maybe this means it should discredit UBI less in the abstract, but it made me skeptical of our current government's ability to handle UBI, and inflation was worse than I expected (though there are other factors like covid-era supply chain issues).

The carbon tax is similar around here. It was supposed to induce people to lower their carbon footprint by paying them. But it doesn't pay out to everyone here in BC. In fact it doesn't pay out even if the largest consumers cut back 100% of their footprint! It was an economically sound policy in principle that in practice was distorted in a way that undermined its usefulness. Oh and we still have $$$$ for rich people buying EVs but the new SkyTrain line will stop partway to UBC and many of those riders will transfer onto diesel buses!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by someone123

The carbon tax is similar around here. It was supposed to induce people to lower their carbon footprint by paying them. But it doesn't pay out to everyone here in BC. In fact it doesn't pay out even if the largest consumers cut back 100% of their footprint! It was an economically sound policy in principle that in practice was distorted in a way that undermined its usefulness. Oh and we still have $$$$ for rich people buying EVs but the new SkyTrain line will stop partway to UBC and many of those riders will transfer onto diesel buses!

In BC rebates for EV purchase are means tested, based on the previous year's tax return, and can only be claimed once, not for any subsequent EV purchase. And TransLink is switching to renewable diesel (which used to be called biodiesel), as an interim move while the non-trolley part of the fleet is replaced with battery electric buses.

[ssiguy]

If Trudeau/Singh want to increase our social welfare system then that's their choice. The issue is that we can't afford them. They want the best of both world..............spend like madmen but then tell future generations to pay for them. If they REALLY wanted these programs to help people as opposed to purely political gain, they would introduce the programs with the corresponding tax increases to pay for them.

Also, how exactly do these new programs requires a 40% increase in the federal civil service while simultaneously increasing out-of-gov't contracts to record levels? I personally couldn't stand Harper but at least the man managed to balance the books. Trudeau, on the other hand, has been spending money we don't have like a kid in a candy shop. His massive deficits have now sent our spending just to pay the interest on the national debt soaring.

If he had spent within his means Ottawa would have billions more now to spend on social programs. People do forgive the COVID deficits as required social spending soared while revenues collapsed. The issue is that both before and after COVID he was still sending the debt into the stratosphere.

The best way to improve our finances and create a more comprehensive social welfare net is to grow the economy and he has done the exact opposite. We have the lowest GDP per-capita growth rate in the G8 and nearly the entire OECD since 2016. Guess who took power in that year.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Changing City

In BC rebates for EV purchase are means tested, based on the previous year's tax return, and can only be claimed once, not for any subsequent EV purchase.

Sort of. There are provincial and federal rebates. I don't think the iZEV federal rebate is means tested. I've been looking at EVs so happened to notice this. It doesn't upset me that much, but I feel like Canada is far behind where it should be in transit (and urbanism allowing higher density for shorter travel distances) given that we don't invest in roads much and climate change is supposedly such a high priority.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If Trudeau/Singh want to increase our social welfare system then that's their choice. The issue is that we can't afford them. They want the best of both world..............spend like madmen but then tell future generations to pay for them. If they REALLY wanted these programs to help people as opposed to purely political gain, they would introduce the programs with the corresponding tax increases to pay for them.

Also, how exactly do these new programs requires a 40% increase in the federal civil service while simultaneously increasing out-of-gov't contracts to record levels? I personally couldn't stand Harper but at least the man managed to balance the books. Trudeau, on the other hand, has been spending money we don't have like a kid in a candy shop. His massive deficits have now sent our spending just to pay the interest on the national debt soaring.

If he had spent within his means Ottawa would have billions more now to spend on social programs. People do forgive the COVID deficits as required social spending soared while revenues collapsed. The issue is that both before and after COVID he was still sending the debt into the stratosphere.

The best way to improve our finances and create a more comprehensive social welfare net is to grow the economy and he has done the exact opposite. We have the lowest GDP per-capita growth rate in the G8 and nearly the entire OECD since 2016. Guess who took power in that year.

I am not sure I follow the logic. If we hadn't spent so much on solcial programs we would have more to spend on social programs?

Growth can certainly help but other than chasing a bit of extractive money away and wasting time on a bunch of virtue signalling there isn't a lot of magic quick fixes. The Conservatives will add a .1 here or there being more business friendly but there go to will be tax cuts. Balancing the budget and cutting taxes of course will requite belt tightening which will be a drag on growth. Even dead weight civil servants spend there money on real estate. And certainly daycare workers and low income folks getting their cheques do for sure.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by someone123

....the new SkyTrain line will stop partway to UBC and many of those riders will transfer onto diesel buses!

That's not quite the issue your comment makes it out to be, given that the diesel buses are already on those routes. The SkyTrain extension means that the diesels are used for a shorter distance, plus 60 to 80 people on one ICE vehicle is still far better than having those people use personal automobiles.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a new centrist party. Believes in tackling climate change and increasing defence spending and gating social programs better.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ches-1.7294230

I might be the target demographic.

Blimey. This is an appeal to centrists like me, and I'm blushing. I've never felt targeted in this way before. It's wild.

He's intelligent, eminently reasonable, and sounds like the best thing that could happen to Canadian politics in almost ever.

So, doomed to failure, I expect. Still, this is the first time in my life I've ever been faced with the prospect of strategic voting. The possibility of Trudeau slipping through the cracks due to votes drawn away from Poilievre is too horrifying to contemplate, but the temptation to support a politician for positive reasons might be too hard to resist.

It's a conundrum.

[rousseau]

Scrolling through this thread after being away for a while, and in the spirit of old SSP times...

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Vancouver is still seen as Sydney-lite, the glamourous west coast city...

...I had to LOL at this.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Blimey. This is an appeal to centrists like me, and I'm blushing. I've never felt targeted in this way before. It's wild.

He's intelligent, eminently reasonable, and sounds like the best thing that could happen to Canadian politics in almost ever.

So, doomed to failure, I expect. Still, this is the first time in my life I've ever been faced with the prospect of strategic voting. The possibility of Trudeau slipping through the cracks due to votes drawn away from Poilievre is too horrifying to contemplate, but the temptation to support a politician for positive reasons might be too hard to resist.

It's a conundrum.

I would love for them to at least have enough support to get in the debates and at least to surpass the PPC. I'm under no illusion that a new party is going to do real damage to the LPC or CPC. Their real value is showing how out of touch both major parties are.

[whatnext]

When is this klown actually going to get the message? Stop re-arranging the deck chairs and slash the numbers.

Trudeau mulls name-and-shame policy to curb foreign worker abuse
By Brian Platt, Bloomberg News
August 16, 2024

(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is mulling a change to help crack down on abuses of temporary foreign workers — publicly naming individual business managers or owners who violate Canada’s labor rules.

The measure would be part of a broader set of reforms to clean up the country’s migrant labor system, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition they not be identified.

The government is facing heavy criticism for a policy that has made it much easier for companies to bring in temporary foreign workers, or TFWs, and for lax enforcement of rules intended to protect them. Trudeau’s administration, responding to concerns about labor shortages, increased the limits on low-wage TFWs in 2022, allowing firms to hire up to 20% of their staff through that program — with a 30% limit in certain sectors, such as construction....

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business...-worker-abuse/

[MolsonExport]

yeah, he shouldn't be focused on curbing abuse against foreign workers. Why not let companies and individuals get away with treating them terribly?

[Hecate]

Good to know they have a plan for protecting temporary foreign workers… but what about everyone else, like actual Canadian citizens who have their own gripes with employers. still can’t charge your boss for theft if they steal your wages, but they can charge you for stealing a pen.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

yeah, he shouldn't be focused on curbing abuse against foreign workers. Why not let companies and individuals get away with treating them terribly?

The government already names and shames companies who abuse the TFW program. The problem is that the program has become unwieldly to the point where the approval process is essentially a rubber stamp and effectively auditing it is impossible. The specific publishing of individuals' names found may prove to be a slightly bigger deterrent, but it does seem like a case of rearranging the deck chairs and would likely just strain the already overwhelmed bureaucracy . The liberalization of the program under the Liberals has led to skyrocketing numbers, and all of this needs to be pared back or the program needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up.

[Build.It]

Why does the punishment of a shitty boss need to be different if the employee happens to be a TFW instead of a PR or citizen?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Why does the punishment of a shitty boss need to be different if the employee happens to be a TFW instead of a PR or citizen?

Well in crazy bleeding heart liberal land they are more vulnerable because they don't have as many rights. So we need to make extra effort to ensure they get all the rights of a citizen even though they aren't.

We are supposed to feel bad for them that they make minimum wage and get driven harder than a PR or Citizen despite the fact they are eager and knowingly coming to save substantial money on an income that is supposedly not enough to live on.