Manitoba Provincial Election

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Yup, no major political party at any level currently has any plans to significantly change the way the economy works. Some are much better on worker's rights than other's though. Look for things like making unionization easier, taking financial burdens off of families to raise children or care for sick or aging loved ones, properly funding education and healthcare, limiting CEO and executive pay, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and raising the minimum wage (which, would cause everyone's wages to rise, not just those making minimum wage). These are the things that would benefit workers and their families.

Ok lets just break this down:
Easier unionization: Forced labor dues by hired thugs.
Limiting CEO pay: Imagine the government legislating that the Jets must compete in the NHL with a roster where the highest paid player makes no more that the league minimum.
Raising taxes on corporations: Chase the job creators away by forcing them to relocate to a business friendly province; just so that they can survive and compete.
Raising taxes on the wealthy: Define wealthy! Who will build big things that require deep pockets. Housing, Hotels, Factories. They will leave like they are leaving California for Texas.
Raise minimum wage: Kills youth employment and opportunities for new Canadians to get training if they have limited skills. Business will just automate more. Families aren't supposed to live off of minimum wage; It’s a starter wage.

[thurmas]

Federally i am usually conservative but provincial this election i will go ndp. Historically over the past 45 years pcs either under Lyon, Filmon or Pallister/Stefanson the province has seen some of its hardest times with tons of out migration pitiful infrastructure and health education resources allocated and no meaningful remedies done to attract new business to the province just tax cuts for the wealthy even if the province cannot afford it.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Ok lets just break this down:
Easier unionization: Forced labor dues by hired thugs.
Limiting CEO pay: Imagine the government legislating that the Jets must compete in the NHL with a roster where the highest paid player makes no more that the league minimum.
Raising taxes on corporations: Chase the job creators away by forcing them to relocate to a business friendly province; just so that they can survive and compete.
Raising taxes on the wealthy: Define wealthy! Who will build big things that require deep pockets. Housing, Hotels, Factories. They will leave like they are leaving California for Texas.
Raise minimum wage: Kills youth employment and opportunities for new Canadians to get training if they have limited skills. Business will just automate more. Families aren't supposed to live off of minimum wage; It’s a starter wage.

People are leaving California, since it's not affordable. The cost of living are through the roof. How is this different than Canada?

British Columbia is, by far and away, the most desirable province to live in. Then why has Alberta been growing faster than BC (population wise) for 25 years?

It's the cost of living. Even in 2022, Alberta easily outpaced BC in terms of actual population. That is due to Alberta being far more affordable. In Edmonton for example, the average home price is less than 1/2 that of Vancouver. People just can't afford to live in California and many area of British Columbia. If Vancouver and Edmonton cost the same amount to live, I would give my notice to my job and move there in 2 weeks, even for a lower paying job.

BTW, minimum wage in Alberta was raised to $15/hour in 2018, by far the highest in Canada. Yet, I don't see high unemployment among students. New Canadians continue to work in the service sector in droves...just like before minimum wage was $7.50/hour a decade prior.

PS..if you think Unions are a bad thing, then you are ignoring the reality of the Canadian labour situation for the past 100 years. Unions contributed to higher wages, less work accidents, health care, improved morale, and favourable working conditions. This in turn leads to increased productivity, better quality of life, and longer life expectancy. Notice how America has been in a big push to rid itself of unions, or any "socialist" ideas. The results speak for themselves, The life expectancy for the average American has gone down for the past eight years. The average Canadian now lives an average of 4.5 years longer.

PS....none of the players on the Jets are CEO's. That title belongs to Mark Chipman. IN pragmatic terms, I would rather the players make 50% of the revenue from NHL teams. It sure beats the first 75 years, when owners kept 90% of the profits to themselves, and the average salary was not that different than a foreman of a drilling rig.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

The bolded reply about how raising taxes on the wealthy, and the negative effects it has on a state like California is just false.

People are leaving California, since it's not affordable. The cost of living are through the roof. How is this different than Canada?

British Columbia is, by far and away, the most desirable province to live in. Then why has Alberta been growing faster than BC (population wise) for 25 years?

It's the cost of living. Even in 2022, Alberta easily outpaced BC in terms of actual population. That is due to Alberta being far more affordable. In Edmonton for example, the average home price is less than 1/2 that of Vancouver. People just can't afford to live in California and many area of British Columbia. If Vancouver and Edmonton cost the same amount to live, I would give my notice to my job and move there in 2 weeks, even for a lower paying job.

BTW, minimum wage in Alberta was raised to $15/hour in 2018, by far the highest in Canada. Yet, I don't see high unemployment among students. New Canadians continue to work in the service sector in droves...just like before minimum wage was $7.50/hour a decade prior.

PS..if you think Unions are a bad thing, then you are ignoring the reality of the Canadian labour situation for the past 100 years. Unions contributed to higher wages, less work accidents, health care, improved morale, and favourable working conditions. This in turn leads to increased productivity, better quality of life, and longer life expectancy. Notice how America has been in a big push to rid itself of unions, or any "socialist" ideas. The results speak for themselves, The life expectancy for the average American has gone down for the past eight years. The average Canadian now lives an average of 4.5 years longer.

PS....none of the players on the Jets are CEO's. That title belongs to Mark Chipman. IN pragmatic terms, I would rather the players make 50% of the revenue from NHL teams. It sure beats the first 75 years, when owners kept 90% of the profits to themselves, and the average salary was not that different than a foreman of a drilling rig.

You basically covered it. Only thing I’d change is that unions still contribute to higher wages, etc. There is an inverse correlation between union membership rates and the wages of the bottom 90% of earners. Economic inequality has been rising at the same time as union rates have been dropping.

Oh another thing I wanted to mention was the the minimum wage was absolutely meant to cover a person’s basic needs, like shelter, food, clothing, transportation, etc. The idea that it is meant to by a poverty-level career starter is nothing but cruel, market fundamentalist bullshit. The minimum wage actually effects all wage earners as the higher it goes, the more it trickles up since everyone is part of the same wage pool (as more money is put into the economy, and some higher earners may be more willing to take a previously lower earning job, resulting in even higher wages for their old job since the employer has to compete for fewer workers). Here’s a recent story about how this is happening in New York.

Btw, NHL players, believe it or not, despite having the most privileged backgrounds in professional sports, are working class since they are paid a wage from someone else. They absolutely deserve the share of revenue they get, while the owners individually get to keep far more for basically doing nothing to earn it.

[djforsberg]

OK, I lied. I want to address each point myself:

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Ok lets just break this down:
Easier unionization: Forced labor dues by hired thugs.

People are forced to work for low wages by employers, not by unions. The alternative is poverty or death. Workers can also be fired for no reason. Unions and labour laws help prevent these things. Any dues paid are far outweighed by the benefits a union provides. Sure, there are some bad unions, but the answer is to make them better, not get rid of them. Corporations are far more corrupt but I doubt you are calling for an end to them.

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Limiting CEO pay: Imagine the government legislating that the Jets must compete in the NHL with a roster where the highest paid player makes no more that the league minimum.

Addressed above.

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Raising taxes on corporations: Chase the job creators away by forcing them to relocate to a business friendly province; just so that they can survive and compete.

Companies leave either way. Corporations are not job creators. They are labour and resource exploiters. They only care about profits and would cut, automate, or offshore as many jobs as they could. You also don't need private capital to open a factory. Also, this is just an argument for stronger national laws to level the playing field and prevent this race to the bottom.

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Raising taxes on the wealthy: Define wealthy! Who will build big things that require deep pockets. Housing, Hotels, Factories. They will leave like they are leaving California for Texas.

Again, you don't need private capital to build things. In Saskatchewan, we have a rich history of public or community investment in everything from telecommunications, to power generation, to potash, to oil, to agriculture. Over the years, many of these have been privatized, which resulted in jobs and profits leaving the province.

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Raise minimum wage: Kills youth employment and opportunities for new Canadians to get training if they have limited skills. Business will just automate more. Families aren't supposed to live off of minimum wage; It’s a starter wage.

Wrong, as addressed above. Also, as mentioned, corporations are always trying to reduce labour costs. The answer is to regulate them or straight up nationalize them, not make it easier for them to exploit workers.

[Trutherteller]

God there's a lot of retarded conservatives on this forum that live in a bubble and have no idea how society works. Keep licking corporate boot you losers.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Trutherteller

God there's a lot of retarded conservatives on this forum that live in a bubble and have no idea how society works. Keep licking corporate boot you losers.

I wouldn't consider all of them ignorant or unintelligent. A great many of them are just too craven to admit their greed and cruelty and just follow along with the lies.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I wouldn't consider all of them ignorant or unintelligent. A great many of them are just too craven to admit their greed and cruelty and just follow along with the lies.

Interesting, do you think there is such a thing as a sincere conservative then?

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I wouldn't consider all of them ignorant or unintelligent. A great many of them are just too craven to admit their greed and cruelty and just follow along with the lies.

I don't doubt that a sense of self-interest is at the core of this thinking, but I suspect it's also wiring taking over. Check out this article:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0221101016.htm

Basically people are hired-wired to take the path of least resistance. As quoted from the article (my bolding) : "We found that not only does the cost to act influence people's behaviour, but it even changes what we think we see."

Introspection and critical analysis takes effort; this is why it's often easier to accept stereotypes than to look at the unique circumstances of situations and individuals.

It also helps that the "lazy" thinking is usually very self-flattering. The individual believes they have "solved" the problems they see, and they're all the fault of someone/something else.

Of course, these myths about corporate job creation, taxes chasing away business, etc. are constantly reinforced by the corporations themselves, as well as the political organizations that support them, so it's very easy to find a safe haven for lazy thinking.

One can include a number of "left-leaning" individuals and groups as myth-builds as well. Any time blanket statements are made by anyone, they should be questioned.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I wouldn't consider all of them ignorant or unintelligent. A great many of them are just too craven to admit their greed and cruelty and just follow along with the lies.

The crazy thing is that many people who still push trickle down economics like our friend here likely are not wealthy themselves.

It's hard to believe anyone who has lived in the past 50 years or even taken a cursory glance at Economics in that time frame can believe that billionaires are "wealth creators" for anyone but themselves.

Who will build the infrastructure if we actually tax properly? The government, the same people (ALL OF US) the billionaires beg for handouts to complete any projects.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Interesting, do you think there is such a thing as a sincere conservative then?

The term has lost all meaning with identity politics.

None of the Conservative governments in our country are actually mindful fiscal stewards, aside from maybe Nova Scotia right now but that province has been turned into such a colossal wasteland it's hard to see it coming back.

None of them are actual believers in a free market, they are believers in kicking up money to the wealthy and reaping the benefits later themselves. I would lump the Liberals largely into this group in our country too. They are all interveners but for limited benefit to the public as a whole.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Interesting, do you think there is such a thing as a sincere conservative then?

Sure. Then I would ask them for evidence to support their belief that conservative economics actually helps society, broadly and long term, to which they would not be able to do.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by pspeid

I don't doubt that a sense of self-interest is at the core of this thinking, but I suspect it's also wiring taking over. Check out this article:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0221101016.htm

Basically people are hired-wired to take the path of least resistance. As quoted from the article (my bolding) : "We found that not only does the cost to act influence people's behaviour, but it even changes what we think we see."

Introspection and critical analysis takes effort; this is why it's often easier to accept stereotypes than to look at the unique circumstances of situations and individuals.

It also helps that the "lazy" thinking is usually very self-flattering. The individual believes they have "solved" the problems they see, and they're all the fault of someone/something else.

Of course, these myths about corporate job creation, taxes chasing away business, etc. are constantly reinforced by the corporations themselves, as well as the political organizations that support them, so it's very easy to find a safe haven for lazy thinking.

One can include a number of "left-leaning" individuals and groups as myth-builds as well. Any time blanket statements are made by anyone, they should be questioned.

I would agree with that, including that many on the left can be just as ignorant.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

The crazy thing is that many people who still push trickle down economics like our friend here likely are not wealthy themselves.

It's hard to believe anyone who has lived in the past 50 years or even taken a cursory glance at Economics in that time frame can believe that billionaires are "wealth creators" for anyone but themselves.

Who will build the infrastructure if we actually tax properly? The government, the same people (ALL OF US) the billionaires beg for handouts to complete any projects.

I mean, we just have to look at the last 40-50 years to prove that conservative economic policies are terrible and destructive for most people and the ecosystems we rely on. The short memory of so many people though makes it easy to, for example, blame Trudeau for creating these problems (though he does deserve blame for not properly addressing it, though I wouldn't expect anything more from a centrist like him).

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

The term has lost all meaning with identity politics.

None of the Conservative governments in our country are actually mindful fiscal stewards, aside from maybe Nova Scotia right now but that province has been turned into such a colossal wasteland it's hard to see it coming back.

None of them are actual believers in a free market, they are believers in kicking up money to the wealthy and reaping the benefits later themselves. I would lump the Liberals largely into this group in our country too. They are all interveners but for limited benefit to the public as a whole.

100%

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Trutherteller

God there's a lot of retarded conservatives on this forum that live in a bubble and have no idea how society works. Keep licking corporate boot you losers.

I don't know what happened to you as a child but based on what you are saying, I hope you can get the professional help that you need. All the best in your recovery

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

I don't know what happened to you as a child but based on what you are saying, I hope you can get the professional help that you need. All the best in your recovery

Hopefully this helps:

Bootlicker

A term to describe a person who commits the act of bootlicking. The act of bootlicking is when an oppressed person or persons, such as the working class, sucks up to the oppressor in hopes of appeasing them.

The reason it is referred to at "bootlicking" is because the oppressor metaphorically has a boot over the face or neck of the oppressed, suffocating them, and the oppressed licks it in an attempt to dissuade the oppressor.

"Elon Musk is just a cool rich guy who worked really hard for his money because he's a super big brain mega genius! He's not an exploiter of the working class! Did I mention I make 8 dollars an hour for a 7 hour shift with no benefits?"

Conservative economics of deregulation, low taxation, and anti-union rhetoric is pushed by the wealthy and corporations because it allows them to keep more surplus value and exploit workers and ecosystems easier in their pursuit of profits and power. Anyone who is not wealthy or privileged enough to have a supportive community and votes for such policies are essentially voting against their own best interests. Hence, being a bootlicker. There’s also an argument to be made that they are class traitors, which is a term I would like to see used again.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

I don't know what happened to you as a child but based on what you are saying, I hope you can get the professional help that you need. All the best in your recovery

This is a classic example of an ad hominem argument. Here's a good description of what that is:

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/reso...d-Hominem.html

...or, as stated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong".

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

OK, I lied. I want to address each point myself:



People are forced to work for low wages by employers, not by unions. The alternative is poverty or death. Workers can also be fired for no reason. Unions and labour laws help prevent these things. Any dues paid are far outweighed by the benefits a union provides. Sure, there are some bad unions, but the answer is to make them better, not get rid of them. Corporations are far more corrupt but I doubt you are calling for an end to them.



Addressed above.



Companies leave either way. Corporations are not job creators. They are labour and resource exploiters. They only care about profits and would cut, automate, or offshore as many jobs as they could. You also don't need private capital to open a factory. Also, this is just an argument for stronger national laws to level the playing field and prevent this race to the bottom.



Again, you don't need private capital to build things. In Saskatchewan, we have a rich history of public or community investment in everything from telecommunications, to power generation, to potash, to oil, to agriculture. Over the years, many of these have been privatized, which resulted in jobs and profits leaving the province.



Wrong, as addressed above. Also, as mentioned, corporations are always trying to reduce labour costs. The answer is to regulate them or straight up nationalize them, not make it easier for them to exploit workers.

So DJ, it would help with a little context, please let us know your means of employment or how you contribute to the local economy. Do you work for yourself as a self serving capitalist? Are you a supposed boot licker and work for a labour exploiting corp? Are you a respectable union guy who faithful pays his dues, or do you work in an altruistic utopian non-profit? Or are you looking for your next opportunity? Us capitalists would like to know? The contempt for those that offer an opposing view is interesting to stay the least; but at least we’ll get context.

[sleepyeyed]

You're only a capitalist if you own capital (the means of production). Is that actually you?

The real free market in capitalism is the labour market, where capitalists are free to pay whatever they want and not the actual value of what they're purchasing (hourly/yearly waged labour).

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by sleepyeyed

You're only a capitalist if you own capital (the means of production). Is that actually you?

The real free market in capitalism is the labour market, where capitalists are free to pay whatever they want and not the actual value of what they're purchasing (hourly/yearly waged labour).

The market place, success or failure decides everything.