Tories poised to launch daring cutbacks to public pensions in federal budget

[DearSummer]

Tories poised to launch daring cutbacks to public pensions in federal budget
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/22/harpers-conservatives-poised-to-launch-cutbacks-to-public-pensions/


The backbone of the pension system — Old Age Security (OAS) —will be slashed for future seniors, likely by extending the age of eligibility to 67 from 65. The purpose is twofold: Keep Canadians in the workforce longer to boost the economy and provide taxes to government and; limit the costs of the OAS system by ensuring there are fewer beneficiaries. The big question Canadians will learn in the budget: When do the cutbacks start — expectations are it won’t be for another decade — and how gradually are they to be implemented?


The pension plan for members of Parliament — long criticized as “gold-plated” because of its generous benefits —will be scaled back. This will provide political cover for the governing Tories during the expected OAS public controversy so that they can claim they are also making personal sacrifices. The key question will be whether the changes amount to tinkering — MPs must now serve six years to qualify, and they can start drawing benefits at age 55 — or if the plan is blown up and turned into a private pension scheme that costs the taxpayers significantly less.


The pension plan for public servants also may be ripe for change. A recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute concluded that if public-sector pension plans used market yields to calculate their liabilities, Ottawa’s unfunded liability would be $227 billion. The government began dropping hints this winter that it is reviewing the pension scheme to ensure it is fair to both employees and “taxpayers” — prompting speculation that Flaherty will announce that public servants will see their contribution rates, set for 40 per cent in 2013, ultimately rise to 50 per cent.

This is why Harper was the right choice for Canadians. Finally a politician is taking the politically-difficult steps to tackle our serious long-term fiscal issues.

The next logical move is to outlaw defined-benefit pension plans and institue defined-contribution plans instead. Then we'll actually know how much all these promises are costing us!

[Kris81]

That's awesome. Keep old people working even longer, and younger people out of jobs. They should probably cut their own pensions first.

[Hitman21]

I disagree with the Tories. Forcing people to work longer isn't the answer. The government shouldn't even be in charge of public pensions, let people opt out of CPP and begin to phase it out. People should be responsible for their own lives not the government. What the government really needs to do is make huge cuts to spending and limit their responsibilities.

The gold plated pensions for MP's must be ended and all retiring MP's must have their pensions taken back.

The public servants also need deep cuts to their pensions and should not have these defined benefit plans

[DearSummer]

That's awesome. Keep old people working even longer, and younger people out of jobs. They should probably cut their own pensions first.

Way to read the article! :facepalm:

See the 2nd quotation.

[geokilla]

I don't like the OAS increasing to 67 years of age that the OP quoted, but I like quote 2 and 3.

[Angela V]

How about not WASTING money on ad attacks against Bob Rae. I saw one of the ads last night and I ended up laughing throughout the whole thing. It looks like a highschooler put it together! And exactly why are they attacking Bob Rae? It's not wiping my memory of the Robo calls.

[Hitman21]

Maybe if the government stopped giving out pensions to people who never contributed and illegals then we wouldn't have this problem

[flashy_mcflash]

How about not WASTING money on ad attacks against Bob Rae. I saw one of the ads last night and I ended up laughing throughout the whole thing. It looks like a highschooler put it together! And exactly why are they attacking Bob Rae? It's not wiping my memory of the Robo calls.

Seriously, what kind of morally-bankrupt tyrant runs an attack ad on the INTERIM leader of the THIRD party, THREE YEARS before an election? They don't even do this in the toilet bowl of election campaigns, the US.

[Angela V]

Seriously, what kind of morally-bankrupt tyrant runs an attack ad on the INTERIM leader of the THIRD party, THREE YEARS before an election? They don't even do this in the toilet bowl of election campaigns, the US.

My husband's theory is that the robo calls are going to show something really nasty and that's what the cons are afraid of. It then could mean an election this year and it might mean Rae will be asked to stay as leader. That's the only thing he can think off because it really doesn't make any sense why these ads were made!

[divx]

i understand they aren't really forcing people to work longer but kinda does... still, overall this is a good thing for the country

[manmanny]

Tories are trying what everybody tried in some manner before. It time something need to be done. Its very difficult task. We have large old population and young generation has to pay for them.

From Stats Canada: "And the number of workers in Canada for every retired person is expected to fall to two in 2031, from five in the 1980s, as a wave of baby boomers retires from the workforce."

Harper is savvy politicians as he has destroyed the liberal party and its two leaders. Yes they were highly qualified people didn't know thing about politics.
Morons are the people who cant accept Harper has majority. I hate Bob and don't mind if Harper destroys him.

Funny thing is like what they are doing to Ford wont work for Harper. PM will eat them alive. Two leaders are down...one is dead and now time to destroy the new ones. Liberal Party of Toronto (its not Federal Part any more) has no chance.

[Hitman21]

Tories are trying what everybody tried in some manner before. It time something need to be done. Its very difficult task. We have large old population and young generation has to pay for them.

From Stats Canada: "And the number of workers in Canada for every retired person is expected to fall to two in 2031, from five in the 1980s, as a wave of baby boomers retires from the workforce."

Harper is savvy politicians as he has destroyed the liberal party and its two leaders. Yes they were highly qualified people didn't know thing about politics.
Morons are the people who cant accept Harper has majority. I hate Bob and don't mind if Harper destroys him.

Funny thing is like what they are doing to Ford wont work for Harper. PM will eat them alive. Two leaders are down...one is dead and now time to destroy the new ones. Liberal Party of Toronto (its not Federal Part any more) has no chance.

Agreed. Its just Toronto which is the Liberal stronghold and even if they get Ford out they cant go after Harper

[peanutz]

I understand all the reasoning and these decisions are correct. If Harper goes through with all of this, my respect for him will have gone up by a lot.

However,

Experts say that could leave middle-aged, and younger, taxpayers furious that their generation is being shortchanged.No ****, Sherlock. I've known this for a VERY long time. Ever since I learned that the babyboomers have been a large and influential population (elementary school), it has always been evident that what they demanded of their governments, they have gotten. Lower taxes than our current generation, cuts that were needed to be implemented but stalled, rising government debts, etc... and we all know that it will be the subsequent generations that will be saddled with it.

I'm pretty much just getting my feet wet in the working world for now, but as I said before, I am thinking hard about moving elsewhere.

[DearSummer]

However,
No ****, Sherlock. I've known this for a VERY long time. Ever since I learned that the babyboomers have been a large and influential population (elementary school), it has always been evident that what they demanded of their governments, they have gotten. Lower taxes than our current generation, cuts that were needed to be implemented but stalled, rising government debts, etc... and we all know that it will be the subsequent generations that will be saddled with it.

I'm pretty much just getting my feet wet in the working world for now, but as I said before, I am thinking hard about moving elsewhere.

Since the baby boomers lived so far beyond their means for so long, young Canadians may have less opportunities than their parents. It's quite sad and it's why I always laugh when baby boomers think kids today are spoiled. Baby boomers are the poster boys and girls for entitlement and living beyond their means.

[Kris81]

Way to read the article! :facepalm:

See the 2nd quotation.

Yea. Why are they at 55 if everyone else is at 65?

[peanutz]

Since the baby boomers lived so far beyond their means for so long, young Canadians may have less opportunities than their parents. It's quite sad and it's why I always laugh when baby boomers think kids today are spoiled. They are the poster boys and girls for entitlement and living beyond their means.100% Agree. Dumb hippies...

[DearSummer]

Yea. Why are they at 55 if everyone else is at 65?

Good question. That's the age for most public sector pension plans. Don't worry, the private sector will pick up the tab!

[Kris81]

Good question. That's the age for most public sector pension plans. Don't worry, the private sector will pick up the tab!

I believe most public pension plans have some kind of deal where your age + seniority = retirement.

With Canada Post it's 85 years, so technically I should be able to retire when i'm 56. I guess the difference is you don't find many people in the private sector who work the same job for 30+ years.

[ghostryder]

I believe most public pension plans have some kind of deal where your age + seniority = retirement.

With Canada Post it's 85 years, so technically I should be able to retire when i'm 56. I guess the difference is you don't find many people in the private sector who work the same job for 30+ years.


Most private sector pensions are not much different.

And with the average age of a new hire federal public servant being in the mid 30's, you're not going to see many retire before 65 anyway. And according to the treasury board the average age a federal PS retires is nearly 60, and that increases by a few months every year.

[Xpwmata]

Since the baby boomers lived so far beyond their means for so long, young Canadians may have less opportunities than their parents. It's quite sad and it's why I always laugh when baby boomers think kids today are spoiled. They are the poster boys and girls for entitlement and living beyond their means.

+1

I shudder to think what will happen when these people reach their 70s/80s. The strain on social services/health care for these geriatrics will be immense.

[Kris81]

Most private sector pensions are not much different.

And with the average age of a new hire federal public servant being in the mid 30's, you're not going to see many retire before 65 anyway. And according to the treasury board the average age a federal PS retires is nearly 60, and that increases by a few months every year.

Yea, why would they retire? Lets be honest, MOST jobs out there get easier as you get older, so if you're still competent why retire early?

[Hitman21]

Since the baby boomers lived so far beyond their means for so long, young Canadians may have less opportunities than their parents. It's quite sad and it's why I always laugh when baby boomers think kids today are spoiled. Baby boomers are the poster boys and girls for entitlement and living beyond their means.

Since they were responsible for this then they should face the cuts

[DearSummer]

Most private sector pensions are not much different.

Are you kidding me? Defined benefit plans are rare in the private sector and increasingly so in recent years. At best you'll get employers matching a certain level of pension contributions whereas taxpayers pay for the majority of public sector pensions (65% for feds, set to decline to 60% soon).

[bcbgboy13]

Yea. Why are they at 55 if everyone else is at 65?

Why is Canada post starting at 55 and everybody else in the private sector at 65.

http://fairpensionsforall.net/2011/11/12/op-ed-cosy-benefits-at-canada-post-time-for-taxpayers-to-strike/

[Hitman21]

Why is Canada post starting at 55 and everybody else in the private sector at 65.

http://fairpensionsforall.net/2011/11/12/op-ed-cosy-benefits-at-canada-post-time-for-taxpayers-to-strike/

Public sector workers have a serious entitlement issue

[Mark77]

Its great that someone is finally acknowledging that the government is handing most of its retirees pensions worth at least $1M in most cases, at market rates (ie: using the RRB as the measuring stick, instead of fictitious and made up figures as the public sector workers would like you to believe).

It is nothing short of scandalous that Canada's national debt would increase by 50% alone if public pensions were properly marked to market. Especially since these public sector workers have enjoyed, throughout much of their careers, far above average salaries and benefits compared to the private sector. Absolutely scandalous and shameful. And that's just at the Federal level. Add in the provinces, and Canada's national debt is likely doubled because of unfunded and unrealistically low-balled pension liabilities.

Until this suffocation is removed, the private sector will not be able to perform, create jobs, etc. And things are only slated to get much worse as the housing sector crashes imminently and takes down a significant chunk of the tax base.

[ghostryder]

Are you kidding me? Defined benefit plans are rare in the private sector and increasingly so in recent years. At best you'll get employers matching a certain level of pension contributions whereas taxpayers pay for the majority of public sector pensions (65% for feds, set to decline to 60% soon).


Really?? There are no private sector plans that allow someone to retire at 55? REALLY?? Or use a formula that is based on age, years of service etc. REALLY??

My wife's DC plan allows this.


Maybe you should go back and re-read what kris wrote, and then what I wrote. Neither of us was commenting on DB or DC, just allowed age of retirement.


BTW, what's the minimum age someone with an RRSP can retire in the private sector? Oh, right. Whenever they want to. Like my sister. @ 45.

[Mark77]

ghostryder, I've personally seen many instances where public servants and public service staffing people have used pensions (or the cost of providing a pension) in rather perverse ways. For instance, some people will be promoted to a level higher than their competence in the last few years of employment to 'boost' their pension. Some people will stick to government jobs that they absolutely hate, in order to meet a certain level of pensionable service. Government severance packages in many cases even are forced, by court rulings, to include payments for the premature termination of an employee with respect to their pension entitlement. Governments have to spend huge $$$$ terminating incompetent 50-something-year-old employees before their full pension entitlement, because they've committed themselves to these outrageous pension schemes.

If two neighbours, who grew up together, went to the same schools, graduated from the same universities, worked at similar jobs all their lives, why should the government worker of the pair get his income continued for life (a massive windfall to his kids certainly in his death), while the private sector neighbour ends up burning his RRSPs? See how unfair this system is? Governments should be actively working to aggressively lower compensation to their workers, just like the private sector, especially when government jobs often receive hundreds of applicants for each position. Every position in government, ranging from those $267k OPG HR clerks, to Deputy Ministers, to even the garbagemen, can be replaced by individuals working for less. In many cases, the management level is a huge source of the problems and should be replaced immediately (especially that disgusting $267k/year HR cow at OPG that claimed OPG is supposed to be a responsible steward of taxpayers dollars while her salary was little more than absolute theft from the taxpayers).

[CDNPatriot]

Tories poised to launch daring cutbacks to public pensions in federal budget
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/22/harpers-conservatives-poised-to-launch-cutbacks-to-public-pensions/






This is why Harper was the right choice for Canadians. Finally a politician is taking the politically-difficult steps to tackle our serious long-term fiscal issues.

The next logical move is to outlaw defined-benefit pension plans and institue defined-contribution plans instead. Then we'll actually know how much all these promises are costing us!

Dearsummer cutting people's salaries is the easy route. It's like owning a business, and not able to grow your revenues so instead you go and cut everyone's wages and benefits. This is because Harper has not been able to grow the number of high paying quality jobs. All the jobs are being imported out of Canada by importers like you. We should have a "Buy Canadian" campaign like the US so that people like you get a nice financial haircut.

[DearSummer]

Really?? There are no private sector plans that allow someone to retire at 55? REALLY?? Or use a formula that is based on age, years of service etc. REALLY??

My wife's DC plan allows this.

I would love to hear about a DC plan that allows you to retire at 55 and uses a formula based on age, years of service, etc. to determine your pension. That is quite simply impossible if you understood what a DC plan is.



Maybe you should go back and re-read what kris wrote, and then what I wrote. Neither of us was commenting on DB or DC, just allowed age of retirement.


BTW, what's the minimum age someone with an RRSP can retire in the private sector? Oh, right. Whenever they want to. Like my sister. @ 45.

Allowed age of retirement? There is no such thing. You can retire whenever you want. It's just a question of what finances you have available to you.

[CDNPatriot]

I would love to hear about a DC plan that allows you to retire at 55 and uses a formula based on age, years of service, etc. to determine your pension. That is quite simply impossible if you understood what a DC plan is.

Allowed age of retirement? There is no such thing. You can retire whenever you want. It's just a question of what finances you have available to you.

Speaking of delayed retirements, DearSummer your going to go on past until your prime. If all of your proposals to cut wages, benefits and pensions go through and get realized people will have less discretionary money to spend for that Made In China junk you import to Canada. It will affect your bottom line when wages slowly become par with wages in Mexico.

[Mark77]

Dearsummer cutting people's salaries is the easy route.

The private sector can't grow with how badly its been suffocated by the public sector, taxes, and worse, the spectre of much higher future taxes to accomodate the pension promises and future growth of the public sector.

If public sector salaries aren't chopped, where does the capital come from to grow the private sector?

Expecting the private sector to generate growth, when its been gagged and its hands tied in bondage, is hardly realistic.

[Mark77]

Speaking of delayed retirements, DearSummer your going to go on past until your prime. If all of your proposals to cut wages, benefits and pensions go through and get realized people will have less discretionary money to spend for that Made In China junk you import to Canada. It will affect your bottom line when wages slowly become par with wages in Mexico.

Nonsense. If we don't generate any economic growth, and continue to run essentially a penal taxation colony, where a priviledged group of public 'servants' leeches off of the actually productive people, while leaving a huge portion of our capacity (ie: engineering workforce) unutilized -- eventually we'll be at Mexico wages, or even worse. Only slashing the public servants' salaries and restoring the ability of our producers to actually produce will give us any hope.

[Phoenix3434]

That's awesome. Keep old people working even longer, and younger people out of jobs. They should probably cut their own pensions first.

You fail at reading.

[CDNPatriot]

The private sector can't grow with how badly its been suffocated by the public sector, taxes, and worse, the spectre of much higher future taxes to accomodate the pension promises and future growth of the public sector.

If public sector salaries aren't chopped, where does the capital come from to grow the private sector?

Expecting the private sector to generate growth, when its been gagged and its hands tied in bondage, is hardly realistic.

Bunch of nonsense. The private sector in Canada has one of the lowest tax rates in the G8.

So you telling me that when you significantly cut wages in the public sector that this will not have an affect on the rest of the economy. You don't think less line ups at the coffee shop? Restaurants? Retail? You think part time librarains are going to just keep spending away?

Reagan tried this in the 1980s, it's called Voodoo Economics. And it failed miserably.

[CDNPatriot]

Nonsense. If we don't generate any economic growth, and continue to run essentially a penal taxation colony, where a priviledged group of public 'servants' leeches off of the actually productive people, while leaving a huge portion of our capacity (ie: engineering workforce) unutilized -- eventually we'll be at Mexico wages, or even worse. Only slashing the public servants' salaries and restoring the ability of our producers to actually produce will give us any hope.

Give me a break Mark. Private sector has better bonuses. I for one would not want to work for the Public Sector. Pay is low and opportunities for advancement are poor. And your always being nickel and dimed by the Toronto Sun crowd. Otherwise we all would want our kids to work there.

Speaking of engineers Mark, they are underutilized because there are superior engineers in India that can be hired for a lot cheaper! At least we agree on something Mark you raise a good point. All government Engineers and IT people should be offshored to India. This in turn will drive Canadian engineers and IT people out in the market place and further drive down wages.

[DearSummer]

Bunch of nonsense. The private sector in Canada has one of the lowest tax rates in the G8.

So you telling me that when you significantly cut wages in the public sector that this will not have an affect on the rest of the economy. You don't think less line ups at the coffee shop? Restaurants? Retail? You think part time librarains are going to just keep spending away?

Reagan tried this in the 1980s, it's called Voodoo Economics. And it failed miserably.

You don't understand something very basic. The salaries paid to public servants is all money from the private sector. Every penny of it. The government is not a productive entity. It simply redistributes money earned by the private sector. Every dollar that is spent by the government is one less dollar for the private sector economy (aka the people who actually allow us to have our high standard of living). Increasing government spending is not a sustainable way to grow an economy.

[Mark77]

Bunch of nonsense. The private sector in Canada has one of the lowest tax rates in the G8.


Present income taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. If government has taken on a massive amount of debt, that debt ultimately has to be repaid, and investors will include, in their calculations, the sort of tax burdens that would be required, in the future, to repay such debt, when they invest.

Granted, we are nowhere near as bad as the United States, but Canada has other "hidden taxes" that are not accounted for. For instance, our high fuel taxes and the burden of actually operating in our extreme climate.



So you telling me that when you significantly cut wages in the public sector that this will not have an affect on the rest of the economy. You don't think less line ups at the coffee shop? Restaurants? Retail? You think part time librarains are going to just keep spending away?


No, but private sector personnel who are freed of much of the excess tax burden of keeping those public servants alive, will be able to spend more. And money actually earned tends to be spent more efficiently than money that is merely, in DearSummer's words, re-distributed through taxation and other forms of involuntary theft.

Also, the people who remain in the public sector, will have more purchasing power if their tax burdens are lowered, so its not just the private sector people who benefit.




Reagan tried this in the 1980s, it's called Voodoo Economics. And it failed miserably.

No he didn't. Reagan expanded the size/scope of the public sector enormously, through military expansion. Clinton actually cut it back in the 1990s and the economy saw an explosion of private sector growth. Bush repeated the Reagan nonsense by growing government, and of course, it again failed miserably. Obama is just Bush on steroids in terms of incompetence.

[Mark77]

You don't understand something very basic. The salaries paid to public servants is all money from the private sector. Every penny of it. The government is not a productive entity. It simply redistributes money earned by the private sector. Every dollar that is spent by the government is one less dollar for the private sector economy (aka the people who actually allow us to have our high standard of living). Increasing government spending is not a sustainable way to grow an economy.

+1. Usually I don't agree with you DS.... But this is an exception. Governments not only aren't productive, but they often destroy the productivity of the private sector by burdening it with regulations.

You could say even that "every dollar that is spent by the government is at least one less dollar for the private sector economy" because government spending is often on people who do little other than waste the time of the private sector.

[CDNPatriot]

+1. Usually I don't agree with you DS.... But this is an exception. Governments not only aren't productive, but they often destroy the productivity of the private sector by burdening it with regulations.

You could say even that "every dollar that is spent by the government is at least one less dollar for the private sector economy" because government spending is often on people who do little other than waste the time of the private sector.

Yeah, and small government led to the 2008 financial calamity that brought the global economy to it's knees. To bad it didn't take the system down like that we could move away from these simplistic conservative notions once and for all.

[Hitman21]

Yeah, and small government led to the 2008 financial calamity that brought the global economy to it's knees. To bad it didn't take the system down like that we could move away from these simplistic conservative notions once and for all.

There was no small government then though. It was big government and big business that caused the collapse. Government played a big role in causing the crisis

[Mark77]

Yeah, and small government led to the 2008 financial calamity that brought the global economy to it's knees.


No it didn't. Big government led to the 2008 calamity because the mortgage market only was able to grow because it was backed by "big government" in the form of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. In Canada, the CMHC is setting up Canada's mortgage market for a massive collapse. Just watch.



To bad it didn't take the system down like that we could move away from these simplistic conservative notions once and for all.

Simplistic, hardly. Too much government is what caused the 2008 collapse, because government is what has supported the finance system. As opposed to the finance system being supported and run by actual industry, lending actual savings, arising out of actual production.

[Phoenix3434]

You don't understand something very basic. The salaries paid to public servants is all money from the private sector. Every penny of it. The government is not a productive entity. It simply redistributes money earned by the private sector. Every dollar that is spent by the government is one less dollar for the private sector economy (aka the people who actually allow us to have our high standard of living). Increasing government spending is not a sustainable way to grow an economy.

Exactly. And just to add to that and elaborate on it - lets assume that dollar was NOT taken from me to give to the private sector. I am not going to keep this dollar in my pocket. I am not going to hog it. I am going to spend it. I am going to spend it on something that "I" want to buy. When the government steals my dollar and gives it to the librarian, it's true that the librarian can buy something herself. But then I can't buy what I wanted to buy. If the government didn't steal that dollar, then she can't buy, buy I can buy. And I will buy.

This is not a question of "Oh, without that dollar, there will be a ripple effect on whole economy b/c that dollar is not available to buy something". No that's not true, b/c "I" would buy something with that dollar. It's a question of "who gets to spend the money". I would prefer to spend the money myself that I earned by working hard, than letting the librarian spend it simply for being part of a union. Period.

[DearSummer]

Yeah, and small government led to the 2008 financial calamity that brought the global economy to it's knees. To bad it didn't take the system down like that we could move away from these simplistic conservative notions once and for all.

LOL. It was actually the government that enabled the subprime crisis through Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed. As Peter Schiff said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&t=12m20s), Wall Street drank the alcohol that the government poured.

[Mark77]

LOL. It was actually the government that enabled the subprime crisis through Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed. As Peter Schiff said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&t=12m20s), Wall Street drank the alcohol that the government poured.

Technically Fannie/Freddie didn't buy or participate in subprime mortgages (unlike the CMHC). But they certainly provided much of the "alcohol" as Peter Schiff likes to say.

If Fannie/Freddie were providing "alcohol" for the US financial system -- in comparison, the CMHC is providing an even stronger drug -- heroin (or crack cocaine) for the Canadian RE market. Because the CMHC is a direct participant in the subprime market, not an indirect participant as was Fannie/Freddie in the USA.

[CDNPatriot]

You don't understand something very basic. The salaries paid to public servants is all money from the private sector. Every penny of it. The government is not a productive entity. It simply redistributes money earned by the private sector. Every dollar that is spent by the government is one less dollar for the private sector economy (aka the people who actually allow us to have our high standard of living). Increasing government spending is not a sustainable way to grow an economy.

Who says anything about increasing government spending? Workers don't want their jobs outsourced how does that increase spending? Workers are asking for an increase that is less than inflation. How is that increasing spending when our property taxes go up each year at a much higher rate.

[CDNPatriot]

Present income taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. If government has taken on a massive amount of debt, that debt ultimately has to be repaid, and investors will include, in their calculations, the sort of tax burdens that would be required, in the future, to repay such debt, when they invest.

Granted, we are nowhere near as bad as the United States, but Canada has other "hidden taxes" that are not accounted for. For instance, our high fuel taxes and the burden of actually operating in our extreme climate.



No, but private sector personnel who are freed of much of the excess tax burden of keeping those public servants alive, will be able to spend more. And money actually earned tends to be spent more efficiently than money that is merely, in DearSummer's words, re-distributed through taxation and other forms of involuntary theft.

Also, the people who remain in the public sector, will have more purchasing power if their tax burdens are lowered, so its not just the private sector people who benefit.




No he didn't. Reagan expanded the size/scope of the public sector enormously, through military expansion. Clinton actually cut it back in the 1990s and the economy saw an explosion of private sector growth. Bush repeated the Reagan nonsense by growing government, and of course, it again failed miserably. Obama is just Bush on steroids in terms of incompetence.

Sorry, bud but if you reduce the bar and the government standard of wages, then my wages go down like a lot of other private sector workers who rely on publicly disclosed public service wages to justify their pay raises.

Military got paid a lot of money, you are dead wrong there.
Clinton's inheriting years of progress were not because he cut the public services there are a multinitude of factors at work that caused that. You are talking about someone that wrote a paper on that and again you are dead wrong by oversimplifying things.

[CDNPatriot]

No it didn't. Big government led to the 2008 calamity because the mortgage market only was able to grow because it was backed by "big government" in the form of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. In Canada, the CMHC is setting up Canada's mortgage market for a massive collapse. Just watch.

Simplistic, hardly. Too much government is what caused the 2008 collapse, because government is what has supported the finance system. As opposed to the finance system being supported and run by actual industry, lending actual savings, arising out of actual production.

Nah, it was unregulated markets that didn't monitor nor regulate financial derivatives and CDOs.

Nice documentary on it forget what it's called.

[Hitman21]

Nah, it was unregulated markets that didn't monitor nor regulate financial derivatives and CDOs.

Nice documentary on it forget what it's called.

The government created the conditions for the collapse. The government has a huge role in this, if there were free markets this wouldn't have happened.

[peanutz]

Sorry, bud but if you reduce the bar and the government standard of wages, then my wages go down like a lot of other private sector workers who rely on publicly disclosed public service wages to justify their pay raises.Really? I have never yet heard of private sector employees using public sector salaries as a negotiating tool...

[CDNPatriot]

Really? I have never yet heard of private sector employees using public sector salaries as a negotiating tool...

How do you conduct your wage assessment? You provide evidence of job opportunities that disclose the wage range. Nobody does that but the government.

[Hitman21]

How do you conduct your wage assessment? You provide evidence of job opportunities that disclose the wage range. Nobody does that but the government.

The government salaries are highly over inflated because they can pay as much as they want since its taxpayers money, there is no incentive to pay a market wage

[Ziggy007]

Tories poised to launch daring cutbacks to public pensions in federal budget
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/22/harpers-conservatives-poised-to-launch-cutbacks-to-public-pensions/







This is why Harper was the right choice for Canadians. Finally a politician is taking the politically-difficult steps to tackle our serious long-term fiscal issues.

The next logical move is to outlaw defined-benefit pension plans and institue defined-contribution plans instead. Then we'll actually know how much all these promises are costing us!

He still hasn't put term limits in the senate, one of his very first promises.

The senate continues to be the standard of golden parachutes and free paychecks. They can start there and then work their way down the public service.

[zz000ter]

Why is this POLITICAL Conservative policy bashing thread open?
I thought political threads were not allowed

[CDNPatriot]

Why is this POLITICAL Conservative policy bashing thread open?
I thought political threads were not allowed

You see it starts off with Dearsummer picking on some occupation, unions or the civil service. Then Dearsummer never comes prepared with any research for any of his statements and begins spewing Toronto Sun rhetoric. In the end everyone has a field day over it as he gets creamed.

[Hitman21]

You see it starts off with Dearsummer picking on some occupation, unions or the civil service. Then Dearsummer never comes prepared with any research for any of his statements and begins spewing Toronto Sun rhetoric. In the end everyone has a field day over it as he gets creamed.

Why do you hate the Toronto Sun? Whats wrong with exposing waste?

[zz000ter]

Everyone wants a gold plated social welfare system
with the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave

but noone wants to pay the taxes required to make that happen

.... or soon we become another Greece

[Hitman21]

Everyone wants a gold plated social welfare system
with the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave

but noone wants to pay the taxes required to make that happen

.... or soon we become another Greece

Were already heading that way unless we change our ways

[KDSet]

This is why Harper was the right choice for Canadians. Finally a politician is taking the politically-difficult steps to tackle our serious long-term fiscal issues.


I would trust him to carry out the needed pension tinkering, but you give him far too much credit on the 2nd bit (e.g. cutting GST down to 5%, prisons & crime bill, etc).

[DearSummer]

How do you conduct your wage assessment? You provide evidence of job opportunities that disclose the wage range. Nobody does that but the government.

I really question if you have a job based on that statement. Corporations compete for employees like they compete for anything else they buy to run their business (machinery, commodities, etc.). In the private sector (without the interference of unions let's assume) corporations "bid" for the services of employees. The best employees (i.e. most productive) are paid the most. If you are really being underpaid relative to your productivity, another business will be glad to scoop you up and pay you more.

Free market magic...

[CDNPatriot]

I really question if you have a job based on that statement. Corporations compete for employees like they compete for anything else they buy to run their business (machinery, commodities, etc.). In the private sector (without the interference of unions let's assume) corporations "bid" for the services of employees. The best employees (i.e. most productive) are paid the most. If you are really being underpaid relative to your productivity, another business will be glad to scoop you up and pay you more.

Free market magic...

Uh huh... ever hear of the Pay Equity Act bud. Read up on it and please don't ask me to spoon feed you for the hundreth time.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p07_e.htm

Once a company hires you they don't "bid" your raises. The fact of the matter you sit for your yearily review and you plead your case. The usual line is "well we are paying you a competitive rate if you can demonstrate that we are not please show us", that's when I pull up all of the public service jobs that I find in different municipalities and the province and federal level and show how they have increased from the previous year. And no they don't accept Glassdoor as being a credible source.

[peanutz]

How do you conduct your wage assessment? You provide evidence of job opportunities that disclose the wage range. Nobody does that but the government.You conduct it by applying to several different (private) companies and seeing what they offer you. When the economy is going well and your expertise is in demand, the government positions usually pay lower. When the economy is in the craphole and the supply of people with your skillset is higher than the demand for it, the private companies are able to drop the salaries offered such that the government positions are usually paying higher. Neither scenario lends itself to having your salary matched with the government's, and government positions are also typically few and far between.


You see it starts off with Dearsummer picking on some occupation, unions or the civil service. Then Dearsummer never comes prepared with any research for any of his statements and begins spewing Toronto Sun rhetoric. In the end everyone has a field day over it as he gets creamed.? I thought DearSummer and Mark77 were clobbering your arguments in this thread.


Everyone wants a gold plated social welfare system
with the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave

but noone wants to pay the taxes required to make that happen

.... or soon we become another GreeceWe're headed that way with the baby boomers leading the charge. :lol: Sounds like the ones in the government are also the worst bunch.

[anyasok]

I disagree with the Tories. Forcing people to work longer isn't the answer. The government shouldn't even be in charge of public pensions, let people opt out of CPP and begin to phase it out. People should be responsible for their own lives not the government. What the government really needs to do is make huge cuts to spending and limit their responsibilities.
This is only true in the case when the economy can take care of the people without government intervention. Since the economy always fails to take care of anyone but the elite, the government exists for these people who were slighted by the economy.

If you give someone $5 million, some will end up broke naturally (and for these people I would definitely say "you are on your own") but the vast majority will spend it to attain security for lifetime by buying the things they need (without going into debt) and socking the rest in savings accounts and other financial tools and spending what is left on luxuries, travel, etc.

But if you give no one nothing and make it extremely hard to impossible to attain huge sums of money in life because the elite already control everything (and naturally get more and more richer), then can you really say the government shouldnt intervene and lets people take care of themselves?

If the economy was setup in such a way that would discourage hoarding money (using negative interest and capital decay) then it would have been a viable proposition. The way things stand though, its pure baloney.

[DearSummer]

Uh huh... ever hear of the Pay Equity Act bud. Read up on it and please don't ask me to spoon feed you for the hundreth time.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p07_e.htm

Once a company hires you they don't "bid" your raises. The fact of the matter you sit for your yearily review and you plead your case. The usual line is "well we are paying you a competitive rate if you can demonstrate that we are not please show us", that's when I pull up all of the public service jobs that I find in different municipalities and the province and federal level and show how they have increased from the previous year. And no they don't accept Glassdoor as being a credible source.

Yes, you can negotiate a raise with your current employer. Or you can go work elsewhere and make more money. If you're costing your employer $50k and making them $100k, another company will be glad to pay you more than $50k, and up nearly $100k. Pretty simple isn't it?

Employees often change jobs and/or receive offers they use as leverage to raise their pay. It's no different than switching from Rogers to Bell to Telus as your cell phone provider, depending on who is offering the best price.

[CDNPatriot]

You conduct it by applying to several different (private) companies and seeing what they offer you. When the economy is going well and your expertise is in demand, the government positions usually pay lower. When the economy is in the craphole and the supply of people with your skillset is higher than the demand for it, the government positions are usually paying higher. Neither scenario lends itself to having your salary matched with the government's, and government positions are also typically few and far between.
? I thought DearSummer and Mark77 were clobbering your arguments in this thread.
We're headed that way with the baby boomers leading the charge. :lol:


Peanutz your pals Dearsummer and Mack aren't saying that. They are saying that civil servants are making the big bucks much much more than the private sector for quite some time now.

It's interesting how Dearsummer and Mack have no links to substantiate their claims and I've literally posted several dozen of them over my discourses.

As for calling other employers, you actually think my boss is going to give them a reference and lose me?

[DearSummer]

If the economy was setup in such a way that would discourage hoarding money (using negative interest and capital decay) then it would have been a viable proposition. The way things stand though, its pure baloney.

Inflation.

[CDNPatriot]

Yes, you can negotiate a raise with your current employer. Or you can go work elsewhere and make more money. If you're costing your employer $50k and making them $100k, another company will be glad to pay you more than $50k, and up nearly $100k. Pretty simple isn't it?

Employees often change jobs and/or receive offers they use as leverage to raise their pay. It's no different than switching from Rogers to Bell to Telus as your cell phone provider, depending on who is offering the best price.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/09/jobs-canada-030912.html

get with the current labour market conditions bud. And how do I demonstrate how great an employee I am to an employer without my boss's reference?

[peanutz]

As for calling other employers, you actually think my boss is going to give them a reference and lose me?wth are you talking about? First of all--employees and applicants to private companies already conduct assessments regarding salaries+benefits by talking to companies that are interested in them. Secondly, my company actually DOES conduct its own salary investigations versus its competitors, because for higher-skilled jobs they don't want to lose their employees after just a couple years because there were better opportunities for them elsewhere (usually private); they aren't simply looking for government-posted jobs that are declared publicly...lol...

What is your profession or field of work?

[CDNPatriot]

wth are you talking about? First of all--employees and applicants to private companies already conduct assessments regarding salaries+benefits by talking to companies that are interested in them. Secondly, my company actually DOES conduct its own salary investigations versus its competitors, because for higher-skilled jobs they don't want to lose their employees after just a couple years because there were better opportunities for them elsewhere (usually private); they aren't simply looking for government-posted jobs that are declared publicly...lol...

What is your profession or field of work?

In the financial sector. The company will not disclose their assessments even if they do them. They tell our staff to do their own and to make their own case for a raise. Your companies might but not mine. Reality check folks. Do you actually believe that your employer calls up the competition and they have a friendly chat on what they pay to each employee? What they do if your job title exists with government is pull up old job ads and they rely on futures.ca and Ontario Futures for wage rates.

I know for a fact at Scotiabank some job titles also do their own assessments to take back to them.

[Metagame]

It is about damn time. If that doesn't free up enough funds to get us out of this deficit, then the government can always scrap all of these organizations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_government_scientific_research_organizati ons)

Imagine how much funds we would free up with all of these incompetent scientists fired and their experimental apparatus that costs us, the taxpayer, millions of dollars?

[Syne]

? I thought DearSummer and Mark77 were clobbering your arguments in this thread.



They weren't.

Looks like we got a regular Anne Coulter on our hands here :)

[Metagame]

They weren't.

Looks like we got a regular Anne Coulter on our hands here :)

That is an insult to Anne Coulter, at least Anne Coulter doesn't have an entitlement complex and believe it is the government's job to stop outsourcing and penalize companies that outsource jobs.

She has very dangerous ideas that would completely destroy our nation, such as protectionism.

[peanutz]

Uh huh... ever hear of the Pay Equity Act bud. Read up on it and please don't ask me to spoon feed you for the hundreth time.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p07_e.htmI am unsure whether you know what the Pay Equity Act is about. Hint: it talks a lot about "female" and "male" job classes.


They weren't.

Looks like we got a regular Anne Coulter on our hands here :)Uhhh...so says the little boy who wants to live off of OSAP forever.


That is an insult to Anne Coulter, at least Anne Coulter doesn't have an entitlement complex and believe it is the government's job to stop outsourcing and penalize companies that outsource jobs.First of all :)

I went to the University of Toronto downtown and I never cried boo-hoo, I need to transfer out before my grades and career are destroyed. When one is struggling so badly in school, one recommendation is to spend time to study a little more.

Second, I have never said that the government should regulate and stop outsourcing. LOL. Please don't attribute the wrong arguments to me, but I would guess that is a futile request since you have trouble keeping people's viewpoints straight. Or doing well in school.

Bawwwwww my career is ruined because of the school I went to! :)

[Hitman21]

I am unsure whether you know what the Pay Equity Act is about. Hint: it talks a lot about "female" and "male" job classes.

Uhhh...so says the little boy who wants to live off of OSAP forever.

First of all :)

I went to the University of Toronto downtown and I never cried boo-hoo, I need to transfer out before my grades and career are destroyed. When one is struggling so badly in school, one recommendation is to spend time to study a little more.

Second, I have never said that the government should regulate and stop outsourcing. LOL. Please don't attribute the wrong arguments to me, but I would guess that is a futile request since you have trouble keeping people's viewpoints straight. Or doing well in school.

Bawwwwww my career is ruined because of the school I went to! :)

That is standard practice for this guy :facepalm:

[peanutz]

That is standard practice for this guy :facepalm:I have noticed. He doesn't even seem to realize it, which means... well actually I might get an infraction for suggesting why.

[Hitman21]

I have noticed. He doesn't even seem to realize it, which means... well actually I might get an infraction for suggesting why.

I know, its best just to ignore this guy since he has some pretty crazy views

[peanutz]

I liked Ann Coulter when she made the flying carpet/camel jokes. I don't think I can post them here. ;)

[Syne]

Deleted Ann Coulter video because I'm sure someone would report it as being sexist

After seeing her on Bill Maher, I actually think she does have a shred of humanity.

[Hitman21]

I liked Ann Coulter when she made the flying carpet/camel jokes. I don't think I can post them here. ;)

The video isn't even that bad though, she is exercising freedom of speech and the student that it was directed at was a supporter of terrorism

[Syne]

Ah screw it..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8WQM-KVFwE

[peanutz]

Lol, at least I made my jab relevant to the thread and your views, even if it wasn't entirely accurate. You just tried to hurt my feelings on a completely unrelated subject. :D

Note: Deleted Ann Coulter video because I'm sure someone would report it as being sexistI know, you already got your wrist slapped. Seems that there's been a lot of wrist-slapping lately. Now Tornado F2 won't be able to add to this awesome thread for a few weeks.

My point was tangentially relevant, although I was more annoyed at you for comparing me to Ann Coulter than having a real chip on my shoulder against you. The point is that government is a permitted kleptocracy (to use Jared Diamond's term) and those who get a piece of the spoils like it. Someone who overextends his portion of OSAP funds would be part of that (not saying you actually would--hopefully you won't have to by eventually being able to pay off those student loans with a decent job.)

The problem is, the "government theft" is allowed so long as the government does a satisfactory job to the members it "steals" from. When it becomes dysfunctional and excessive, real problems arise.

[king_george]

As a proud hard-working baby boomer who is also a gov't employee (without a gold-plated pension) and who has worked damn hard through 4 careers to raise a family and save for my retirement, you can all eat my shorts. :D:razz:

Any OAS or CPP we get will be unneeded for me and the wife. It's all gravy kiddies. :D

[peanutz]

As a proud hard-working baby boomer who is also a gov't employee (without a gold-plated pension) and who has worked damn hard through 4 careers to raise a family and save for my retirement, you can all eat my shorts. :D:razz:

Any OAS or CPP we get will be unneeded for me and the wife. It's all gravy kiddies. :DI hate you. And the taste of your shorts.

Just harmless fist-shaking, mods, I don't really hate king_george.

[Metagame]

I went to the University of Toronto downtown and I never cried boo-hoo, I need to transfer out before my grades and career are destroyed. When one is struggling so badly in school, one recommendation is to spend time to study a little more.

Second, I have never said that the government should regulate and stop outsourcing. LOL. Please don't attribute the wrong arguments to me, but I would guess that is a futile request since you have trouble keeping people's viewpoints straight. Or doing well in school.

Bawwwwww my career is ruined because of the school I went to! :)

What does my personal life have to do with this argument? Do you even know how to debate a point? Or are your arguments just ad-hominem and red-herrings? Let's get back on topic, kay?

Do you remember these posts (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dead-end-jobs-1128790/7/#post14175145)? Where you were denouncing private enterprise for bringing in qualified employees into this country who are just as skilled as Canadians but are willing to work for a fraction of the cost? You seem to suffer from the entitlement complex that is rampant across Canada, the mindset that Canadian companies should be forced to only employ Canadians and shouldn't be looking out for their bottom-line.

[Hitman21]

What does my personal life have to do with this argument? Do you even know how to debate a point? Or are your arguments just ad-hominem and red-herrings? Let's get back on topic, kay?

Do you remember these posts (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dead-end-jobs-1128790/7/#post14175145)? Where you were denouncing private enterprise for bringing in qualified employees into this country who are just as skilled as Canadians but are willing to work for a fraction of the cost? You seem to suffer from the entitlement complex that is rampant across Canada, the mindset that Canadian companies should be forced to only employ Canadians and shouldn't be looking out for their bottom-line.

A lot actually

[Metagame]

A lot actually

To you perhaps, but that may have to do with the fact you're a troll and all...

[peanutz]

What does my personal life have to do with this argument? Do you even know how to debate a point? Or are your arguments just ad-hominem and red-herrings? Let's get back on topic, kay?It is not ad-hominem. I am not denouncing your points because you are a (infraction-worthy word.) I am simply saying you are a (infraction-worthy word) and on top of that, your points suck. :facepalm:

But dude, seriously, you need to study. And learn. The real world isn't about simply doing contrived problems out of a textbook and hoping to get a good grade on an exam, and lots of universities try to bring some reality to their methodologies. :)


Do you remember these posts (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dead-end-jobs-1128790/7/#post14175145)? Where you were denouncing private enterprise for bringing in qualified employees into this country who are just as skilled as Canadians but are willing to work for a fraction of the cost? You seem to suffer from the entitlement complex that is rampant across Canada, the mindset that Canadian companies should be forced to only employ Canadians and shouldn't be looking out for their bottom-line.Well, I don't recall saying that Canadian companies shouldn't outsource or should only be allowed to employ Canadians, although I find the outsourcing trend deplorable. (Elsewhere I defended those companies by saying they probably feel a strong need to, in order to compete with other companies internationally that do so.) I do think that there should be incentives put in place for companies to not outsource. You'll notice I did not protest you saying that I believe in protectionism, because I do, to an extent.

[Hitman21]

To you perhaps, but that may have to do with the fact you're a troll and all...

:facepalm: Your the same guy who gets angry with interracial couples and asian women dating outside their race yet you call me a troll :facepalm:

[Metagame]

Well, I don't recall saying that Canadian companies shouldn't outsource or should only be allowed to employ Canadians, although I find the outsourcing trend deplorable. (Elsewhere I defended those companies by saying they probably feel a strong need to, in order to compete with other companies internationally that do so.) I do think that there should be incentives put in place for companies to not outsource. You'll notice I did not protest you saying that I believe in protectionism, because I do, to an extent.

Why do you think outsourcing is a problem? If companies can find qualified people abroad who are willing to work for a fraction of the cost that Canadians charge, then what is the problem? Companies, after all, only exist to maximize profits for their share-holders. If the wages for certain professions (such as engineering) are driven down as a result, then so be it. That is the law of supply and demand. I hope our government stays out of the private sector, as it is capitalistic principles that will allow for our economy to truly flourish.

[Mark77]

The government salaries are highly over inflated because they can pay as much as they want since its taxpayers money, there is no incentive to pay a market wage

Yup, and government doesn't pay 'market wages'. They pay far above market. If government were to advertise for, say, a Deputy Minister, and they receive 1,000 applications -- the 'market wage' would be the lowest wage one of those 1,000 people would be willing to work at. Not $200k/year or whatever they pay them. I suspect there's a lot of folks out there who would even work a Deputy Minister's job as a "public service" -- in other words, on a volunteer basis.

[Metagame]

Well, I don't recall saying that Canadian companies shouldn't outsource or should only be allowed to employ Canadians, although I find the outsourcing trend deplorable. (Elsewhere I defended those companies by saying they probably feel a strong need to, in order to compete with other companies internationally that do so.) I do think that there should be incentives put in place for companies to not outsource. You'll notice I did not protest you saying that I believe in protectionism, because I do, to an extent.

Why do you think outsourcing is a problem? If companies can find qualified people abroad who are willing to work for a fraction of the cost that Canadians charge, then what is the problem? Companies, after all, only exist to maximize profits for their share-holders. If the wages for certain professions (such as engineering) are driven down as a result, then so be it. That is the law of supply and demand. I hope our government stays out of the private sector, as it is capitalistic principles that will allow for our economy to truly flourish.


:facepalm: Your the same guy who gets angry with interracial couples and asian women dating outside their race yet you call me a troll :facepalm:

Thanks for another sig. Keep em coming, Hitman21.

[Hitman21]

Yup, and government doesn't pay 'market wages'. They pay far above market. If government were to advertise for, say, a Deputy Minister, and they receive 1,000 applications -- the 'market wage' would be the lowest wage one of those 1,000 people would be willing to work at. Not $200k/year or whatever they pay them. I suspect there's a lot of folks out there who would even work a Deputy Minister's job as a "public service" -- in other words, on a volunteer basis.

I agree with you. All politicians and bureaucrats need massive cuts to their salaries and pensions which are unsustainable. The ones that have a problem with it need to be punished

[Mark77]

Why do you think outsourcing is a problem? If companies can find qualified people abroad who are willing to work for a fraction of the cost that Canadians charge, then what is the problem? Companies, after all, only exist to maximize profits for their share-holders. If the wages for certain professions (such as engineering) are driven down as a result, then so be it. That is the law of supply and demand. I hope our government stays out of the private sector, as it is capitalistic principles that will allow for our economy to truly flourish.

I personally have no problem with outsourcing, but it should be done on an equal opportunity basis. Its not acceptable, IMHO, to import a ton of engineers or to outsource a ton of engineering jobs, while not inflicting the same misery on other fields in society, such as the public servants. If we can get our engineering done in India -- why can't we have our income tax audits done in India as well? Why must certain classes of jobs be protected from foreign competition, while others, like engineering, generally aren't? Why does the government engage in policy designed to keep their own labour costs high, while giving free reign to the private sector to reduce their labour costs?

[Hitman21]

I personally have no problem with outsourcing, but it should be done on an equal opportunity basis. Its not acceptable, IMHO, to import a ton of engineers or to outsource a ton of engineering jobs, while not inflicting the same misery on other fields in society, such as the public servants. If we can get our engineering done in India -- why can't we have our income tax audits done in India as well? Why must certain classes of jobs be protected from foreign competition, while others, like engineering, generally aren't? Why does the government engage in policy designed to keep their own labour costs high, while giving free reign to the private sector to reduce their labour costs?

Most of those public servant jobs aren't even needed in the first place. Inflict misery on them by cutting the jobs and taking away their pensions

[squagles]

Most of those public servant jobs aren't even needed in the first place. Inflict misery on them by cutting the jobs and taking away their pensions

Capitalism wouldn't survive this.

[CDNPatriot]

I am unsure whether you know what the Pay Equity Act is about. Hint: it talks a lot about "female" and "male" job classes.

Uhhh...so says the little boy who wants to live off of OSAP forever.

First of all :)

I went to the University of Toronto downtown and I never cried boo-hoo, I need to transfer out before my grades and career are destroyed. When one is struggling so badly in school, one recommendation is to spend time to study a little more.

Second, I have never said that the government should regulate and stop outsourcing. LOL. Please don't attribute the wrong arguments to me, but I would guess that is a futile request since you have trouble keeping people's viewpoints straight. Or doing well in school.

Bawwwwww my career is ruined because of the school I went to! :)

Peanutz interesting how you picked up on it. Dearsummer... went right over his head like usual.

It's the Employment Standards Act not Pay Equity Act.

http://www.worksmartontario.gov.on.ca/scripts/default.asp?contentID=1-3-7

[CDNPatriot]

I personally have no problem with outsourcing, but it should be done on an equal opportunity basis. Its not acceptable, IMHO, to import a ton of engineers or to outsource a ton of engineering jobs, while not inflicting the same misery on other fields in society, such as the public servants. If we can get our engineering done in India -- why can't we have our income tax audits done in India as well? Why must certain classes of jobs be protected from foreign competition, while others, like engineering, generally aren't? Why does the government engage in policy designed to keep their own labour costs high, while giving free reign to the private sector to reduce their labour costs?

Here we go. Outsource garbage worker jobs plain and simple without stipulations. However, when you start using the same terminology and start applying it to their fields (ie engineering), suddenly it comes with a list of stipulations. Very, interesting.

How about this Mark, we outsource all government Engineering and IT jobs like you say. Actually we offshore it. And then we watch the flood of engineers and IT professionals drive wages down in Canada.

Bottom line, Engineers are over paid plain and simple. All they usually have is an undergrad.

Speaking of entitlement Mark, why should you make more money than an engineer in India? Or why in general should you make more money than someone in Mexico or Cuba?

[Phoenix3434]

I personally have no problem with outsourcing, but it should be done on an equal opportunity basis. Its not acceptable, IMHO, to import a ton of engineers or to outsource a ton of engineering jobs, while not inflicting the same misery on other fields in society, such as the public servants. If we can get our engineering done in India -- why can't we have our income tax audits done in India as well? Why must certain classes of jobs be protected from foreign competition, while others, like engineering, generally aren't? Why does the government engage in policy designed to keep their own labour costs high, while giving free reign to the private sector to reduce their labour costs?

Interesting perspective. To get an idea of how much certain professions are artificially supported in Canada, you just need to take a look at developing countries. It's true that Engineers make less in South Asia than Canada. BUT, their quality of life is so much higher. I think there is a separate thread about this in OT. With a good Engineering salary in South Asia, you can have a big house, cook, driver, etc. Back there, individuals like librarians and teachers do not make that much money and being a librarian or an office clerk would not allow you to buy a HDTV or have a personal driver. Being an Engineer would get you these things. Since people are not artificially supported, you can find people to do things cheap for you. In Canada, b/c these professions are artificially supported, the standard of living of an Engineer vs a government worker is probably about equal. Actually, I would say that the government worker has better benefits and compensation.

In Canada, not only does the government have unequal protectionism, but the government steals Engineering salaries (via tax) to artificially support these other "professions" also.

[CDNPatriot]

Interesting perspective. To get an idea of how much certain professions are artificially supported in Canada, you just need to take a look at developing countries. It's true that Engineers make less in South Asia than Canada. BUT, their quality of life is so much higher. I think there is a separate thread about this in OT. With a good Engineering salary in South Asia, you can have a big house, cook, driver, etc. Back there, individuals like librarians and teachers do not make that much money and being a librarian or an office clerk would not allow you to buy a HDTV or have a personal driver. Being an Engineer would get you these things. Since people are not artificially supported, you can find people to do things cheap for you. In Canada, b/c these professions are artificially supported, the standard of living of an Engineer vs a government worker is probably about equal. Actually, I would say that the government worker has better benefits and compensation.

In Canada, not only does the government have unequal protectionism, but the government steals Engineering salaries (via tax) to artificially support these other "professions" also.

Good point Phoenix. Same goes for engineers who think they are entitled to something more just because they have an undergrad in engineering. They tend to vastly over rate this degree. They think it means they are the top one percent of the greatest thinkers in society when for the most part it's more about focusing on a particular field of study for four years. And just because it's one of the rare undergrad programs that comes with a title and a ring they think they need to have the civil service working for them as cleaning ladies and butlers. The smart ones I've noticed usually identify that piece of paper of a degree for what it's really worth and move on to a Masters of some type.

If you think there is big bucks in the civil service either get a job with them or quit your job to find a better paying job.

[CDNPatriot]

I really question if you have a job based on that statement. Corporations compete for employees like they compete for anything else they buy to run their business (machinery, commodities, etc.). In the private sector (without the interference of unions let's assume) corporations "bid" for the services of employees. The best employees (i.e. most productive) are paid the most. If you are really being underpaid relative to your productivity, another business will be glad to scoop you up and pay you more.

Free market magic...

Free market logic says Dearsummer. No need for unions as workers will prosper on their own. Case in point. The 2009 Air Continental crash in Buffalo. Major cause of the crash was that the co-pilot from Seattle had to travel all the way across the United States to make it to her $16,000.00 a year job of which she also had to work other jobs to support herself such as working in a coffee shop for less than 10 bucks an hour.

The pilot made less than 50k a year. So when the pilot got distracted and wasn't paying attention to the speed, and when the drowsy co-pilot was not in a condition to fly also failed to notice the speed this resulted in the plane crashing killing all crew and passengers on board. So this is what happens when you don't pay people decent wages. It affects their performance and also in certain circumstances causes tragedy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/05/13/buffalo-crash-probe051309.html

[DearSummer]

Free market logic says Dearsummer. No need for unions as workers will prosper on their own. Case in point. The 2009 Air Continental crash in Buffalo. Major cause of the crash was that the co-pilot from Seattle had to travel all the way across the United States to make it to her $16,000.00 a year job of which she also had to work other jobs to support herself such as working in a coffee shop for less than 10 bucks an hour.

The pilot made less than 50k a year. So when the pilot got distracted and wasn't paying attention to the speed, and when the drowsy co-pilot was not in a condition to fly also failed to notice the speed this resulted in the plane crashing killing all crew and passengers on board. So this is what happens when you don't pay people decent wages. It affects their performance and also in certain circumstances causes tragedy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/05/13/buffalo-crash-probe051309.html

Pilots are an oversaturated job market. Low wages should cause a decline in people becoming pilots. Hence, wages rise as the job market balances. You can't just arbitrarily pay people a high wage or the economy will fall apart as your businesses will not be competitive. This is basic economics...

[manmanny]

Pilots are an oversaturated job market. Low wages should cause a decline in people becoming pilots. Hence, wages rise as the job market balances. You can't just arbitrarily pay people a high wage or the economy will fall apart as your businesses will not be competitive. This is basic economics...

Forget the economics.

What kind of pilot will risk life of passengers, to earn salary like 20K and not having enough rest/sleep. The problem was not her salary but her and company procedures. Also her moral and mental stability for risking life of passengers. The co-pilot for risking the life of everyone.

People have that salary in Toronto but they don't take suck risks. Its not common for pilot to work at home depot or have other jobs for low salary.
This is NA and not some third world country where pilot feel insulted to work other jobs.

If you are jeopardizing safety of passengers for low salary then it your fault.

[Kris81]

Why is Canada post starting at 55 and everybody else in the private sector at 65.

http://fairpensionsforall.net/2011/11/12/op-ed-cosy-benefits-at-canada-post-time-for-taxpayers-to-strike/

mmm, unfortunately at Canada Post you don't cash out your sick time at the end of the day. I also don't see why the author there cares if the Union wants more members working instead of paying less employees overtime.

[webdoctors]

Interesting perspective. To get an idea of how much certain professions are artificially supported in Canada, you just need to take a look at developing countries. It's true that Engineers make less in South Asia than Canada. BUT, their quality of life is so much higher. I think there is a separate thread about this in OT. With a good Engineering salary in South Asia, you can have a big house, cook, driver, etc. Back there, individuals like librarians and teachers do not make that much money and being a librarian or an office clerk would not allow you to buy a HDTV or have a personal driver. Being an Engineer would get you these things. Since people are not artificially supported, you can find people to do things cheap for you. In Canada, b/c these professions are artificially supported, the standard of living of an Engineer vs a government worker is probably about equal. Actually, I would say that the government worker has better benefits and compensation.

In Canada, not only does the government have unequal protectionism, but the government steals Engineering salaries (via tax) to artificially support these other "professions" also.

I was actually thinking the same thing recently. Its one of the reasons I left Canada, my standard of living is much higher working as an Engineer outside of Canada than inside Canada, because peripheral occupations make about on par with me in Toronto. Going to Asia or down south and the picture changed in my favour.

I'm not deluded to think companies/society owes me a job just because I have the iron ring, I realized after 6+ months of job searching without an offer that I have to go where the jobs are, even if it means leaving my home and native land.

Back on topic, making gov salaries+benefits reasonable will bring reason to the job market.

[NorthYorker]

Seriously, what kind of morally-bankrupt tyrant runs an attack ad on the INTERIM leader of the THIRD party, THREE YEARS before an election? Putin did. He also introduced flat taxation and slashed welfare programs for seniors.

[Hitman21]

Putin did. He also introduced flat taxation and slashed welfare programs for seniors.

Taxes and welfare are bad

[Phoenix3434]

Good point Phoenix. Same goes for engineers who think they are entitled to something more just because they have an undergrad in engineering. They tend to vastly over rate this degree.

Well, given what I said in my previous messages (which you quoted and responded to), I don't think that it is unreasonable for Engineers to "think they are entitled to something more" than what they are getting right now - in terms of standard of living. In countries where the government doesn't redistribute wealth as much, Engineers DO have a better quality of life. That's exactly what I said in my previous message and which you responded to.

In Canada, Engineers are taken advantage of. If the same Engineers were in a developing country (like in South Asia), they would have a much higher standard of living - even if making less money. No point in re-writing everything I said in my previous message, just take a look at it again.



They think it means they are the top one percent of the greatest thinkers in society when for the most part it's more about focusing on a particular field of study for four years. And just because it's one of the rare undergrad programs that comes with a title and a ring they think they need to have the civil service working for them as cleaning ladies and butlers. The smart ones I've noticed usually identify that piece of paper of a degree for what it's really worth and move on to a Masters of some type.

No one said anything about the civil servants being cleaning ladies and butlers. All people are saying is not to be like Greece and create unnecessary positions with over the top money within the government. Currently, the civil service is more or less a glorified welfare program. There is so much inefficiency and incompetence that if these people were to work in the private industry, they would be fired. I've seen more competence in the Bell/Rogers call centre people than with the people working at the government.



If you think there is big bucks in the civil service either get a job with them or quit your job to find a better paying job.

Ah the famous, "if you don't like it, why don't you join the civil service!" argument. Never fails to give me a laugh. LOL.. Not everyone wants to be a postman or a garbage man or a glorified secretary bud.. But there ARE lots of people that do. Even if you cut those salaries by 1/2, there will be people who will want to do the job - and probably better too. I am not one of them, but that is not relevant to this discussion. What IS important is that there are others who want to do the job. Having immigrants roots, I know a lot of immigrant families. There are so many of them who would LOVE to have a government job for 1/2 the salary those people are making right now.

As I said before, not giving these government leeches free money (by artificially boosting their salary) is not going to keep money out of the circulation. B/c that money comes from the taxpayers. If "I" had that money to spend (from lower taxes), I wouldn't hog it - I would spend it. For some reason the government has decided that these leeches should spend this money and not me. We work hard for our money in the private industry. I am tired of these leeches getting the benefit of my hard work for free.


I was actually thinking the same thing recently. Its one of the reasons I left Canada, my standard of living is much higher working as an Engineer outside of Canada than inside Canada, because peripheral occupations make about on par with me in Toronto. Going to Asia or down south and the picture changed in my favour.


^^ There you go Patriot. Read and understand. A man with a personal story.

[Phoenix3434]

Taxes and welfare are bad

Just to clarify, I am presuming Hitman means "excessive" taxes and "excessive" welfare - which is what's present in Canada right now. Too much free money to people who don't contribute is bad for the country as he said.

Obviously, a reasonable amount of taxes are necessary to maintain the roads and "efficient/core" public services. Also a reasonable amount of welfare is ok for individuals who are genuinely going through a TEMPORARY rough patch and who are genuinely TRYING to improve themselves.

Currently, welfare is handed off like candy.

[MrKap]

So what? I mean the whole pension cutting thing.

Who cares...


What they need to do is start issuing food stamps like Richard Nixon did back in the 70s before the rich elite bagged him for being a crook.

Food, besides shoes, are the only thing worth paying for. Everybody knows that.

[Agafaba]

Just to clarify, I am presuming Hitman means "excessive" taxes and "excessive" welfare - which is what's present in Canada right now. Too much free money to people who don't contribute is bad for the country as he said.

Obviously, a reasonable amount of taxes are necessary to maintain the roads and "efficient/core" public services. Also a reasonable amount of welfare is ok for individuals who are genuinely going through a TEMPORARY rough patch and who are genuinely TRYING to improve themselves.

Currently, welfare is handed off like candy.

I wouldnt worry about welfare as much anymore, a couple of people I know on welfare were told they would have to volunteer if they couldnt find work. Basically they are now becoming incredibly cheap labor for places like habitat for humanity.

[Hitman21]

Just to clarify, I am presuming Hitman means "excessive" taxes and "excessive" welfare - which is what's present in Canada right now. Too much free money to people who don't contribute is bad for the country as he said.

Obviously, a reasonable amount of taxes are necessary to maintain the roads and "efficient/core" public services. Also a reasonable amount of welfare is ok for individuals who are genuinely going through a TEMPORARY rough patch and who are genuinely TRYING to improve themselves.

Currently, welfare is handed off like candy.

There is way too much taxation and welfare. But most of the government programs aren't even necessary and should be cut resulting in less taxes. Welfare only encourages people to not get a job

[MrKap]

There is way too much taxation and welfare. But most of the government programs aren't even necessary and should be cut resulting in less taxes. Welfare only encourages people to not get a job

Well if it helps, it's "Ontario Works" as in "Ontario works for welfare". It used to be just plain old welfare sometime in the 90s but that changed and they cut back on it quite a bit. Now it's "work for welfare".

What it does is it encourages the largest of the largest employers who require a non-skilled workforce to take a labor force on at the cost of the taxpayer.

I am pretty sure it was really easy to get welfare back in 90s, because I remember someone who just should not have been on it at all, but they were. No offense to them, or no ill wishes to send them to a crappy no pay job, just they didn't "need" it at all. They may have cleaned it up a bit since then. jmo...


Look at this way, if more people had enjoyed more success and wealth which is comparable to the success that many baby boomers experienced, then this generation coming up would be a solid investment towards those retiring with pensions. They are just not experiencing the wealth when compared to years ago. So they have to cut. Again jmo...

It's like living wage, what's wrong with that? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage


The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements of a living wage - or is so low that borrowing or application for top-up benefits is necessary. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.