ADRM
Senior Member
Trade solely in alternative facts and you're gonna get called out for it; pretty simple. And if you can't handle that, you're not very well prepared to partake in any political debate in any forum.
|
|
|
2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Trade solely in alternative facts and you're gonna get called out for it; pretty simple. And if you can't handle that, you're not very well prepared to partake in any political debate in any forum.
TransitBart
Senior Member
In my universe these are known as falsehoods, fibs, or quatsch. There are no alternative facts.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
I would just like to point out that the term 'alternative facts' doesn't actually mean anything.
.....unless we're talking of corresponding realities in an alternate dimension that is mirrored on our sphere of existence. No, even then, each sphere of existence would only be able to support one set of facts.
Also, what's that law of Internet debate called? The one that postulates about the bringing up of Hitler. Seems it needs a reformulation to take into account the inevitable mention of Trump.
.....unless we're talking of corresponding realities in an alternate dimension that is mirrored on our sphere of existence. No, even then, each sphere of existence would only be able to support one set of facts.
Also, what's that law of Internet debate called? The one that postulates about the bringing up of Hitler. Seems it needs a reformulation to take into account the inevitable mention of Trump.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Alternate facts to me mean selective reporting.
One can either say that Harper added $130B of debt while McGuinty and Wynne added a similar magnitude (maybe $150B).
Or one can say that Harper added 28% (the lowest in the G7) to the debt while McGuinty and Wynne added over 100% (one of the highest among provinces).
Both are facts, just different ways of presenting them.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Those are the same fact looked at in different ways. One being a rate of increase and one being an increase in real terms.
I don't think that's the sort of thing that's meant when the term 'alternative facts' is bandied about.
I don't think that's the sort of thing that's meant when the term 'alternative facts' is bandied about.
Alternative facts came about from Kelly Anne Conway when Sean Spicer lied about how many people attended the inauguration. She called his lie alternative facts. So not simply looking at a fact in a different way but out and out lying.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
Well firstly the Car sticker price went up this year and it was 79 dollars a few years ago and now its 124... so yes indirect taxes have skyrocketed under this govt.
Taxes will go up as the government is engaging in a ton of social spending and the balance is about as balanced as Harpers was in 2015 lol
If that is true...how on earth did they pile up do much debt? If you said because taxes are too low well, good looking convincing people of that.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Where are the stories about the big bad daycare operators. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ticker-shock-linked-to-minimum-wage-hike.html
It appears the entire Tim Hortons is greedy narrative has just blown up in the Liberals face. A lot of people who criticized Tims are eating crow today.
It appears the entire Tim Hortons is greedy narrative has just blown up in the Liberals face. A lot of people who criticized Tims are eating crow today.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Nonsense - at issue in the case of Tim Hortons was certain franchise operators clawing back benefits from employees. This is a case of daycare operators increasing the price of services in response to the increase in minimum wages. Not to say it doesn't matter, but you don't help the middle class by depressing wages for low income earners who are barely scraping by right now.
AoD
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
To Alvin's point above; I earlier explained the exact % of cost of goods sold represented by labour in fast food franchises in ON. To refresh, that number was 11%, which made the min. wage increase a gross increase of 2.7% in cost of goods sold. Meaning, that it is and was within the ability of franchisees to pay, even without a price increase, but moreover, a modest increase in price would easily absorb it. AS such most of us conclude it to be entirely unreasonable and unjustifiable to clawback benefits from vulnerable employees in entry level jobs to offset that modest burden.
***
By contrast, while childcare is not my area of expertise; a little googling suggests childcare operators see labour costs closer to 45% of cost-of-goods-sold. Or 4.5x as much as a Tim's Franchisee.
This suggests that passing on the true cost of an increase, strictly on wages, would be around 13%; this number will be higher for younger children/infants due to lower staff ratios, as much as slightly over double.
Given that much childcare in this province is non-profit, and that there are few fixed costs that can be adjusted (rent, food, art supplies etc.) it is generally not going to be seen as being as greedy.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
The problem I have is the cost of living has skyrocketed to the policies of this government...
Hydro, Car Insurance, all kinds of taxes and fees and now with this daycare increases.
Now the Min wage, of course, helps those in the lower end but it will likely be absorbed by higher interest rate costs that are upcoming and increased prices from business.
However those in the middle class, seemingly are the ones left with the bill for this...
I am for increasing the min wage but frankly, I do not see how increasing it by such an amount in one year made any sense apart from scoring political points to win an election.
Hydro, Car Insurance, all kinds of taxes and fees and now with this daycare increases.
Now the Min wage, of course, helps those in the lower end but it will likely be absorbed by higher interest rate costs that are upcoming and increased prices from business.
However those in the middle class, seemingly are the ones left with the bill for this...
I am for increasing the min wage but frankly, I do not see how increasing it by such an amount in one year made any sense apart from scoring political points to win an election.
BurlOak
Senior Member
This might be true. It helps the high school and university age people who are trying to make some extra spending money, but have not real expenses since they live at home.
Those who are actual family heads, the minimum wage will be eaten up by increased wages. So those who really need it will wind up with less at the end of the day. It looks like the Liberals think there is more votes helping those in their early 20's, than there are by helping those in their 30's or 40's.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Not the same thing. A price increase is a valid tool for any business to use to cope with cost increases without making it look like greed on steroids. Which is what I was saying all along.
I'm not eating crow, rather duck liver pâté and damn is it good.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Because we know minimum wage is mainly a Millennial issue. I guess those Tim Horton and daycare workers must all be spring chickens. Odd, because on a day in and day out basis all those fast food or grocery store workers I have seen outside weekends aren't Millennials, but middle aged, often new Canadians.
AoD
Last edited:
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Cheers for posting that, Northern Light.
Wage costs as as a percentage of total input costs vary immensely between different fields. Mine, for example, is ~65% of total cost. So if my wage went up by 21%, (I wouldn't know what to do with that much) and then again the following year, my employer would have to raise prices by a lot more than a Tim's might have to.
One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is the fact that the wage itself isn't the total employment cost for the employer. You have to add EI, CPP, WSIB payments for each employee. A 15$ hourly wage actually costs the employer at least 16.5$ an hour.
Wage costs as as a percentage of total input costs vary immensely between different fields. Mine, for example, is ~65% of total cost. So if my wage went up by 21%, (I wouldn't know what to do with that much) and then again the following year, my employer would have to raise prices by a lot more than a Tim's might have to.
One thing I'm not sure has been mentioned is the fact that the wage itself isn't the total employment cost for the employer. You have to add EI, CPP, WSIB payments for each employee. A 15$ hourly wage actually costs the employer at least 16.5$ an hour.