News   Nov 06, 2024
Exterior Coming Together as 88 Queen Approaches Occupancy
 878     1 
News   Nov 06, 2024
More Focus on Family-Sized Units for Proposal near St Clair Station
 1.3K     3 
News   Nov 06, 2024
News Roundup for November 6, 2024
 513     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

animatronic said:
Those are very efficient allocations of his dad’s resources
Click to expand...

According to this report, see link, from 2011:

The final 2011 expense reports for Toronto city councillors have been released and just like last year, Doug Ford spent $0.

Each councillor is allowed $30,000 for office expenses during the fiscal year, plus a staffing budget of $211,447.60.
Click to expand...

So where does he get writing pads, pencils, pens, and other office supplies? Let me guess and think he walks into the family business (Deco Labels) and "borrows" the supplies they need.

From the statement of claim filed by Renata Ford against Doug Ford et al.:


The financial statements of Deco Toronto record that it experienced losses:
(i) in fiscal year 2010 of $396,376;
(ii) in fiscal year 2011 of $1,117,485;
(iii) in fiscal year 2012 of $423,961;
(iv) in fiscal year 2013 of $497,996;
(v) in fiscal year 2016 of $2,164,577; and
(vi) in fiscal year 2017 of $1,498,598;

Wonder why there was a LOSS of $1,117,485 in 2011? Might be the "efficient" use of office supplies at the family business.
 
Looks like the bullshit is going to be flowing fast and furious over the next 4 years. Not that any of us expected otherwise. Unfortunately.

How long before serious buyer's remorse begins to settle in with the voters who went for the Tories this time out? I'm thinking it won't take a lot of time. The people who voted for Thug pretty much fall into 2 categories: the True Believers (i.e. right wing nuts) who'll nod their heads if Dofo tells them the sky is green and that eve-ull downtown elites are to blame for any bad weather inconveniencing their beach and picnic time...and the much larger group that's comprised of folks who were just plain pissed off and wanted to smash things. And Ford was the handiest club to do so on this particular occasion. It's the latter crowd who are going to be feeling seriously betrayed by the time the cons are done.

Jimmi T said:
With the Fords, it seems anything is possible. I never gave Rob a change at mayor or Doug a chance to be premier. I don't understand why but people like them. Watch Mike, even though he appears to be useless, get elected mayor.
Click to expand...

At least Mikey appears to have a relatively benign personality, unlike his toxic uncles and succubus grandmother.
 
John_Dee said:
Looks like the bullshit is going to be flowing fast and furious over the next 4 years. Not that any of us expected otherwise. Unfortunately.

How long before serious buyer's remorse begins to settle in with the voters who went for the Tories this time out? I'm thinking it won't take a lot of time. The people who voted for Thug pretty much fall into 2 categories: the True Believers (i.e. right wing nuts) who'll nod their heads if Dofo tells them the sky is green and that eve-ull downtown elites are to blame for any bad weather inconveniencing their beach and picnic time...and the much larger group that's comprised of folks who were just plain pissed off and wanted to smash things. And Ford was the handiest club to do so on this particular occasion. It's the latter crowd who are going to be feeling seriously betrayed by the time the cons are done.
.
Click to expand...
It depends who controls the narrative. Ford will be pumping out propaganda full-time about how awesome a job he's doing, and if the left doesn't counter that he'll stay at 40%. He's already being praised for his "leadership" of extending the GreenON cancellation deadline, which was a crisis of his own making...
 
So, it's gonna be a subway in every pot for the next 4 years. I wonder what the next lucky recipient of Slug's subway largesse will be? Maybe UT could post some kind of deadpool like list of prospective municipalities and we can bet on who's next in line. Heck, it might actually make for a funny Cancon reality TV show, showing different towns vying for the next blessed 20 billion dollar, privately financed subway line. (Something I find interesting: Thug hasn't mentioned the most obvious and most voter rich munis like Missy and Brampton, so obviously some other criteria is at play here.)
 
Irishmonk said:
So, it's gonna be a subway in every pot for the next 4 years. I wonder what the next lucky recipient of Slug's subway largesse will be? Maybe UT could post some kind of deadpool like list of prospective municipalities and we can bet on who's next in line. Heck, it might actually make for a funny Cancon reality TV show, showing different towns vying for the next blessed 20 billion dollar, privately financed subway line. (Something I find interesting: Thug hasn't mentioned the most obvious and most voter rich munis like Missy and Brampton, so obviously some other criteria is at play here.)
Click to expand...
A "free lighter" with your pot and a subway car in every garage.
 
JWBF said:
I thought his nugget was put to bed some time ago... I'm sure Doughie & FI have compared notes extensively and decided how the propaganda will flow as time goes on.


http://pressprogress.ca/fraser-inst...portraying-minimum-wage-workers-as-teenagers/
Click to expand...

Seems like PressProgress is the only one spouting propaganda. PressProgress admits a full 38% of minimum wage earners are teens, and a further 21% in their early 20's. 38% + 21% is a very comfortable 59%. With the overwhelming majority of people in their early 20's living at home with their parents (see ref 1), The Fraser Institute can factual state the majority of minimum age workers live with their parents.

The 16-24 year old demographic is widely used in statistics so the Fraser Institute isn't adopting some ad hoc age group to make their point.

Ref1: download data table and compare total 20-24 living with parents as subset of 20-24: (download the data table for 20-24: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016008/98-200-x2016008-eng.cfm)
 
down on the upside said:
Seems like PressProgress is the only one spouting propaganda. PressProgress admits a full 38% of minimum wage earners are teens, and a further 21% in their early 20's. 38% + 21% is a very comfortable 59%. With the overwhelming majority of people in their early 20's living at home with their parents (see ref 1), The Fraser Institute can factual state the majority of minimum age workers live with their parents.
Click to expand...

Hold up. You are at 59% here and 9 of 21 could easily be the part of people in their early 20s who do not in fact live with their parents. So, no, it can't be said that the majority of minimum wage earners live with their parents. In fact the link you provided disproves your assertion that an overwhelming majority of youth in their early 20s live with their parents.

Not that it matters where minimum wage earners live, really. Maybe so many of them live with their parents because rents are unaffordable. That's a rhetorical statement. Rents ARE unaffordable. I make 60+K a year and can barely afford to live decently close to work without paying more than a third of my income on rent. A third of income, of course, being a generally accepted measure of housing affordability.
Minimum wage earners make a lot less than 60K a year.

I also don't see the point in bringing up the age range of the plurality of minimum wage earners. Is underpaying people supposed to be a character-building exercise?

The minimum wage is too low. The company I work for offers a starting wage of 17/hr....and that'd be for a labourer who would more than likely spend half their time doing not much at all.
I don't see the problem with paying people a decent wage.
 
down on the upside said:
Seems like PressProgress is the only one spouting propaganda. PressProgress admits a full 38% of minimum wage earners are teens, and a further 21% in their early 20's. 38% + 21% is a very comfortable 59%. With the overwhelming majority of people in their early 20's living at home with their parents (see ref 1), The Fraser Institute can factual state the majority of minimum age workers live with their parents.

The 16-24 year old demographic is widely used in statistics so the Fraser Institute isn't adopting some ad hoc age group to make their point.

Ref1: download data table and compare total 20-24 living with parents as subset of 20-24: (download the data table for 20-24: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016008/98-200-x2016008-eng.cfm)
Click to expand...

Hold up.

Put aside for one moment that I might dispute some of your 'facts'.

Let me choose for the purpose of your discussion to accept them as you have stated.

So what?

First, your argument would presume what? That work done by people under the age of 18 or living w/their parents is inherently worth less, merely because of those facts?

Ability, effort and achievement have no bearing?

Simply because your young, or manage your costs of living, you too deserve a crap wage?

Really? In that case shall we pay anyone who does not live on their own less money?

Less if you're married or shacked up with a lover? LOL What if you live w/your brother/sister/friend or a roomie?

What if you're old enough to earn CPP?

Why should we pay people differently for the exact same work, assuming they have the ability, responsibility and expectations?

***

Leaving the above, let me understand that your argument essentially hinges on the notion that if someone doesn't NEED the money, they shouldn't have it.

How curious. In that case, since clearly everyone can get by on $14 per hour..................we should cap wages at that level.

Or did you imagine merit had something to do with it?

***

Let's be clear what the minimum wage argument is about. Its not about whether someone needs the money. That that is sometimes the case is generally accepted.

That it is not always the case is also accepted.

The argument is that no one should be paid a wage, which if they were paid for F/T hours, they could not survive on. Period. Full-Stop.

Because if its acceptable to pay someone less, you are insuring that someone who NEEDS the money will get less.

You are also ensuring that a financial incentive will exist to hire less than fully educated staff, with minimal training and little or no investment in productivity including technology/software, since the business model is dependent on cheap labour.

That's no way to run a business or a country.
 
down on the upside said:
Seems like PressProgress is the only one spouting propaganda. PressProgress admits a full 38% of minimum wage earners are teens, and a further 21% in their early 20's. 38% + 21% is a very comfortable 59%. With the overwhelming majority of people in their early 20's living at home with their parents (see ref 1), The Fraser Institute can factual state the majority of minimum age workers live with their parents.

The 16-24 year old demographic is widely used in statistics so the Fraser Institute isn't adopting some ad hoc age group to make their point.

Ref1: download data table and compare total 20-24 living with parents as subset of 20-24: (download the data table for 20-24: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016008/98-200-x2016008-eng.cfm)
Click to expand...
You do know that the Fraser Institute gets money from the Atlas Network, don't you?
 
JWBF, Northern Light & MTown, I guess I kicked the hornets nest on that one. I was just pointing out that the Fraser Institute's analysis that the majority of minimum wage workers are kids living with their parents is bang on. The 38% of teenagers + the overwhelming % of people in their early 20's do live with their parents. That is a fact.

That fact doesn't change just cause the Atlas Network gives money to the Fraser Institute, or whether people "deserve" to be paid more (a very subjective term, I deserve to be paid millions, unfortunately I am not paid millions). I say this as someone who lived on minimum wage for nearly a decade.

MTown, I am not sure how my link disproves the %, it literally states "Among those aged 20 to 24, the proportion co‑residing with their parents rose from 58.3% in 2001 to 62.6% in 2016."
So 62.6% x 21% (both PressProgress & Fraser Institute agree on this number) = 13%
13% + 38% = 51% aka a majority of Canadians who earn a minimum wage live with their parents.
 
down on the upside said:
JWBF, Northern Light & MTown, I guess I kicked the hornets nest on that one. I was just pointing out that the Fraser Institute's analysis that the majority of minimum wage workers are kids living with their parents is bang on. The 38% of teenagers + the overwhelming % of people in their early 20's do live with their parents. That is a fact.

That fact doesn't change just cause the Atlas Network gives money to the Fraser Institute, or whether people "deserve" to be paid more (a very subjective term, I deserve to be paid millions, unfortunately I am not paid millions). I say this as someone who lived on minimum wage for nearly a decade.

MTown, I am not sure how my link disproves the %, it literally states "Among those aged 20 to 24, the proportion co‑residing with their parents rose from 58.3% in 2001 to 62.6% in 2016."
So 62.6% x 21% (both PressProgress & Fraser Institute agree on this number) = 13%
13% + 38% = 51% aka a majority of Canadians who earn a minimum wage live with their parents.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does change the "findings" or "facts" of FI's numbers if not also your interpretations of their numbers; it's not the numbers but the interpretation or "packaging" of the numbers. Why do these people live at home? FI assumes it is because such incomes are supplementary, for one this taints the "numbers" with certain biases.

I take it that you are oblivious of what the Atlas Network is and what their main purpose is? Trust me, "give" is not a verb most people would use with the movement of money from such an organization.

I'm sure if you provided a service(s) worth more than the minimum wage then like those who do you would be paid more money; age does not mean squat, the value of service(s) do; the increases in the minimum wage are in response to a fiat currency and not due to the value of service(s) rendered.
 
down on the upside said:
JWBF, Northern Light & MTown, I guess I kicked the hornets nest on that one. I was just pointing out that the Fraser Institute's analysis that the majority of minimum wage workers are kids living with their parents is bang on. The 38% of teenagers + the overwhelming % of people in their early 20's do live with their parents. That is a fact.

That fact doesn't change just cause the Atlas Network gives money to the Fraser Institute, or whether people "deserve" to be paid more (a very subjective term, I deserve to be paid millions, unfortunately I am not paid millions). I say this as someone who lived on minimum wage for nearly a decade.

MTown, I am not sure how my link disproves the %, it literally states "Among those aged 20 to 24, the proportion co‑residing with their parents rose from 58.3% in 2001 to 62.6% in 2016."
So 62.6% x 21% (both PressProgress & Fraser Institute agree on this number) = 13%
13% + 38% = 51% aka a majority of Canadians who earn a minimum wage live with their parents.
Click to expand...

The fact that doesn't change is that you are using a statistic of no particular value to justify an immoral act and one which is detrimental to society.

Had it occurred to you that people are living w/their parents BECAUSE the minimum wage is so low?

Had it occurred to you that it is not in society's best interest for Canada to be a 'cheap labour' economy? That we lag in productivity investments precisely for that reason? That business owners and corporate leaders will accept government cues and respond to lax employment standards by not investing in technology and training, because they have no need to when labour is cheap?

That since we can't possibly compete w/truly 'cheap' places in the world, we (as a country) will be horribly squeezed if our productivity doesn't rise to northern European levels?

That northern European minimum wages are much higher?

What about the notion that having low-wages allows for low-skill workers, thus encouraging high school dropouts and a failure to further advance ones skills before entering the workforce?

What about considering that raising average wages, and yes, to a lesser degree prices paid for products and services, will actually result in higher GDP per capita, and we know this because of Northern Europe and Australia?

I have no problem with statistics.

I have every problem with people citing them to justify bad public policy because they don't understand the underlying economics and simply accepted a rather biased editorial perspective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top