CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

HappyHippo: Nov 19, 2003; Do you have an Air Miles Card?

DariusLikewise posted:

Except that this isn't a true Minimum Income plan that the Ontario Liberals are introducing. Its a top-up which still pretty much welfare for select people with a ton of bureaucracy.

Fair enough, I'll have to read up more on this proposal.

Helsing posted:

The thing with minimum incomes is, in the immortal words of the philosopher Michael Ironside, "Something given has no value". It would be an inherently unstable political arrangement, especially in today's economically unbalanced society.

The old Fordist economy, which delivered relatively high wages and a modicum of economic stability to a broadly based 'middle class', was protected by a strong and politically active labour movement. When a significant degree of the workforce is unionized that has ripple effects on the rest of the economy, one of which is to create a relatively even balance of power between labour and capital. This is why it tooks decades of incremental change and local battles before the labour movement was effectively broken and forced onto an entirely defensive posture.

If you just pass a law giving people minimum incomes there's very little to stop the next government from coming in and changing the law again. The minimum income will raise labour costs and it will be a highly visible example of a progressive economic policy, something that most businesses would be opposed to as a matter of principle (few modern businessmen welcome new sources of non-market income for their workers).

Any kind of sustainable economic redistribution requires some kind of permanent institutional support system. You can't just pass a law and go home, you need to have some kind of social force that remains permanently in place to protect these policies from the inevitable backlash.

I don't believe that arguing for a minimum income based on efficiency is a particularly persuasive pitch. It's the kind of policy that requires (political) force, rather than gentle persuasion, to be enacted and then maintained. Arguing for it on primarily technocratic grounds misunderstands the political dynamic that is necessary to actually redistribute wealth. Social classes and groupings receive payouts from society that are commensurate to whatever they have the strength and organizational capacity to demand from the system.

These seem like orthogonal concerns. It's just as easy with the current system for the next government to gently caress with the social safety net as it is. I'd argue it would slightly more difficult to make changes a mincome sort of system because people would be generally more aware of it, whereas tinkering with a split up safety net is easier to slide under the radar.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 16:26

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

I feel like some businesses, including important drivers of economic and government policy (Wal-mart in particular) would be very much in favour of guaranteed income. I think you're painting too broad a brush.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:15

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

However if income was decoupled from employment, couldn't that embolden grassroots labour leaders to galvanize a new labour movement? Intimidation by owners seems to be a huge chilling factor when forming unions, certainly among lower income jobs. If you could guarantee that lower wage workers weren't going to starve as they fought for more robust workers rights, they might be able to devote more resources to the cause? And perhaps that would have a knock-on effect to encouraging a labour movement for knowledge workers (maybe, I wouldn't take that as a given)

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:25

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

HappyHippo posted:

These seem like orthogonal concerns. It's just as easy with the current system for the next government to gently caress with the social safety net as it is. I'd argue it would slightly more difficult to make changes a mincome sort of system because people would be generally more aware of it, whereas tinkering with a split up safety net is easier to slide under the radar.

Maybe. That's broadly how Healthcare has worked out: nobody will do more than minor tinkering with transfer payments because the program is so popular with the public. The truth is, though, that part of the reason healthcare is so succesful is that many of its beneficiaries (i.e. old people) are well organized and politically conscious.

My sense is that a minimum income would be much more vulnerable to political attacks though, in the way that welfare and employment insurance have been steadily reduced and diminished without provoking a sustained public outcry or backlash.

Jordan7hm posted:

I feel like some businesses, including important drivers of economic and government policy (Wal-mart in particular) would be very much in favour of guaranteed income. I think you're painting too broad a brush.

You're probably right that I'm being a bit overly broad here but I think what you're saying really speaks to my point, which is that there needs to be some constellation of social forces who benefits from the policy and who is organized enough to defend it. Big box retail stores with low labour costs and a strong reliance on low income customers might be one of the groups who would line up to defend a minimum income.

I don't mean to come off as saying "a minimum income can never happen", my point is more along the lines of "if you want to see this policy enacted you have to think about how to organize the beneficiaries of the policy into a coalition who can fight for and then defend it".

An additional problem here being that without additional forms of market regulation (which are also, in turn, dependent on the degree of mobilization and organization among regular workers / consumers / renters / however you want to subdivide them) the gains from a mincome could easily be absorbed through higher prices, higher rents, lower wages, etc.

To actually sustainable change the flows of income from society, so that some larger percentage of GDP is directed toward labour rather than capital, requires a change in political forces.

peter banana posted:

However if income was decoupled from employment, couldn't that embolden grassroots labour leaders to galvanize a new labour movement? Intimidation by owners seems to be a huge chilling factor when forming unions, certainly among lower income jobs. If you could guarantee that lower wage workers weren't going to starve as they fought for more robust workers rights, they might be able to devote more resources to the cause? And perhaps that would have a knock-on effect to encouraging a labour movement for knowledge workers (maybe, I wouldn't take that as a given)

This is one reason that even potential beneficiaries like Wal Mart would either be inclined to oppose a minimum income or to limit how generous it was (since an overly generous minimum income is going to hurt the ability of capitalists to discipline their workers using the threat of a firing or reduction in hours worked). Broadly speaking, I believe that this power dynamic can be used to explain a lot of the struggle over economic policy in a modern economy.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:30

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Helsing posted:

Unprovoked war, or so called "crimes against peace", were one of the principle charges used against high level German officials. The following is taken from the Nuremberg principles that the trials helped to establish:

Good luck finding a president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt who hasn't been guilty of the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances". Keep in mind that the Nazis were also obeying their domestic laws when they invaded other countries so domestic politics are no excuse here from the perspective of the principles used to convict and execute many of them (see principles II and III).

I'm honestly surprised that anyone would be surprised to hear that the United States regularly violates international law. I feel like even most defenders of America's international actions don't bother to deny that because its so completely self evident any time you open a history book of the last 50 years or glance in a newspaper. There's not special caveat that says "you can't bomb or invade other countries, unless you're America".

Okay but the terrorists attacked America, therefore

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:32

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

I think another consideration for a Minimum Income is what has to be restructured in existing policy for it to happen. You would certainly need to overhaul current tax brackets and take more from the top, you would need to review every tax credit and deduction to ensure loopholes are closed. Some social programs would have to go and be replaced, welfare, child payments(all 3 of them whatever they are callled now). Do you keep EI around? CPP is still a must and should still probably be expanded to a full pension. You can't half-rear end it which almost certainly means it will never see the light of day because government leaders are afraid of large scale changes.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:35

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Helsing posted:

An additional problem here being that without additional forms of market regulation (which are also, in turn, dependent on the degree of mobilization and organization among regular workers / consumers / renters / however you want to subdivide them) the gains from a mincome could easily be absorbed through higher prices, higher rents, lower wages, etc.

I'm worried that this might become a thing in low-rent-but-not-actually-subsidized housing.

The folks actually in subsidized housing ought to be safe because - and this is me being naive here - mincome should be reckoned in some way that keeps it from counting as "income" (at least not on a dollar-for-dollar basis), but in communities that are merely cheap instead of actually subsidized there would need to be some kind of controls to stop landlords from just up and raising rent.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:40

HappyHippo: Nov 19, 2003; Do you have an Air Miles Card?

Helsing posted:

Maybe. That's broadly how Healthcare has worked out: nobody will do more than minor tinkering with transfer payments because the program is so popular with the public. The truth is, though, that part of the reason healthcare is so succesful is that many of its beneficiaries (i.e. old people) are well organized and politically conscious.

My sense is that a minimum income would be much more vulnerable to political attacks though, in the way that welfare and employment insurance have been steadily reduced and diminished without provoking a sustained public outcry or backlash.

Haha I was just thinking of the "old people" effect. Imagine if welfare, EI, and old age security were all replaced with minimum income. That's going to make it much harder to gently caress with politically. Tying welfare for the poor to welfare for the old can only help it. Conversely look to the US where medicaid and medicare are decoupled, making it easier for republicans to slash medicaid while leaving medicare alone.

HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Mar 14, 2016

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:46

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

DariusLikewise posted:

I think another consideration for a Minimum Income is what has to be restructured in existing policy for it to happen. You would certainly need to overhaul current tax brackets and take more from the top, you would need to review every tax credit and deduction to ensure loopholes are closed. Some social programs would have to go and be replaced, welfare, child payments(all 3 of them whatever they are callled now). Do you keep EI around? CPP is still a must and should still probably be expanded to a full pension. You can't half-rear end it which almost certainly means it will never see the light of day because government leaders are afraid of large scale changes.

This is the other thing about a Mincome. Every time I've actually seen someone crunching the numbers it turns out to be really expensive, even if introduce means testing or you balance things out by removing a bunch of other programs like Employment Insurance.

flakeloaf posted:

I'm worried that this might become a thing in low-rent-but-not-actually-subsidized housing.

The folks actually in subsidized housing ought to be safe because - and this is me being naive here - mincome should be reckoned in some way that keeps it from counting as "income" (at least not on a dollar-for-dollar basis), but in communities that are merely cheap instead of actually subsidized there would need to be some kind of controls to stop landlords from just up and raising rent.

I think part of this comes down to how you think about markets in general. A lot of the more right wing arguments for the Mincome (this was a policy Milton Friedman liked to advocate after all) are based on the idea that the market will operate really well as long as certain basic conditions are met, such as ensuring everyone has a baseline of income. If you're inclined to view markets are having deeper flaws or being subject to certain power dynamics that aren't really captured by neoclassical economic models then you're probably not going to be satisfied with just a Mincome because the basic problem with certain markets, such as housing, is arguably a lot more complicated than just a lack of purchasing power among consumers.

HappyHippo posted:

Haha I was just thinking of the "old people" effect. Imagine if welfare, EI, and old age security were all replaced with minimum income. That's going to make it much harder to gently caress with politically. Tying welfare for the poor to welfare for the old can only help it.

Maybe, but in principle there's nothing stopping some future government from maintaining the mincome for people over a certain age while cutting it for people born after some arbitrary date.

Again, I'm not trying to say a minimum income can't be done or that it would be unsustainable, I'm just urging people to focus their thinking and energy on the strategic question of who is going to implement the policy and who is going to defend it when it inevitably comes under attack. Those, to me, are always among the first questions to ask regarding a change in government activity.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:51

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

Dear Toronto CanPol: I am going to be in town for last minute Weed Politics related business this week; anybody fancy a pint?

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:55

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Helsing posted:

This is the other thing about a Mincome. Every time I've actually seen someone crunching the numbers it turns out to be really expensive, even if introduce means testing or you balance things out by removing a bunch of other programs like Employment Insurance.

Whoa whoa whoa who invited the guy talking about cost to the mincome debate

# ? Mar 14, 2016 18:56

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Ikantski posted:

Whoa whoa whoa who invited the guy talking about cost to the mincome debate

It wouldn't work if you tried to pass it in the current system, that's true, but it's more than just PopxMincome. For someone to cost it out properly you would need CRA tax data which I'm pretty sure is confidential.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 19:10

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

DariusLikewise posted:

It wouldn't work if you tried to pass it in the current system, that's true, but it's more than just PopxMincome. For someone to cost it out properly you would need CRA tax data which I'm pretty sure is confidential.

Kevin Milligan has a p. good costing document here. It's not as exact as a costing based on CRA filings, but it's a good first order approximation - it won't be off by 25% or w/e.

Based on 2010 data, child benefit spending has increased since then so the potential savings in that costing are underestimated a bit.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 19:14

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Pinterest Mom posted:

Kevin Milligan has a p. good costing document here. It's not as exact as a costing based on CRA filings, but it's a good first order approximation - it won't be off by 25% or w/e.

Based on 2010 data, child benefit spending has increased since then so the potential savings in that costing are underestimated a bit.

I'm not that familiar with mincomes but why did he get to just exclude all seniors? You would think we'd want to include them what with our huge cohort of boomers who've saved tiny amounts for their retirements.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 19:36

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Ikantski posted:

I'm not that familiar with mincomes but why did he get to just exclude all seniors? You would think we'd want to include them what with our huge cohort of boomers who've saved tiny amounts for their retirements.

They already have a guaranteed minimum income with OAS/GIS.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 19:39

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

I'm happy with any move toward a GMI on a provincial or federal level, no matter how minor. We'll need the infrastructure and programs when our governments and culture at large finally grapples with the fact full employment is an unnecessary pipe dream in an increasingly automated world.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 19:42

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

~~Ontario~~Port Hope police: Insert foot.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:15

ChickenWing: Jul 22, 2010

Kafka Esq. posted:

~~Ontario~~Port Hope police: Insert foot.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:17

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Kafka Esq. posted:

~~Ontario~~Port Hope police: Insert foot.

There's a theme, try to guess what it is.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:20

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

I'm so glad the Port Hope police are finally speaking out about endemic violence against the Smurf community.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:30

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Why can't we just nuke ontario

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:30

Do it ironically: Jul 13, 2010; by Pragmatica

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why can't we just nuke ontario

sensible political thought imo

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:52

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why can't we just nuke ontario

Not enough nukes for both Vancouver and Ontario.

You have to choose, CI, the fate of Canada depends on you.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:54

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why can't we just nuke ontario

Because you need us to help absorb the flood of economic refugees leaving Alberta. BC can only fit so many F-150s at once.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:55

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Jan posted:

Not enough nukes for both Vancouver and Ontario.

You have to choose, CI, the fate of Canada depends on you.

vancouver hands down

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:58

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Lots of room for refugees in Owen Sound, the next up and coming suburb of Toronto.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 20:58

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-spent-22-million-fighting-maternity-sickness-benefits-suit/article29215942/

quote:

Ottawa spent $2.2-million fighting maternity, sickness benefits suit

Newly released figures show the federal government has spent more than $2.2-million in legal fees fighting a class-action lawsuit over maternity and sickness benefits.

The majority of that � $2.06-million � has been through the federal Justice Department with a further $176,377 estimated to have been spent at Employment and Social Development Canada.

The figures are contained in documents tabled in Parliament last week in response to a request from New Democrat MP Niki Ashton and show the government added about $1-million to the overall legal bill for the case in the last year.

The government is being sued for refusing to pay sickness benefits to women who became ill while on maternity leave.

Parliament decided in 2002 to allow those who were diagnosed with cancer, for instance, to access 15 extra weeks of EI payments on top of their year of maternity leave.

The lawsuit alleges that didn�t happen and some 60,000 women were denied such claims over a decade.

lol so who's responsible for this? Chretien or Harper? bunnyofdoom, pinterest mom, defend this

# ? Mar 14, 2016 21:18

BallsFalls: Oct 18, 2013

Helsing posted:

Because you need us to help absorb the flood of economic refugees leaving Alberta. BC can only fit so many F-150s at once.

Send them to Quebec

# ? Mar 14, 2016 21:18

Marijuana Nihilist: Aug 27, 2015; by Smythe

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-spent-22-million-fighting-maternity-sickness-benefits-suit/article29215942/

lol so who's responsible for this? Chretien or Harper? bunnyofdoom, pinterest mom, defend this

b-but trudeau said he was a feminist :qq:

# ? Mar 14, 2016 21:38

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Marijuana Nihilist posted:

b-but trudeau said he was a feminist

I thought Trudeau already settled this? I remember him saying he'd do it immediately.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/08/ndp-vow-to-settle-lawsuit-with-sick-moms-if-elected.html

quote:

�That�s why an NDP government will end the court battle and make it a priority to meet with these women in the hopes of negotiating a fair settlement,� Chisholm said in a statement Wednesday.

On Thursday evening, Liberal party spokesman Jean-Luc Ferland said a Liberal government would also �immediately end� the court battle.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 21:43

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

Just be happy the the entire mechanism of government didn't stop given how disorganized the liberals were when they took over. This probably isn't intentional, it's incompetence.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 21:46

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Cultural Imperial posted:

# ? Mar 14, 2016 22:15

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why can't we just nuke ontario

Strategic fresh water resources cant be irradiated .

# ? Mar 14, 2016 22:32

AegisP: Oct 5, 2008

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why can't we just nuke ontario

We tried once, but Sudbury is still here.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 22:51

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-spent-22-million-fighting-maternity-sickness-benefits-suit/article29215942/

lol so who's responsible for this? Chretien or Harper? bunnyofdoom, pinterest mom, defend this

The very article you linked said it was "over a decade", which I take to mean the last decade, and it involves the government picking legal fights to defend its garbage decisions, so of course it's going to be Harper. Why is this a question?

# ? Mar 14, 2016 22:59

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

flakeloaf posted:

The very article you linked said it was "over a decade", which I take to mean the last decade, and it involves the government picking legal fights to defend its garbage decisions, so of course it's going to be Harper. Why is this a question?

because the chretien liberals were around in 2003 shithead

# ? Mar 14, 2016 23:03

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Cultural Imperial posted:

because the chretien liberals were around in 2003 shithead

Chretien didn't pass the law that would've obviated the need to sue the government while refusing to pay benefits to the people it was meant to help, that was 2013. That was the same Harper government that literally said "We didn't make the stupid rule to deny benefits to people, we just blindly followed it until we finally lost in court and then heroically changed it to help Canadians" without actually helping Canadians.

# ? Mar 14, 2016 23:11

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

Man arrested after 2 Canadian Forces members stabbed at Toronto recruitment centre
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/stabbing-arrest-1.3491413

poo poo. I hope it is not terrorism or lone wolf crazy

# ? Mar 15, 2016 01:27

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

who cares

# ? Mar 15, 2016 01:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 16:26

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

bunnyofdoom posted:

Man arrested after 2 Canadian Forces members stabbed at Toronto recruitment centre
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/stabbing-arrest-1.3491413

poo poo. I hope it is not terrorism or lone wolf crazy

WHAT COLOUR WAS THE SKIN OF THE ATTACKER AND VICTIMS?

# ? Mar 15, 2016 01:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »