2018 Budget

[hobbyguy]

Actually for those who think that the economy will not benefit from the budget measures, there are some interesting points in this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/2018-federal-budget-highlights/article38116231/

- Have a look at the graph of the impact of female participation in the workforce and its impact on real GDP per capita. The implication form that is that measures to help increase female participation and equity in the workplace can have a very positive effect.

- note also the emphasis on R&D - which pays off in the long run.

[Catsumi]

What is all the fuss about guys? Remember, the books will balance themselves. No seal needed.

[Merry]

The single biggest thing that would help more women get into the workforce is affordable daycare, and more of it. Yet neither of those things are in this budget.

The only item in the budget that is laudable is the inclusion of Pharmacare; yet even that is only a study, not the actual thing. The Libs promised to give us Pharmacare many years ago, but never delivered. So why should we believe them this time?

As far as I can tell this budget is merely a preliminary to the upcoming election; a glimpse into the Liberal Platform (much of which has been borrowed from the NDP). As Andrew Coyne pointed out in the article Glacier linked to, it caters to "every conceivable Liberal client group and policy cult: environmentalists, seasonal EI recipients, multiculturalism, official language groups, regional development, all the way to the media (it’s only $50 million over five years this time, but that’s just an appetizer: the main course is still to come). And, of course, feminists". But it's not a sensible budget that aims to get our financial house in order and/or live within our means.

I didn't vote Liberal in the last election, and this budget does nothing to make me change my vote in the next election. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Merry]

This little 'gem" was buried in the budget. I wonder what they have in mind?

The budget includes an effort to improve the way political leaders engage in televised debates during election campaigns, earmarking $6 million over two years to support a new process. Leaders’ debates have been run in the past by a consortium of broadcasters, but in recent years the process has become inconsistent and controversial, with some leaders being excluded and others opting not to take part. The budget says the government will offer proposals for debate formats over the coming months and may bring in legislation.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... -the-radar

I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea for the Government to be getting involved in how the media covers elections, particularly Leaders Debates, because the potential for political interference is enormous.

We all need to keep a close eye on this development, to make sure it doesn't develop into a thinly disguised attempt to subvert democracy and keep the Liberals in power.

[generalposter]

This little 'gem" was buried in the budget. I wonder what they have in mind?

The budget includes an effort to improve the way political leaders engage in televised debates during election campaigns, earmarking $6 million over two years to support a new process. Leaders’ debates have been run in the past by a consortium of broadcasters, but in recent years the process has become inconsistent and controversial, with some leaders being excluded and others opting not to take part. The budget says the government will offer proposals for debate formats over the coming months and may bring in legislation.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... -the-radar

I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea for the Government to be getting involved in how the media covers elections, particularly Leaders Debates, because the potential for political interference is enormous.

We all need to keep a close eye on this development, to make sure it doesn't develop into a thinly disguised attempt to subvert democracy and keep the Liberals in power.

Government involvement in election media coverage?

The Liberals bought and paid for their puppet media coverage last election. The CBC has become their propaganda machine that , like the 3 monkeys, won't see, hear or speak any evil. Hard to blame them when that snowflake feminist ,wet behind the ears idiot keeps pouring the tax payers money at them.

[Glacier]

Actually for those who think that the economy will not benefit from the budget measures, there are some interesting points in this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/2018-federal-budget-highlights/article38116231/

- Have a look at the graph of the impact of female participation in the workforce and its impact on real GDP per capita. The implication form that is that measures to help increase female participation and equity in the workplace can have a very positive effect.

- note also the emphasis on R&D - which pays off in the long run.

All budgets have good and bad, and this is no different. The emphasis on R&D is a good thing (in my opinion), but the paid gap is complete hogwash. They are not focusing on equal pay for equal work but rather equal pay for different work. This will HURT women in the workplace by giving them pink slips because the government's solution is to drive up wages in sectors where women dominate. Obviously, the more you jack up wages with government control, the less employment you get. It's much better to let the market dictate wages, and not worry about why surgeons are making more money than nurses.

The Liberals are at least realizing that men and women are innately different, and more you reduce the barriers to women, the bigger the differences between men and women in the choices they make (eg. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... em/553592/). So knowing this, they think they can somehow raise lower demand occupations against higher demand ones. That's the thinking you'd expect in Venezuela, not Canada.

[The Green Barbarian]

If the Liberals are really serious about gender equality, they need to hire Jordan Peterson as an advisor.

[The Green Barbarian]

I was watching our future PM, Andrew Scheer this morning, and he was saying the most alarming thing about the budget is the Liberals being so cavalier with the deficits. He said they are sending a clear message to the civil service that cost doesn't matter, as the public seems ok with horrific overages and no accountability. He said this is how you end up with $8 million public ice rinks that no one can play hockey on in the winter in Ottawa - bureaucrats have no incentive to avoid making stupid decisions.

[blueliner]

But is he a competent seal.

And gender neutral too

[Merry]

While it can't be denied that the average female wage is a lot less than the average male wage, the various forms of pay equity legislation I've observed over the years (both here and in the UK) haven't worked and, as Glacier points out, only serve to raise pay in predominantly female occupations, as opposed to ensuring equal pay for equal work when men and women work in the same occupations.

And although raising female pay in predominantly female occupations is not necessarily a bad thing, I would have thought doing that was the job of unions, not the Government.

However, ensuring that men and women receive the same pay for doing the same work IS the job of Government and, with that in mind, I like the approach the Icelandic Government just took. What they did is pass a law making it illegal to pay men more money than women for doing the same work. Slightly different approach than most other countries, but the most effective one IMO.

We should do the same here in Canada.

[blueliner]

This little 'gem" was buried in the budget. I wonder what they have in mind?

The budget includes an effort to improve the way political leaders engage in televised debates during election campaigns, earmarking $6 million over two years to support a new process. Leaders’ debates have been run in the past by a consortium of broadcasters, but in recent years the process has become inconsistent and controversial, with some leaders being excluded and others opting not to take part. The budget says the government will offer proposals for debate formats over the coming months and may bring in legislation.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... -the-radar

I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea for the Government to be getting involved in how the media covers elections, particularly Leaders Debates, because the potential for political interference is enormous.

We all need to keep a close eye on this development, to make sure it doesn't develop into a thinly disguised attempt to subvert democracy and keep the Liberals in power.

The Liberals have know for a long time . Control the press you can control the people . Why do you think they keep on increasing the funding to the CBC

The newspaper + TV that obstructs the law on a trivial pretext, for money's sake, is a dangerous enemy to the public weal. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in Canada by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.


Mark Twain

[rustled]

While it can't be denied that the average female wage is a lot less than the average male wage, the various forms of pay equity legislation I've observed over the years (both here and in the UK) haven't worked and, as Glacier points out, only serve to raise pay in predominantly female occupations, as opposed to ensuring equal pay for equal work when men and women work in the same occupations.

And although raising female pay in predominantly female occupations is not necessarily a bad thing, I would have thought doing that was the job of unions, not the Government.

However, ensuring that men and women receive the same pay for doing the same work IS the job of Government and, with that in mind, I like the approach the Icelandic Government just took. What they did is pass a law making it illegal to pay men more money than women for doing the same work. Slightly different approach than most other countries, but the most effective one IMO.

We should do the same here in Canada.

Pretty sure we have that already, don't we?

Unless you're referring to workplaces where salaries are negotiated individually, in which case the predominant reason women still make less in those positions is because they don't ask. There's been a lot of research done on this. Generally, women will accept a lower starting offer with fewer perks, and don't go into performance reviews expecting as much as men do. Of course, the research shows some men are more meek, some women are more assertive, but this is the overall trend: women undervalue their own worth compared to men from the get-go.

The research shows that it is not uncommon for people starting at the same firm at the same time to sign on at different rates because one will negotiate more, and the other will settle for what's offered. Once one of them has accepted an offer at lower remuneration, the lower-starter is unlikely to catch up: this person must be prepared to always ask for a large raise instead of a moderate one, or change firms (this time with more assertive expectations). And even if eventually the low-starter is eventually receiving the same compensation, this person is unlikely to make up for the first few years of having settled for less.

We see the results of this every time we look at comparative earnings by gender. It will continue to look this way until an entire generation of women who began with the same assertiveness and the same expectations as their male counterparts has reached retirement age. And even then, it's likely we'd see the impacts of more women than men will put family interests first.

It will be interesting to see how this budget solves this problem without creating fresh injustices along the way.

[Ken7]

What is all the fuss about guys? Remember, the books will balance themselves. No seal needed.

Sorry PEOPLE I forgot..... wonder if these Liberal supports are seeing the future picture this fool the elected is painting, it's like 60 shades of black.

[Merry]

Pretty sure we have that already, don't we?

Not quite

This week Iceland became the first country in the world to make companies prove they are not paying women less than men for the same work. Employers are rushing to comply with the new rules to avoid fines. Companies and government agencies with more than 25 staff must obtain government certification of their equal pay policies.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-equality

Although I don't disagree with your analysis about how women need to become more aggressive when negotiating their pay, it's also true that despite previous pay equity legislation there is still a big gender gap when it comes to salaries in this country. And I think Iceland's approach is a good step towards helping narrow that pay gap, because it can't ALL be blamed on women themselves. Society in general, and the cultural attitudes we hold in this regard, do play a role.

I wish the Libs had incorporated something similar to Iceland's approach in this recent budget.

[Glacier]

Also in the budget---getting rid of the one thousand dollar bill.
Oh no... what will we do? I mean, it was just so convenient...my wallet was overflowing with them.

After the Liberals are done fleecing Canadians, even the rich won't be able to afford $1000 bills in their wallets.