Northern Light
Superstar
To my understanding, McKinsey had a lot to do w/this strategy.
It wasn't theirs alone by any means...........
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
To my understanding, McKinsey had a lot to do w/this strategy.
It wasn't theirs alone by any means...........
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Assuming we have a federal election in 2024, when we look back on the nine years of Justin Trudeau’s government I don’t think we can say in any measurable way Canada is better off in 2024 than it was when Trudeau became PM in 2015.
In 2015 housing was more affordable, interest rates were low, unemployment was down, economic growth was up. In retrospect, the country seemed to be okay and I ask myself why we were in such a rush to dump Harper. Perhaps when Poilievre‘s goons are burning books and trying to police wombs we may ask the same question about Justin.
In 2015 housing was more affordable, interest rates were low, unemployment was down, economic growth was up. In retrospect, the country seemed to be okay and I ask myself why we were in such a rush to dump Harper. Perhaps when Poilievre‘s goons are burning books and trying to police wombs we may ask the same question about Justin.
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
You need to look at other countries too. Canada managed to get through covid 'pretty well' and FAR better than US or UK or most European countries. The last 5 or 6 years have not been easy and I do not think Canada has done worse than many (or any?) of its peers. I suggest you should not forget some of the MANY reasons why we decided to dump Harper - barbaric cultural practices anyone? Has JT been perfect, certainly not but you need to look at the alternatives. Even with his failures and shortcomings he remains, in my opinion, a VAST improvement over PP - even in his new glassesless and apparently human form.
afransen
Senior Member
JT ended the unjust drug war on marijuana that was used to oppress minority groups and did no one any good. JT introduced coherent action on climate change after decades of dithering and inaction.
I'm still very disappointed by the failure to implement electoral reform. Mainly because it is going to lead to us going ditch to ditch on climate policy. It's no way to govern a country.
Northern Light
Superstar
I understand The Admiral's sentiment; while completely agreeing with AFransen.
There are different ways to measure things; and it clearly depends as well on where one is in their life situation as well.
Taken at the aggregate level:
Positives:
Marijuana was legalized reducing wasted resources (police, courts, jails) and increasing tax revenue; downside, they've priced it so high that ~50% of all illicit traffic remains, depressing the potential economic gain in tax (including personal and corporate income tax).
There's been some forward action on Climate Change
For those with young children, $10 per day day care is being phased in.
The National Child Benefit reduced child poverty more in its first couple of years than any program in the 3 decades previous,.
New dentalcare program rolling out, sure its clunky and inefficient but it should cut the number of Canadians not getting dentalcare due to money by more than 3/4.
Negatives:
Housing prices, including rents have soared far faster than CPI or income growth; that spike, and the slowing of wage growth both directly attributable to policies of the Trudeau gov't.
Lack of serious investment in new affordable housing, particularly via CMHC low-rate mortgages, which is the single largest factor in delaying Housing Now projects.
Very, achingly slow rollout of promised 30% of Canada protected wilderness/completing national park system.
Lack of electoral reform
Insufficient efforts to get medical credentials (where appropriate) recognized here, to boost residencies for doctors, and to increase medical school capacity/intake.
Insufficient capital investment in healthcare infrastructure leaving Canada with too few hospital beds, too few diagnostic imaging machines, too little surgical capacity (partly owning to hospitals/provinces not mandating weekend surgeries)
In Progress/TBD:
A new national disability benefit has been legislated into existence, however, the Libs left the regulation of it wide open and don't intend to begin delivering it before November '24 at the earliest
EI reform was expressly promised, including increased benefits in general and for parental leave in particular, 55% of income is a lower income replacement rate than most other OECD countries with a range of 65-70% being the most common.
Universal Pharmacare has a plan that continues to gather dust.
afransen
Senior Member
Oh, and CPP expansion is generally a good policy, in my opinion, especially given how many young people are taking a YOLO approach to their finances.
Northern Light
Superstar
I agree with this; though, I would add, exclusive of GIS, the amended formula, when fully implemented, will only produce ~46% income replacement (33% CPP, 13% OAS)
That's far too low.
If, we raised the retirement age to 70, like many of Scandinavian countries, and then reinvested those savings in higher benefits, we could raise that number from 46% income replacement to 64%. exclusive of GIS.
That would close in a more realistic number.
We also have to address the CPP income/and deduction caps, we're currently phasing in a shift to $81,000.
Which means your capped at $37,000 and change per year (46% of $81,000) no matter how much more you earn.
We really need to lift the cap on deductions and returns to something that captures more of the upper-middle income set. Say $120,000 per year.
The additional tax dollars from people working longer would also fund a slightly larger GIS bump so we could establish a more reasonable minimum retirement income we won't let people slip below.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
CPP expansion doesn’t help today‘s young people if they’re all self employed, IG influencers, or gig workers and not paying into CPP.
afransen
Senior Member
While that type of employment has increased, I don't think it is accurate to describe it as a majority, much less all.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Financial Times article: The Canada Conundrum
Worth the read.
Worth the read.
afransen
Senior Member
I feel like no one is really commenting on how housing affordability in particular is negatively impacting fertility rate. People start having families later and have fewer children when it is so hard to afford a home.
Northern Light
Superstar
Larger families are also a function more often than not, of whether one parent is able to stay home when the children are young (typically, the woman).
This is not some misplaced nostalgia for women all being housewives, just so we're clear. I'm entirely supportive women participating in the labour force in a fulsome way.
Its just a reality that having families of more than 2 children, in close age succession is easier to handle for most families, if one parent is at home, until all the children are school aged.
Even where the cost of daycare is low, adding that daily pick-up/drop-off function, with time targets (must pick-up kid by 6pm is pretty standard), the added logistical challenge just makes it unappealing to many to go through, particularly
multiple times.
That is of course a social choice that is generally discouraged today, but also one that is off-limits to most families who absolutely require 2 incomes which comes back to the housing affordability as one driving factor in requiring 2 incomes, even at the middle income threshold.
Even taking the full parental leave is beyond most families, with the basis one year program providing only 55% income replacement, and the 18-month version 33% income replacement.
Simply changing such that all families get at least 75% income replacement (with a reasonable income cap); and low-income families get a top-up to 90% of the minimum wage, minimum.
Then you'll see more people finding the idea of starting a family or having a larger one, appealing.
afransen
Senior Member
I'm not opposed to more generous parental leave, but realize that that is direct government support that requires taxation to fund. Housing costs can be dramatically reduced without taxation to support it.
Northern Light
Superstar
It is a good, if short read; a bit light on solutions.
While there are a host of things that need to be done.
I will reiterate my a 2-point labour standards argument.
1) We need higher paid vacation and shorter work weeks (I don't mean below 40 hours, I mean below the range of 44-48 before overtime pay kicks-in)
This has a couple of immediate effects.
Studies clearly show that worker productivity rises when hours are shorter and vacation goes up, people are better rested, and more motivated, their creativity can also be recharged by a full 2 week vacation.
The second reality is simply that most salaried workers (as distinct form shift workers in retail/security/manufacturing) will, in fact, at minimum maintain their current output if they get 1-2 weeks additional vacation, which is a literal rise in productivity per hour.
** Note that as long as the immediately above is true, you really do make a very significant statistical difference.
Watch this:
Canada's GDP per hour worked according to the OECD:ian
If you simply hold Canadian output steady, but add the 2 weeks paid vacation (4% fewer hours worked per person), you drive the GDP per hour number up from ~104 to ~108 which takes from the bottom quartile to the top half, roughly in line with Denmark.
****
2) Raise wages
This assists in 2 discrete ways.
a) The higher wage literally add direct economic output as reflected in cost of goods sold; but also indirectly by having a consumer who can in turn buy and invest in more.
b) The higher cost of labour drives productivity investment such as training, software and automation.
****
That low-hanging fruit out of the way..........
We really need to look at:
1) Internal trade barriers and labour-mobility barriers.
2) The impact of large oligopolies across many industries, notably Grocery, Agriculture (Dairy/Pork/Chicken); Banking, and Telcos.
3) We need to foster greater venture capital
4) We need to shift our educational strategy away from Diploma-mill nonsense and to both STEM and vocational/trade skill sets.
5) Canada must also do a better job leading strategic initiatives to take advantage of our international trade opportunities.
Of course there's infinitely more than could be said on this subject, but I think I'll cut myself off there for the moment!
Northern Light
Superstar
I might argue that if we removed certain tax credits/loopholes, some of which directly relate to subsidizing a frothy housing market, that we could redirect a portion of that revenue as opposed to having to implement a substantial tax hike.
It really depends on how one wishes to pay for such a thing, but I would argue for taking parental leave out of the EI program.