• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Weird. I was able to buy toys for my kid without any problems the other day despite our consumer safety rules being federally promulgated today: You really do work at being obtuse don't you


Put it this way. Virtually every major regulatory problem we have in this country is usually because of provincial or local laws. Provincial regulation of trades and professions prevents labour mobility nationally. nice move to change topics Provincial regulation prevents the establishment of a national securities regulator which would improve capital allocation. Provincial regulations against national land registries has turned our real estate market in major money laundering centres. Provincial rubber stamping of fake college programs (because education is provincial) massively contributed to the current glut in foreign students (albeit slightly shared with the feds for trusting the provinces). Local regulation prevents the construction of sufficient housing. And yet, somehow people want to pretend that it's federal regulation holding us back the most.
and the feds will do it better? Where have you been for the last several decades? We are absolutely buried in federal regulations and yes provincial regulations too and don't forget municipal standards. I totally agree that we do not need all the provincial limitations on trades and goods that we have but we don't need federal ones replacing them.
 
If you are talking about ice creams shops, you'd be right. For things like regulatory regimes, not so much.
We absolutely need different jurisdictions trying different things. It increases the odds of finding good practices. The weaker solutions can then be discarded in favour of the stronger ones. The odds of one group of politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats finding a "best practice" on the first try aren't great.
 
BC has to build for earthquakes, Ontario doesn't.
You do know the Canadian Shield gets earthquakes right? And the building concerns in Fort Nelson BC may have more in common with Kenora than with Victoria?

But I digress. We’ve lost the bubble on this discussion of defence spending. This thread needs to find its way again.
 
It feels like we got the "peace, order, and good government" mirror of the US' "we're all sovereign micro-states, what're you talking about, fed?" preservation of extant-at-creation power blocs and borders. We'd have been much better off if the original mess of provinces had been subsumed into a single, national structure more akin to British counties. Every meaningful difference is either already sub-provincial in size (compare the differences in density, economy, etc. between the Fraser Valley upstream and downstream of Hope, say) or spans provincial borders (consider climate zones: BC has six to contend with).
 

Attachments

  • NAIMA_NBC_map_480x480.webp
    NAIMA_NBC_map_480x480.webp
    26.4 KB · Views: 13
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
You do know the Canadian Shield gets earthquakes right? And the building concerns in Fort Nelson BC may have more in common with Kenora than with Victoria?

But I digress. We’ve lost the bubble on this discussion of defence spending. This thread needs to find its way again.

No problem, I got you.

So... Let me show you my paper napkin of how the Army should be structured with a reduced emphasis on full time employment and an over emphasis on people who work 4 hours a week.

Oh and I have this cool matrix on when to wear tuques and gloves...

Entertained GIF by ABC Network
 
Lost opportunity?


People only getting 32 hours at minimum wage per week?

How about adding a National Service Day to their schedule? Or take advantage of the increased number of people with 3 day weekends that don't go to church and can't afford cottages that are looking to pick up some spare change.

That would also transfer GDP to Defence.

 
Lost opportunity?


People only getting 32 hours at minimum wage per week?

How about adding a National Service Day to their schedule? Or take advantage of the increased number of people with 3 day weekends that don't go to church and can't afford cottages that are looking to pick up some spare change.

That would also transfer GDP to Defence.

I look forward to the day people working in hospitals and clinics and labs and whatnot reduce their working time by 20%. Or any of the many other examples other than ones in which people will give up 20% of their income, or the customers will bear the costs of hiring more workers. (Isn't there a bit of a worker shortage just now?)

Now is not the time.

[Add: I gather shifting 40 hours into 4 days from 5 is also one of the solutions. Sure, if attention and mindfulness and productive output don't lag with the extended day. Otherwise, productivity is pretty much bound to fall.]
 
I look forward to the day people working in hospitals and clinics and labs and whatnot reduce their working time by 20%. Or any of the many other examples other than ones in which people will give up 20% of their income, or the customers will bear the costs of hiring more workers. (Isn't there a bit of a worker shortage just now?)

Now is not the time.

[Add: I gather shifting 40 hours into 4 days from 5 is also one of the solutions. Sure, if attention and mindfulness and productive output don't lag with the extended day. Otherwise, productivity is pretty much bound to fall.]

I am sure that there will always be people working more hours. On the other hand, even today, there are people working two or three jobs, some couples working four or five between them, to be able to afford a single family dwelling while mortgaged to the hilt.

WRT to productivity

Productivity is not a function of the number of hours spent on the job. It is a function of the number of machines supervised concurrently.
 
Lost opportunity?


People only getting 32 hours at minimum wage per week?

How about adding a National Service Day to their schedule? Or take advantage of the increased number of people with 3 day weekends that don't go to church and can't afford cottages that are looking to pick up some spare change.

That would also transfer GDP to Defence.

My guess is that much of this reducing hours is to save money by fitting in under some regulatory boundary?
 
Under 40 hours = not full time (and start of benefits, etc) would be my guess but I’m not sure.

Absolutely sure that you are right. Starbucks phenomenon. Different benefits package under 32 hours and another over 40 hours.
 
Absolutely sure that you are right. Starbucks phenomenon. Different benefits package under 32 hours and another over 40 hours.
They were doing that at Sobeys when I worked there in 2000... If we worked more than 37 hours in a week for two or three weeks in a row, we had to be given benefits.

It didn't matter to me as a 18 year old living at home, but it's a pretty terrible way to make a living as an adult.
 
They were doing that at Sobeys when I worked there in 2000... If we worked more than 37 hours in a week for two or three weeks in a row, we had to be given benefits.

It didn't matter to me as a 18 year old living at home, but it's a pretty terrible way to make a living as an adult.
There are hospitals, correctional services and a number of municipalities that work on the same principal, heck, even educations boards prefer to have casuals rather than staff vacant positions so it isn't a big bad industry thing entirely
 
They were doing that at Sobeys when I worked there in 2000... If we worked more than 37 hours in a week for two or three weeks in a row, we had to be given benefits.

It didn't matter to me as a 18 year old living at home, but it's a pretty terrible way to make a living as an adult.

We haven't swerved into a discussion about the 'Class B trap' again, have we?;)
 
Actually, office work nowadays in large cities private sector (support staff for law firms, accounting firms, etc. etc,.) is more often that not 35 hours week: i.e. working 9 to 5 as the song says. Since you get an hour for lunch, that is 9 to 12 and 13 to 17 hrs: 35 hours. The four day week is usually working 8 to 5, so 8 to 12 and 13 to 17 hrs: 32 hours. A trade in of three hours only for the benefit of a three day week-end. Oh! and they are all considered "full time" under both system as far as benefits are concerned.

I've seen some places even go the 36 hours route - one more hour per week _ by doing 7:30 to noon and then 13 to 17:30 hours for four days - and the support staff loves it.
 
Back
Top