Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Sarath Peiris discusses how Saskatchewan shouldn't be anything but embarrassed by Scott Moe's utter failure to look out for public health in the midst of a pandemic. And Theresa Kliem interviews Steven Lewis about the dire projections - even before the province made clear that rather than taking steps to limit the spread of COVID-19, it's still fully devoted to allowing super-spreader events regardless of the human cost. 

- Meanwhile, Jillian Smith reports on the homelessness crisis which is only being exacerbated by the Sask Party's choice to undercut housing security. 

- Doug Nesbitt discusses the now-expired federal pandemic supports in the context of our stingy employment insurance system as a whole. V.S. Wells says goodbye to the CRB which sustained many Canadians through much of the pandemic, while Taylor Scollon points out how the Libs' decision to cut it off is positively calculated to drive people into desperate poverty. David Lao reports on some of the people - and even businesses - seeing their future put in jeopardy by the choice. Kori Sidaway talks to Jim Stanford about the reality that employers finding workers should be looking at their own wages and working conditions, not trying to cut off social benefits. And Karl Nerenberg notes that income supports remain an area where the NDP is putting in hard work pushing the Libs to take better care of people, while Robin Sears argues that it's long past time for Canada's party leaders to put more time into making minority Parliaments work rather than constantly posturing for an immediate election. 

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the new employment standards being mooted in Ontario, including the possibility of a right-to-disconnect rule. But in case anybody lost track of Doug Ford's disregard for workers, PressProgress reports on the PC's choice to allow health-care employers to limit the protection provided to workers even when a stockpile of PPE is readily available. 

- Meanwhile, Jodi Kantor, Karen Wiese and Grace Ashford expose a new set of worker abuses at Amazon, as systematic refusals to provide leave have left workers scrambling to survive. 

- Finally, Luke Savage writes that multilevel marketing scams represent the epitome of capitalist logic, while serving to highlight the need for an society that isn't designed to enrich a few at the expense of the many. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Danny Westneat discusses Steven Taylor's work on the psychology of pandemics which has proven prescient as we've responded to COVID-19. And Umair Haque writes that people are understandably burned out on collapse - even as there's little prospect of some of the slow-motion catastrophes being resolved in the foreseeable future. 

- Murray Mandryk calls out Scott Moe for engaging in photo ops rather than pandemic management, while Adam Hunter reports on the Saskatchewan Party's failure to ask for available help from the federal government. And Phil Tank documents the change in the Sask Party's messaging toward grudgingly acknowledging the ongoing calamity, even as it's refused to move within shouting distance of even the measures which were used earlier in the pandemic. 

- Megan Cassella writes that some American lawmakers are drawing important lessons from the drop in poverty, hunger and bankruptcies when the U.S.' social safety net was bolstered in response to COVID-19. But Matt Lundy reports on the dwindling number of Canadians supported by Employment Insurance - and the cliff facing many workers as pandemic supports are scheduled to disappear next month. 

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the first Ontario prosecution of an employer for failing to keep employees safe from COVID. And Peter Loewen and Blake Lee-Whiting discuss what gig workers generally want - which largely amounts to the types of stability and protection gig work has been designed to evade. 

- Matt McManus discusses how the promotion of capitalist "liberty" represents little other than the choice to facilitate private domination by the wealthy. 

- Finally, Jonathan Watts writes about the environmentally disastrous race to extract resources from deep sea. And John Woodside exposes how Canadian banks are funding the continued spread of fossil fuel infrastructure which endangers our living atmosphere. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- PressProgress takes a look at the housing plans on offer - finding the NDP's plan to be the best of the major parties, but still falling short of ensuring the right to housing is met. Jonas Goldman, Anna Jessop and Aline Coutinho examine the climate change and environmental policies of the three main contenders. And John McNally and Mohsina Atiq connect the two issues by highlighting how housing affordability is vital to an effective climate plan. 

- Meanwhile, Ian Young reveals how the extreme rise in housing prices in Vancouver can be traced substantially to foreign capital. 

- Rosa Saba examines the weaknesses in Canada's Employment Insurance system - along with the need for stronger action to protect unemployed workers than is currently on the table. 

- Larry Savage offers a needed reality check for people pitching strategic voting, concluding that it fails miserably in its stated purpose of defeating Conservatives while often diverting votes toward undeserving Liberals. 

- Paul Wells theorizes that successful federal election campaigns have tended to focus on benefits for voters, rather than appeals to values. 

- Finally, Enzo DiMatteo reflects on Jack Layton's determined optimism, and its continued relevance in an election where so much bandwidth is being used trying to persuade people to accept less than what's possible. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- CBC News reports on the expert response to deaths caused by the spread of the Delta COVID-19 variant in a Calgary hospital - including needed warnings that vaccinations aren't a bulletproof line of defence against it. And Mary Van Beukesom discusses how the combination of the Delta variant and increased spread among younger demographics is driving a new surge in the UK. 

- Jeremy Corbyn and Niki Ashton question the G7's willingness to prolong the COVID-19 pandemic in order to preserve the pharmaceutical industry's plans to turn the coronavirus into a long-term profit centre. And Grant Robertson reports on the data gaps which have reduced the effectiveness of Canada's vaccination efforts. 

- Kerry Campbell reports on the conclusions of the House of Commons' standing committee on human resources that Canada's EI system needs to be reworked to ensuring benefits are available for all types of workers. 

- Marc Lee discusses how spin about distant and selective "net zero" emission targets serves only to distract us from the need to actually reduce carbon pollution as soon as possible. 

- Finally, Tristin Hopper discusses a few of the systemic choices which have resulted in decent housing being unaffordable for far too many Canadians. And Martine August points out the rise of institutional landlords (driven by preferential tax treatment) which is driving up the cost of rental housing. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Jim Harding writes about the Saskatchewan Party's politically-driven lack of action to get COVID-19 under control. Gillian Steward discusses how empty any bleating about "freedom!" sounds when it means needlessly exposing people to a deadly virus. And David Climenhaga calls out Jason Kenney for being missing in action. 

- Tyler Dawson notes that health care workers are bearing the brunt of the latest wave of COVID-19 as they're expected to absorb massive new demands while facing increased risks to their own health.

- Doug Saunders argues that the coronavirus pandemic has exposed weaknesses in Canada's federal structure. And Rosa Saba notes that the problems with Employment Insurance which resulted in the temporary creation of the CERB apply equally to the parental leave system administered as part of EI.

- Scott Schmidt calls out the Cons and the National Post for seizing on obviously-false spin to try to attack anybody who dared to receive relief benefits. 

- Finally, Stefanie Davis reports on new research showing that energy efficiency is just one more area where Saskatchewan ranks last among Canada's provinces. And Don Pittis points out that private-sector actors are going ahead with clean energy generation even as the Moe and Kenney governments try to put off any transition.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Edward Xie and Danyaal Raza make the case for a basic services model to ensure people's needs are met as we recover from the coronavirus pandemic:

Meeting universal basic needs for participation, health and independence is not a simple consumer choice. Rather, it’s a minimum condition to ensure a vibrant and thriving democratic society. Sadly, personal income alone cannot create more space in a child-care centre, more beds in a well-staffed care home, or more rail and bus routes. You may have more money, but are you empowered to live and sustain a richer life?

What if more income wasn’t the only path to a better life? A basic service we’ve all experienced is so deep-seated that we take it for granted: we pay taxes for our public health-care system, but it’s free to use when we need it and supported as a matter of civic pride. Our health systems are further supported by monitoring and standards to address the variety of ways the benefits of health can be achieved. As our neighbours to the south know all too well,  trying to purchase a public good like this, out of your own pocket and through private markets, can quickly become expensive in a life-altering way. Yet we haven’t carried this lesson over to other basic services.

The truth is that Canada lags other rich countries in social spending for public programs that improve health, assist children and seniors, and protect us from poverty and unemployment. Research shows that we stand to reap large rewards from boosting our basic health and social services. In their absence, COVID-19 has exposed these long-standing gaps as a precarious reality for too many of us in Canada.

Broadening the scope of what might transition from the CERB, a national approach to public “basic services” complements the undisputed importance of income by ensuring our shared needs are securely met in an uncertain world. It’s already supported by experts in the UK and Canada. They point out that the greatest needs are those that form a basic standard of living and support the determinants of health: clean water, pharmacare, safe and affordable housing, good-quality child and long-term care, and transportation and internet services that rapidly connect this vast country, among others. 

Calling them “basic” recognizes that these services are building blocks for a strong society, as essential for a thriving nation as roads and bridges, and an essential responsibility of governments to deliver. For workers stranded by changing trends in labour conditions and the economic shutdown, expanding access to basic services may provide lasting support while maintaining impetus for better employment standards. Ensuring access to high-quality basic services for everyone can also begin to address existing injustices, particularly to Indigenous peoples, with inclusive design and adequate funding from the start.

- Meanwhile, Rosa Saba reports on yet more research showing how residents in for-profit long-term care facilities have suffered far worse health outcomes than those in public or not-for-profit homes.

- The Atkinson Foundation has offered a set of recommendations to ensure that Employment Insurance actually provides replacement income for the people who need it. And Dennis Gruending offers a look at how the NDP has pushed for vital supports in response to COVID-19 in light of the consistent choices of the Libs and Cons to strip EI of needed capacity.

- Van Badham comments on the absurdity of right-wing politicians continuing to attack unemployed people for failing to find nonexistent work in the midst of a pandemic. And Nick Bonyhady reports that some unions in Australia are seeing their membership grow as workers recognize the need for a voice and a power base in the workplace.

- Finally, Emily Pasiuk reports on the Saskatchewan parents who are increasingly (and justifiably) worried about Scott Moe's decision to reopen schools without giving any meaningful thought to how that can be done safely. And Poverty Free Saskatchewan highlights just a few of the elements of the Saskatchewan Party's pandemic budget which cry out for improvement.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Daniel Markovits argues for a wealth tax to fund the relief and rebuilding effort needed in response to COVID-19, while Paul Mason points out the need to not only tax existing wealth but build new economic structures which deter extreme wealth accumulation. Bill Bostock reports on the rightful refusal of Denmark and Poland (so far) to direct public support toward companies which have refused to keep up their end of any social contract. Amir Barnes writes that we shouldn't allow public bailout money to be diverted toward enriching executives or buying back shares. And Robert Reich notes that the real moral hazard in the U.S. involves the exploitation of both booms and busts by the rich.

- David McDonald discusses the need for stronger public institutions to meet the basic needs which have been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. And Marc Andreessen makes the case to start working on building the society we want, rather than accepting cuts and tinkering as the limit of our ability to alter the status quo.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the continued use of temp agencies to avoid ensuring either secure employment or safe long-term care facilities. David Climenhaga points out how the UCP's willingness to run interference for dangerous workplaces - including both tar sands operations and slaughterhouses - has exacerbated the spread of COVID-19 in Alberta. And PressProgress questions why the Trudeau Libs have put a corporate monolith with a cavalier attitude toward the safety of its own employees in charge of storing and distributing needed supplies. 

- Catherine Kim writes about the U.S. cities which are only dealing with homelessness in the face of the coronavirus, while Emily Pasiuk reports that Saskatchewan has thus far fallen short of even that basic response.

- Finally, Lana Payne offers her suggestions to make Employment Insurance into a far stronger and more accessible income support.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jeet Heer writes about the class war already emerging in competing responses to the coronavirus epidemic. Ricardo Tranjan makes the case for rent forgiveness as part of COVID-19 relief based on the reality as to who owns the bulk of Canada's private rental housing stock. And Zoe Williams highlights why we need to focus on bailing out people rather than corporations, while Laurie Macfarlane discusses the dangers of replicating or even exacerbating existing inequalities.

- Nora Loreto and Alex Hemingway each point out their concerns with the Libs' wage subsidy plan. And David Macdonald finds that nearly a million unemployed Canadians have been excluded from any federal relief.

- PressProgress points out how refugees stuck in detention are especially vulnerable to the harm of a contagious disease. And Jane Philpott and Kim Pate argue that we're running out of time to avoid a disastrous outbreak among incarcerated people in Canada. 

- Eric Holthaus discusses how the choices we make in rebuilding from the shock of a pandemic will shape the world to come. And Damian Carrington, Jillian Ambrose and Matthew Taylor explore the possibility of a rapid transition to a clean economy.

- But then, Erica Cirino notes that dirty extractive industries are being treated as "essential" even as large segments of business as usual is shut down. And Sarah Cox reports on calls to shut down work camps which are thus far going unheeded.

- Finally, George Monbiot writes that contrary to the script presumed to apply in case of a crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge in caring and cooperation as part of people's daily routine.

On universal relief

Aside from the usual mantra that "NDP = CPC!", one of the most regularly-repeated Lib talking points criticizing the NDP's work trying to get coronavirus relief to all Canadians has been to point out that there's no single source of information available which contains the list of everybody who might receive help.

So let's talk about the real choices involved - and why the Libs' position pointing to the lack of a single source of information as a basis for limiting substantive relief is ultimately indefensible.

One of the core questions involved in any relief effort is its scope: whether the goal should be to include everybody in emergency funding, or to means-test and otherwise target what's going out. And the "not everybody's in the database!" talking point serves primarily as an excuse for saying we have no choice but to pursue the latter option.

Which, to put it simply, is asinine. If the best-case scenario is to reach 100% of the population, we're far better off starting with the best source of information available and adding recipients from there to fill in the gap, rather than starting from zero.

And that goes doubly given the obvious risks of setting up an application process outside or beyond the scope of anything else under federal jurisdiction.

The federal government has already shifted responsibility for its individual benefit away from EI after recognizing the current system wasn't set up to handle the previous iteration. But that means access to the core funding intended to keep Canadians afloat through a public health emergency will be running through a completely new and untested system. (Needless to say, the experience of federal civil servants with Phoenix should serve as a giant red flag on that front.)

So what's the effect on people in line to receive the benefit? Let's compare the Libs' scheme to an automatic helicopter drop to all Canadians in (say) the CRA's database.

For people already in the system, the Libs' scheme imposes unnecessary costs in time and effort on both the individuals applying, and the new mechanism set up to receive the applications. (And as many have pointed out, anybody who doesn't need the help can simply be taxed back next year when the system isn't so overwhelmed.)

And even for people left out of current information sources, a system of paying by default would be helpful. If you're going to need to apply to a new federal bureaucracy for benefits either way, surely it would be better to be among a relatively small number of people required to do so, rather than potentially getting stuck at the back of a backlog as millions of applications converge on the same system.

In sum, the lack of a complete list of people needing benefits doesn't represent a valid excuse for imposing either means-testing or mandatory registration under circumstances where it's possible to help people faster and more efficiently. And the people who left waiting for their emergency help will have reason to remember who's chosen to put barriers in their way.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Heather Scoffield writes that a genuine commitment to fighting climate change could resolve multiple major issues facing Canada - while delay serves only to exacerbate them:

At the core of today’s western alienation and of today’s search for prosperity is a much larger issue: the future of energy in a warming climate.

It wasn’t on the agenda for the ministers and was only mentioned in passing in the prime minister’s mandate letter of marching orders for federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau. And that’s a missed opportunity to tackle the challenges of a carbon-based economy head-on and amplify what so many other key players in Canada are leapfrogging each other to act upon.
...
In an economy that depends so deeply on resource extraction, energy production and the financing and services around those sectors, climate change is primordial. In a recent paper from the Bank of Canada that sets out where central bank researchers need to assess the impact, the author points to oil and gas of course, but also real estate, agriculture and transportation. Electricity generation, infrastructure and any industry that uses a lot of energy are also on the front lines. Insurers, banks, pension funds, investment funds and real estate trusts are also in flux.

And from a consumer point of view, climate is affecting the price of everything, as well as the way we heat and cool our houses, drive our cars, clothe our children and prepare our food.

Global warming, and its fix — decarbonization — touches almost every corner of what we do, and the risks to the economy are enormous, starting now. At stake are our profits, our businesses, our governments’ tax revenues and our very quality of life

- But Marieke Walsh points out the gap between Canada's actions and its already-insufficient emission reduction commitments. And Keith Gerein discusses the utter lack of substance behind the anti-carbon-tax bleatings of the UCP and their right-wing allies.

- Jaskiran Dhillon and Will Parrish exposes the lethal violence authorized by the RCMP against peaceful land defenders in the interest of pushing through pipelines.

- Stuart Thompson and Charlie Warzel examine the information that can be gleaned - and the risks that can be created - from a single set of cell phone location data.

- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood writes about the Libs' extension of EI sick leave benefits, while noting the need to go much further in filling in the gaps in our social safety net.

- And finally, Erica West comments on the multiple meanings of the term "emotional labour" - and the reality that all of them reflect the perpetuation of gender imbalances.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Susie Neilson discusses the growing health gap between the rich and the rest of the population in the U.S. And Ricardo Tranjan writes about the unfairness of an Employment Insurance system in which people with the most precarious work pay a higher proportion of their income while receiving less access to benefits.

- Ian McGugan comments on the sad reality that far too many voters are supporting clowns and charlatans in the absence of any perception that governments can genuinely change their lives for the better.

- Clive Doucet laments the fact that due to Justin Trudeau's self-serving calculation that he'd rather have the opportunity to win false majorities than implement a proportional electoral system, far too many Canadian voters may end up voting based on fear rather than values once again. And Marie-Danielle Smith notes that the Libs have abandoned any pretense that their corporate-friendly trade schemes can be described as progressive.

- Lois Ross' discussion of what farmers lost due to the Cons' trashing of the Canadian Wheat Board offers a reminder of what we stand to lose by failing to recognize the importance of public institutions. And Murray Mandryk recognizes that Saskatchewan is far better off for the failure of the Devine PCs' attempt to sell off SaskEnergy.

- Finally, Rebecca Traister points out the need for political commentary to reflect the changing face of the political system. And Alex Ballingall discusses the increasing recognition of the importance of the environment among Canadian voters, even as the two largest parties in Parliament go out of their way to offer as little as possible.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- PressProgress examines Statistics Canada's latest research on the tens of billions of dollars in taxes being dodged by multinational corporations. And George Monbiot offers an inside look into the crushing power of billionaires once they sense a threat to their sources of wealth and power.

- Sheila Matthen analyzes how inequality is only getting worse among millennial workers as compared to previous cohorts. And Ricardo Tranjan points out how employment insurance has eroded to the point where it withholds any income supports from the workers who need assistance the most.

- Andy Beckett writes about the sorely-needed alternatives to neoliberalism developing among a new generation of economists. And Anne Kingston writes that kindness and compassion are the only viable alternative to broken systems built around self-interest-based incentives.

- Larry Kusch takes note of the declining nursing care in Manitoba under the Pallister PCs, while PressProgress points out that Pallister's idea of health care "efficiencies" is shutting down emergency rooms.

- Finally, Jon Milton exposes the Libs' construction of a migrant detention centre in Laval.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Colby Smith writes about the changing role of public stock markets, which are serving primarily to allow already-wealthy investors to cash out rather than to fund the growth of expanding businesses. And the Equality Trust examines the growing gap between the CEO class and minimum-wage workers in the UK.

- Silvio Marcacci and Sara Hastings-Simon point out how Doug Ford's insistence on immediately cancelling anything which could possibly rein in climate change is leading to economic aftershocks for Ontario. And Sharon Riley comments on the connection between climate change and British Columbia's catastrophic wildfires.

- Christo Aivalis discusses how the Ford PCs are wrecking lives by scrapping Ontario's basic income pilot for the sole purpose of avoiding being proven wrong about the effect of a stable and predictable income. And Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood examines the problems with the limited window for Employment Insurance sick leave benefits which typically expire before recipients are ready to go back to work.

- David Climenhaga offers a reminder that Ontario is just the latest example of minimum wage increases improving incomes for the people who need it most without any meaningful side effects. And PressProgress responds to the Fraser Institute's typical use of laughably-torqued assumptions and numbers to attack public revenues.

- Finally, Courtney Dickson reports on the rightfully-outraged response to the Libs' Hunger Games plan for on-reserve housing.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ed Finn offers a reminder that Canada's social safety net is leading to the perpetuation of poverty despite ample resources to end it. And Niall McCarthy discusses the worsening state of financial inequality across the developed world.

- Hadrian Metrins-Kirkwood points out that enhanced sick leave under Employment Insurance would result in an affordable benefit to people who need it.

- Robert Reich reviews new books by Annie Lowrey and Andrew Yang on the value of a basic income, but recognizes the importance of dealing with inequality all along the income spectrum:

A U.B.I. might give recipients a bit more time to pursue socially beneficial activities, like helping the elderly or attending to kids with special needs or perhaps even starting a new business. Yang suggests it would spur a system of “social credits” in which people trade their spare time by performing various helpful tasks for one another. (I.R.S. be warned.) Surely a U.B.I. would help compensate many people — especially women — for the unpaid labor they already contribute. As Lowrey points out, some 40 million family caregivers in America provide half a trillion dollars of unpaid adult care annually. Child care has become so expensive that one of every three stay-at-home mothers today lives below the poverty line (compared with 14 percent in 1970).
...
Whatever the source of funds, it seems a safe bet that increased automation will allow the economy to continue to grow, making a U.B.I. more affordable. A U.B.I. would itself generate more consumer spending, stimulating additional economic activity. And less poverty would mean less crime, incarceration and other social costs associated with deprivation. “You know what’s really expensive?” Yang asks. “Dysfunction. Revolution.”
...
A core challenge in the future will be how to redistribute money from the ever richer owners of the robots and related technologies to the rest of us, who are otherwise likely to become poorer and less secure. This is not just an economic challenge but also a political one. As we know from recent history, vast fortunes translate directly into political power, and such power effectively resists redistribution.

- Lucas Laursen reports that in contrast to the consistent failure of Canada as a whole or any of its provinces to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (or even develop a plausible plan to do so), California is now ahead of schedule in reducing its emissions while thriving economically.

- Finally, Martin Regg Cohn writes about the price Ontario stands to pay for Doug Ford's anti-tax dogma.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Noam Scheiber and Ben Casselman comment on the role of corporate consolidation in undermining pay and working conditions. And Meagan Day rebuts the claim that employers can be excused for ignoring not-yet-qualified pools of workers by pointing out that the same people once treated as unqualified are now being hired:

This relaxation of hiring standards is a stinging rebuke to right-wing economists, who for years assured us that the main reason for the stagnant post-recession employment rate was that workers themselves didn’t have the right stuff. Throughout the slow recovery, journalists from major papers made a cottage industry of finding CEOs complaining that their hiring searches were coming up empty. Conservative commentators chalked up high unemployment to a so-called “skills gap”: companies needed more qualified workers, they insisted, than were currently on offer.

But something wasn’t right. If companies really needed qualified workers, why weren’t they raising wages to attract them? Or why weren’t they lowering their qualification standards or offering training to less experienced new hires? If companies really did have jobs that desperately required filling, they would have been working harder to fill them. Some flagged this inconsistency early on. “The reason markets adjust,” wrote management professor Peter Cappelli in 2013, “is because the participants, in this case the employers, eventually learn that they either have to raise their pay or lower their expectations in order to get the workers they need.”

The right wing’s explanation for lagging unemployment rate was a classic supply-side argument. The trouble, the argument went, was that firms weren’t getting what they needed to flourish — in this case, an adequate supply of skilled labor. The Left countered with a demand-side perspective: The reason for high unemployment was that ordinary people, not companies, weren’t getting their needs met. If they had more money in their pockets, ordinary people would increase their spending, demand for goods and services would rise, and that would create more jobs. More jobs means lower unemployment, which means greater bargaining power for the already employed, who won’t have to worry about their position being undermined by vast reserves of cheap labor.

At the time, left economists pointed out that even as employers were supposedly yearning for acceptable candidates but unable to find them, wages weren’t rising. “If employers cannot get the workers they need,” wrote Dean Baker in 2013, “then they raise the wages they offer to pull workers away from other employers. This is how markets work.” The fact that this wasn’t happening, Baker and others argued, was evidence that there wasn’t a real labor shortage, and that the “skills gap” was just another name for corporate whining. Employers were putting up job ads, sure, but they were also being hyper-selective about who they hired — for instance, refusing people with criminal convictions — a good sign they weren’t really in need.

- Meanwhile, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood examines how decarbonization can and should take into account the needs of workers in regions currently reliant on fossil fuels.

- Daniel Tencer reports on Justin Trudeau's callous suggestion that workers robbed of their pensions by corporate greed should be satisfied with Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. (And it's particularly worth noting how those programs have been allowed to stagnate in order to leave room for exactly the type of private pensions then diverted to enrich executives and shareholders.)

- Finally, Tim Harford discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a focus on self-reported happiness as the basis for policy development. And Andre Picard weighs in on the need to invest in social supports as the most effective means of improving health outcomes.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jonathan Ostry comments on the emerging recognition that inequality represents a barrier to economic development:

I argue that greater attention should be paid to the consequences that economic policies have for income distribution (inequality). The reasons are four-fold.

• First, excessive levels of inequality are bad not only for social and moral reasons but also for growth and efficiency: higher levels of inequality are associated, on average, with lower and less durable growth. Hence, even from the perspective of the goal of fostering growth, attention to inequality is necessary.
• Second, high levels of inequality may lead to latent social conflicts that ultimately translate into political backlash against the pursuit of free market polices, including globalization.
• Third, the fear that income redistribution would have an adverse impact on growth turns out to find little support in the data — implementing policies to reduce excessive inequality tend on average to support growth (by reducing inequality) rather than retard growth.
• Fourth, many policy choices made by governments have a direct effect on inequality outcomes. Hence, inequality outcomes are not, as is sometimes argued, exclusively due to technological changes (such as robotization or digitalization) and other global trends that are beyond the control of any one government.

- Andrew Jackson writes about the need for a more accessible and comprehensive employment insurance system.

- Haroon Siddique reports on a new study showing that hundreds of thousands of people are driven out of the UK's workforce each year by mental health problems. 

- Patrick Clark discusses how rising rents are putting intolerable stress on U.S. tenants. And Jim Silver rebuts (PDF) a KPMG report intended to lay the groundwork to hope the private sector will deliver affordable housing in Manitoba.

- Finally, Stephen Tweedale responds to a couple of criticisms of proportional electoral systems - particularly ones which are based solely on wilful neglect as to how concerns can be addressed. 

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Steve Roth points out how extreme concentrations of wealth lead to poor economic and social outcomes:

If wealth is consistently more widely dispersed — like it was after WW II — the extra spending that results causes more production. (Why, exactly, do you think producers produce things?) And production produces a surplus — value in, more value out. It’s the ultimate engine of wealth creation. In this little example, we’re talking a trillion dollars a year in additional spending and production. GDP would be 5.5% higher.

If you want to claim that the extra spending would just raise prices, consider the last 20 years. Or the last three decades, in Japan. And if you think concentrated wealth causes better investment and greater wealth accumulation, ask yourself: what economic theory says that $95 trillion in concentrated wealth will result in more or better investment than $95 trillion in broadly dispersed wealth? Our financial system is supposed to intermediate all that, right?
...
So how do we get there, given that we’ve mostly failed to do so for millennia? Start with a tax system that actually is progressive, like we had, briefly, during the postwar heyday of rampant and widespread American growth and prosperity. And greatly expand the social platform and springboard that gives tens of millions more Americans a place to stand, where they can move the world.

All of this dweebish arithmetic, of course, doesn’t put across the real crux of the thing: power. Money is power. So it is, so it has been, and so it shall be in our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes (world without end, amen). This is especially true for minorities, who have been so thoroughly screwed by our recent Great Whatever. Money is the power to walk away from a shitty job. To hire fancy lawyers and lobbyists, maybe even buy yourself a politician or two. If we want minorities to have power, they need to have money.

Add to that dignity, and respect, which is deserved by every child born: sadly but truly, they are delivered to those who have money. You can bemoan that reality, but in the meantime, let’s concentrate on the money.

- And Chris Winters interviews Chuck Collins about the four types of policy needed to reverse inequality and build a fair economy.

- Jeremy Nuttall reports on the effect of foreign workers with minimal rights who are being imported to Alberta to drive down wages and working conditions. And Ben Schneider writes about a push by Australian unions to allow for negotiation by sector or supply chain to ensure that workers' hard-won gains in collective bargaining can't be so easily erased from the picture.

- Meanwhile, Rod Hill discusses how self-insurance for workers (in contrast to even the already-limited Employment Insurance system) is doomed to failure. 

- Finally, Tristin Hopper reminds us that most of Canada faces far higher cell phone plan prices than most of the developed world - and that the lone exceptions are found in provinces including Saskatchewan where a regional provider ensures more fair prices than the big three telecoms would otherwise offer.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Nora Loreto slams the Wynne Libs' "red tape" gimmick, while highlighting the need for people to claim a voice in rules largely intended to protect them as workers and consumers:

One person's red tape is another person's health and safety, but Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne hopes that workers won't make this connection.

Wynne's government has ripped off an initiative from the U.K. called the (cut the) Red Tape Challenge. It seeks input into how to get rid of regulations and save money in all aspects of Ontario's economy.

When the initiative was launched in March, Wynne was reported to have said this: "One of the conditions of success is to free up businesses from unnecessary paper work, inspections and reporting....This will give owners and employees more time to focus on growing their company's productivity and competitiveness and growing their business."

No word on whether or not the inspections that showed how widespread Employment Standards Act abuses are, are in Wynne's crosshairs.
...
If any unions have involved themselves in this process, or are actively boycotting it in protest, their communications has been buried by the communications of the Ontario government, because there doesn't seem to be anything out there. A crowdsourced campaign can be cheap and even fun to derail, and considering what's riding on the process's outcome, it's concerning that the Ontario Federation of Labour and other Ontario unions don't seem to have made this "challenge" a priority.

In Britain, union leaders called the Red Tape Challenge a red herring and a sham, and it seems nearly certain that the Ontario process deserves such labels too. For any money to be put into this dog and pony show is an outrage, especially one that has the potential to undermine workplace regulations that labour activists have fought for over generations.

- And Jeff Spross points out that the most lucrative crime in the U.S. is wage theft which seldom gives rise to meaningful punishment.

- Meanwhile, for those actually interested in making government more effective rather than merely reversing any attempt to protect the public interest, the Mowat Centre offers some useful ideas on how to improve public employment supports. And Sarah Tranum and Alia Weston suggest a few ways to better fit our social safety net to a precarious-work economy.

- Matt Phillips interviews Joseph Stiglitz about the failings of the Eurozone - and particularly the consequences of austerity being imposed by a foreign central bank with little apparent regard for any impact on citizens.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board rightly argues that any reasonable child protection system should aim to provide resources needed within a family, rather than taking children away from parents merely because they live in poverty. And Jordon Cooper weighs in on how the Saskatchewan Party's cuts to disability income serve little purpose other than to prevent vulnerable people from living with dignity.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Owen Jones interviews Ha-Joon Chang about the foreseeable harm caused by the UK's austerity, as well as the false claims used to push it.

- The Stoney Creek News rightly argues that Canada Post should move toward posting banking in large part due to the potential to improve the level of service available for vulnerable groups. But Dean Beeby notes that Employment Insurance administration is just one of the many areas where the idea of actually assisting the public has been lost in favour of automation and corporatization.

- The Canadian Labour Congress points out a few of the policies which could offer much-needed opportunities and security for younger workers. And Jared Bernstein writes that an improved minimum wage (one of the CLC's recommendations) has worked exactly as hoped in Seattle, increasing workers' pay and length of employment without any of the threatened side effects.

- Mound of Sound highlights how Justin Trudeau has chosen to make Stephen Harper's industry-dominated National Energy Board his own, while Kai Nagata points out Trudeau's broken promises to put a credible review system in place before ramming through more project approvals. And Christopher Adams examines CAUT's investigation into the dubiously cozy relationship between the University of Calgary and oil-sector funders. 

- Finally, Murray Brewster exposes a Canadian-owned firm's sale of troop carriers for use in the ongoing war in South Sudan. And Don Pittis rightly notes that we should be less concerned with the nationality of a corporation's official ownership than with its actual behaviour.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ed Finn reminds us that "free trade" agreements have always served to increase the wealth and power of those who already have the most at the expense of social interests. And Scott Sinclair and Angella MacEwen each offer their take on Parliament's hearings into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

- Meanwhile, Zach Dubinsky reports on another set of unfair deals which have allowed corporations to send profits offshore to avoid paying taxes with (primarily the Cons') government approval.

- But in case anybody expected the Libs to live up to any different set of principles, Mia Rabson points out Robert-Falcon Ouellette's craven politicking around a basic income - consisting of seeking media attention for his support for at least studying the concept before going along with a party-line vote against it. (And it's particularly striking that even the Con members of the finance committee were willing to support the motion - leaving the Libs alone to shoot it down.)

- Frances Baum, David Sanders, Matt Fisher, Julia Anaf, Nicholas Freudenberg, Sharon Friel, Ronald Labonté, Leslie London, Carlos Monteiro, Alex Scott-Samuel and Amit Sen examine the influence of multinational corporations on the health of individuals, while pointing out the desperate lack of any meaningful assessment on an organizational basis. 

- Finally, Teuila Fuatai discusses how Canada's employment insurance system is set up to disadvantage mothers in lower-earning families.