Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jesse Winter is the latest reporter to tell the stories of a few minimum-wage workers who will see a raise as a result of improved employment standards. And Erika Shaker points out that a substantial minimum-wage increase is a long-overdue response to outdated statutory standards and stagnant wage levels, not a meaningful imposition on employers:

(W)hat’s truly surprising is that so many businesses didn’t seem to see it coming, even after a two-year $15 minimum wage campaign in Ontario. After all, increases have been studied, debated and implemented in several American states, Britain, and Australia (to name a few), not to mention Alberta. All this strikes me as something that might be considered “market research” or simply “planning ahead” for a business concerned with its bottom line.

So while this is certainly a significant change, Ontario businesses had time to rethink their decision to pursue a low-wage business plan in the broader socio-economic and political context (the Changing Workplaces Review was initiated back in February 2015 “to consider issues brought about in part by the growth of precarious employment”), seven months to adjust to being compliant with the legislation (if the mere desire to treat their workers well wasn’t strong enough), and another year before $15/hr kicks in.
...
The increase to the minimum wage shouldn’t be seen as a shock, but rather a long-fought-for correction…which suggests that those businesses arguing loudest had perhaps become too comfortable counting on an outdated business model whose profit margins depended on low-wage employees. The much-publicized decision by a few (“rogue”, according to Head Office) Tim Hortons franchises to find ways to gouge their workers betrays a somewhat Dickensian nostalgia for a time when the highest costs of doing business were borne by the worker — not the cutting-edge, forward-looking business acumen that we’re often told tax breaks will encourage.

- Lydia Dobson criticizes Ontario employers whose reaction to an improved minimum wage is to steal employees' tips. And Heidi Shierholz, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, and Ben Zipperer document the billions of dollars workers stand to lose from Donald Trump's plan to let U.S. employers do exactly that.

- Matt Bruenig points out the problems with fetishizing small businesses, rather than focusing on the importance of workers' protections and needs regardless of the size of their employer.

- The Star's editorial board argues that Google and Facebook should be required to pay a fair share of taxes proportional to the corporate revenue they accumulate from their Canadian operations.

- And finally, Mary Papenfuss reports on the Koch family's six-figure payout to Paul Ryan (and other donations which represent a small portion of the Republicans' tax giveaway) as a prime example of the corruption inherent in politics dominated by big money.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- 24 Hours offers a debate as to whether or not we should pursue a basic income - though it's striking that the "con" case is based almost entirely on a message that a secure income for everybody can't be achieved, rather than any argument that it shouldn't.

- Gabriel Bristow writes about the next battle against austerity, this time arising out of general strikes in Belgium. And Tara Ehrcke muses about what a Canadian equivalent to Syriza could pursue by way of people-friendly policies, while Trish Hennessy looks at the middle-class economics which will likely define our next election campaign.

- Carol Goar examines Mariana Mazzucato's argument that we should value entrepreneurial government:

It takes government-led goal-setting backed up with public funds — Mazzucato calls this mission-based investment — to generate transformative knowledge, spawn technical breakthroughs and improve the economic outlook for everyone, including those at the bottom of the income pyramid. She identified a few such missions.

“I think the green challenge is so overwhelming that it could be a game-changer,” she said. But there are other strong candidates. “Who is thinking about adapting to an aging population? Who is reimaging the labour-intensive personal-care sector?”

The first imperative, Mazzucato acknowledged, is changing public opinion. She is making an all-out effort to debunk the myths underlying the private-sector-good/public-sector-bad mindset...

It is not the specific that interests Mazzucato; it is the idea that governments can pull together multi-talented teams of problem-solvers, spur innovation, marry science and industry and trigger waves of economic growth.

“We have a cartoonish image of the state as a dinosaur,” she says. “In fact, in countries that owe their growth to innovation, it is a key partner of the private sector — and often a more daring one.”

- And Kaylie Tiessen notes that constant corporate tax cuts - whether aimed at big or small businesses - haven't produced any of the promised gains.

- Eve-Lynn Couturier proposes some ways to make municipal revenue more secure. But unfortunately, Brad Wall is headed in the opposite direction, forcing Saskatchewan municipalities to budget based on revenues which he's threatening to withdraw in order to deflect from his government's mismanagement at the provincial level.

- Finally, Derrick O'Keefe describes how the Harper Cons plan to rely on terrorist hysteria as their core message in the lead up to the federal election campaign.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Joe Cressy argues that we need to take strong progressive positions to highlight the kinds of public investment which need to be made, rather than buying into right-wing spin about slashing taxes and eliminating public institutions:

Public investment is about social justice, taking care of people and making sure our communities have affordable housing, public transit, child care, clean air to breathe and water to drink.

Now, when progressive candidates talk about investing in communities, we are often labeled as ‘tax-and-spenders,’ as if that were something to be ashamed of.

The reality is that taxing, spending, and regulating are the core functions of government, no matter who holds office. The difference lies in how you prioritize spending.

Instead of running from the word ‘tax,’ we need to look at what we are actually doing with our resources. Are we taxing fairly, and are we investing in things that will make life better? That should be the ‘bottom line.’

- Which fits nicely with Ken Neumann's view that we should demand better in the next federal election (and in our political system generally), not just settle for any alternative.

- Meanwhile, Celia Carr laments the stigmatization of people living in poverty. And Danielle Kurtzleben notes that based on our actual standards of fairness, we should instead be far more critical of CEOs who extract massive amounts of wealth at the expense of workers.

- Jason Fekete reports on the Cons' obscene expenditures on media monitoring and communications

- Finally, Barrie McKenna discusses how the fetishization of small business leads to our spending billions on programs which don't accomplish anything of value. And I'll note that we shouldn't merely be drawing distinctions between small and large businesses either, as we'd do far better to highlight the importance of public services - as Janet Newbury does:

We don't have to choose between supporting the public sector and economic prosperity: investing in the public sector is good for our economy.

A good jobs plan for B.C. would enhance the public sector -- particularly supporting jobs in health and human services. It would replace the current trend towards temporary, resource-dependent jobs with a commitment to maintaining stable, permanent jobs that contribute to societal well-being. Creating and maintaining public sector jobs can foster our social and economic well-being by ensuring the quality of vital gap-reducing social services, and by building a strong and stable workforce in B.C.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

With a couple of weeks' worth of developments to address, I'll take a slightly higher-level look at the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race than I normally do. (And for those worried about missing out, note that we should have an opportunity to revisit new issues in detail as the debate schedule gets underway this weekend.)

Most significantly, Trent Wotherspoon released three new policy statements, covering the environment, health and the economy. Most of Wotherspoon's proposals can be safely classified as safe but effective statements of non-controversial policy within the NDP, but his small business tax proposals sets up what may be the first stark policy contrast of the campaign: where Erin Weir has suggested that corporate tax rates should be applied to more small business income in order to leave room for incentives for investment and hiring, Wotherspoon's economic plan proposes to eliminate corporate taxes altogether on earnings up to $100,000.

Weir also introduced his labour policy - which goes beyond restoring the law as it stood prior to the Saskatchewan Party's attacks on workers, but also includes additional steps to ensure that collective bargaining achieves fair results with a minimal amount of disruption:

He is calling for Saskatchewan to adopt legislation enabling either management or the union to apply for binding interest arbitration to resolve strikes or lock-outs that last more than 90 days. Such legislation has proven effective in Manitoba since it was enacted in 2004.
...
“Prohibiting replacement workers during legal strikes and lock-outs would also make these disputes less acrimonious,” said Weir. “Such anti-scab legislation would ensure that employers have an incentive to bargain in good faith rather than using replacements for 90 days until they can request arbitration.”
...
Weir would implement a construction tendering policy to prevent contractors from undercutting wages negotiated through the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council.

Weir also pointed out a spike in self-employment at the same time that actual jobs were lost in Saskatchewan - which at the very least raises serious questions as to whether the Sask Party is ensuring that a temporary boom provides as little security as possible for workers.

Ryan Meili responded to the Sask Party's liquor privatization plans with a focus on the social nature of problems caused by alcohol abuse (as found by the Parkland Institute and CCPA):

A couple of important points to keep in mind when weighing the government's recent actions:

Privatizing liquor sales leads to higher levels of alcohol consumption, which brings with it a host of social costs while increasing the burden on the health care and justice systems. Alberta, which became the first Canadian jurisdiction to privatize liquor sales in 1993, has the highest per-capita liquor consumption, while B.C., which began introducing private liquor stores in 2003, has higher-than-average consumption rates.

Private liquor stores replace quality, full-time jobs with low-paying, part-time jobs. "The studies agree there are more workers in liquor retail [in Alberta post-privatization], but they work fewer hours, have fewer benefits, and lower salaries than did Alberta government workers. So workers, by and large, are not better off."

Finally, Cam Broten offered his response to Scott's candidate questionnaire. And it's particularly interesting to contrast Broten's immediate priorities (which revolve entirely around party-building) against the policy issues he'd plan to tackle upon winning government. That hints at a noteworthy commitment to public engagement for its own sake on the path toward government - but may also provide fodder for the other candidates to question whether meaningful party-building is possible without highlighting issues as rallying points.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

Yesterday saw two significant new developments in Saskatchewan's NDP leadership race, as the two candidates outside the Legislature took the initiative to earn coverage as the fall legislative session opened.

- Let's start with Ryan Meili's economic plan, which featured a few important concrete policies (such as a minimum wage set at 120% of the Low Income Measure) alongside some much more general ideas which call for further discussion and debate (e.g. ensuring that social policy meets "basic needs" for all Saskatchewan families). While there are a few tweaks on the NDP's existing policy (such as earmarking the proceeds of a legacy fund for education in particular), Meili looks to stayed on fairly safe ground - and it's not by accident that any criticism has been aimed at a lack of specifics rather than Meili's content so far.

Meanwhile, Meili also introduced two separate proposals for small business. And there, Meili looks to have avoided the trap of simply figuring that any money pushed toward smaller businesses is an inherent good - instead targeting his proposals toward offering new and growing businesses the opportunity to acquire training (through grants) and equity financing (though an exemption to securities laws).

- In the other main news yesterday, Erin Weir released the results of a "non-scientific poll" of Saskatchewan NDP members. While I'm in broad agreement with Scott's analysis, I'll avoid getting into the details of differences of a couple of dozen votes in each of the three regions; instead, he seems right on track in considering this to be the most important finding:

Essentially, the main take away is that this is a wide-open race. Whichever candidate does the work and successfully builds their profile with the members is going to be the one who ends up leading the party. I think there was some thought that name-recognition and 'star quality' (ala Justin Trudeau) might propel a candidacy early on in the race, but this poll suggests that that did not happen.

  - Weir also made the news recently by responding to the Sask Party's latest giveaway to the corporate sector. And the massive amount of money lost is in stark contrast to Weir's accurate statement as to the illusion of benefit:

Krawetz said in a worst-case scenario the two per cent rate reduction will mean about a $175 million loss in revenues to the government when fully implemented.

Economist and NDP leadership candidate Erin Weir said “corporate tax cuts federally and in other provinces have failed to spur business investment.

“A far more effective approach would be tax credits and rebates directly linked to investment and hiring.”

- Meanwhile, Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon were back in the Legislative Assembly this week. And in their first opportunities to participate on Friday (PDF), Broten asked several questions about the decline in First Nations and Metis employment in Saskatchewan, while Wotherspoon introduced a petition on education.

Loopholes and leverage

I've previously wondered whether we'd see many substantial policy differences between Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates. But Erin Weir hasn't taken long to challenge what's often seen as party orthodoxy:

NDP leadership candidate Erin Weir is proposing to focus Saskatchewan’s Small Business Deduction on genuinely small businesses with taxable profits of up to $100,000. This policy would increase provincial revenues and fund targeted tax measures directly linked to investment and employment.
... 
“We should close business tax loopholes that are not connected to investment or employment,” said Weir. “To help create jobs, I would rebate workers’ compensation premiums for the first four years that a newly hired worker is employed and restore the Saskatchewan Film Employment Tax Credit.”

To encourage investment, Weir is proposing a tax credit equal to 2% of the first $100,000 of capital invested by any corporation. Under this plan, a genuinely small business that reinvests its profits in Saskatchewan would pay no provincial tax.
...
[The change in the small business deduction threshold] would recoup at least $200 million of annual provincial revenue. The premium rebate would cost $30 million when fully phased-in and the investment tax credit would cost $70 million, leaving a further $100 million to fund other public priorities. 

Now, Weir's proposal doesn't entirely close what he identifies as a loophole. (Nor would it entirely fix what strikes me as the most obvious problem with a small-business threshold in encouraging the proliferation of multiple corporate entities to avoid growing to a particular size - as the per-business tax credits and premium rebates would mimic the same effect to a lesser extent).

But it's well worth asking whether it actually makes sense to provide more favourable treatment to some businesses based solely on their size in the name of small-business jingoism.

Instead, Weir's plan provides incentives for growth in both capital investment and hiring. Which means that incentives would then be directed toward the activities that actually increase economic development, rather than falling into the all-too-frequent trap of declaring "we want X to like us, let's give favourable tax treatment to X".

Needless to say, there's reason to doubt that the small business tax proposal will be met with the same universal agreement as Weir's previous push to eliminate corporate and union donations to provincial political parties. But how the other candidates respond will say plenty about both the role they see for the provincial government in economic development, and their willingness to deal with that question based on principle rather than political expediency.

Update: Scott has more here. And as Erin notes in comments, Cam Broten and Ryan Meili have already responded - but have done so by falling back on the "small business" mantra without substantively addressing the question of whether more targeted incentives can encourage growth for less cost than broad loopholes.

Parliament In Review: June 22, 2011

The second-last day of debates in this spring's session dealt mostly with Bruce Hyer's motion on small business. But lest anybody think there would be agreement on the details of an issue where every party supported the motion itself (resulting in a rather inexplicable standing vote)...

The Big Issue

So what did the parties find to debate about while agreeing on the NDP's plan for small business taxes?

Well, the Cons tried to put forward Japan as a positive example - which led to Hyer's apt observation that corporate taxes are significantly higher there. (And I'll offer a reminder that in fact, the Cons' target tax rate is identical to Japan's definition of an abusive tax haven.)

Meanwhile, Dennis Bevington raised an important point as to how corporate tax slashing doesn't get passed along to consumers when products are sold in the world economy. To which Maxime Bernier could only respond (loosely paraphrased) "Hayek! Lower Taxes! Blargh!".

For the Libs, Joyce Murray proudly labeled herself as more anti-government than the Cons by taking credit for the B.C. Libs' regulation-slashing. But due credit to Scott Brison for criticizing corporate tax cuts while noting that they only offer anything to 5% of businesses.

And finally, Hyer served up a reminder as to which party actually has the best record of balancing budgets.

Budget Votes

The other main votes taken on the 22nd involved budget estimates and related legislation. And there were a few noteworthy departures from what one might have expected.

Rather than opposing the budget in full, the Libs voted for the Cons' requested Senate funding. And after making a show of supporting the Cons' budget, the Bloc joined the other opposition parties in opposing not only the main estimates, but also the budget legislation reflecting the policies they supported.

In Brief

Mathieu Ravignat challenged the Cons on their willingness to impose even higher prescription drug prices through the CETA. Laurin Liu and Megan Leslie offered timely questions on the toxic extraction of shale gas. Similarly, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Libby Davies questioned the Cons' plan to do nothing about health care until 2014, and were met with a thoroughly worn list of unrelated spin. In presenting a petition, Nathan Cullen slammed the Cons for standing alone in the world in favour of unfettered asbestos production and exports. And Peter Stoffer countered the Cons' war on knowledge by introducing a bill to remove the GST from books.