Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The Star's editorial board writes that while we can do more to provide supports to make workers less dependent on a single job, we shouldn't pretend there's nothing we can do to improve working conditions. And Lana Payne reminds Morneau and the Libs that there's nothing inevitable about increasingly precarious work:

Precarious and insecure work is not inevitable. Changing this outcome is also not impossible.

How can government create the conditions for good jobs to grow?

A $15-an-hour minimum wage, including in the federal sector, would help tens of thousands of workers. The federal Liberals could do that tomorrow simply by introducing a piece of legislation.

Let’s start with a committee — an advisory committee on ending precarious work. Its job will be to recommend to the federal government ways and means it can make a difference in the working lives of young people by taking the problem of precarious work head on.

Let’s get some ideas out there. In fact there are already tons of ideas being generated by unions, workers’ action groups, advocacy organizations, labour market economists and others who believe good jobs, stable jobs are critical to lifting people up. Let’s look at the incredible work already done in Ontario around the changing workplace review.

We could also do as Sen. Diane Bellemare is suggesting and have a national conversation on full employment.

Let’s not assume that young people are destined to be the most educated cohort in history, but will be worse off than their parents are because we have given up.

- Andrew Jackson offers his take on the Libs' apparent plans to fund massive amounts of P3 infrastructure through a private bank, and concludes it would do nothing to assist the public interest.

- Gary Mason discusses how British Columbia's lax fund-raising rules (which mirror Saskatchewan's) represent an affront to democracy. Justin Ling reports on the federal Libs' constant pay-for-play fund-raisers, while Robert Fife and Steven Chase report on a much-needed investigation into the practice. And Martin Regg Cohn notes that the Ontario Libs' reaction to a provincial consensus that pay-for-play should be illegal has to go on one last multi-million dollar corporate shakedown spree.

- Finally, Fair Vote Canada highlights how the results of Parliament's electoral reform consultations are strongly in favour of a shift to proportional representation. But Alison finds yet another galling example of the Libs - in this case Maryam Monsef - trying to pretend otherwise by disqualifying PR supporters from any conversation.

Musical interlude

Vogue Dots - Way With Silence

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ben Casselman points out how corporate consolidation can produce harmful results for consumers and workers alike. Guy Standing discusses how we're all worse off for the spread of rentier capitalism. And Mariana Mazzucato reminds us that an entrepreneurial government is a must if we want to see general economic development:

An entrepreneurial society needs an entrepreneurial state, one that through visionary and strategic public investments, distributed across the innovation chain, can create animal spirits in private businesses. Entrepreneurs then see growth opportunities, and business investment follows.

Breakthrough technologies, such as the internet and biotech, did not emerge from governments worried about “commercialization”; they emerged from the spillovers of investments that were focused on long-run public missions. Missions of the past, such as getting a man to the moon, translated into multiple homework problems that needed different actors to work together in dynamic partnerships, spurring innovation. Today’s societal challenges, from aging to climate change, can provide a similar focus and animating force. They can stimulate innovation and give direction for new private investment and entrepreneurial activity as profit-making opportunities come into sight. Mission-oriented thinking could also be used to develop technology roadmaps for the 17 sustainable development goals.

Crucially, this will require public leadership, challenging the prevailing ideology which limits the role of public actors to simply de-risking or facilitating the real heroes — the private sector wealth creators, like risk-loving entrepreneurs — while waiting for the market to find solutions. In the few countries that have achieved innovation-led smart growth — like the U.S., Israel, Denmark, and even China today — public actors have not just enabled the private sector. They have actively taken risks as an investor of first resort, not just a lender of last resort.

- Thomas Piketty discusses the spread of inequality in Australia (and around the globe).

- Yael Abouhalkah notes that much like Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party government, Sam Brownback's utter failure of a Republican administration is responding to the consistent flow of bad news by hiding the state of the economy from the public.

- PressProgress examines the evidence that Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau are utterly clueless about the dangers and costs of precarious work. And Nora Loreto responds to Morneau's position that young workers in particular have to settle for constant insecurity.

- Finally, Peyton Veitch writes that free tuition represents an important counterweight to elitism and social immobility. And Ashifa Kassam reports on Ontario's basic income pilot project as another means of giving people a reasonable base for future planning.

New column day

Here, comparing the Conservative Party's leadership race based on fear and division to the NDP's which looks set to bring a progressive coalition together.

For further reading...
- Bob Hepburn also notes that fear and hatred are the main themes emerging from the Cons' candidates so far. And while it's fair enough for Andrew Coyne to point out that there's room for the race to go in other directions, there's little evidence to suggest that will happen.
- Meanwhile, Ryan Maloney outlines the NDP's developing leadership contest in the wake of Peter Julian's announcement that he's stepping down as House leader to explore a campaign, while CBC's Pollcast discusses what's to come. Mohamed Omar points out Charlie Angus' work critiquing the Libs' failure to live up to their promises to First Nations. The NDP highlights Niki Ashton's national campaign to give precarious workers a voice here. Guy Caron's Huffington Post series on tax evasion can be found here. And Martin Regg Cohn discusses the prospective campaign of Jagmeet Singh.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jordan Brennan points out why Nova Scotia (and other jurisdictions) should move past austerity economics:

The McNeil Liberals appear set to rack up budgetary surpluses through a strategy of public sector wage suppression. This is likely to backfire. It is an elementary insight of economic analysis that, just as one person's expenditure is necessarily another person's income, one sector's expenditure (in this case, the government) is necessarily another sector's income (namely, households and businesses).

By limiting public sector wage increases below prevailing inflation rates, the government will shrink household purchasing power and weaken aggregate demand. Furthermore, a strategy of public sector wage restraint may spill over into the private sector insofar as it signals to employers that they can scale back on wage increases without risking retention.

With GDP growth rates in Nova Scotia running at half the Canadian average and with income inequality hovering at a four-decade high it would take an impressive contortion of logic to assert that Nova Scotia's workforce is in need of a pay cut.
...
In the context of weak economic growth, the IMF has recently stated that budgetary deficits are preferable to surpluses and debt reduction. Austerity measures, the IMF continues, reduce human well-being, weaken aggregate demand and worsen unemployment.

Job creation should be made the top economic priority, not balancing the budget. The government should take advantage of ultra-low interest rates and invest in critical social and physical infrastructure such as health care, childcare, education and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

These measures will not only strengthen aggregate demand, but they will improve the quality of life for Nova Scotians. And from a fiscal standpoint, the increased debt needed to finance these investments can be reduced through organic growth.

- The Equality Trust examines the increasingly precarious financial state of many households in Great Britain. But Angella MacEwen writes that Alberta's increasing minimum wage represents an important step toward income security for workers (along with a stronger economy for everybody).

- In contrast, PressProgress points out that the Liberals have chosen to let the value of their much-ballyhooed child tax benefit erode - particularly for lower-income families.

- Hilary Beaumont reports on the lack of action toward the Libs' campaign promise to ensure that First Nations have safe drinking water. And CTV reports on the NDP's work to get the Libs to comply with their obligation to stop discriminating in funding child services.

- Finally, Jerry Dias writes that Canada is arriving at a moment of truth on electoral reform - and that there's no reason for MPs not to work on giving effect to widespread support for a proportional electoral system.

#yqrvotes - Election Day Resources

While I haven't written much about Regina's municipal election (except for the column linked here), I'll point out a few of the resources worth considering before casting ballots today.

Again, Elections Regina's official information is here.

The Queen City Improvement Bureau's blog offers an opportunity to hear some of the candidates in action, while its latest podcast includes some analysis and predictions. CBC summarizes a few of the stories it's covered, while also pointing out how a lack of party structure leads to apathy at the municipal level. John Klein offers his choices among the candidates.

And while I won't put together a full set of endorsements or predictions, some of the candidates I'll encourage people to give a closer look include:
- Ward 3 - Andrew Stevens
- Ward 4 - Asfaw Debia
- Ward 6 - Shelley LaVallee
- Ward 7 - Leanne McKay
- Ward 9 - Aidan Wotherspoon
- Ward 10 - Brian Sklar
- Subdivision 2 - Aleana Young
- Subdivision 3 - Nathaniel Cole
- Subdivision 4 - Misty Longman
- Separate School Board - Wendy Gervais, Marg Romanow

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Terry Pedwell reports that young workers who were apparently expected to provide Justin Trudeau with a public relations backdrop instead delivered an important dose of reality by protesting his appearance. And Angella MacEwen points out that contrary to the Libs' spin, there's in fact plenty a government can do to combat precarious work and financial insecurity:

I would advise the economic council to take a look at Senator Bellemare’s work on full employment, and Professor Marc Lavoie’s work on wage led growth. It might lead them in a policy direction that will benefit both growth and well-being.

For example, transfers such as the Canada Child Benefit will help to reduce poverty and inequality. Expanding the Working Income Tax Benefit would help make work pay, and make life a little easier for the working poor.

Expanding the social safety net by improving CPP will help down the road, and it absolutely reduces the stress of precarity when workers know they will have that pension when they retire.  The current design of Employment Insurance amplifies and exacerbates labour market inequalities, and ideally a social insurance system would work to dampen existing inequalities. A lower entrance requirement & minimum benefit level would go a long way to doing that.

The federal government could use Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) with the provinces to provide more opportunities for training and re-training – and better supports for non-EI eligible workers who need access to basic numeracy and literacy training through Labour Market Agreements (LMAs).

High quality public services and social services are critical. I cannot overstate the need for more affordable childcare spaces in Canada, and the beneficial impact this would have on precarious workers.

- Thomas Walkom suggests that some of the federal-provincial tension on health care can be alleviated by including home care under the list of core services administered under the Canada Health Act.

- But sadly (if less than surprisingly), the Libs couldn't seem less interested in public solutions to social problems - as Brent Patterson highlights the latest indication that Justin Trudeau has decided to ignore the anti-social nature of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while David McDonald points out that the Libs' push toward privatization and outsourcing is contrary to the international trend in public service delivery.

- Susan Delacourt notes that amidst plenty of valid concern about the influence of money on politics, we could substantially eliminate that problem by restoring public funding.

- Finally, Monia Mazigh rightly argues that it's long past time to repeal Bill C-51. Craig Forcese examines (and offers some important warnings about) the use of secret national security laws in Canada. And Jeremy Nuttall offers some suggestions to modernize public access to information.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Lounging cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dani Rodrik discusses the growing public opposition to new corporate-dominated trade deals based on the lessons we've learned from previous ones:

Instead of decrying people’s stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I’d put a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary people’s concerns with earlier trade agreements.

The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said there’d be no social dumping though there clearly is at times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as “free trade” agreements, even though Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.

And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats, now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even when it’s not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade’s cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.

One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The standard remedy of compensation won’t be enough — even if carried out. It’s about fairness, loss of control, and elites’ loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.

- Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew point out why progressives have reason to oppose the CETA, while Craig Scott rightly questions the Libs' spin on it And Gareth Hutchins reports on Canada's experience with challenges to democratic legislation under NAFTA as a cautionary tale for other countries.

- Jeremy Gilbert writes about the need for a social movement (going far beyond the partisan political scene) to provide a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.

- Bob Mackin reports that the Vancouver International Airport Authority's CEO is highlighting the dangers of a selloff of airport assets. And Bill Curry notes that cities are raising important questions about the Libs' musings about diverting direct infrastructure funding toward an "infrastructure bank".

- Finally, James Wilt examines the utter incoherence of Brad Wall's excuse for a climate change plan.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Thomas Walkom writes that the federal Libs' idea of "real change" for the economy reflects nothing more than the same old stale neoliberal playbook:

At its core, the federal government’s “bold” new plan for economic growth is strikingly familiar.

The scheme, worked out by Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s hand-picked advisory panel, relies on privatization, deregulation, public-private partnerships and user fees.

It would reserve profitable public infrastructure for the private sector but have governments alone foot the bill for those schemes — such as environmental remediation and First Nations projects — that are destined to lose money.

It would have the government set up a new agency to convince foreign investors that Canada is open for business.
...
The panel, if I understand it correctly, thinks it insufficient to simply have the government borrow money at rock-bottom interest rates in order to build the things that need to be built.

Rather, it wants private capital to build and own, in whole or in part, these new infrastructure projects.

To make ownership worthwhile to private investors, the government would “attach revenue streams” to both new projects and to some already in existence.

Simply put, this means figuring out way to let private participants reap profits from, say, a bridge or subway line.

This is an old strategy. It is the one that underlies, for example, Ontario’s Highway 407, a toll road built with money raised by the provincial government and owned by private-sector operators.

It is also the strategy behind the current Ontario Liberal government’s baffling plan to sell off most of Hydro One, the provincial electricity transmission monopoly.
...
The problem with privatization is that it usually ends up costing consumers more. Various auditors general around the world, including Ontario’s, have made that point when examining public-private partnerships.

- Michael Harris warns Justin Trudeau about the dangers of breaking his most important promises (in terms of public cynicism as well as partisan outcomes), while Tom Parkin notes that we shouldn't be surprised to see the Libs once again taking progressive support for granted. The Star's editorial board argues that it's particularly important to keep commitments to accountable government, while Dene Moore reports that indigenous leaders are rightly calling out Trudeau's year of failures. And Karl Nerenberg calls Trudeau out for personally undermining his own promise of electoral reform.

- But if there's anything worse than breaking one-time promises, it's a government's inclination to approach all problems from an anti-social perspective - and Lib Finance Minister Bill Morneau's declaration that workers should settle for precarious lives looks particularly telling on that front. Meanwhile, Peter Armstrong reports on the fading prospects for retirement among younger generations of workers.

- Steven Pressman argues that income inequality should be the core test for the U.S.' next president, while Kate Pickett reminds us why it remains a vital issue everywhere.

- Finally, Sam Pizzigati proposes a minimum base tax rate on the wealthy to help rein in inequality at both ends of the income spectrum.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jake Kivanc points out that what little job growth Canada can claim primarily involves precarious work. And Nora Loreto discusses the crucial link between labour and social change:

(T)o confront climate change, we must imagine the role of workers in the transition to an oil-free economy: how would energy workers, those in the skilled trades, public sector workers, and retail workers engage in this struggle from their workplace?
 

If we want a national child-care system, we must talk about work: both working parents and the childcare workers required to deliver a new system.

If we want community food centres, we must talk about how workers could be engaged in designing, delivering, and resourcing such a program. 

If we want radical health care reform, we must place patients alongside nurses, doctors, cafeteria workers, social workers, secretaries, archivists, maintenance staff, and everyone else who makes the health care system operate to achieve our radical reforms.      

  

If we want to enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we must include workplaces as a site of reconciliation, both to deliver on the commission’s recommendations but to also reach Canadians where they spend most of their waking lives.

There is no new internet without tech workers, there are no alternative food systems without farmers and grocers, there are no new Canadian films without actors and crew, there is no support for artists without funding artists to do their work and paying people to promote and help them out. 

And, within our workplaces, there is no shortage of things we need to fight to improve. We need better pay. We need (better) workplace protections. We need (better) pensions. We need (better) jobs.

- Michelle Chen points out how privatization results in degraded services for the people who need then, while rewarding nobody other than rent-seeking corporations.

- Pete Evans reports on the OECD's look at Canada's appallingly high child care costs.

- Bill McKibben writes that any serious effort to combat climate change requires that we not only elect governments willing to speak about the issue, but pressure them to live up to their promises - a lesson which many within the Libs might want to take to heart. And Lauri Myllyvirta and Joanna Mills expose the utter futility of Brad Wall's attempt to pitch "clean coal" as a technology worth developing for export, as the key market in China is slashing planned coal plant construction.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt challenges the conventional political wisdom that young citizens aren't interested in how they're governed.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew applaud Wallonia's principled stance against the CETA. And Joseph Stiglitz discusses the need to set up social and economic systems which actually serve the public good, rather than favouring corporate interests:

Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America’s companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits. 

Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. 

...

There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn’t and won’t work. Markets don’t exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan “revolution,” which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. 

This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.

- Jesse Brown rightly questions whether Canada is living up to its self-image as a progressive example for the world, while Cindy Blackstock notes that continued discrimination against First Nations children is just one crucial area where a change in government hasn't led to improvement in substance.

- Leilani Farha discusses the need to start seeing housing in terms of human rights rather than market commodities. Elisheva Passarello describes how transitional housing allowed her to move from poverty and homelessness toward improvement in all facets of her life. Beatrice Britneff reports on a new study  showing that we could end homelessness in Canada in a decade. And Rachel Zeineker notes that at least in Yellowknife, the public is well aware that homelessness ranks ahead of everything else a problem demanding immediate attention and resources.

- Erika Shaker makes the case for zero tuition (while countering some of the usual spin which has resulted in the cost of education being borne increasingly by students without the means to pay it).

- Finally, Stewart Prest discusses the "yellow dog effect" as an important argument against first-past-the-post politics.

Musical interlude

Yuri Kane feat. Melissa Loretta - Daylight

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Mainly Macro offers a useful definition of neoliberalism, while highlighting its relationship to austerity. And Ed Finn writes that we shouldn't be too quick to presume neoliberalism is going to disappear just because it's proven to be harmful in practice - and that it will take a massive shift in our politics to actually create real change:

We should always keep in mind that neoliberalism is as much a methodology as it is an ideology. Perhaps more so. It is the deeply entrenched doctrine through and by which corporations exert and maintain their dominant economic system. Global capitalism could not survive without the prevalence of neoliberalism, or some equivalent belief system that rationalizes its brutally inequitable operations.

No matter how vigorous the upsurge of anti-establishment populism becomes, it will never on its own topple the titans of corporate rule. That could only happen when countries have genuinely democratic governments instead of governments that function mainly as the flunkeys of big business. We live in a world where nearly all governments (including Canada’s) have embraced and deployed neoliberalism as zealously as the corporations — and on behalf of the corporations.

As long as the corporations can rely on this powerful political support, neoliberalism will remain unassailable. Without the levers of reform that only governments can provide, the dissidents can never succeed in their crusade, no matter how large their numbers. This is the grim reality.
...
There is some hope that, if a massive multitude of voters could be mobilized against the nabobs of neoliberalism, it could be concentrated into a powerful electoral force. What if every MP who favoured neoliberalism — or even a majority of them — were defeated in the next election and replaced by a candidate who wanted it scrapped? If duplicated in every large industrial country, could this international tsunami of anti-establishment populism sink global neoliberalism?

Simply to pose this fanciful scenario, however, exposes its improbability — if only because the destruction of neoliberalism also entails the destruction of capitalism.

Neoliberalism is the lifeblood, the very beating heart, of modern capitalism. So it will be fiercely defended by both corporations and their obsequious political allies, regardless of the social, economic, and environmental devastation it wreaks.

- Alison Grizwold discusses how the gig labour market looks disturbingly like the pre-industrial economy in its total lack of security or protection for workers.

- Aditya Chakrabortty writes that anti-social populism is a natural response to the spread of trade agreements as a substitute for democratic control over policy. Steven Shrybman analyzes (PDF) the utterly ineffective "interpretative declaration" which is supposed to offer some comfort against the obviously worrisome terms of the CETA. And Brent Patterson points out that Ontario is claiming it's bound by existing trade rules as an excuse for refusing to protect needed water sources from corporate exploitation.

- Finally, Elizabeth Goiten calls attention to the U.S. government's reliance on secret laws, while pointing out the obvious dangers of sidestepping both public review as to what laws are in place and the ability to know what legal burdens have been applied. Edward Snowden discusses the politics of fear behind C-51 and other surveillance legislation. And Matthew Behrens laments the fact that even CSIS' supposed watchdog is going out of its way to defend the use of information obtained by torture (however grossly that violates international law).

New column day

Here, on how Brad Wall's call for Canada to stop funding international climate change adaptation and mitigation reflects just one more example of his government's tendency to kick down at the people least able to defend themselves.

For further reading...
- Gregory Beatty again documented the background to Wall's abandonment of an equalization system which would properly account for resources (in favour of a climate change policy intended to ignore the pollution they generate).
- For details on Canada's international climate contributions, see here.
- Howard Leeson writes about the futility of Wall's choice to literally tilt at windmills. And for noteworthy comments on Wall's plan itself, see the responses by Andrew Leach, Mark Cameron and Christopher Ragan, the Pembina Institute, and Murray Mandryk.
- Finally, key comments on the Wall government's latest cuts to social supports can be found here and here. And CBC reports on protests against the Saskatchewan Party's cuts to disability programs.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Owen Jones highlights the toxic stress and other health problems borne disproportionately by members of the LGBT community who face systematic discrimination. And Tayla Smith and Jaitra Sathyandran discuss how temporary foreign workers (and others facing precarious work situations) tend to suffer preventable harm to their health and welfare.

- Meanwhile, Robert Devet reports that Nova Scotia's NDP is proposing to relieve an important part of economic insecurity by making it a mandatory human rights obligation to ensure people have access to food, water, housing and basic services. Which in turn fits nicely with Trevor Hancock's reminder that we're better off investing in public health, rather than paying for after-the-fact treatment only once an illness or injury has surfaced.

- Reynard Loki discusses the impending global water crisis, while pointing out there's much to gain by ensuring people have access to clean and safe water.

- Andrew Coyne asks whether Justin Trudeau is trying to pull a fast one on electoral reform. Kelly Carmichael argues that the Libs need to be held to their clear promise to end first-past-the-post politics.

- Meanwhile, Dr. Dawg takes a more general look at how Trudeau is presiding over another term of Harperite government. Chantal Hebert points out that the list of similarities increasingly includes a refusal to engage constructively with anybody outside the federal government. And Robert Fife and Steven Chase report that cash-for-access is standard operating procedure for Trudeau's cabinet.

- Finally, CBC reports on Oxfam's latest study documenting the connection between the gender pay gap and the wider problem of inequality.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Peter Fleming writes that the promise of entrepreneurial self-employment has given way to the nightmare of systematic precarious work:

(T)he move to reclassify people as self-employed follows a very simple formula: it helps reduce labour costs and maximise profits for businesses that would rather use contractors than a permanent workforce. This includes Uber, Hermes, universities and many other organisations.

The business logic is rather brutal. If you’re self-employed then all the costs that a normal employer would cover must now be paid by you – including training, uniforms and vehicles, not to mention basic provisions for pensions and sick pay. This is the case even when a contractor works for the firm on a de facto permanent basis.
...
The problem is that successive governments have completely swallowed the “entrepreneurial society” propaganda that is spouted by neoliberal economists. As a result, the laws and regulations that protect the permanent workforce don’t apply here. Not even the minimum wage. Clearly this has been exploited by employers.
...
Perhaps the message cuts to the heart of the self-employment movement. It’s all about power. While some may end up on top, most workers find themselves perilously dependent on an employer, and with few rights or protections, not to mention less pay.

What can be done? Well, the airline pilots had the right idea. The only way to rebalance what is now a very unequal power relationship is to collectivise. Workers at Deliveroo and Uber have arrived at similar conclusions.

The so-called “gig economy” sounds glamorous and fun, like trendy graphic designers working from a laptop in a Shoreditch cafe. Sadly it’s turned out to be something of a bad gig for many struggling to make ends meet. The conflict between workers and capitalism hasn’t disappeared. It might have got even worse.

- Hina Alam reports on a new Forum poll showing widespread public support for a $15 minimum wage across Canada.

- Tom Parkin rightly pushes back again the claim that we should encourage pay-for-play health care due to the cost of ensuring that everybody has access. And Steven Hoffman makes the case for an increase in public health resources to prevent injuries and illness rather than merely reacting after they've materialized.

- Meanwhile, Laurie Monsebraaten highlights how many people would benefit from a public child care system based on their inability to afford daycare now.

- Abbas Rana discusses Bradley Birkenfeld's thus-far-rejected efforts to help Canada to recover billions in tax revenues from offshore accounts.

- Finally, Neil MacDonald writes that Canada is increasingly reliant on the war business - and the Trudeau Libs are putting large amounts of time and energy into furthering that niche.

On false prophets

It wasn't long ago when a series of Canadian federal elections saw Stephen Harper and his Conservatives take more and more power - culminating in over four years of a false majority government - even as upwards of 60% of voters opposed virtually everything it stood for.

Some of us then figured it was worth doing something to fix the first-past-the-post system which Harper was able to exploit - especially when every national opposition party included electoral reform among its top priorities as part of the effort to oust Harper.

But Justin Trudeau has apparently given up the pretense of caring about implementing a system which represents Canadians. Instead, he's abandoning the promise that we'd seen our last FPTP election - because he's apparently perfectly happy trading an artificial claim to barely-checked power with Harper-style Conservatives as long as his party gets a turn.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Nestled cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Peter Rossman explains why the CETA falls far short of the mark in accounting for anybody's interests other than those of big business. And Dani Rodrik discusses the dangers of laissez-faire fundamentalism, particularly to the extent it threatens to undermine the foundation of a functional society:

(T)he lesson from the 1980s is that some reversal from hyper-globalization need not be a bad thing, as long as it serves to maintain a reasonably open world economy. As I have frequently argued, we need a better balance between national autonomy and globalization. In particular, we need to place the requirements of liberal democracy ahead of those of international trade and investment. Such a rebalancing would leave plenty of room for an open global economy; in fact, it would enable and sustain it.
...
The key challenge facing mainstream political parties in the advanced economies today is to devise such a vision, along with a narrative that steals the populists’ thunder. These center-right and center-left parties should not be asked to save hyper-globalization at all costs. Trade advocates should be understanding if they adopt unorthodox policies to buy political support.

We should look instead at whether their policies are driven by a desire for equity and social inclusion, or by nativist and racist impulses; whether they want to enhance or weaken the rule of law and democratic deliberation; and whether they are trying to save the open world economy – albeit with different ground rules – rather than undermine it.

- Michael Enright writes about the obvious failure of Canada's corporate sector to convert billions in giveaways into economic investment. And that track record in relying on the corporate sector offers all the more reason to be wary of Justin Trudeau's plan to sell off what's left of our common wealth.
 
- Casey Quinlan examines how corporations are using underfunded public school systems in the U.S., while Daniel Boffey notes that private schools in the UK are creating new barriers for poor children.

- Sarah Smarsh theorizes that the rise of Donald Trump can be explained in part by the failure of the media and other cultural institutions to provide a voice for many working people. And David Beers warns us that we shouldn't trust the mainstream right to recognize the risk of a Trump-style demagogue.

- Finally, Dougald Lamont reminds us why we shouldn't pretend the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation stands for anything other than unaccountable corporate influence. And DeSmog Canada examines the grossly insufficient state of political finance regulations in British Columbia.