Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses the apparent destructive belief among Davos' elites that irrational exuberance and top-heavy economic gains are remotely sustainable:

The world is plagued by almost intractable problems. Inequality is surging, especially in the advanced economies. The digital revolution, despite its potential, also carries serious risks for privacy, security, jobs, and democracy – challenges that are compounded by the rising monopoly power of a few American and Chinese data giants, including Facebook and Google. Climate change amounts to an existential threat to the entire global economy as we know it.

Perhaps more disheartening than such problems, however, are the responses. To be sure, here at Davos, CEOs from around the world begin most of their speeches by affirming the importance of values. Their activities, they proclaim, are aimed not just at maximizing profits for shareholders, but also at creating a better future for their workers, the communities in which they work, and the world more generally. They may even pay lip service to the risks posed by climate change and inequality.

But, by the end of their speeches this year, any remaining illusion about the values motivating Davos CEOs was shattered. The risk that these CEOs seemed most concerned about is the populist backlash against the kind of globalization that they have shaped – and from which they have benefited immensely.
...

For the CEOs of Davos, it seems that tax cuts for the rich and their corporations, along with deregulation, is the answer to every country’s problems. Trickle-down economics, they claim, will ensure that, ultimately, the entire population benefits economically. And the CEOs’ good hearts are apparently all that is needed to ensure that the environment is protected, even without relevant regulations.

Yet the lessons of history are clear. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work. And one of the key reasons why our environment is in such a precarious condition is that corporations have not, on their own, lived up to their social responsibilities. Without effective regulations and a real price to pay for polluting, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will behave differently than they have.

- And Arwa Mahdawi comments on the "class-passing" needed for anybody to try to break through increasingly rigid class barriers.

- Polly Toynbee writes about the link between privatization, pollution and poor health in the UK. And Julia Conley discusses how Donald Trump's latest giveaway to polluters will put water quality at risk for Americans.

- Finally, Hayley Peterson reports on Whole Foods' use of stringent "scorecards" to control and punish employees, while Ellen Tannam reports on Amazon's plans to take constant monitoring to new extremes with bracelets to track warehouse employees' whereabouts at all times. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh points out how Ontario is continuing to allow employers to use temporary workers as a means of avoiding responsibility for health and safety.

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign as the Saskatchewan Party's election of Scott Moe brings the province's political playing field into greater focus (while also offering a reminder of the fallibility of leadership campaign polling).

- Trent Wotherspoon has unveiled his post-secondary education education policy (accompanied by endorsements from several young New Democrats). And Ryan Meili has offered up his anti-poverty plan.

- Meanwhile, both Jason Hammond and Jon Herriot have offered their endorsements of Meili.

- Finally, Alex MacPherson reports on the NDP's membership numbers, with just under 13,000 members eligible to vote in the leadership campaign. For reference, that's somewhat more than in 2013 (which saw just over 11,000), and roughly on par with the 2009 leadership election.

Meanwhile, for those looking to estimate the anticipated turnout, roughly 80% of all eligible voters cast ballots in both 2009 and 2013 (though some of those dropped off between ballots). If that pattern holds, then we should expect the winning candidate to need in the range of 5,200 votes.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Nathan Akehurst writes that the Carillion collapse was just the tip of the iceberg in the corporatization and destruction of the UK's public services. And Neil Macdonald points out that the Trudeau Libs are pitching privatized infrastructure as easy money for investors - and that they can only make that offer at the public's expense:

Pretty clearly, Morneau and his masters in the PMO don't want people understanding the infrastructure scheme too well. So far, it's been rather vaguely explained, something his own staff have complained about.

The official version is that the government tosses in some money, then investors arrive and jump in with an awful lot more money, enough to build roads and bridges and electrical grids and train lines and waterways and who knows, maybe even new hospitals and airports, and things will get done that simply wouldn't happen otherwise, and Canadians will have a sparkling new public square without the tiresome, conventional pain of paying for it.

Quietly, meanwhile, the government has reportedly been promising big investors a dream: lots of return, not much risk.

According to information in documents obtained by the Canadian Press, the government is promising a healthy, guaranteed "revenue stream" for years. The exact return is not specified, but such investors tend to demand between 10 and 20 per cent – "equity-like return and bond-like risk," as the Wall Street aphorism so neatly puts it. 

Best of all for the investors, according to the documents, the government is suggesting it might even chip in some extra cash to pad investors' returns. It's a path to heaven with no alternate route to hell.

And guess who will pay for all this? The cheery fog exhaled by Morneau and his fellow cabinet ministers isn't very specific about that, but there is ultimately only one bill-payer, and we all know who he, or she, is.

- Meanwhile, Fatima Syed writes that Canada's opaque financial system makes us an easy tool for tax evaders and money launderers.

- Francine Kopun reports on the latest details from the bread price-fixing scheme among Canadian grocers, with both wholesalers and retailers colluding to increase prices 15 times over a 14-year period.

- Judith Lavoie points out a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation charting unreported releases of methane from British Columbia's natural gas sector. And the Corporate Mapping Project examines the massive carbon liabilities in Alberta oil sector.

- Finally, Geoff Leo reports that the latest step in the Saskatchewan Party's plan to counter the global movement toward renewable energy by burning the dirtiest substances possible involves a project to use chemical-soaked railway ties as fuel. 

New column day

Here, expanding on this post as to how the promises which won Scott Moe the Saskatchewan Party's leadership will leave him with some difficult decisions to make in a hurry.

For further reading...
- Tammy Robert's coverage of the leadership campaign features this gem about Moe's substance-free campaign:

Moe’s campaign is unbelievably thin gruel from a man who wants to lead Saskatchewan, and personally I find it even more unbelievable that 23 MLAs – or Moe’s “Team”, as he describes them – stand behind this pablum, nevermind endorse it as what’s best for Saskatchewan people.

A Moe win is not what’s best for us – it’s what’s best for them.

- Alex Brockman has followed up on the expectations surrounding Moe's promise to reverse his government's education cuts, as well as the labour movement's continued calls to stop the Saskatchewan Party's cuts generally.
- Finally, PressProgress points out the anti-abortion messaging which help Moe to win social conservative votes - but raises questions as to whether the right to choose may be under an immediate threat.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses Canada's likely NAFTA decision between an even worse deal than exists now, and no deal at all - though it's worth recognizing that the latter choice shouldn't be seen as a problem. And Alex Panetta points out the Libs' total lack of transparency as to the effects of the options currently on the table.

- Trevor Hancock argues that the Canada Pension Plan should join other large public funds in making a move away from dependence on fossil fuel development.

- Meanwhile, Carl Meyer reports on a new study suggesting that Canada's primary tar sands operators may be sitting on $2 trillion in liability from carbon pollution alone. And Marco Chown Oved exposes half a billion dollars in tax avoidance by a single copper mining firm by claiming billions of dollars in profits through a Luxembourg subsidiary with one part-time employee.

- Tom Parkin discusses the need for improved protections against sexual harassment in federal workplaces. And Sabrina Nanji reports on the growing calls for effective anti-harassment rules in legislatures in particular, while Tim Harper points out the need for cultural change beyond legislation alone.

- Finally, Daniel Brown and Michael Lacy write that the Trudeau Libs are falling far short of what voters expected when it comes to justice reform. And Alex Boutilier points out that rather than fixing the abusive elements of Bill C-51, the Libs have actually expanded the unaccountable disruption of Canadians' activities without any meaningful oversight.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Trained cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Matthew Sears writes that we would be much better off prioritizing more than just cutting short-term costs and prices in making choices:

Are we really unwilling to pay more for our coffee as we are on our way to our well-paid and comfortable jobs (as mine certainly is) in order to ensure that workers are paid a liveable wage?

Can we really not summon enough social and economic imagination to think that businesses, and the real human beings that are in charge of them, can’t be at least encouraged to, well, behave a little less like businesses? I don’t know.

If it’s not cheap coffee, it’s cheap goods made through cheap labour in foreign countries that greases our wheels and to which we turn a blind eye. We no longer have chattel slaves or actively rule an empire (though, in practice, there are many in the world to whom these semantic distinctions make little difference).

But our democratic way of life, which we tend to think of as the freedom to do and live as we please and have what we want, seems awfully dependent upon others not enjoying those things.
...
The legacy of the Classical world isn’t all bad. Despite his faults (and he had many), we could learn a great deal from Aristotle’s ideas. These include ideas such as: The state is natural (an idea that social contract theories largely reject); we humans are at our best when we come together to ensure the flourishing, the eudaimonia, of all of society’s members.

I for one will be doing a great deal of thinking to figure out how I can help those who currently work minimum-wage jobs to be better off. I will start by not letting businesses — or politicians — off the hook simply for acting as we expect them to.

- Karen Weese comments on the high price of being poor in the U.S., while Aleksandra Sagan reports on the trickle-up economic effects of improved wages for lower-income workers. And the New York Times' editorial board points out how corporate tax cuts are mostly leading to raises only for bosses.


- Eric Levitz discusses the political cost the U.S. Democrats have paid for failing to recognize the importance of organized labour. And while Erik Loomis' response raises some questions about the feasibility of reaching better outcomes, the desirability of doing so seems beyond dispute.

- The BBC reports on Carillion's maneuvers to wriggle out of making pension contributions, ensuring that workers would bear the brunt of its failure.

- Finally, Robin Sears offers his take on how Jagmeet Singh can lead the way toward a more inclusive Canada, while Nora Loreto hopes that the memory of the Quebec City anti-Muslim massacre will spark a movement against bigotry. And Singh's message on the the anniversary of the mosque shooting goes a long way toward addressing both.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Ed Finn comments on the massive amounts of public money being funneled toward Canada's wealthiest corporations:

When it comes to listing countries on the basis of the social services they provide to citizens compared to the subsidies they heap on corporations, Canada doesn't fare well.

A study from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy published in January reports that our federal government and the four largest provinces spend $29 billion a year subsidizing business firms.

The study's author, John Lester, says that half of these huge subsidies fail to improve economic performance and therefore constitute a colossal waste of government revenue.
...
While Ottawa and the provinces maintain and even increase the amounts of their tax revenue expended on business subsidies, they have proportionately limited their spending on social services.

The latest OECD report on the social expenditures of its 34 member countries ranks Canada 24th for the relatively low 17.2 per cent of GDP it spent on social services in 2016. Most of the 23 countries that surpass Canada have social spending rates of 23 per cent of GDP or more. Some, including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, Italy and Ireland, have rates higher than 28 per cent. Incredibly, even the United States ranks above Canada with a social spending rate of 19.3 per cent of GDP.

The preference of Canadian governments to serve the interests of big business and the rich elite rather than the broader public interest has had appalling consequences. They include our ailing health care system, our lackluster performance on the environment, our mistreatment of indigenous peoples, and, most of all, our disgracefully steep rate of child poverty and our abysmally low level of child care.

- Elizabeth McSheffrey reports on the growing gap between the billionaire class and the rest of us. Jordan Weismann discusses the link between corporate monopsony and stagnant wages. And Alana Semuels takes note of a growing class divide within the U.S.' labour movement, which is holding its ground among white-collar workers while struggling to organize their blue-collar counterparts.

- Bridget Yard points out the squeeze facing Saskatchewan's low-income residents whose stagnant incomes need to be stretched to cover higher prices and regressive taxes.

- Laurie Monsebraaten examines the gap between the needs of Toronto's homeless citizens. And the
Telegraph reports on Jeremy Corbyn's simple and direct plan to provide houses to the people who need them.

- Finally, Edward Keenan explains why Patrick Brown and other politicians who recognize the need to address perception in every other aspect of their public presentation can't expect the benefit of the doubt in the face of credible accusations of sexual exploitation.

On stopping the cuts

I'm less surprised than some by Scott Moe's ascent to the Saskatchewan Party's leadership in an extremely close, four-way leadership race. But it will particularly be worth keeping an eye on one aspect of the campaign which looks to have been crucial in propelling him into the Premier's office.

Unlike the other last two candidates standing, Moe responded to the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federations' #pickapremier campaign with a specific policy offering. And his promise of additional resources for education may well have been a decisive choice: the other candidates who catered to new STF members were the first to drop off the ballot, and their supporters put Moe over the top after he trailed on the first ballot.

But Moe's specific promise to the education sector alone should call into question his concurrent threat of broader public-sector cuts. And it's not hard to draw an analogy to Alberta's experience in leadership politics in seeing how he may have set a trap for himself.

After all, Alison Redford won both the Alberta PCs' leadership and a provincial election campaign by appealing to public servants and moderates against harder-right options. But having built her personal brand and support base around recognizing the value of public services, she left her party vulnerable to an opponent who could more credibly promise to defend them.

We'll thus see whether Moe tries to fund education while slashing elsewhere, or recognizes that the same principles which justify more money for education apply equally to other public services. But if he pursues the former path - or worse yet, breaks his education promise in an effort to keep his own party's anti-government voices on his side - then his campaign strategy may have given voters license to base their decisions in the next provincial election on an end to the cuts.

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.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David McGrane writes about Jack Layton's five great fights - and how they continue to provide an essential framework for social democrats.

- Rupert Neate reports on London's "ghost towers", which include tens of thousands of high-end homes sitting empty in a city facing a severe housing crisis. Ann Pettifor comments on the absurdity of pretending that more private construction will solve the lack of housing in light of that reality. And Matt Bruenig offers his take on how to work real estate into a social wealth fund.

- Meanwhile, Jacky Davis discusses how creeping corporatism and austerity are eating away at the UK's National Health Service. 

- Blake Eligh points out that low-income families lack for healthy food only as a result of availability issues rather than preferences. And José L. Peñalvo, Frederick Cudhea, Renata Micha, Colin D. Rehm, Ashkan Afshin, Laurie Whitsel, Parke Wilde, Tom Gaziano, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, Martin O’Flaherty, Simon Capewell and Dariush Mozaffarian have studied how prices and subsidies can make a difference in ensuring healthier food is affordable.

- Finally, Alex McKeen and Victoria Gibson report on the pervasive culture of sexual harassment in Canadian politics. And A.H. Reaume highlights why whisper networks to distribute warnings about ongoing misconduct fall far short of creating the safe and inclusive system we should want.

Musical interlude

Henrik B feat. Christian Alvestam - Now and Forever

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Wanda Wyporska discusses why we can't expect a group of cloistered elites to do anything to solve the changeable dimensions of inequality.

- Jonathan Ford and Gill Plimmer write that the UK is beginning to learn its lesson about the dangers of privatizing public services. And PressProgress offers three reasons why Canada shouldn't follow down the road toward outsourcing,

- Ian Hussey debunks a few of the more tired arguments against a fair minimum wage. And Meagan Day discusses the psychological consequences of accepting the neoliberal view of atomized and constantly-competing individuals:

When identifying the root cause of this growing appetite for excellence, Curran and Hill don’t mince words: it’s neoliberalism. Neoliberal ideology reveres competition, discourages cooperation, promotes ambition, and tethers personal worth to professional achievement. Unsurprisingly, societies governed by these values make people very judgmental, and very anxious about being judged.

Psychologists used to talk about perfectionism as though it were unidimensional — only directed from the self to the self. That’s still the colloquial usage, what we usually mean when we say someone’s a perfectionist. But in the last few decades, researchers have found it productive to broaden the concept. Curran and Hall rely on a multidimensional definition, encompassing three types of perfectionism: self-oriented, other-oriented, socially prescribed.
...
...(P)eople born in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada after 1989 scored much higher than previous generations for all three kinds of perfectionism, and that scores increased linearly over time. The dimension that saw the most dramatic change was socially prescribed perfectionism, which increased at twice the rate of the other two. In other words, young people’s feeling of being judged harshly by their peers and the broader culture is intensifying with each passing year.
...
One consequence of this rise in perfectionism, Curran and Hall argue, has been a series of epidemics of serious mental illness. Perfectionism is highly correlated with anxiety, eating disorders, depression, and suicidal thoughts. The constant compulsion to be perfect, and the inevitable impossibility of the task, exacerbate mental-illness symptoms in people who are already vulnerable. Even young people without diagnosable mental illnesses tend to feel bad more often, since heightened other-oriented perfectionism creates a group climate of hostility, suspicion, and dismissiveness — in which the jury is always out on everyone, pending group appraisal — and socially prescribed perfectionism involves an acute recognition of that alienation. In short, the repercussions of rising perfectionism range from emotionally painful to literally deadly.

And there’s one other repercussion of rising perfectionism: it makes it hard to build solidarity, which is the very thing we need in order to resist the onslaught of neoliberalism. Without healthy self-perceptions we can’t have robust relationships, and without robust relationships we can’t come together in the numbers it would take to rattle, much less upend, the whole political-economic order.

- Finally, the Canadian Labour Congress is taking a stand against Justin Trudeau's choice to lock Canada into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Larry Elliott writes about the fragility of the political and economic structures which the world's most privileged people are seeking to entrench in Davos. And Branko Milanovic discusses the importance of intra-country inequality which is getting worse around the globe.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on new research in the Canadian Medical Association Journal showing that we can achieve better health outcomes by investing in social supports.

- Katherine McGilton and John Muscedere comment on the need to listen to people living with frailty. And Patrick Butler takes note of widespread but hidden malnutrition amount UK seniors.

- Linda McQuaig points out how the spread of the franchise model has made it difficult for workers to effectively organize. But Martin Regg Cohn theorizes that Tim Hortons' offensive response to a long-overdue minimum wage hike might help lay the ground work for a more union-friendly labour law environment.

- Finally, Tom Parkin discusses how Justin Trudeau's insistence on signing onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt the auto sector among other key Canadian industries. And Kelly Steele reports on the Libs going into hiding after realizing they couldn't possibly defend their decision to the public.

New column day

Here, on how Carillion's collapse points out one of the most important failings of Brad Wall's tenure in office.

For further reading...
- Plenty of others have also weighed in on the Carillion story and the dangers of putting corporate interests in charge of public services, including Simon Jenkins, Will Hutton, Jonathan Freedland and  John Crace. 
- CBC reported on the direct connection between Carillion and North Battleford's new hospital, while SaskBuilds' list of P3 projects offers a preview of the other public infrastructure at risk.
- And again, David Climenhaga points out the connection between Carillion and Alberta, while Jonathan Gatehouse discussed the wider Canadian implications of Carillion's liquidation.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andrew Sheng discusses the role of oversimplified assumptions about economic development in exacerbating wealth and income inequality:

The American era has been very comfortable with the timeless, universal model of the free market. Inconvenient problems such as inequality are market failures, which the state can take care of, ignoring the reality of political capture and vested interests. Free market economics suited the privileged elite because “everyone can get rich, we can always redistribute later”. But once the elite got rich, few paid serious attention to redistribution.

The tax cut proposals in the US prove this. All indicators are that the rich will benefit from them more than the poor. The hope is that the rich will invest and the middle class will spend, while welfare and health care for the needy are cut.

Politics drives economic theory, which legitimises the status quo. Recognising inequality is therefore not difficult. The real question is: what can we really do to reduce inequality?

- The OECD offers an overview of its efforts to measure social capital. And Frank Huyler discusses how institutional breakdowns including regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry have played the main part in causing the U.S.' opioid crisis.

- Thomas Walkom writes that Justin Trudeau's agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership confirms that he's primarily interested in appealing to the corporate class. And Andrew Mitrovica discusses how Trudeau's silence makes him complicit in Donald Trump's bigotry.

- David Roberts reports on Colorado's example of renewable energy outclassing fossil fuels as a cheaper and cleaner means of generating power.

- Finally, Stanley Tromp offers some suggestions to modernize British Columbia's access-to-information system (which also bear review elsewhere).

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Lounging cats.

On consistent patterns

It's certainly worth being cautious about leadership campaign polling which is met with a challenge almost as soon as it's first released. But the NDP side of Mainstreet's new poll may nonetheless be worth noting, particularly as it fits in with other indications as to the state of the race.

In particular, the "Meili has a lead of 25 per cent!" theme may sound surprising because of how it's framed. But a 62.5%-37.5% lead now would be entirely consistent with the comparative vote share the two candidates won in the first ballot in the 2013 leadership campaign (61.5%-38.5%). And it's not so far off of Meili's 55.5%-44.5% lead in current fund-raising (PDF) as to look out of place either.

Of course, we'll have a better idea how Mainstreet's attempt to reach the voter pool holds up once polling is conducted based on the NDP's actual membership list, rather than an analysis limited to federal donors. And it's entirely possible that a similar critique of Mainstreet's Saskatchewan Party methodology may apply to some extent to its NDP poll.

But for now, there's at least some indication that relatively little may have changed from members' prior voting preferences. And if that holds true, then Meili looks to be in a strong position as the voting window approaches.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Elizabeth Kolbert comments on the psychology of inequality, and particularly how the current trend in which a disproportionate share of gains goes to a small number of wealthy individuals produces no ultimate winners: 

As the relative-income model predicted, those who’d learned that they were earning less than their peers were ticked off. Compared with the control group, they reported being less satisfied with their jobs and more interested in finding new ones. But the relative-income model broke down when it came to those at the top. Workers who discovered that they were doing better than their colleagues evinced no pleasure. They were merely indifferent. As the economists put it in a paper that they eventually wrote about the study, access to the database had a “negative effect on workers paid below the median for their unit and occupation” but “no effect on workers paid above median.”

The message the economists took from their research was that employers “have a strong incentive” to keep salaries secret. Assuming that California workers are representative of the broader population, the experiment also suggests a larger, more disturbing conclusion. In a society where economic gains are concentrated at the top—a society, in other words, like our own—there are no real winners and a multitude of losers.
...
(Payne) has come to believe that what’s really damaging about being poor, at least in a country like the United States—where, as he notes, even most people living below the poverty line possess TVs, microwaves, and cell phones—is the subjective experience of feeling poor. This feeling is not limited to those in the bottom quintile; in a world where people measure themselves against their neighbors, it’s possible to earn good money and still feel deprived. “Unlike the rigid columns of numbers that make up a bank ledger, status is always a moving target, because it is defined by ongoing comparisons to others,” Payne writes.

Feeling poor, meanwhile, has consequences that go well beyond feeling. People who see themselves as poor make different decisions, and, generally, worse ones.
...
Preschoolers, brown capuchin monkeys, California state workers, college students recruited for psychological experiments—everyone, it seems, resents inequity. This is true even though what counts as being disadvantaged varies from place to place and from year to year...

Still, there are choices to be made. The tax bill recently approved by Congress directs, in ways both big and small, even more gains to the country’s plutocrats. Supporters insist that the measure will generate so much prosperity that the poor and the middle class will also end up benefitting. But even if this proves true—and all evidence suggests that it will not—the measure doesn’t address the real problem. It’s not greater wealth but greater equity that will make us all feel richer.

- Timothy Taylor charts the state of inequality in countries around the globe. And Branko Milanovic comments on the farce that is a discussion of inequality at Davos by the people who have put in place the policies most responsible for its spread.

-  David Olusoga discusses the return of Victorian-era slums to the UK, while Lucy Pasha-Robinson reports on declining life expectancies arising out of austerity.

- Rajeev Syal reports on a study from the UK's National Audit Office showing how privatization has resulted in the government paying more to get less. James Bloodworth notes that the Carillion privatization model amounted to little more than a Ponzi scheme which depended on a continually-increasing flow of public money to enrich its executives. Tom Pride observes that one of the prime culprits in (and profiteers from) Carillion's collapse has been rewarded by being put in charge of nuclear safety. David Climenhaga discusses the connection between Carillion, the Klein government and Alberta's privatized highways which rely on a now-failed corporation for their maintenance. And Will Hutton rightly questions why we'd ever trust the corporate sector to manage public services again.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom questions Justin Trudeau's determination to keep the NAFTA dispute resolution provisions which have been used primarily to tie the hands of Canadian governments.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jim Hightower writes about the importance of a popular movement to build the policy foundation for middle- and working-class prosperity. And Doug Henwood notes that the U.S. union movement managed to hold its ground in 2017.

- Ellie May MacDonald points out how austerity imposes a disproportionate burden on women:

Firstly, austerity measures are likely to decrease the ability of women to gain employment – the most effective route out of poverty. Changes to Universal Credit provide greater incentives for single-earner households and penalise two-earner households through benefit reductions. Women, more often the ‘second earner’, will face disincentives to work. The cuts to the public sector (in terms of both jobs and the real value of earnings) harm women more than men, since around two-thirds of the public-sector workforce is female. 73 per cent of those that are affected by the public sector pay freeze were women, according to the Women’s Budget Group. The continuation of these cuts will decrease the incomes of many women or deplete them altogether.

Secondly, the welfare state cuts have unacceptable consequences for women. Women are more dependent than men upon the welfare state; care responsibilities prevent many from entering employment and earning an independent income. Even within employment, women may suffer in-work poverty because they are only able to maintain part-time, low-paid jobs whilst caring for dependents.

...

Thirdly, Universal Credit is changing the structure of the family – to the detriment of mothers. Universal Credit creates incentives for single-earner ‘breadwinner’ households, due to the withdrawal of benefits from two-earner households. Furthermore, UC is paid in one lump-sum into one bank account (usually the primary earner’s). These measures are likely to increase incidences of households with one primary earner and a partner that is either a second earner or not earning. Women are much more likely than men to be the latter, increasing their dependence upon their male partners.

Dependence upon the income of a partner has two effects. Firstly, it may leave some women without sufficient resources to meet their minimum needs. Breadwinner ideology can affect who accesses resources within the household, because it can reduce women’s bargaining power if they are not seen to be contributing to the household income. Secondly, it is likely to increase the risk of future poverty, since economic dependence means that an individual’s continued economic stability and wellbeing depends on two conditions: their partners keeping their income, and their families staying together. Dependency reduces the ability of women to get a source of stable income after separation (either through a good job or from a pension), whilst also leaving her with fewer assets and wealth.

...

The problem of poverty should be the priority of policy makers, not only for those focused on social injustice but also for those seeking economic benefits. The cost of increased spending on public services, particularly child care services, is likely to be mitigated by the increased economic activity. In 2011, the IPPR published a report making the economic case for universal childcare: on the basis of their cost-benefit analysis, they show that universal childcare pays a return of £20,050 over four years to the government.

The government is not doing enough to combat the entrenched nature of women’s poverty. This is either through ignorance – since official statistics conceal the true extent of this poverty – or because neither women nor poverty are the priority of policymakers in a time of austerity. The current government should be held to account for this injustice, particularly given that the Equality Act of 2006 provides the legitimate grounds to do so. This is a legal obligation to pay ‘due regard’ to gender equality when making decisions relating to spending plans. This requires a long-standing commitment to social change, not quick-fix measures that improve poverty rates in the short-term.

- Gary Mason comments on the unacceptable abandonment of Sears' workers, as people who dedicated decades to their employer saw their pensions siphoned off by corporate profiteers. Jesse McLaren and Kate Hayman discuss how the treatment of workers by Tim Hortons franchises is antithetical to their health and welfare. And Talia Jane shares her story of seeing her career derailed for the crime of trying to seek out fair pay.

- Stewart Smyth writes that the only way to get housing policy right is to prioritize the availability of homes over the use of housing as a means to accumulate wealth. And William Rees discusses the role international capital has played in shifting us in the wrong direction. 

- Finally, Luisa D'Amato points out how Justin Trudeau is now insulting Canadians in trying to excuse his own broken promise of a fair electoral system.

On permanent repercussions

When Trent Wotherspoon first announced that he was considering pursuing the Saskatchewan NDP's permanent leadership, I pointed out some of my concerns about how his previous tenure as interim leader - when he was elected after offering his assurance that he wouldn't seek the permanent position - might result in question marks over the leadership campaign. 

Now, a prime example of the problem with Wotherspoon's about-face has turned into a campaign flashpoint, as the administrators of the Save Saskatchewan Libraries group have issued an endorsement of Wotherspoon which couldn't be any more closely tied to his role as interim leader.

To be clear, I don't take issue with the administrators themselves taking a position in the NDP's leadership campaign.

The NDP should be eager to hear new voices participating in the leadership campaign, particularly ones who have so effectively marshaled widespread support for Saskatchewan's key public institutions. And the fact that a group was generally intended to be non-partisan doesn't mean its administrators should have any hesitation in applying their experience and opinions to the leadership campaign.

But that's an entirely separate issue from the need for fairness in the leadership campaign itself. And to see how that's been affected, here's Christine Freethy's own account as to how she came to endorse Wotherspoon:

I literally GOOGLED “Saskatchewan NDP” and said to the first person who answered the phone “I am running that library facebook group and I think you guys need to get your shit together and help us” Later that day was the first time I ever talked to Trent Wotherspoon.

At the time, Trent Wotherspoon was interim leader. And I am a political nobody who lives in Rabbit Lake. But he had seen the group and was plugged in enough with Carla Beck and the staff to know I was reaching out. I told him my plan - a non-partisan movement to bring attention to the library cut and force Brad Wall to reverse his decision. Trent listened and said “What can I and the NDP do to help your group?”

Needless to say, there's little reason to think Ryan Meili (or any other person who might plausibly have held a leadership position) would have done any differently given the opportunity. But only Wotherspoon enjoyed that. 

Because Wotherspoon was in the interim leader role based in part on his promise not to seek the permanent leadership, he was charged with leading the NDP's communication with Freethy, with the party's staff assisting him in that effort. And he was thus able to build a close relationship with an outside group which was doing widespread organizing complementary to that of the party - resulting in an endorsement which reached a wide range of actual and potential members just in time for the membership deadline.

There may not be much which can be done to alleviate that gap now. But in comparing the candidates, the NDP's members will need to test their own impressions of Wotherspoon to see how they might reflect the advantage he captured in the interim role. And there may be significant legitimacy issues for the party as a whole if the race ends up turning on a candidate's gaining an advantage from a broken promise.

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.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Simon Ducatel writes about the unfairness of attacking people living in poverty rather than looking for ways to improve their circumstances:

(I)n the real world, it is unfortunately not unheard of for some employers to financially or otherwise exploit workers, albeit legally mind you, by offering substandard living wages or clawing back benefits despite accumulating record profits.

And I would like to think anyone who cares the slightest about his or her fellow human being would be concerned by this kind of exploitive behaviour.

Ever since slavery was abolished, child labour was ended, labour rights were created and 40-hour workweeks introduced, titans of industry shrieked furiously every single step of the way, predictably declaring all of the above would destroy the economy. Yet last I checked, multinational behemoths are doing better than ever before.
...

So many people seem to get all upset over the dastardly proposition to ensure anyone earning the minimum wage doesn’t live in abject poverty. Yet they have no objection to the obscene accumulations of mass, unprecedented wealth that pools up in offshore havens.

They’ll blame the poor for failing to pull up their bootstraps and work hard enough — despite the fact many people who struggle to make ends meet work multiple jobs — while making every excuse possible for the 0.01 per cent, who have not enjoyed such a bountifully flowing gravy train since the gilded age of robber barons.

There’s apparently no problem with average wages stagnating or barely growing over the past few decades while top-paid CEOs see their compensations skyrocket

- Nick Purdon offers a glimpse at the stories of a few people struggling to get by on minimum wage. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the growing protests against Tim Hortons after its stores used a long-overdue minimum wage increase as an excuse to slash their already-meager benefits.

- Meanwhile, Kathryn May takes note of PSAC's push for paid domestic violence leave to ensure workers aren't trapped in abusive situations. And Haroon Siddique points out how unrealistic work demands clash with the needs of parents.

- Jennifer Wells discusses how the collapse of Carillion offers a reminder of the dangers of privatization and corporate outsourcing. And Heather Stewart and Anushka Asthana report on Jeremy Corbyn's plans to put public services back in public hands in the UK.

- Finally, Lana Payne sets out just a few of the reasons why people are starting to take to the streets through the World Women's March and similar action.

Musical interlude

The Temper Trap - Sweet Disposition

On last chances

I'll offer one last reminder that tomorrow at 5 PM is the membership deadline for the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race.

Sure, the Saskatchewan Party will soon be deciding on a new hood ornament for their continuing trip to nowhere. But only the NDP's leadership campaign offers the prospect of a much-needed change in direction - and whether one is partial to either of the candidates or still undecided, it'll be well worth the investment to participate in helping to shape it.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Kenneth Rogoff writes about the dangers of presuming that economic growth (at least in stock markets if not wages) can withstand political upheaval. Marco Chown Oved reports on the strong support for Democracy Watch's petition to raise corporate taxes and close loopholes. Rajeshni Naidu-Ghelani reports on the latest consumer survey showing a large number of Canadians barely managing to keep afloat financially even in the face of what's supposed to be good economic news. And Stella Lord offers a how-to guide to fight poverty through improved wages and benefits.

- Meanwhile, Erika Shaker and Trish Hennessy list a few of the reasons why we shouldn't let anti-worker voices dictate the terms of our minimum wage debate. And Jeremy Nuttall confirms that the arguments to suppress wages lack any basis in reality. 

- Vann Newkirk argues that the arguments being used by Republicans to strip health care and other necessities from people who can't find work would be far better applied toward a jobs guarantee. 

- Marc Lee discusses the small steps being taken by the federal and B.C. governments on housing - as well as the compelling need to do much more.

- Finally, Andre Picard makes the case for clearing criminal records based on the possession of marijuana.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Comfy cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Bernie Sanders comments on the need to take back political power from the wealthiest few:

Now, more than ever, those of us who believe in democracy and progressive government must bring low-income and working people all over the world together behind an agenda that reflects their needs. Instead of hate and divisiveness, we must offer a message of hope and solidarity. We must develop an international movement that takes on the greed and ideology of the billionaire class and leads us to a world of economic, social and environmental justice. Will this be an easy struggle? Certainly not. But it is a fight that we cannot avoid. The stakes are just too high.
...
A new and international progressive movement must commit itself to tackling structural inequality both between and within nations. Such a movement must overcome “the cult of money” and “survival of the fittest” mentalities that the pope warned against. It must support national and international policies aimed at raising standards of living for poor and working-class people – from full employment and a living wage to universal higher education, healthcare and fair trade agreements. In addition, we must rein in corporate power and prevent the environmental destruction of our planet as a result of climate change.

Here is just one example of what we have to do. Just a few years ago, the Tax Justice Network estimated that the wealthiest people and largest corporations throughout the world have been stashing at least $21tn-$32tn in offshore tax havens in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. If we work together to eliminate offshore tax abuse, the new revenue that would be generated could put an end to global hunger, create hundreds of millions of new jobs, and substantially reduce extreme income and wealth inequality. It could be used to move us aggressively toward sustainable agriculture and to accelerate the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of power.

Taking on the greed of Wall Street, the power of gigantic multinational corporations and the influence of the global billionaire class is not only the moral thing to do – it is a strategic geopolitical imperative. Research by the United Nations development programme has shown that citizens’ perceptions of inequality, corruption and exclusion are among the most consistent predictors of whether communities will support rightwing extremism and violent groups. When people feel that the cards are stacked against them and see no way forward for legitimate recourse, they are more likely to turn to damaging solutions that only exacerbate the problem.

- Tom Parkin examines the woeful track record of neoliberal economic predictions, as low taxes and wages and constant austerity have done nothing but ensure stagnation for most and growing inequality. And Toby Sanger discusses the problems with the federal Libs' plan to privatize infrastructure development, while the AP reports on how Carillion's unraveling will affect the services of Canadian jurisdictions who bought the false promise of transferring risk.

- Jen Gerson looks at Sears' history of privatizing profits while dumping risks on the public (along with their longest-serving workers). And Erica Johnson exposes how telecommunications workers are pressured to pressure and cheat customers.

- Meanwhile, Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the franchise arrangements such as the ones used at Tim Hortons which serve to concentrate corporate control while leaving workers with little prospect of following suit.

- Finally, Geneva Abdul points out that we shouldn't let the successes of the minimum wage movement paper over the continued lack of pay equity. And Alan Jones discusses how inequality in the UK is being driven by a hollowing out among male workers.

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership campaign as the entry deadline has passed and the membership deadline approaches.

- While I haven't tracked endorsements all that closely, it's certainly worth keeping track of any changes since previous leadership campaigns between two candidates who have run before. And on that front, it's worth noting that 2009 and 2013 Meili endorser Dion Tchorzewski has joined 2013 campaign manager Nicole White in supporting Wotherspoon. 

- Meanwhile, Trevor Herriot offers his take on the importance of leadership which can build bridges rather than merely keeping us where we are - which Herriot himself notes is an expression of support for Meili.

- Tanner Wallace-Scribner reports on Meili's visit to Swift Current, including his take on the use of the proceeds of marijuana sales:

"I think there is some debate to be had about the best way to retail it," he said. "One thing I would say is, the money that comes in, we should make sure that every cent goes to support mental health and addictions. To support anyone who is struggling with any addictions but also to invest in that really under-resourced part of our health system."

Meili added they need to focus the money they make off of the sale of marijuana and put it towards making peoples' lives better.

- Brian Zinchuk interviews Wotherspoon about his plans for the energy sector, including the need for regular royalty reviews to ensure the public receives fair value for our resources.And Nykole King previews tonight's debate at the University of Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Meili has unveiled his arts and culture policy ahead of a series of music events.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Axel von Schubert notes that the effect of Donald Trump's giveaway to his billionaire buddies will be to turn the U.S. into a tax haven itself. And Michelle Chen discusses how the growth in inequality has been the result of political choices at the behest of the people who already had the most:

Wherever you live in the world, here’s a newsflash: You’ve been robbed. Not by a hidden bandit, but a global kleptocracy: the super-rich who’ve managed to rob the poor blind in every corner of the globe for the past seven decades. And a research team led by pioneering economist Thomas Piketty, the World Inequality Lab, has mapped out how that theft has played out on a global scale.

Not surprisingly, America was near the top of the list in terms of how unequal our country is, in addition to being far richer as a whole than any other nation. Still, while inequality is universal—polarizing countries and dividing individual nations internally—some countries are, surprisingly, more unequal than others.
...
The wealth gap is epidemic but not inevitable. Policy choices still make a difference. In the United States, deeply ingrained antipathy for the welfare state and regulation has pushed a harsh neoliberal agenda since the late 1970s—a pattern that is now being reproduced across the Global South as poor countries attempt to capitalize on global trade but in the process are becoming more exposed to extreme market volatility and devastating poverty and social strife.
...
We can mitigate the worst effects of capitalist overproduction through mobilizing what’s left of our democratic institutions at the local and state levels, where social spending and education investment are often concentrated. Mobilizing grassroots campaigns to boost the minimum wage, expand union representation, institute universal health care, or guarantee retirement security obviously can’t overturn the global trend in wealth accumulation, but will at least move struggling communities toward a fairer social contract.
...
To ensure that future generations are better prepared to stop and reverse wealth polarization, developing a socially conscious, educated citizenry is key. On the other hand, given the number of college graduates working low-wage jobs and facing debt, Chancel emphasized, “education can’t do everything against inequality. This is where minimum wage policies, support to trade unions, work regulation policies, [and] laws to ensure that workers are represented in corporate governance institutions can play an important role” in balancing out structural inequality. 

- Meanwhile, Tracy Sherlock points out the increase in inequality in British Columbia over the past decade, with poor workers being paid less while the wealthy see their income soar.

- Ben Casselman writes that a turn toward full employment is offering a real opportunity for people who previously faced barriers to work.

- Finally, Mariana Mazzucato discusses the importance of creating wealth in multiple forms, particularly public ones. And Murray Mandryk comments on the Saskatchewan Party's reflexive refusal to allow the public to share in any new economic development, as epitomized by its choice to release a half-baked plan for corporate distribution rather than using existing retail infrastructure for marijuana sales.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Julian Cribb reports on new research as to mass exposure to chemicals and pollutants:

Almost every human being is now contaminated in a worldwide flood of industrial chemicals and pollutants – most of which have never been tested for safety – a leading scientific journal has warned.

Regulation and legal protection for today’s citizens from chemical poisons can no longer assure our health and safety, according to a hard-hitting report in the journal PLOS Biology, titled “Challenges in Environmental Health: Closing the Gap between Evidence and Regulations”.

The report describes a chemical oversight system corrupted from its outset in the 1970s when 60,000 chemicals were registered for use in the US, mostly without being safety tested. Many of these chemicals were subsequently adopted as ‘safe’ around the world.

Over the years, public health protection has stagnated – despite mounting scientific evidence that many chemicals are damaging whole classes of organisms, say report editors Liza Gross and Linda Birnbaum.
...
“Evidence has emerged that chemicals in widespread use can cause cancer and other chronic diseases, damage reproductive systems, and harm developing brains at low levels of exposure once believed to be harmless. Such exposures pose unique risks to children at critical windows of development - risks that existing regulations fail to consider.”

The report underlines a recent finding by The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health which concluded nine million deaths (or 16% of the total) every year worldwide are due to diseases caused by the human chemical environment – 15 times the number killed in wars.

- In another reminder of the consequences of failing to take into account the future costs of exploitative industries, Alex MacPherson reports on the nine-figure (and mounting) public costs arising out of the abandoned Gunnar uranium mine. And Joe Romm reports on NASA's latest research showing the connection between fracking and global warming.

- Charlotte Aubin discusses Africa's energy transition which figures to see long-term development oriented toward renewable sources (even in the face of continued subsidies of fossil fuels in the near term). And Agence France-Presse takes note of the price advantage clean energy already holds compared to burning fossil fuels.

- Meanwhile, Naomi Klein writes that New York City's divestment from the oil sector (and concurrent claim for climate damages) may offer a turning point in the balance of power between citizens and the oil industry. And Gary Mason writes that Canada's climate change laggards - including Brad Wall and his heirs - are kidding themselves about the shape of future development.

- Finally, Aditya Chakrabortty discusses the imminent collapse of the UK's largest P3 profiteer - which also plays a prominent role in the privatization of Canadian infrastructure and public services.