Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Neil Irwin examines one of the key ideas underlying the U.S. Democrats' economic plans, being that workers need to have meaningful choices rather than being trapped by a limited and slanted set of available employers and work structures:

Labor market monopsony is the idea that when there isn’t enough competition among businesses, it is bad news for workers. When an industry includes only a few big companies, they don’t have to compete with one another as hard to attract employees — and so end up paying their workers less than they would if there were true competition. It’s the flip side of how monopoly power lets companies charge higher prices to consumers.
...

The talk of monopsony is part of a shift in the policy tools that many left-of-center economic thinkers see as most promising for addressing the economic challenges of poor and middle-class Americans. Rather than focusing on policies that amount to redistribution — tax rates, the social welfare system — they are looking at how the rules of the economic game shape people’s outcomes.

Some use a term for this set of policies coined by the Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker: predistribution policy. This is policy that shapes how the market works in the first place, as opposed to redistribution policy, which assumes a free market will generate growth and then uses taxes and spending to give a lift to the economy’s losers.

...
Besides the monopsony research, the Obama White House has focused on evidence that inequality is fueled by a shift away from labor unions and by corporate consolidation within industries.

Elsewhere, the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank in New York, has explored the interplay between the outsize growth of the financial industry and pay for top corporate executives and the slow growth in the typical worker’s wages. And last week, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth issued recommended strategies for the next administration, which included ensuring that the minimum wage covers workers who depend on tips, and making sure that modern supply chains do not inhibit the creation of good jobs.

... 

Many of the policies under discussion — a higher minimum wage, or tougher antitrust enforcement — have long been supported by liberal economists and politicians. What has changed is that they are being emphasized as a first-order set of priorities, and as part of a unified body of work.

- Emma Teitel discusses new research showing that the gap in opportunity between generations can't be explained by differences in work ethic - as in fact, millenials are more willing than their baby-boomer predecessors to put work first. And Angella MacEwen comments on a joint effort to propose a more fair system of employment leave for today's workers.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the structure of the Ontario basic income pilot project proposed by Hugh Segal. And Roderick Benns highlights the indicators which will signal the success of the concept.

- Mainstreet Research finds that a strong majority of Saskatchewan respondents want to see major changes to the province's political financing rules. And the Canadian Press reports that the Saskatchewan NDP is working to make those changes a reality despite the foot-dragging of a Wall government determined to keep the out-of-province donation taps flowing.

- Finally, Brett Dolter examines how Brad Wall's white paper is anything but a credible climate change plan - as it relies on little but cherry-picked assumptions and bluster to paper over a commitment to fighting against progress. And Bruce Johnstone writes that there's no reason to take Wall's posturing toward the federal government seriously. 

Musical interlude

Electrostatic - Duality (Fingertwister Remix)

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John McDonnell outlines a progressive alternative to neoliberal economic policy:

The increasing automation of jobs, reduced dependence on carbon fuels, artificial intelligence and the so-called gig economy have provoked understandable anger among many workers whose jobs are under threat. More generally, concerns about the effect on the labour market are widespread: either threatening mass unemployment or a significant shift towards low-productivity, low-paid jobs.

This need not be the case. In a society where the benefits of technological advancement are shared, productivity gains can be made to work for the benefit of all. It requires original thinking – one possibility is a universal basic income – to suggest how we can make a society with less demand for medium-skilled labour become wealthier and less polarised.
...
(I)f we are to meet the needs of those who need health care, pensions and social security, we will need to find ways to tax wealth more effectively. Not just because it is fairer than taxing labour, but because our tax base has shrunk. And as more of the economy now goes to capital owners, taxing a fair share of this is essential to affording the public services that we want.

Finally, none of this is sustainable in the [long term] unless we change the ownership of this capital. Through new forms of democratic and small-scale ownership, such as employee-owned firms, and by sharing the ownership of society’s assets more broadly, we can reduce the need for redistributive intervention, while increasing society’s power to choose the future direction of our economy and address the urgent demands of climate change.

- Meanwhile, Amy Wood and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood highlight why the modification of CETA's dispute resolution provisions does little to address the fundamental flaws with the deal. 

- Laura Neidhart writes about the spread of precarity and poverty for younger workers. And Jessica Wynne Lockhart discusses the hidden poverty growing (with little public attention) in the suburbs of Toronto and other cities.

- Cory Collins comments on the regression in Atlantic Canada's labour legislation in recent decades - which, it should be noted, can't be seen as having had any economic effect other than to redistribute income and wealth upward. And Lynn Parramore compares our expectations for vacation time today to that of medieval peasants - concluding that despite centuries of productivity gains which were supposed to allow for increased leisure time, we're actually getting by with significantly less.

- Finally, Evan Balgord highlights new research from the Pembina Institute showing that the Saskatchewan Party's version of carbon capture and storage does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as any carbon captured is matched by what's released by resulting oil production and consumption. 

New column day

Here, on what we need to do to clean up political funding - and how both the Saskatchewan and federal systems offer painful examples of the problems with big money in politics.

For further reading...
- Brad Wall's top-up pay from the Saskatchewan Party - being one of the many noteworthy uses of the corporate and out-of-province money finding its way to the party - was the subject of reporting here and here.
- Progress Alberta's report on the Saskatchewan Party's out-of-province fund-raising and other dubious practices is here. And it's particularly worth examining its comparison between provincial systems.
- For other reporting on the Saskatchewan Party's foreign ownership, see here, here and here.
- Robert Fife and Steven Chase reported on the federal Liberals' cash-for-access fund-raising. And Adrian Morrow summarizes a few of the questionable practices from Kathleen Wynne's Ontario government.
- And finally, Martin Regg Cohn and Andrew Coyne are among other commentators pointing out the need to get big money out of politics - whether through direct donations or through bundling.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Community Food Centres Canada highlights the need for social assistance benefits to keep up with the cost of living, while noting that Ontario (among other jurisdictions) has fallen well behind in that task:

It's been far too long since social assistance rates have been viewed through the lens of whether anyone can actually survive with dignity on them. Under Mike Harris's "Common Sense Revolution," social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6 per cent based on no criteria other than that government should spend less, that people deserved less, and that this approach would resonate with the public. Since then, rates have only inched up by tiny increments, never reaching anything close to what they were before the cuts.

In 2009, staff at The Stop Community Food Centre developed an online calculator as part of their Do the Math campaign. The campaign called for the public to input into the calculator the minimum amount of money they'd need to cover basic living expenses each. On average, people estimated that a single person in Ontario would need $1,400 to make it through the month -- more than double what people on social assistance actually receive, and still far below the poverty line.
...
At Community Food Centres Canada, our concern starts with food and food insecurity. But we understand something that governments of recent years have not acknowledged -- that food is intimately linked with all other budget items. The calculation of social assistance rates has to take into account the cost of housing, food and all other personal needs. Because when there's not enough money, food is the first to go. And when people go without food or turn to food banks, their health and well-being takes a serious hit.

We should care about this simply out of a sense of justice and empathy, of course, but there are also economic consequences: the University of Toronto's PROOF project on household food insecurity has estimated that health-care costs for food-insecure people are between 76 per cent and 121 per cent higher than those of adults who are food secure.

We applaud the fact that the Liberal government has a number of initiatives aimed at improving income security in Ontario, including a promising basic income pilot. But planning for and implementing this pilot will take time. The government needs to act now to fix a fundamental gap in the social assistance system, and help Ontario's poorest residents. We've been beggaring too many of our fellow citizens for too long, preventing them from having their basic needs met at a vulnerable time in their lives, and therefore from having a good shot at healthy and successful futures. Where is the common decency -- or common sense -- in that?

- Marc Lee makes the case for a progressive property tax as a first step toward putting idle wealth to work in the public interest. And Mark Leier reviews George Lakey's Viking Economics as setting out a useful model for a more equitable society.

- Preston Mulligan reports that Nova Scotia is paying $85.9 million to buy schools previously leased under a P3 model after a first-hand lesson in the costs of privatization. And D.C. Fraser reports on the Saskatchewan NDP's rightful observation that the Wall government's apparent plans to privatize Crowns would result in substantial revenue leakage to the federal government.

- Fiona Harvey points out that the greenhouse gas emission reductions promised at Paris fall far short of actually reaching the goal of avoiding catastrophic global warming. And Keith Stewart discusses the futility of Justin Trudeau's attempts to stay on the fence when it comes to fully tackling climate change. 

- Finally, Laurel Collins notes that the Libs' attempts to downplay broad support for proportional representation are contradicted by the strong views expressed through their electoral reform consultation process. And Marie-Danielle Smith reports on Maryam Monsef's admission that she and the Libs are carrying a preference on a new electoral model which may bear no resemblance to what's acceptable to the public or to other political actors.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- George Monbiot rightly makes the point that a general attitude of kindness is a must for a functioning society - while lamenting that anything of the sort is all too often lacking from public policy choices.

- James Di Fiore discusses Justin Trudeau's failed attempt at a triangulation strategy - as he's largely managed only to ensure nobody has reason to be satisfied with his government. Andrew Jackson criticizes the Libs' continued moves toward privatizing any common wealth at the federal level. And Michal Rozworski highlights how the Libs' infrastructure plans figure to little other than further enrich the rentier class:

(W)hile austerity may have fallen slightly out of favour among a section of the elite brokers of the global economy, privatization remains an important component of the new consensus being forged.  Even the IMF paper that argued neoliberalism is on its way out, and made so many headlines in the process, praised privatization as an important component of economic strategy. The private sector may not be investing enough on its own but we shouldn’t deprive it of profits! Canada has historically been open to policy experimentation from a “well-intentioned” technocratic elite. This is the 2016 model.

Compare Trudeau’s approach to a new national investment bank with a real progressive vision for the same thing put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in the UK. While Morneau is concerned with raising rates of return, McDonnell talks about economic transformation, bringing more democracy into the economy and transforming ownership to put workers in control. The focus is putting the spare capacities of people, not spare capital, to use.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank fits with the Liberal belief in markets and market processes as the ultimate economic guide. Government can at best support markets or give a kick start. This is the consistent thread that runs through recent decisions. The Liberals just outdid EU technocrats in pushing ahead the CETA free trade deal, one only slightly about trade and more about extending corporate power. Or take climate policy: new pipelines may be OK’ed because we now have a market mechanism (carbon pricing) that will supposedly push funds towards the right projects in the long run. This is even though the carbon price is too small in foreseeable future to make a significant difference and regardless of the coordination failures that stop the private sector from taking on the massive green investment needed for a real rapid transition.

Canada is back and we’re doing woke neoliberalism better than ever. While Keynes is rolling in his grave, the rentiers who continue to walk the earth are rubbing their hands at the government-sponsored feast that awaits.

- John Paul Tasker notes the Liberals' eventual support for the NDP's motion to stop discrimination against indigenous children - which should offer a helpful signal that even the decision-makers withholding resources from people who need them aren't prepared to defend that choice when challenged. But Jorge Barrera notes that the Libs had previously gone out of their way to avoid mediation which might have smoothed the way to comply with the federal government's obligation to treat children on reserve fairly.

- Mike Moffatt and Hannah Rasmussen make the case for "thicker" labour markets - where workers can be reasonably assured that they'll have opportunities in their home city beyond any single job.

- Finally, Benjamin Shingler reports that Canada's police state mindset now extends to having police deliberately spy on journalists in order to expose sources.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Paw patrol cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Toby Sanger offers some important background to the federal government's expected plan for privatized infrastructure by noting that the anticipated result would be to double the costs. And Luke Kawa notes that the Libs are already having trouble spending the money they've budgeted for infrastructure - leaving no excuse for agreeing to higher prices and worse services in order to bring private money in.

- Meanwhile, Simon Enoch responds to the Wall government's attempt to play word games with the definition of "privatization".

- Vaughn Palmer comments on the B.C. NDP's plan to win the province's next election by making bold commitments to improving citizens' lives. And Postmedia reports on a $10 per day child care plan as one of the most important promises John Horgan is offering to his province.

- Martin Regg Cohn writes that in order to avoid the influence of big money on our politics, we need to be willing to ensure enough public funding to support vibrant parties. And Emma Graney reports on the millions flowing from corporate Alberta to the Saskatchewan Party - which surely goes a long way toward explaining Brad Wall's lack of focus on the province he's supposed to be governing.

- Finally, Taylor Jackson and Lydia Miljan discuss why an alternative vote electoral system would only exacerbate the problems with first-past-the-post. PressProgress finds that even Conservative MPs are reporting substantial support for proportional representation after consulting with their constituents. And Marie-Danielle Smith notes that Justin Trudeau's own consultation reached the same result - though you'd never know it given the Libs' insistence on telling PR supporters that their opinions shouldn't count any more than their votes.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Branko Milanovic highlights the futility of pretending that market mechanisms will produce anything other than profit-oriented outcomes - and the observation represents an obvious reason not to put public services in corporate hands. And David Sloan Wilson (in introducing an interview with Sigrun Aasland) points out how Norway's active government has produced better social and economic outcomes than business-focused policies elsewhere:

Modern society requires an extensive infrastructure, which does not emerge bottom-up from unregulated markets. This has always been the case, in America as elsewhere, as my recent interview with Daron Acemoglu attests. One reason that the Nordic nations work well might be because they have not—yet—succumbed to the siren’s song of free market fundamentalism.

A strong state capable of building infrastructure is not enough. It must also be an inclusive state that works for the benefit of everyone, as opposed to an extractive state that works only for the benefit of an elite few, as my interview with Acemoglu also makes clear. Inclusiveness requires a balance of power among the various sectors of the society. Perhaps the Nordic nations work well for this reason also—strong states working collaboratively with a strong private sector, strong labor unions, and a strong, well-informed, and trusting electorate.

Even this is only necessary and not sufficient. A national economy that works well is a complex adaptive system, like an automobile with many interdependent parts. Even a strong and inclusive state won’t work well if it doesn’t put the parts of its economy together in the right way, which is not an easy matter for any complex system.

- Nick Dearden discusses how the CETA is nothing more than a ticking time bomb for citizens. But fortunately, Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew note that there will still be some opportunities to ensure it doesn't get ratified.

- David Macdonald offers a preview as to what to expect in the federal government's latest fiscal update. And Louis-Philippe Rochon reminds us not to obsess over deficit numbers when we have urgent needs going unmet.

- Ian MacLeod reports that the Libs are breaking another election promise by abandoning any pretense of providing for real-time oversight of Canada's security state. And Tom Parkin weighs in on Justin Trudeau's gross failure to improve the health and welfare of First Nations communities.

- Finally, Courtney Howard and Ryan Meili argue that a price on pollution will go a long way toward improving public health.

Deceptive by definition

The Saskatchewan Party's introduction of new legislation (Bill 40, PDF) to define massive Crown sell-offs as not being "privatization" has received plenty of due attention. But it's worth taking a close look at exactly what the Wall government is doing - and how it reflects an attempt to sneak the change through the back door for no obvious reason.

Let's start by taking a look at the Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act, which sets out two specific process requirements for legislative changes. One section of the CCPOA covers the privatization of a Crown (section 4), requiring a set of consultations including a provincial election between the announcement of an intention to privatize and an actual privatization. The other covers amendments to its own terms (section 5), and involves an increased level of public participation compared to other legislation.

The CCPOA also offers a hint as to what's considered privatization within its terms:

6  Nothing in this Act is to be construed as preventing or restricting a Crown corporation from carrying out operations, including selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of its property, in the ordinary course of its business.

So for a Crown to carry on business as usual doesn't trigger a consultation requirement under the CCPOA. But the selling off of a Crown in whole or in part outside the ordinary course of business is intended to be included - barring some amendment to existing legislation.

To be clear, a definition could likely be added to the CCPOA itself using the consultation process set out under section 5. And that's effectively what the Wall government has done in introducing Bill 1 (PDF), which is intended to remove the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority from the scope of the CCPOA.

Not to say there aren't some severe problems with Bill 1. (And indeed, there's all the more reason to be suspicious of the Sask Party's plans for SLGA if it pushes through Bill 1 while also trying to pass legislation which would remove its liquor retail plans from the definition of privatization.) But it at least doesn't attempt a blatant procedural end-run around the CCPOA's consultation requirements.

In contrast, the effect of Bill 40 is to add a definition of "privatize" to the Interpretation Act, 1995 - which would affect the interpretation of the CCPOA without actually amending the CCPOA.

To see why that should raise red flags, let's compare the new definition to the normal use of the general definition provisions of the Interpretation Act.

For example, section 27(1) of the Interpretation Act - which is intended to be amended by Bill 40 - includes a definition of "person". And it makes sense to have a general definition of that term which can be applied across Saskatchewan's legislation and regulations because it is used frequently and consistently. The word "person" appears in 1,588 different statutes and regulations, and it would be an administrative nightmare to have to amend each of those every time a single word needs to be clarified.

By way of comparison, the word "privatize" appears in exactly one Saskatchewan law. So the effect of Bill 40 is to use a method intended to clarify definitions of general application in order to specifically change the CCPOA alone, while avoiding the CCPOA's consultation requirements for a direct amendment.

That choice makes especially little sense given that the Sask Party actually applied the CCPOA's own amendment process with Bill 1. But it's clear that Wall and company recognize the significance of opening the door to massive Crown selloffs at every stage of ownership other than the one transferring control of an entity - and that they don't want the public having any say in the choice.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Larry Beinhart argues that aside from the gross unfairness and economic harm from growing inequality, there's a basic problem trusting the uber-rich to make reasonable decisions with massive amounts of wealth. And George Monbiot makes the case that even as he pretends to be an outsider, Donald Trump epitomizes the problems with a political culture designed to serve those who already have the most.

- Leo Panitch points out that more "trade" deals such as the CETA being pushed by self-proclaimed progressive governments will only strengthen the prejudiced right. Thomas Walkom writes that we shouldn't see a slightly modified side deal as reason to be satisfied with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - and notes that in fact, additional protections for European signatories only confirm that Canada is giving up more sovereignty than it needs to. And the Mound of Sound weighs in on the Libs' obsession with trade over people:

Trudeau's Harperesque pursuit of CETA and TPP demonstrates that he means business. This goes straight back to those mandate letters he issued to his freshly minted cabinet ministers as they were sworn in. Even Catherine McKenna's marching orders stipulate that her priorities are to be the economy and the environment. There's no doubt that she meant it when she said she was "as much an economic minister as an environmental minister."

Trade it is then. But, if you're going to make trade your priority, your dominant responsibility, then surely you have to accept full responsibility for the fallout from that pursuit. That's on you, Slick.

One element of that fallout is the rise of Canada's homegrown "precariat." It's a term used to describe the future this free-trading government has bequeathed to our youth. In case you're wondering, that's a future fraught with insecurity and economic peril.
...
Morneau won't mention how his own government and its predecessors laid the foundation for this upheaval and uncertainty through its obsessive pursuit of neoliberalism and global free trade, the constant downward spiral. He won't explain why, when even the World Bank and International Monetary Fund can no longer remain silent on the social and economic damage inflicted by globalism, his government remains a faithful adherent to this toxic ideology.

I'm sorry Morneau and you too, Trudeau, but, when you tell Canadians to forego their hopes and resign themselves to a future in the precariat, what you're really telling them is that you won't change course and liberal democracy be damned.

- Kelly Rose Pflug-Back and Ena͞emaehkiw Kesīqnaeh write that one person's accumulation tends to be directly linked to another's dispossession - particularly when it comes to resource extraction over the objections of affected First Nations communities.

- Ryan Maloney reports on Charlie Angus' continued efforts to get the Trudeau Libs to stop discrimination against children on reserve - this time by having to point out that tribunal-ordered funding to meet children's basic needs is not "confetti". And Jonathan Charlton notes that the Saskatoon Health Region's own research show the Lighthouse homeless shelter saving more than twice what it costs - meaning that the Saskatchewan Party's arbitrary cuts to it represent nothing but gratuitous harm to everybody concerned.

- Finally, Emily Peck discusses the World Economic Forum's latest report showing that women work far more than men while being paid significantly less.

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.