A) Only ten cents lower than Quebec’s and
B) More or less irrelevant, since in Alberta most entry level jobs pay more than that.
It’s also worth noting that Alberta spends more money per capita than Quebec does. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
I’ve never in my entire life heard of a person who was jealous of another provinces’s “Social safety net.” Honestly, who would even have the time to think about things like that?
It would be nice, however, if you would please pay for it yourself.
Do you know what really protects the workers? Access to good jobs. The average wage in Alberta is far higher than it is in Quebec. And that’s not because we have more social programs or more regulations or more unions - it’s because of the law of supply and demand. Fast food employees in Alberta currently make around $10/hr, and get hiring bonuses. Workers have a lot of power in Alberta right now, because businesses are facing a shortage of workers. So they have to accomodate the kinds of shifts the workers want, give them good working conditions and benefits, and pay them more than they otherwise would. Alberta’s effective minimum wage is far higher than Quebec’s actual minimum wage. That’s the result of implementing policies that attract business and create jobs.
Different societies make different choice - and suffer the consequences or reap the benefits of those choices. You don’t have to be a ‘right winger’ or a ‘left winger’ for reality to assert its influence. The fact is, the citizens of Quebec have made choices that, if it weren’t for the generosity of other Canadians, would have bankrupted them long ago.
We could simply cut off your equalization payments, and then you’d be free to make all the choices you want. How does that sound? How would you pay for your extensive social programs?
It’s rather the opposite for me, in fact. And for most Canadians. Which is why we don’t have national universal day care and other social programs Quebec has chosen.
I’d say it’s a bad thing precisely because you have to provide taxpayer incentive to encourage them to work. And since the overall rate of female participation in the work force is lower in Quebec than it is in almost all the rest of Canada, it would seem that you’re simply replacing other women in the workforce with those women.
I’d also say it’s bad because it requires you to raise more taxes, which further depresses jobs and economic growth.
I’d also say it’s bad because, all things being equal I think it’s better for children to be raised by their mothers and fathers than by a day care facility, and therefore I don’t think it’s smart for society to provide specific incentives to discourage the practice.
Sure they are. If they are receiving subsidies which give them a competitive advantage over others, they are displacing them. For example, it may be that younger women with children would otherwise not be able to take the job of older women because they are not experienced enough to earn enough extra pay to cover their child care costs. Subsidize the child care costs, and these women can work for less and therefore displace others (who need incomes for their own reasons - reasons which may not be politically correct enough for the government to bother subsidizing). In any event, the numbers indicate that this is the case. If Quebec has the lowest participation rate of women overall, but the highest participation rate for women with young children, the situation must be especially dire for all other women.
Again, you’d be wrong. For example, Quebec charges businesses almost twice as much per employee for health care and employment insurance taxes. I have a table here from 2000 which shows that an employer who hires an individual making $25,000 per year paid $938 for health care and other payroll taxes. That same employer would pay $408 in Alberta, and nothing in Saskatchewan. In that year, that same individual paid on average $3840 in provincial tax on a $25,000 income. That’s $1000 more than the next highest province, and $2000 more than the same person would have paid in Alberta.
Now look at your professional classes. Say, a single person making $80,000 per year. In Quebec, that person would pay $19,000 in provincial taxes. In Alberta? $8,000. Guess where all your best and brightest people are going to go? This is why Quebec is suffering a dramatic ‘brain drain’ of its best people (640,000 have left your province the last 40 years), and is resorting to using more taxpayer money to bribe immigrant professionals to move to the province. Yet another result of your vaunted social policy.
It is false. Quebec only has a slightly lower number of university-educated citizens than the rest of Canada (21% in Quebec, vs 24% for the rest of Canada). Still nothing to brag about.
I suspect you’d be thinking about it a lot more if you were sending $3000 per citizen to Alberta to support us, and we were constantly whining about leaving the country unless you gave us more.
Sorry, but you’re just wrong. You might like to read this: Economic Freedom in North America, a joint study by Canada’s Fraser Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis in the U.S., a non-partisan think tank.
The index measures economic freedom in terms of individual taxes, business taxes, business and labor regulations, and other interferences by government in the economy.
In that report, Alberta was rated as the second most economically free region in North America, behind only Delaware. Quebec was second-last. But that chart includes the federal contribution. If you remove that, Quebec winds up dead last, and by a substantial margin over the second worst province. And if you look at the contribution to the index caused by tax policy, Quebec again winds up dead last.
Quebec’s overall tax burden is about 45% of GDP. Alberta’s is less than 30%.
Oh, come on. It was a very limited analogy - brought up only in the sense that Quebec threatens to secede, but simply cannot because it has adopted an economic model that is unsustainable without the help of the rest of Canada. That’s all that was meant by it.
If “equalization” means what I think it means, any province could have the same programs Quebec does. And what should I feel “guilty” for? Sure, I’d like Quebec’s economy to improve, but in all fairness Quebec is quite in the middle of the pack of Canadian provinces in economic terms: poorer than Ontario and the West, but richer than the East. I’m not about to start feeling guilty until Quebec becomes a “have” province, which we know will never happen, not because we’re not working hard enough or pay too much for useless programs but because being a French-speaking province surrounded by English speakers in a world where English is the main language of business makes it likely that international businesses will implant in the English-speaking provinces instead of here. It’s true that our bilingualism is an asset, and as an example we do have a thriving movie dubbing business, but France’s protectionism (as I remember, requiring dubbed movies shown in France to have been dubbed in France) sort of limits its expansion.
Okay. I did say Sam Stone thinks a low minimum wage (or no minimum wage at all) is better than a high one, not that Alberta as a whole agrees. Sam Stone is not Alberta (and I am not Quebec), I dare say I believe Sam Stone to be more conservative than the average Albertan.
Huh, that’s interesting. Though Quebec’s and Alberta’s governments probably do not spend their money for the same thing and I wonder what the difference is.
You know, that’s kind of a good argument for Quebec independence: it would stop all this complaining. Basically what you’re saying is that until Quebec becomes a “have” province (which I’ve said is impossible) any expense our government makes and which is not clearly a necessity will be liable to be nitpicked by people across the country. We’re repairing roads? Maybe they’re still in good enough shape and we’re repairing them as a luxury. We’ve raised tuition fees to the Canadian average? Maybe we could raise them further so Albertans aren’t funding our students. That’s awfully close to saying the rest of Canada has a right to decide how we’re governing ourselves since they’re paying for it. Eh, if us, why not the other provinces that receive equalization payments?
And anyway that’s not at all how the equalization fund works. The federal government doesn’t take money in the pockets of Albertans to put it in the pockets of Quebecers. Both Albertans and Quebecers (and every Canadian) pay taxes, if not income taxes, at least sales taxes, to the federal government. The federal government then takes this revenue and does many things with it, including putting some of it in an equalization fund. This equalization money goes to the governments of the provinces whose revenues are below the Canadian average according to some formula. So if I’m a rich Quebecer who pays a lot of federal income tax, and you’re a poor Albertan who pays little federal income tax, I probably pay more for these equalization payments than you do. So in this case, would I be entitled to support social programs?
Then people would just complain about something else, but you’re dodging the issue; why should Quebec be proud of a social spending initiative other provinces are paying for?
In fairness, Jean Charest’s government has made efforts to get Quebec’s budget under control.
Just a heads up… If you’re going to debate, you should do your homework before posting. That’s twice that stuff you’ve “heard” has proven to be incorrect. You’re not doing yourself any favours here.
Actually, many people have said that businesses in Quebec are not as heavily taxed as popular belief has it. For example, this study shows that in 1999, 52% of Quebec businesses – some very profitable – did not pay provincial taxes, and that in 2002 Quebec suffered a negative balance of 1.2 billion dollars between the taxes received from businesses and the moneys given to businesses in governmental aid, while Ontario’s balance was a positive 5.7 billion dollars this same year (tables 10 and 12 and accompanying text). Yves Séguin, former Quebec Liberal minister of Finance from 2003 to 2005 (as well as minister of Revenue from 1987 to 1990 and Labour from 1988 to 1990), has said that Quebec is actually a pretty good place to do business.
All of this is in large part a question of opinion. Sam Stone is able to quickly find cites (often from the Fraser Institute) that claim Quebec is a financial hellhole. I can find cites that claim the opposite, but it takes some time (and often they’re going to be in French or from left-wing researchers so I’m not sure if Sam Stone will find them believeable; of course the Fraser Institute is a right-wing think tank). He’s made a lot of claims in his last post; I’m not ignoring them but to argue them all with some support I will need time.
I’ve said it: a society that operates in French will be inherently less attractive for businesses than one that operates in English.
Thanks - I’m not on anyone’s “side” here, but it’s important to take the time to find support for your arguments (as you say, it does take time!)
Another ironic twist… You imply that Sam Stone would not find your cites believable, if they are from “left-wing” researchers. Yet you apparently do not believe the Fraser Institute, because they are “right wing”!
First, it is probably best not to ascribe biases to your debating opponent before they show them.
Second, this is especially true if you show such biases yourself!
Less attractive perhaps (though I have some doubt about that) but not necessarily less successful.
Now I’m not sure you would classify the Montreal Economic Institute as right wing but here’s a somewhat damning report (warning, PDF) on Quebec’s relative economic performance within a Canadian context.
Here’s the thing, if I’m permitted to briefly hijack this thread. I believe we’ve had debates around here on whether economics is a real science or not. I’d say it’s at least partly a scientific discipline, but I’ve noticed that often when you look at economic studies, you can predict what the conclusion will be if you know the researcher’s (or their employer’s) biases. That doesn’t seem very scientific to me.
I’ve seen similar things in the economic debates here, most recently the one on [thread=495799]economic stimulus for Canada[/thread] where the New Deal was discussed. In that thread we can see the following posts:
and then
A battle of cites showing that the New Deal was either a terrible idea, or a good (if imperfect) idea. So which is it? Since we know Sam Stone is a conservative while Kendall Jackson is more left-wing, we could predict what they’d think of the New Deal even before reading their posts, and of course they’d be able to support their opinions. And both of these posters have a good reputation for their knowledge of economics. I realize mine isn’t as good as theirs – my strong points are elsewhere – but while I don’t think Quebec’s economy is perfect, and it’s certainly not as good as Alberta’s, it isn’t terrible either (I can see it; I live here) so I’m sure I can find some evidence that some economic decisions by Quebec’s government (even when left-wingers were in power) have had positive effects.
The Fraser Institute is a right-wing think tank, and it’s based in Western Canada. We can expect it to focus on the problems with Quebec’s economic policy, and choose to report the economic variables that prove this. But if I find economic studies by left-wing economists at the UQAM, I’ll expect them to focus on the economic variables that either show Quebec’s economy isn’t doing as badly as Sam Stone would think, or that businesses in Quebec aren’t taxed as heavily as Sam Stone thinks they are (the latter is what the report I linked to indicates). But I’m not going to believe that the conclusions of either the Fraser Institute or the UQAM’s Chaire d’études socio-économiques are absolute fact.
But the overall point is “Why does the second most populous province, blessed with natural resources, a well educated population, and an overall diverse economy fail to achieve a per capita GDP above the national average?”*
Now the reason so much equalization money flows into Quebec is the fact that it does have 8 million people for which services need to be “equalized”. PEI actually receives more on a per person basis but given you could fit most of them into an outdoor Anne of Green Gables theater production the overall number is more palatable.
*Let’s lay aside my dislike for averages when distributions may not tend to normal. Means are used by the equalization equation.
It’s very unlikely, unless you’ve actually taken economics in university, that you have in fact seen an actual research study by an economist. The blurbs you read about in the paper aren’t hard core economics any more than Popular Mechanics is hard physics.
If you actually take economics at a real school it’s surprising - it was surprising to me, anyway - how NOT politicized it is. A free market advocate will happily bring in evidence and research by a Marxist economist if it’s legitimate research that present conclusions based on objective evidence. I saw it happen.
Economics that you see in the media are 30% economics and 70% politics, just like most media discussion of science, which is invariably shallow and heavily tilted towards the editorial outlook of the publisher/broadcaster. There’s nothing wrong with that - decisions about where to spend our money are inherently political, and economics provides no “right” answers. Biology is a science, but you wouldn’t say the highly politicized issues of health care, breast cancer research, AIDS policy, private versus public health care, and the like mean biology’s not a science.
But believe me; economics is a science. Try getting a degree in it treating it like it’s not. You’ll save tuition money when you flunk out in your first or second year.
