Lets pretend you need to cut $54,365,895.00 from the budget

grumpy old man wrote:Every year cut 10% from the bureaucracy. Farm out all services to outside companies. Cut all advertising unless for legal or safety reasons. Cut all benefits for convicts. Prosecute to the full extent of the law ANYBODY cheating the system. Create two welfare agencies: one for those that must have it and another for those that don't (workfare). Create one CFS agency.

GOM, before you recommend farming out everything to the private sector I recommend you ask some people in the know how much money has been "saved" by farming out snow clearing operations. It was cheaper for the duration of the first contracts, then steadily has increased in cost and the private contractors are raking it in. I have first hand knowledge from a previous employer.

One of the dumbest moves the city ever did. You replaced dozens of well paid (high tax bracket) workers, with private contractors reaping all the benefits and profits while they pay their operators relative peanuts.

If there's no real cost savings to be seen long term, I'd prefer my tax dollars go to keeping middle class jobs in the city rather than create more poverty level jobs so some business owner can pocket the difference.

But I'm a commie bastard.

grumpyrom wrote:But I'm a commie bastard.

Well, that goes without saying.

How much would snow clearing costs have increased had they stayed 100% in city hands?

I'd rather see getting the best value for my tax dollars, which doesn't mean overpaying jobs by 25-30%.

I'd rather that money goes into the hands of people who are going to spend it on goods in the community, and who will be contributing to the tax base rather than creating more wage slaves who can only afford basic necessities while making the already wealthy, wealthier. Even if it means "over paying" jobs. And by over paying, I mean paying a living wage.

When people are generating profits of >40% on any service you can't tell me they are the cheapest route. The contract prices went through the roof the second that the city got rid of their equipment and the contractors knew there would be no way for the city to pull the contracts back.

At what social cost are you willing to save a buck? I'd rather see no change to my current tax rates and keep 8,000 people with jobs than ensure they can support our local community, than privatize all city functions and reduce those jobs to a poverty wage and create more poverty just so I can see my tax rate drop 5 or 10% for a few years.

So, its not that you want to earn high wages, you're just concerned about the social fabric of our city. How noble.

That's a huge part of it Freeman. I'd rather we didn't have the "Wal-Mart" effect creeping into the governement sector as well. I'm definitely not for saving money in the short term without looking at the larger impact on society as a whole. I don't want to live in a society where there are only a few haves and mostly have-nots.

And for the record, my wages are just fine...and no I'm not a goverment employee. I'd just rather not see the changes you look so forward to.

You and I are just fundamentaly different in our views and I'm fine with that. IMHO, there a reason the most socialist countries consistanlty come out tops in just about every single "quality of life" and "hapiness" index I've ever seen. Usually top 4 spots are almost always occupied by Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland. All extremely socialist, all with very high tax rates, but yet all with very little poverty, great income equality and very little crime. And somehow private companies still seem to survive there. Yet our more right-winged neighbours to the south almost struggle to usally be ranked in the top 20, have low taxes, but staggering social problems, huge income inequality, high crime rates and yet the most billionaires. Which society would you rather live in?

grumpyrom wrote:I'd just rather not see the changes you look so forward to.

And how do you know what I look forward to? Are socialists also psychic?

grumpyrom wrote: Which society would you rather live in?

I'd rather live in Canada, which is the country my granparents immigrated to so that they could find opportunity, and in one case, an oppressive government.

You consider this to be opression? LMFAO...you need to talk to my parents and find out what a real opressive government is like.

Freeman wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:I'd just rather not see the changes you look so forward to.

And how do you know what I look forward to? Are socialists also psychic?

Just judging from the right-wing rhetoric you spout. No psychic abilities needed.

grumpyrom wrote:

Freeman wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:I'd just rather not see the changes you look so forward to.

And how do you know what I look forward to? Are socialists also psychic?

Just judging from the right-wing rhetoric you spout. No psychic abilities needed.

Still answer how you know what I look forward too. And you talk about rhetoric?

grumpyrom wrote:GOM, before you recommend farming out everything to the private sector I recommend you ask some people in the know how much money has been "saved" by farming out snow clearing operations. It was cheaper for the duration of the first contracts, then steadily has increased in cost and the private contractors are raking it in. I have first hand knowledge from a previous employer.

That's because city bureaucrats are not doing their jobs. They need to manage the process efficiently.

As for rising costs, you telling me they don't increase when kept in-house? Fuel and other materials increase. Labour increases (exponentially when in the public sector). Inefficiencies increase, especially in the public sector.

You will not be able to convince me, based on anecdotal evidence, that the city can provide such services less expensively than the private sector.

grumpyrom wrote:You and I are just fundamentaly different in our views and I'm fine with that. IMHO, there a reason the most socialist countries consistanlty come out tops in just about every single "quality of life" and "hapiness" index I've ever seen. Usually top 4 spots are almost always occupied by Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland. All extremely socialist, all with very high tax rates, but yet all with very little poverty, great income equality and very little crime. And somehow private companies still seem to survive there. Yet our more right-winged neighbours to the south almost struggle to usally be ranked in the top 20, have low taxes, but staggering social problems, huge income inequality, high crime rates and yet the most billionaires. Which society would you rather live in?

Where does Canada land on this utopia scale? Number one quite frequently eh?

I've read where those Nordic countries are struggling mightily under the strain of their socialist models. They are cutting back on the services provided, adding user fees, retirements deferred, school fees increasing...

And why you bringing the US in this discussion?

grumpyrom wrote:I'd rather that money goes into the hands of people who are going to spend it on goods in the community, and who will be contributing to the tax base rather than creating more wage slaves who can only afford basic necessities while making the already wealthy, wealthier. Even if it means "over paying" jobs. And by over paying, I mean paying a living wage.

This is very, very telling. And very scary.

This hate on you have for private business? Yikes. That is the great engine that drives the world. What you are proposing is NOT socialism rather its communism. If that is what you want suggest maybe you consider moving to North Korea or Cuba even. I thing the utopia you seek exists there.

No hate for private business, I just don't see them as the saviour's of society as you clearly do. There is no need to farm every job out to the private sector. My view point is clearly very different from yours. I still fail to see how adding to income inequality is a good thing, and it's a view point you clearly don't share. I'm fine with that.

Before you start spouting off on what communism vs. socialism is perhaps you should live it first and then come back and have this conversation.

I wonder if economic slavery will be topic the human rights museum will tackle. I hope not. It would be a shame if the museum were at odds with private business.

Triniman- how did you get the Asper's Museum into this?

rosencrentz wrote:Triniman- how did you get the Asper's Museum into this?

Workers' rights, unions, labour issues, etc., will be a part of Asper's museum. The business community is going to cringe...

I have a strong feeling that most people won't give a single hoot, never mind two, as to what is in the mausoleum to Asker I.

grumpyrom wrote:Before you start spouting off on what communism vs. socialism is perhaps you should live it first and then come back and have this conversation.

I spout. You spout. We all spout. You make it sound like a bad thing...

And why must I live communism to form an opinion on communism?

Now answer my question: Where does Canada stand on that utopia scale you mentioned?

grumpyrom wrote:There is no need to farm every job out to the private sector. My view point is clearly very different from yours. I still fail to see how adding to income inequality is a good thing, and it's a view point you clearly don't share. I'm fine with that.

Help me understand this income inequality you mention.

Are blue collar workers in the private sector paid less than in the public sector?

Is an electrician paid less working for an electrical contractor? How about a plumber? Welder? Other trade?

Do you refer to unskilled workers?

What is the wage difference between sectors?

Utopia scale: this is the very first one that came up on Google when I searched "quality of life by country 2010"...
1 = France
9 = Canada, Norway, Holland

Sweden and Denmark followed...

Guess which country proceeded your socialist Utopians? Yup. The USA. In seventh spot...

World's happiest countries:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

Voted on by the people who actually live there. Take a look at the percentages who felt they were struggling in the Top 3 countries vs. Canada. A full 21% difference between Denmark and Canada. Look at the top 6 countries, all extremely socialist.

I think that's excellent. And that evil Canada is 8th. Too many people suffering eh?

I noticed Cuba was 67th and North Korea did not appear.

Any other rankings you'd like to trot out? And can you help me
understand the relevance?

Spoiler:

This is an interesting observation:

Money Matters
The Gallup researchers found evidence of what many have long
suspected: money does buy happiness--at least a certain kind of it. In a
related report, they studied the reasons why countries with high gross
domestic products won out for well-being, and found an association
between life satisfaction and income.

G.O.M. the above comment deserves a thumbs up ! lol

grumpy old man wrote:This is an interesting observation:

Money Matters
The Gallup researchers found evidence of what many have long
suspected: money does buy happiness--at least a certain kind of it. In a
related report, they studied the reasons why countries with high gross
domestic products won out for well-being, and found an association
between life satisfaction and income.

Exactly, you and I are just in a disagreance over how the money should be distributed ie. who should get the lions share. I'd prefer if as great a portion of our population continued to be middle class or better, rather than seeing an ever growing share continuing to flow to the top 5%.