NationStates Jolt Archive

*this is another example of how the terrorist in the WhiteHouse is exporting his culture of corporate fascism internationally and threaten to bankrupt the world economy the same way hes destroying the American economy at home

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Canada where workers were seeking to turn the store into the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The world's largest retailer claimed the store closure was necessary because demands from union negotiators would make it impossible for the store to be profitable. It is the first Wal-Mart to close for economic reasons. For years Wal-Mart has vigorously fought unionizing efforts. Five years ago, a group of Wal-Mart butchers voted to unionize. The company responded by announcing that it would start stocking prepackaged beef and that there would no longer be a need for butchers.
democracynow.org

Well, it's not technically a sweatshop. It's a regular Wal-Mart store. And there were Wal-Mart's before there was a Bush in the White House.

For that matter, McDonald's closed their Canadian franchises that unionized too, and that was quite a long time ago. (Maybe even ten years ago?)

Incidently, there is one other unionized Wal-Mart in Quebec and about a dozen other Canadian Wal-Marts in the process of unionizing. Let me see if I can find a link...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/02/09/walmart-050209.html

On the bright side, now towns who want to keep Wal-Mart away actually have ammunition:

"If you open a Wal-Mart here, we will unionize so fast, your heads will spin.

Still wanna move to Boonieville?"

Aren't you limited to one of these a day?

Well, it's not technically a sweatshop. It's a regular Wal-Mart store.

Yeah, a sweatshop. What's your point?

*this is another example of how the terrorist in the WhiteHouse is exporting his culture of corporate fascism internationally and threaten to bankrupt the world economy the same way hes destroying the American economy at home

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Canada where workers were seeking to turn the store into the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The world's largest retailer claimed the store closure was necessary because demands from union negotiators would make it impossible for the store to be profitable. It is the first Wal-Mart to close for economic reasons. For years Wal-Mart has vigorously fought unionizing efforts. Five years ago, a group of Wal-Mart butchers voted to unionize. The company responded by announcing that it would start stocking prepackaged beef and that there would no longer be a need for butchers.
democracynow.org
Congratulations. Add some more people to Canada's unemployment line. Way to go Canucks.

The moral of the story is "working in a supermarket is a saturday job, not a career".

Congratulations. Add some more people to Canada's unemployment line. Way to go Canucks.

It's an American corperation closing the store because Canucks decided to unionize. Your stupid, get your arguments straight.

Congratulations. Add some more people to Canada's unemployment line. Way to go Canucks.

What's the problem here more rights for the worker, or the largest retailer in the world that wants to hold on to some loose change?

What's the problem here more rights for the worker, or the largest retailer in the world that wants to hold on to some loose change?
If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.

If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.

This isn't the US.

*this is another example of how the terrorist in the WhiteHouse is exporting his culture of corporate fascism internationally and threaten to bankrupt the world economy the same way hes destroying the American economy at home

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Canada where workers were seeking to turn the store into the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The world's largest retailer claimed the store closure was necessary because demands from union negotiators would make it impossible for the store to be profitable. It is the first Wal-Mart to close for economic reasons. For years Wal-Mart has vigorously fought unionizing efforts. Five years ago, a group of Wal-Mart butchers voted to unionize. The company responded by announcing that it would start stocking prepackaged beef and that there would no longer be a need for butchers.
democracynow.org
How is Bush involved again?

This isn't the US.
Apparently not. Canada needs all the industry that it can get, I don't see Walmart pulling out of there as a win for Canada.

If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.
Guess what, they aren't.

If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.

lol :rolleyes:

Apparently not. Canada needs all the industry that it can get, I don't see Walmart pulling out of there as a win for Canada.

Actually having Walmart is a loss to a nation.

Aren't you limited to one of these a day?
I second this motion against partisan hackery

Walmart is evil. Long have I known this fact.

Actually having Walmart is a loss to a nation.
I can't really argue that. My point was that it is a loss of jobs.

And... how does this relate to Bush?

I hear that, now that he's taken over Wal-Mart, Bush is planning to monopolize NITROGEN! Oh, the horror! How will we breathe!

And... how does this relate to Bush?

It doesn't, don't worry about it.

I can't really argue that. My point was that it is a loss of jobs.

It will be a loss of a market for Walmart if this spreads, and they know it. They're fighting it desperately, and probably in vain.

*this is another example of how the terrorist in the WhiteHouse is exporting his culture of corporate fascism internationally and threaten to bankrupt the world economy the same way hes destroying the American economy at home

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Canada where workers were seeking to turn the store into the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The world's largest retailer claimed the store closure was necessary because demands from union negotiators would make it impossible for the store to be profitable. It is the first Wal-Mart to close for economic reasons. For years Wal-Mart has vigorously fought unionizing efforts. Five years ago, a group of Wal-Mart butchers voted to unionize. The company responded by announcing that it would start stocking prepackaged beef and that there would no longer be a need for butchers.
democracynow.org

Democracynow.org .. i would never waste my time with that propaganda crap... Besides, i admire Walmart for working the system so well, and becomming the greatest company in the world... they have every part of their logistical infastructure down to a sceince, from their work force to how they organize boxes in their trucks to maximize shipping. The fortune of Wallmart is actually the greatest in the world encompassing 4 of the top 5 forbes richests people (all family members i might add)

Aren't you limited to one of these a day?
I know but I havent posted in eons so I making up for the slack

It will be a loss of a market for Walmart if this spreads, and they know it. They're fighting it desperately, and probably in vain.
Does Canada have any problems with companies outsourcing? I know here in the US it is starting to become an issue.

all the store should try to unionise ^_^

If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.
thats lame-cause of places like Walmart get away with abusing workers all the other companies copy them

Does Canada have any problems with companies outsourcing? I know here in the US it is starting to become an issue.

I wouldn't know, I'm not Canadian.

But outsourcing has nothing to do with this issue. Walmart may very well lose the Canadian market if this spreads and they are unwilling to honour the right to unionise.

How is Bush involved again?
cause Bush is trying to internationalize his walmart economy and class warfare policies

And... how does this relate to Bush?
I answered this---scroll down

cause Bush is trying to internationalize his walmart economy and class warfare policies

Qualify this statement.

I second this motion against partisan hackery
STOP THE HATE

Qualify this statement.
Im not sure what other way I can say it

Congratulations. Add some more people to Canada's unemployment line. Way to go Canucks.

Better to ascribe to the United Nations Delcaration of Human Rights, than to allow the fascist Walmart to rule them like slaves.

What the hell ever happened to decency? This post you just made is the type of absolute bullshit that should never be spewed forth from any orifice.. I mean, your AMERICAN!! So you are saying we should "bow down" to "corporate tyranny" or we "deserve to be fired".

Screw you and everyone who looks like you... That's the most offensive thing I have ever heard.

Stand up to these bullies, these corporate juggarnauts, burn down their stores and get the the HELL out of OUR COUNTRY. We do not need to bow to some rich white man who throw us 6 bucks an hour... You can't treat us decently, which with a Union, you can at least get standard living wages per person, or you should just leave.

Corporations are legalized criminals, I hate them all and will enjoy the day they are gone.

I wouldn't know, I'm not Canadian.

But outsourcing has nothing to do with this issue. Walmart may very well lose the Canadian market if this spreads and they are unwilling to honour the right to unionise.
Well, Walmart is well within their rights to refuse unionization.

Democracynow.org .. i would never waste my time with that propaganda crap... Besides, i admire Walmart for working the system so well, and becomming the greatest company in the world... they have every part of their logistical infastructure down to a sceince, from their work force to how they organize boxes in their trucks to maximize shipping. The fortune of Wallmart is actually the greatest in the world encompassing 4 of the top 5 forbes richests people (all family members i might add)
Im sorry to report that you are clearly brainwashed. Even on his death bed Sam Walton wondered aloud if he created something evil. Im sure hes in Hell right now

cause Bush is trying to internationalize his walmart economy and class warfare policies

for what..the benifit of the US ? for his benifit ? who exactly is benifiting in these class warfare policies you describe.. oh yes.. every other nation other then the US... i agree free trade is trash, NAFTA an abomination and i damn the administration who brought it in to existance >.> (Clinton administration)

Im not sure what other way I can say it

Well, you could "qualify" it--as in "prove" it.

Better to ascribe to the United Nations Delcaration of Human Rights, than to allow the fascist Walmart to rule them like slaves.

What the hell ever happened to decency? This post you just made is the type of absolute bullshit that should never be spewed forth from any orifice.. I mean, your AMERICAN!! So you are saying we should "bow down" to "corporate tyranny" or we "deserve to be fired".

Screw you and everyone who looks like you... That's the most offensive thing I have ever heard.

Stand up to these bullies, these corporate juggarnauts, burn down their stores and get the the HELL out of OUR COUNTRY. We do not need to bow to some rich white man who throw us 6 bucks an hour... You can't treat us decently, which with a Union, you can at least get standard living wages per person, or you should just leave.

Corporations are legalized criminals, I hate them all and will enjoy the day they are gone.
Stick around, I'll see if I can come up with some more offensive stuff. BTW, where do you work if you don't mind me asking?

Well, Walmart is well within their rights to refuse unionization.
no theyre not

Well, Walmart is well within their rights to refuse unionization.

The hell they are. Unions are a workers right. They can come up with some bunk story to close a store if a union tries to form, but they can't stop workers from trying.

Im sorry to report that you are clearly brainwashed. Even on his death bed Sam Walton wondered aloud if he created something evil. Im sure hes in Hell right now

where did you hear that from.. democracynow ? any 4th grade could write their crap.. atleast its always full of imagination

for what..the benifit of the US ? for his benifit ? who exactly is benifiting in these class warfare policies you describe.. oh yes.. every other nation other then the US... i agree free trade is trash, NAFTA an abomination and i damn the administration who brought it in to existance >.> (Clinton administration)
NAFTA started under Bushs father--Clinton the sellout signed it

no theyre not
They can close down.

Wal-Mart has announced plans to close a store in Canada where workers were seeking to turn the store into the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The world's largest retailer claimed the store closure was necessary because demands from union negotiators would make it impossible for the store to be profitable. It is the first Wal-Mart to close for economic reasons. For years Wal-Mart has vigorously fought unionizing efforts. Five years ago, a group of Wal-Mart butchers voted to unionize. The company responded by announcing that it would start stocking prepackaged beef and that there would no longer be a need for butchers.
democracynow.org

60% of all expenses in a retail company go to workers wages. It's a budget. You go above that,... managers no-longer make bonuses and the store doesn't add to the profit of the company; so why would one want to be a manager or have Walmart Stock?

I don't think the average person has a conception on the actual numbers on which this company is governed on. The profit isn't in a store, perse, it's in multiple stores (across the nation). That being said, it's sound business not to want unions in their company.

It's not fascism to want ones business to suceed, it's fascism to use the system (of force) for favors. I don't know Walmart enough to judge whether they exploited the political system, and I wouldn't doubt many big corporation do...but that's beside my point.

Most retail stores can't survive a union. I've seen the numbers, and I have the empirical upper hand. While management might act like fucktards to their employees at times, the best way for anyone to succeed in life isn't to use the gov to rough them up or unionize, it's to educate oneself and move forward...but hey, that's just my opinion.

Well, you could "qualify" it--as in "prove" it.
how

Well, Walmart is well within their rights to refuse unionization.

Again, this is not the US.

how

By providing sources that prove that Bush is controlling Wal-Mart? Oh, I dunno. That'd certainly be a start.

They can close down.
good---force them to close down everywhere

Democracynow.org .. i would never waste my time with that propaganda crap... Besides, i admire Walmart for working the system so well, and becomming the greatest company in the world... they have every part of their logistical infastructure down to a sceince, from their work force to how they organize boxes in their trucks to maximize shipping. The fortune of Wallmart is actually the greatest in the world encompassing 4 of the top 5 forbes richests people (all family members i might add)


Rape and Pilliage, thats what these people represent... You should NOT admire those who are RICH.. Rich doesn't mean NICE...

They have it down to a science how to influence your mind to buy t heir products and to crush resistance and how to drive other companies nearby out of business and lay off their $12 dollar per hour works to replace them with their $6 per hour workers...

If I was in the same room as those people I would spit on them as a little taste of what the people who went through their sweatshops went through.

And your words praising them is proof of their propoganda in action.

and democracynow.org is a great site... Because, lets face it... If you don't stand for Democracy, what do you stand for...


You stand beside the guy who I'm quoting... "I like them because they are rich and push other people down" WE call that Fascism or Totalitarian institutions... Well, I don't stand for that.

Nor should anyone.

By providing sources that prove that Bush is controlling Wal-Mart? Oh, I dunno. That'd certainly be a start.

You're talking to Skapedroe. ;)

Forgive them, my Lord, for they know not what they do.

Why do earnings have to be the ultimate goal?

Why is it acceptable to be actively opposed to unions?

Why should a corporation be admired for taking advantage of everything it can within the law, international or otherwise?

Why is the treatment of Wal-Mart's employees, considered by some to be unjust, considered acceptable because it is within their legal rights?

I believe these are legitimate questions for those amongst the posters who support Wal-Mart's positions. Thanks.

Its blatant retaliation against a just cause.

Walmart can stand to lose a few bucks, minimum wage workers can't, and only one of those two has to eat!!!

60% of all expenses in a retail company go to workers wages. It's a budget. You go above that,... managers no-longer make bonuses and the store doesn't add to the profit of the company; so why would one want to be a manager or have Walmart Stock?

I don't think the average person has a conception on the actual numbers on which this company is governed on. The profit isn't in a store, perse, it's in multiple stores (across the nation). That being said, it's sound business not to want unions in their company.

It's not fascism to want ones business to suceed, it's fascism to use the system (of force) for favors. I don't know Walmart enough to judge whether they exploited the political system, and I wouldn't doubt many big corporation do...but that's beside my point.

Most retail stores can't survive a union. I've seen the numbers, and I have the empirical upper hand. While management might act like fucktards to their employees at times, the best way for anyone to succeed in life isn't to use the gov to rough them up or unionize, it's to educate oneself and move forward...but hey, that's just my opinion.
walmart is a multi BILLION dollar corporation--I think they can afford it

cause Bush is trying to internationalize his walmart economy and class warfare policies
I'm sorry but I didn't see Bush's name anywhere in that article.

Better to ascribe to the United Nations Delcaration of Human Rights, than to allow the fascist Walmart to rule them like slaves.

What the hell ever happened to decency? This post you just made is the type of absolute bullshit that should never be spewed forth from any orifice.. I mean, your AMERICAN!! So you are saying we should "bow down" to "corporate tyranny" or we "deserve to be fired".

Screw you and everyone who looks like you... That's the most offensive thing I have ever heard.

Stand up to these bullies, these corporate juggarnauts, burn down their stores and get the the HELL out of OUR COUNTRY. We do not need to bow to some rich white man who throw us 6 bucks an hour... You can't treat us decently, which with a Union, you can at least get standard living wages per person, or you should just leave.

Corporations are legalized criminals, I hate them all and will enjoy the day they are gone.

You realize its those facist Corporations who actually spur economic growth in every one of those bankrupt developing nations. IBM has been described as much.. yet no company does more to promote technology education world wide for those less fortuante. People proclaim the wages other people get as unjust and inhumane.. yet what is their standard of living ? Nothing like the overly inflated American Standard of living we enjoy today.. .

By providing sources that prove that Bush is controlling Wal-Mart? Oh, I dunno. That'd certainly be a start.
no hes not controlling Walmart directly--but he enables a climate of corporate fascism

Im sorry to report that you are clearly brainwashed. Even on his death bed Sam Walton wondered aloud if he created something evil. Im sure hes in Hell right now
Blue Light special on Brimstone... ;)

What the hell ever happened to decency? This post you just made is the type of absolute bullshit that should never be spewed forth from any orifice.. I mean, your AMERICAN!! So you are saying we should "bow down" to "corporate tyranny" or we "deserve to be fired".

Screw you and everyone who looks like you... That's the most offensive thing I have ever heard.
Totally unnecessary personal attacks, Krackonis. Back off a few steps and take a deep breath.


There now. Better? Lay off the attacks, or face a real warning.

I'm sorry but I didn't see Bush's name anywhere in that article.
The Hidden Hand is everywhere

Well, Walmart is well within their rights to refuse unionization.


Let me quote you something :

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

See, in Canada we follow these they are called "The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

It's funny, American hasn't signed them, ever, in 50 years....

You realize its those facist Corporations who actually spur economic growth in every one of those bankrupt developing nations. IBM has been described as much.. yet no company does more to promote technology education world wide for those less fortuante. People proclaim the wages other people get as unjust and inhumane.. yet what is their standard of living ? Nothing like the overly inflated American Standard of living we enjoy today.. .
thats just corporate propaganda--corporations are poverty pimps in reality

Forgive them, my Lord, for they know not what they do.

Why do earnings have to be the ultimate goal?

Why is it acceptable to be actively opposed to unions?

Why should a corporation be admired for taking advantage of everything it can within the law, international or otherwise?

Why is the treatment of Wal-Mart's employees, considered by some to be unjust, considered acceptable because it is within their legal rights?

I believe these are legitimate questions for those amongst the posters who support Wal-Mart's positions. Thanks.
You say things like this and it becomes painfully obvious that you don't quite have a grasp on the real world. If you've spent one day in the business world, you'd know the answers to all these questions.

walmart is a multi BILLION dollar corporation--I think they can afford it

why are they a multi billiion dollar corporation again ? oh yes.. because of their successful buisness practices.. look at how well unions worked out for the airline industry...

Let me quote you something :

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

See, in Canada we follow these they are called "The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

It's funny, American hasn't signed them, ever, in 50 years....
Just because someone decided to call them "The Universal Rights" doesn't necessarily mean that they are, you know. A lot of the rights named in that pact are very socialist, a concept American government and people do not agree with.

Forgive them, my Lord, for they know not what they do.

Why do earnings have to be the ultimate goal?

Why is it acceptable to be actively opposed to unions?

Why should a corporation be admired for taking advantage of everything it can within the law, international or otherwise?

Why is the treatment of Wal-Mart's employees, considered by some to be unjust, considered acceptable because it is within their legal rights?

I believe these are legitimate questions for those amongst the posters who support Wal-Mart's positions. Thanks.
1. Earnings are what dictates if a company can stay in business and continue to pay employees salaries.
2. Unions have become to strong, and too radical - to the point of impeding a business growth and productivity. Anyone who has sat in on a union grievance meeting will understand why many are opposed to unions.
3. Do you have some examples of peoples admiration for these companies you mention?
4. Wal-Mart is paying salaries that are at or above a countries minimum wage. They obey all the labor laws for the country they reside in. I see nothing wrong with that.

Just because someone decided to call them "The Universal Rights" doesn't necessarily mean that they are, you know. A lot of the rights named in that pact are very socialist, a concept American government and people do not agree with.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that Canada abides by them.

Just because someone decided to call them "The Universal Rights" doesn't necessarily mean that they are, you know. A lot of the rights named in that pact are very socialist, a concept American government and people do not agree with.

Then your government should likely shut up about other countries not abiding by the Declaration of Human Rights, or Human rights violations.

If you can't even sign it, then you have no right being in the UN. Then maybe, real progress can be made.

Let me quote you something :

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

See, in Canada we follow these they are called "The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

It's funny, American hasn't signed them, ever, in 50 years....



Once again Canada one-ups America in humanity.

thats just corporate propaganda--corporations are poverty pimps in reality

.. No.. its not those poverty pimps you describe which has condemed Africa to endless starvation and desease.. its governmental corruption. AS well as in south america.. if there were responsible governments in place, the people would be well represented and equpit to handle any problem any corporation might present. Besides the fact that you so easily smere the injustices of a few corporations accross the global economy as the norm.. Corporations do more good then most governments ever have.. Most times it is not government buliding vital infastructure like roads and powerplants and water facilities, but corporations as they enter new marketplaces

Nothing is wrong with Pentax. Silly goose.

Let me quote you something :

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

See, in Canada we follow these they are called "The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

It's funny, American hasn't signed them, ever, in 50 years....
Well, Who's economy is stronger? How are those "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" working out for you?

why are they a multi billiion dollar corporation again ? oh yes.. because of their successful buisness practices.. look at how well unions worked out for the airline industry...
yeah they became billionaires stabbing people in the back and destroying smalltown america exploiting immigrant labor and creating a climate of corporate lawlessness--all things to make republican neoconservatives proud

Then your government should likely shut up about other countries not abiding by the Declaration of Human Rights, or Human rights violations.

If you can't even sign it, then you have no right being in the UN. Then maybe, real progress can be made.
Thankyou. I wish our country would get out of that do-nothing gab fest called the U.N.

If there's one thing you can't deny about this country, it's the long, long... long unemployment line.

But darn tootin'! They've actually been considering putting one in my town (the downtown has already blown to hell, if they showed up, it would just be the signature on the death certificate of this city's economy). I (as a loyal NDP member) have been fighting it furiously. I can't believe I never thought of using unionization as a threat. It's the bread and butter of my party for god's sake!

C'mon, everybody, sing-a-long:

WE ARE THE UNION! THE MIGHTY, MIGHTY UNION!

1. Earnings are what dictates if a company can stay in business and continue to pay employees salaries.
2. Unions have become to strong, and too radical - to the point of impeding a business growth and productivity. Anyone who has sat in on a union grievance meeting will understand why many are opposed to unions.
3. Do you have some examples of peoples admiration for these companies you mention?
4. Wal-Mart is paying salaries that are at or above a countries minimum wage. They obey all the labor laws for the country they reside in. I see nothing wrong with that.
walmart steals from their own employees pension funds

Just because someone decided to call them "The Universal Rights" doesn't necessarily mean that they are, you know. A lot of the rights named in that pact are very socialist, a concept American government and people do not agree with.

Then there's clearly a problem with the American government and people. The US is one of the only western countries not to agree to these. They are universal rights, and they're being violated by the American capitalist whores. Keep them (the companies) out of Canada!

-----

How was that for my first leftist defense of Canada? ^.^

Thankyou. I wish our country would get out of that do-nothing gab fest called the U.N.

Didn't Germany say that about the league of nations?

Then your government should likely shut up about other countries not abiding by the Declaration of Human Rights, or Human rights violations.

If you can't even sign it, then you have no right being in the UN. Then maybe, real progress can be made.

LOL ... that .. is the funniest thing ive read on this forum yet.. So it is the US holding the UN back.. just like it held them back in Bosnia right? How it held t hem back when dealing with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.. how it held them back in resolving Rwanda (Which is still a joke by any standard) and how they are now holding them back in Sudan and Dahfur right... the REALITY is... the UN ( the antiquated organization that it is today) was and is incapable of dealing with travesties on this scale WITHOUT the US. In fact I argue that these travesties would have been mulitpled many times over if not for the United States taking the leadership role which is required of it.

But perhaps your right.. progress can begin once the US leaves, because when it does.. and the usless structure of the UN atlast collapses from its inability to address any international crisis... a new more worthwile organiation can be built in its place, more equipt to deal with the problems we face today

Then there's clearly a problem with the American government and people. The US is one of the only western countries not to agree to these. They are universal rights, and they're being violated by the American capitalist whores. Keep them (the companies) out of Canada!

-----

How was that for my first leftist defense of Canada? ^.^
Rather terrible. You attempted to refute my point by simply restating the point I asked you to explain.

.. No.. its not those poverty pimps you describe which has condemed Africa to endless starvation and desease.. its governmental corruption. AS well as in south america.. if there were responsible governments in place, the people would be well represented and equpit to handle any problem any corporation might present. Besides the fact that you so easily smere the injustices of a few corporations accross the global economy as the norm.. Corporations do more good then most governments ever have.. Most times it is not government buliding vital infastructure like roads and powerplants and water facilities, but corporations as they enter new marketplaces
corporations only condemned south africa after a tremendous amount of public pressure and only when it threatened their bottomline. Corporations also created mass poverty in the 3rd world and underwrote genocide there as well

But perhaps your right.. progress can begin once the US leaves, because when it does.. and the usless structure of the UN atlast collapses from its inability to address any international crisis... a new more worthwile organiation can be built in its place, more equipt to deal with the problems we face today

Didn't they do that after the fall of the league of nations?

P.S. Isn't this thread about Wal-Mart?

Apparently not. Canada needs all the industry that it can get, I don't see Walmart pulling out of there as a win for Canada.
i can see how it would be.

walmart isn't terribly good for local economies really. it tends to wipe out highte payign retail jobs in favour of minimum wage "we treat you like shit" jobs.

if unionizing everything keeps walmart away then fuck, i should just quit my job work at walmart for a while and incite a union.

The US should be in a leadership position in the UN but we need to lead responsibly and be noble in our actions. Not be the fat, violent, hateful pigs most of us, expecially our leaders, are. Frankly i'm ashamed to be American as things are now.

1. Earnings are what dictates if a company can stay in business and continue to pay employees salaries.
As previously said, WalMart is a multi-billion dollar company. How much more money do they need?

2. Unions have become to strong, and too radical - to the point of impeding a business growth and productivity. Anyone who has sat in on a union grievance meeting will understand why many are opposed to unions.
I am unionized, and I've been to a (Canadian, the Union of Grocery Employees in Ontario. [Yea, the name's wrong, but you get the idea]) Union meeting. We fight for our right to live. The second a company is making profit (after paying its management their salaries), the second they should raise wages.

3. Do you have some examples of peoples admiration for these companies you mention?
I have no response to this.

4. Wal-Mart is paying salaries that are at or above a countries minimum wage. They obey all the labor laws for the country they reside in. I see nothing wrong with that.
Yes, but the American mimimum wage is disgustingly low. I'm happy about Ontario: they're raising it to $8.00 CAD, but it should be higher.

Rather terrible. You attempted to refute my point by simply restating the point I asked you to explain.

Bah, either way. I'm not actually into the argument, so please forgive me for missing stuff.

Unions are too powerful?

*flashes NDP member card* Amen to that brother.

Bah, either way. I'm not actually into the argument, so please forgive me for missing stuff.
Meh me either. I look at Skraedope's threads only to post random caustic remarks exposing his stupidity.

Unions are too powerful?

*flashes NDP member card* Amen to that brother.

NDP, bah! Greens!

NDP, bah! Greens!

Lol, I'm green in my heart, but I'd rather be with a party that has seats.

Meh me either. I look at Skraedope's threads only to post random caustic remarks exposing his stupidity.

Haha, I see. I fell unions are needed, but not to his extend of fanatical devotion.

Lol, I'm green in my heart, but I'd rather be with a party that has seats.

Next election. They went from like 0.24% to 4.3% during the last one, they could make a big splash in the next one. If they win even one seat, it's great.

Well, Who's economy is stronger? How are those "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" working out for you?
very well, thank you. :)

very well, thank you. :)

Same here!

As previously said, WalMart is a multi-billion dollar company. How much more money do they need?


I am unionized, and I've been to a (Canadian, the Union of Grocery Employees in Ontario. [Yea, the name's wrong, but you get the idea]) Union meeting. We fight for our right to live. The second a company is making profit (after paying its management their salaries), the second they should raise wages.



Yes, but the American mimimum wage is disgustingly low. I'm happy about Ontario: they're raising it to $8.00 CAD, but it should be higher.

A union needs to realize that a companies success and an employees salary and benefits are related. Many union (I'm not saying yours) don't seem to realize that if the company fails, the workers will be without jobs.



You may have a minimum wage of 8.00 CAD, but how much are you paying in taxes, and how much is gasoline etc...?

Yes, but the American mimimum wage is disgustingly low. I'm happy about Ontario: they're raising it to $8.00 CAD, but it should be higher.
they're raising minumum wage to $8.00?!

when does this happen?

*has a part time job earning minumum wage*

You may have a minimum wage of 8.00 CAD, but how much are you paying in taxes, and how much is gasoline etc...?

Exactly! That's why it should be higher! $9-10 CAD

Haha, I see. I fell unions are needed, but not to his extend of fanatical devotion.
If by unions you mean crazies, then sure.

Exactly! That's why it should be higher! $9-10 CAD
How about trying to lower the taxes instead?

they're raising minumum wage to $8.00?!

when does this happen?

*has a part time job earning minumum wage*

Well, it's up to $7.45 as of last Thurs. I believe. It's going to to $8 by the start of 2006. Dalton McGuinty, actually doing something right.

As previously said, WalMart is a multi-billion dollar company. How much more money do they need?

Beacuse if all their stores Unionized they would no longer be making a profit.. And if you dont make a profit.. no matter how big you are (ie. Enron) Your going to collapse


I am unionized, and I've been to a (Canadian, the Union of Grocery Employees in Ontario. [Yea, the name's wrong, but you get the idea]) Union meeting. We fight for our right to live. The second a company is making profit (after paying its management their salaries), the second they should raise wages.

You fight for your right to live... why is it White colar employees have survived so long without Unions ? Not all white colar workers are Rich capitalists i might remind you as well.. It is this idea that if the company is making a profit then they should be paying their employees more which stiffles growth so dramatically.. Without profit a company dosn't expand/grow .. so less people can be employed and this even threatens the viablitiy of the company itself (so those hardworking unionized employees get thrown on the street when the company goes under)!

I have no response to this.

that would be a No ?

Yes, but the American mimimum wage is disgustingly low. I'm happy about Ontario: they're raising it to $8.00 CAD, but it should be higher.

The American standard of living is also grossly inflated and can not be expected to be maintained.. the minimum wage dosn't need to be raised.. our standard of living needs to be brought to a realistic level!

How about trying to lower the taxes instead?

Frankly, that's not going to happen until the health care system gets a major overhaul to reduce it's cost, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

You may have a minimum wage of 8.00 CAD, but how much are you paying in taxes, and how much is gasoline etc...?
well, in the u.s. many people can't earn enough working full time on minumum wage to have both a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.

i think i would rather live somewhere that allows people a shot in hell at supporting themselves on minimum wage.

i actually don't earn enough to pay taxes, plus i end up with huge tax credits for being a student... so i pay nothing in taxes (which is why i can't wait until april when i get my refund) and even when i do, i'll be glad that i'll be helping others along the way.

How about trying to lower the taxes instead?

Because most of us like our social safety net. Lower taxes are hardly a solution.

Well, it's up to $7.45 as of last Thurs. I believe. It's going to to $8 by the start of 2006. Dalton McGuinty, actually doing something right.
oOo.... i can't wait until i see my new pay stub with my huge increase of $7.45.

hell, the government's giving me a bigger raise for nothing than my work is giving me for working 300 hours. (then i get a 10 cent raise)

Beacuse if all their stores Unionized they would no longer be making a profit.. And if you dont make a profit.. no matter how big you are (ie. Enron) Your going to collapse

That's the company's problem, not that of everyone else. If they can't break even while paying workers reasonable wages, then they don't have sound buisness practices.


You fight for your right to live... why is it White colar employees have survived so long without Unions ? Not all white colar workers are Rich capitalists i might remind you as well.. It is this idea that if the company is making a profit then they should be paying their employees more which stiffles growth so dramatically.. Without profit a company dosn't expand/grow .. so less people can be employed and this even threatens the viablitiy of the company itself (so those hardworking unionized employees get thrown on the street when the company goes under)!

White-colar employees make more than $6 an hour!

About the stifling of growth: up to a reasonable level this should happen. When people are making around $9 an hour, then you can concentrate on profit and expanding.


that would be a No ?

No, I said I have no reply because I don't know what you were talking about.



The American standard of living is also grossly inflated and can not be expected to be maintained.. the minimum wage dosn't need to be raised.. our standard of living needs to be brought to a realistic level!

It isn't unrealistic. If you want to go live in a third-world country, you go ahead.

Frankly, that's not going to happen until the health care system gets a major overhaul to reduce it's cost, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

In fact if bush gets his way it will happen.. why are healthcare costs so high.. insurance preimums and defensive medical practicies.. Once proper restrictions are put on the frivilious lawsuits in this country we can begin to enjoy more realistic healthcare costs...

How about trying to lower the taxes instead?
how about you look at the state of your country before telling other countries how to do things, ok?

i'm much happer knowing that everyone living here can afford to go to the hospital if they need to and not have to worry about fighting tooth and nail with their insurance companies or lackign coverage entirely.

In fact if bush gets his way it will happen.. why are healthcare costs so high.. insurance preimums and defensive medical practicies.. Once proper restrictions are put on the frivilious lawsuits in this country we can begin to enjoy more realistic healthcare costs...

1. I'm actually Canadian, and
2. I actually agree with you here.

Because most of us like our social safety net. Lower taxes are hardly a solution.
Lowering taxes spurs economic growth. When the economy grows, tax revenue increases. It is a proven method that works.

how about you look at the state of your country before telling other countries how to do things, ok?

i'm much happer knowing that everyone living here can afford to go to the hospital if they need to and not have to worry about fighting tooth and nail with their insurance companies or lackign coverage entirely.

True, brother. Free health care for all!

Lowering taxes spurs economic growth. When the economy grows, tax revenue increases. It is a proven method that works.

When you lower taxes, you have to get rid of the social safety net. It takes several years to get the growth happening. What of social security during this time?

In fact if bush gets his way it will happen.. why are healthcare costs so high.. insurance preimums and defensive medical practicies.. Once proper restrictions are put on the frivilious lawsuits in this country we can begin to enjoy more realistic healthcare costs...

What are you talking about?

We're talking about Canada here. What's Bush got to do with it?

What are you talking about?

We're talking about Canada here. What's Bush got to do with it?

He's American, and this has become a topic debating taxes and minimum wage, comparing both countries. Read the posts first, please. Thanks.

When you lower taxes, you have to get rid of the social safety net. It takes several years to get the growth happening. What of social security during this time?
So your economy is in such bad shape that a reduction in taxes will wreak havoc on your social security? That is odd, because there are several Canadians on this thread that say Canada's economy is fine.

Lowering taxes spurs economic growth. When the economy grows, tax revenue increases. It is a proven method that works.

What, like Reagonomics worked? Like how the current US economy is still not up to par?

Get your head straight. Lowering taxes is no gaurantee of economic growth.


He's American, and this has become a topic debating taxes and minimum wage, comparing both countries. Read the posts first, please. Thanks.

Taxes and minimum wage in relation to Canada. I think you ought to take your own advice, there.

What, like Reagonomics worked? Like how the current US economy is still not up to par?

Get your head straight. Lowering taxes is no gaurantee of economic growth.
Our economy is experiencing a healthy growth now. All thanks to tax cuts. And the economic boom during the '90s was due to the Reagan tax cuts.

So your economy is in such bad shape that a reduction in taxes will wreak havoc on your social security? That is odd, because there are several Canadians on this thread that say Canada's economy is fine.

Well, how low do you want to lower taxes?

When I hear low taxes, I think "American-style taxes", which would destroy our safety net. The economy in Canada is fine presently.

Taxes and minimum wage in relation to Canada. I think you ought to take your own advice, there.
I did: I said "comparing the two countries", i.e. one in relation to the other.

I'm out for the night, have fun without me.

Well, how low do you want to lower taxes?

When I hear low taxes, I think "American-style taxes", which would destroy our safety net. The economy in Canada is fine presently.
Lower taxes does not mean a repeal of all taxes. Economies are fragile things. I would assume any lowering of taxes would have to be done very gradually.

Well, how low do you want to lower taxes?

When I hear low taxes, I think "American-style taxes", which would destroy our safety net. The economy in Canada is fine presently.
I was under the impression that Canada has a high unemployment rate, and the taxes have become quite a burden. If I am wrong with my assumptions, I apologize.

I did: I said "comparing the two countries", i.e. one in relation to the other.

Which had nothing to do with was was being talked about.

He told Canadians that we needed to lower our taxes.

You responded:

Frankly, that's not going to happen until the health care system gets a major overhaul to reduce it's cost, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

To which he responded:

In fact if bush gets his way it will happen.. why are healthcare costs so high.. insurance preimums and defensive medical practicies.. Once proper restrictions are put on the frivilious lawsuits in this country we can begin to enjoy more realistic healthcare costs...

So I ask again: What does Bush have to do with Canadian taxes and Canadian health care? What the hell do we have to worry about insurance premiums for? Defensive medical practices are much less a problem for us, too.

So why don't you get your head around what I'm talking about before lecturing me? I was right the first time around. There's no discussing the difference between to states here, it was totally and completely about Canada.

That's the company's problem, not that of everyone else. If they can't break even while paying workers reasonable wages, then they don't have sound buisness practices.

How can anyone hav ea sound buisness practice when everytime your making a profit your employees demand higher wages ? wages make up 60% of the costs in any company. and your wrong its not just the companys problem.. because it is the company giving employees their wages.. the future of the employees bank on the success of the company.. if hte company dosn't succeed.. the employee goes out on his ass. So whose problem is it ? 100 employees go on the street and the CEO goes on to start another company.

White-colar employees make more than $6 an hour!

They can also be fired at a moments notice for almost no good reason if their employer so sees fit.. Meanwhile Unions make this liberity non existant.. So you pay the price.. you get paided $6 an hour so you can have more job secuirty .. its a simple trade off.. you j ust have to ask yourself what is more imporant ? your wage.. or your job security ?

If your a hard worker.. like most white colar workers, you have less to fear for your job security since your work is valued (and you get paid accordingly)

Quite frankly i think most blue colar workers do themselves great injustices by Unionizing.. THey work hard so have less to fear about their job security and probably would be paid more for their work

About the stifling of growth: up to a reasonable level this should happen. When people are making around $9 an hour, then you can concentrate on profit and expanding.

So what.. companies have higher costs and are required to raise the price of their products, so people now need more money to buy those products and again.. demand a higher minimum wage.. you know we call that inflation.. and that is the reason why the standard of living in this country is so unrealistic.. in no other nation does a citizen make an average wage so high then here!
When people are making $9 an hour, I as a company can just outsource your job to a country with a lower standard of living who requires far less an hour to live comfortably.. leaving you.. without a job.. So whats more important.. your minimum wage.. or your job security ?

It isn't unrealistic. If you want to go live in a third-world country, you go ahead.

for the last 100 years the US has represented the world economy, with most of the major corporations being based and functioning within the US.. We the Highly educated workers have enjoyed the benifits of this as the United States has drawn resources from those thrid-world countries you so describe.. Any half educated college student knows the standard of living in this country is grossly inflated.. and now we are realizing the results of this as the global economy grows and becomes more equalized.. You can raise the minimum wage.. but does that give you more security.. Companies will simply outsource your job faster then they are now. You wont find job security in higher minimum wages.. you want resonable wages.. MAKE YOURSELF MORE MARKETABLE .. as any good capitalist would.. there are reasons why managers and CEO's are so well paid.. because they arn't a dime a dozen.. their experiance and leadership ability is an invabluabe resource which helps companies become as successful as most are today!

You people complain without realizing why it is some people are paid well and others not.. Lets not look at CEOs for high wages.. lets look at low level accountants.. These people have made companies compete over them. (who wants to sit around and read balance sheets all day or do auditing) Yet those willing to sacrifice their time are rewarded hansomly for their difficult jobs. And since there are so few companies compete feirsly to retain them. Yet the blue colar worker on an assembly line pulling a leaver thinking about how they are being taken advantage of because they are being paid 6 dollars an hour to pull that lever simply dont realize that they have not made themselves marketable. THey are a dime a dozen.. while your lucky to find anyone entering the ferensic accounting feild these days.. thats where the money is (big surprise).

I look at myself and see the results.. people complain about how hard the job market is.. I took time and a pay cut to make myself more marketable by volunteering and interning while working partime.. now a year later I can't keep the job offers away and am getting a pay raise from 9.75 an hour to 14 an hour.. I have my choice of where I want to work and can negotiate my wages with some liberty. And im just out of school only 22, The job market is suppose to be the hardest for me to enter now, yet i can because im MARKETABLE!!!

^.^ srry for the lecture

You people complain without realizing why it is some people are paid well and others not.. Lets not look at CEOs for high wages.. lets look at low level accountants.. These people have made companies compete over them. (who wants to sit around and read balance sheets all day or do auditing) Yet those willing to sacrifice their time are rewarded hansomly for their difficult jobs. And since there are so few companies compete feirsly to retain them. Yet the blue colar worker on an assembly line pulling a leaver thinking about how they are being taken advantage of because they are being paid 6 dollars an hour to pull that lever simply dont realize that they have not made themselves marketable. THey are a dime a dozen.. while your lucky to find anyone entering the ferensic accounting feild these days.. thats where the money is (big surprise).

I look at myself and see the results.. people complain about how hard the job market is.. I took time and a pay cut to make myself more marketable by volunteering and interning while working partime.. now a year later I can't keep the job offers away and am getting a pay raise from 9.75 an hour to 14 an hour.. I have my choice of where I want to work and can negotiate my wages with some liberty. And im just out of school only 22, The job market is suppose to be the hardest for me to enter now, yet i can because im MARKETABLE!!!

^.^ srry for the lecture


I'd rather not work jobs I hate just for more money.

Would it irk you to know I used to be making $12/hour for slinging pizza? Well, more like slinging pizza and getting stoned. Not because I'm an incredible pizza virtuoso for whom pizza places the world over are trying hire. Rather, because small business is the best business. Fuck Wal-Mart and other huge multinationals. They stifle competition and are ultimately bad for the economy.

Apparently not. Canada needs all the industry that it can get, I don't see Walmart pulling out of there as a win for Canada.
However, it would be a win for the other businesses that see increased revenues due to Wal Mart closings, which in turn require more staffing at the competing stores. Therefore I don't buy your job loss theory in that many competing stores closed down when wal Mart opened.

I was under the impression that Canada has a high unemployment rate, and the taxes have become quite a burden. If I am wrong with my assumptions, I apologize.
You are wrong. Apology accepted. :D

However, it would be a win for the other businesses that see increased revenues due to Wal Mart closings, which in turn require more staffing at the competing stores. Therefore I don't buy your job loss theory in that many competing stores closed down when wal Mart opened.
What if it was another company instead of Wal-Mart? Say a computer manufacturer went there, and did not want to have a unionized shop and pulled out. Would you then consider that a loss?

True, brother. Free health care for all!
sister*

I'd rather not work jobs I hate just for more money.

Would it irk you to know I used to be making $12/hour for slinging pizza? Well, more like slinging pizza and getting stoned. Not because I'm an incredible pizza virtuoso for whom pizza places the world over are trying hire. Rather, because small business is the best business. Fuck Wal-Mart and other huge multinationals. They stifle competition and are ultimately bad for the economy.

Im not saying you have to work at jobs you hate for the money.. but i know people arent working in coal mines, and steel mills, or car assembly lines because they love the work.. (though there are some that do the majority dont) and they get paid for it accordingly.. being Unionized always means your paid less

You are wrong. Apology accepted. :D
Could you explain why the US boarder towns are flooded with Canadians purchasing goods here in the US because the taxes in Canada are too high? Everytime I drive through Houlton ME, I see all the canadians going back over the border with their cars loaded down with stuff.

I was under the impression that Canada has a high unemployment rate, and the taxes have become quite a burden. If I am wrong with my assumptions, I apologize.
i don't think our unemployment is terrible.

and taxes aren't really a burden. have you been finding libertarian canadians?

i don't think our unemployment is terrible.

and taxes aren't really a burden. have you been finding libertarian canadians?
No, but I talk to see alot of them up in NB. No one has a job, yet they all have brand new snowmobiles. I wish I knew how they do it. ;)

Lowering taxes spurs economic growth. When the economy grows, tax revenue increases. It is a proven method that works.
The method is not proven at all. Our economic growth was better than most of the OECD countries over the past several years without a Bush like tax cut.

For the past 6 years, Canada has enjoyed a surplus of revenue over expenditure and has used that excess to pay down the National Debt for the past 4 years.

Recently, the Liberal Government has announced a massive infusion of funding into healthcare, municipalities, and defence, which will lower the surplus but will also maintain and/or improve services.

The method is not proven at all. Our economic growth was better than most of the OECD countries over the past several years without a Bush like tax cut.

For the past 6 years, Canada has enjoyed a surplus of revenue over expenditure and has used that excess to pay down the National Debt for the past 4 years.

Recently, the Liberal Government has announced a massive infusion of funding into healthcare, municipalities, and defence, which will lower the surplus but will also maintain and/or improve services.
Both Reagan and Bush have used this method, and it has worked both times. In fact if we weren't pissing away 200Billion + over in Iraq, I think our economy would really be flying.

What if it was another company instead of Wal-Mart? Say a computer manufacturer went there, and did not want to have a unionized shop and pulled out. Would you then consider that a loss?
Again, we have lots of computer manufacturers, so if one closes down, then the other will pick up the business.

There is far more unionized workplaces in Canada versus the US and it seems to work out well.

True, brother. Free health care for all!

France has the greatest healthcare system in the world... and their economy is going broke because of it. Does America really need that ? We've enough problems you want to stifle the driving force behind the American economy (american spending power). Large beurocracies breed corruption and inefficeny.. and the only reason why healthcare systems like Canada's thrives so well is because they take advantage of the fact that Americans pay for all the R&D producing those medications... and use purchasing power to get deep discounts... Canadian pharmisutcals could never produce goods like American companies. If not for the proximity to America.. Canada would be facing conditions very similar to France who now suffers growing pressure to privitize their Healthcare system (god forbid)

You people complain without realizing why it is some people are paid well and others not.. Lets not look at CEOs for high wages.. lets look at low level accountants.. These people have made companies compete over them. (who wants to sit around and read balance sheets all day or do auditing) Yet those willing to sacrifice their time are rewarded hansomly for their difficult jobs. And since there are so few companies compete feirsly to retain them. Yet the blue colar worker on an assembly line pulling a leaver thinking about how they are being taken advantage of because they are being paid 6 dollars an hour to pull that lever simply dont realize that they have not made themselves marketable. THey are a dime a dozen.. while your lucky to find anyone entering the ferensic accounting feild these days.. thats where the money is (big surprise).

I look at myself and see the results.. people complain about how hard the job market is.. I took time and a pay cut to make myself more marketable by volunteering and interning while working partime.. now a year later I can't keep the job offers away and am getting a pay raise from 9.75 an hour to 14 an hour.. I have my choice of where I want to work and can negotiate my wages with some liberty. And im just out of school only 22, The job market is suppose to be the hardest for me to enter now, yet i can because im MARKETABLE!!!

^.^ srry for the lecture
hell, one of my summer jobs i worked for elections canada. $12 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

another job i earned $10 something. i wasn't in a union... i was through an agency. which means absolutely no job security.

right now i have a part time job and it's unionized and i earn minimum wage, but it's impossible to fire me unless i steal from the company or something. *shrugs* i hate my job though, i'm thinking of getting my smart serve and finding a waitressing job where i can get tips at least. or see what i need to do to be a bartender. i mean, hey, if i can earn enough to put myself through school then i don't have to depend on my parents anymore.

of course my problem with finding well paying jobs is mainly that i'm still in school. though one of my friends knows of a place i could work doing data entry part time and earn more. i would rather find my own work though.

Both Reagan and Bush have used this method, and it has worked both times. In fact if we weren't pissing away 200Billion + over in Iraq, I think our economy would really be flying.
Reagan ended up increasing taxes if you check your facts. Also, when Reagan lower taxes, unemployment actually went up and the economy sputtered badly.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Reagan_the_Overrated.shtml

Even George H. W. Bush calls it "Voodoo Economics".

Could you explain why the US boarder towns are flooded with Canadians purchasing goods here in the US because the taxes in Canada are too high? Everytime I drive through Houlton ME, I see all the canadians going back over the border with their cars loaded down with stuff.
well, the sin taxes are high...

but hey at least when we gamble or win the lottery, that's tax free.

Again, we have lots of computer manufacturers, so if one closes down, then the other will pick up the business.

There is far more unionized workplaces in Canada versus the US and it seems to work out well.

On the contrary.. the US enjoys a far greater GDP and citizens have far more spending power then Canadians. I would also like to point out how many of Canadas entreprenors move to the US for the greater buisness opprotunity.. there is price to be paid for greater unionization.. brain drain !

I'm taking off. Thanks for the good discussion.

France has the greatest healthcare system in the world... and their economy is going broke because of it. Does America really need that ? We've enough problems you want to stifle the driving force behind the American economy (american spending power). Large beurocracies breed corruption and inefficeny.. and the only reason why healthcare systems like Canada's thrives so well is because they take advantage of the fact that Americans pay for all the R&D producing those medications... and use purchasing power to get deep discounts... Canadian pharmisutcals could never produce goods like American companies. If not for the proximity to America.. Canada would be facing conditions very similar to France who now suffers growing pressure to privitize their Healthcare system (god forbid)
Did you know that one of the reasons for escalating health care in the US is mainly due to bureaucracy? That and increasing insurance rates by an assortment of insurers who are responsible to no one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3908645/

Perhaps you should be concerned about the future of health care in the US?

On the contrary.. the US enjoys a far greater GDP and citizens have far more spending power then Canadians. I would also like to point out how many of Canadas entreprenors move to the US for the greater buisness opprotunity.. there is price to be paid for greater unionization.. brain drain !
Only 7k less per capita, and that's not including all the free stuff they get...

hell, one of my summer jobs i worked for elections canada. $12 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

another job i earned $10 something. i wasn't in a union... i was through an agency. which means absolutely no job security.

right now i have a part time job and it's unionized and i earn minimum wage, but it's impossible to fire me unless i steal from the company or something. *shrugs* i hate my job though, i'm thinking of getting my smart serve and finding a waitressing job where i can get tips at least. or see what i need to do to be a bartender. i mean, hey, if i can earn enough to put myself through school then i don't have to depend on my parents anymore.

of course my problem with finding well paying jobs is mainly that i'm still in school. though one of my friends knows of a place i could work doing data entry part time and earn more. i would rather find my own work though.

You just highlight my point.. those people sitting on assembly lines.. enjoying unionization (primarly the people cursing the blood sucking Capitalists) are paid so low simply because they are unionized and have not made themselves marketable.. If you were in the US and exploited your campegin experiance.. you would be raking in the dough right now.. that kind of experiance is invaluable.. even if you did almost nothing.

I suspect you underestimate such experiances and their potential value.. By the way ive been working as a waiter while doing my internships and volunteer work.. tips arn't as great as you might think.. the whole food industry sucks in my view and would not recomend it.. Thank god i can now reap the rewards of all my extracirruclar work and get an excellent paying job i will enjoy

Lowering taxes spurs economic growth. When the economy grows, tax revenue increases. It is a proven method that works.

I thought that was called voodoo.

Did you know that one of the reasons for escalating health care in the US is mainly due to bureaucracy? That and increasing insurance rates by an assortment of insurers who are responsible to no one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3908645/

Perhaps you should be concerned about the future of health care in the US?

In fact the rise in Healthcare in the US has little to do with Bureaucracy, atleast governmental Beuraucracy. The cost has more to do with defensive medical practices, and high insurance preimiums.. infact im quite concerned with the future of health care in the United States, which is why I support Bush's plan to place strict limits on LItigation awards, and empowering small buisnesses to pool healthcare costs.

Infact much of the great costs of our own drugs in this country is in part caused by Canada and other socialists countries who take advantage of purchasing power buying hugh amounts of pharmisutical products at grossly reduced costs.. While americans pay preimums which allow companies to sustain their R&D programs

On the contrary.. the US enjoys a far greater GDP and citizens have far more spending power then Canadians. I would also like to point out how many of Canadas entreprenors move to the US for the greater buisness opprotunity.. there is price to be paid for greater unionization.. brain drain !
I have to disagree with your statement. If you notice, Canada has been outperforming the US in GDP for the past 3 years. One of the main reasons is due to the US having an ever increasing trade deficit:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_2002_Dec/ai_98032822

Also in 3 of the past 4 years, Canada has led in regards to consumer confidence and growth.

Congratulations. Add some more people to Canada's unemployment line. Way to go Canucks.
How do you draw that conclusion? "Right to work" laws are an Orwellian subterfuge favoring employers interests at the expense of workers. If it were otherwise why would the employees feel the need to unionize a workplace?

In fact the rise in Healthcare in the US has little to do with Bureaucracy, atleast governmental Beuraucracy. The cost has more to do with defensive medical practices, and high insurance preimiums.. infact im quite concerned with the future of health care in the United States, which is why I support Bush's plan to place strict limits on LItigation awards, and empowering small buisnesses to pool healthcare costs.

Infact much of the great costs of our own drugs in this country is in part caused by Canada and other socialists countries who take advantage of purchasing power buying hugh amounts of pharmisutical products at grossly reduced costs.. While americans pay preimums which allow companies to sustain their R&D programs
I will agree with a part of your argument about drug costs but you should consider the other overwhelming facts:

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that.

I think you have good cause to be concerned with the future of health care in the US, but I do not believe that Bush has got the right answers. The number of people without health care coverage in the US has increased significantly under Bush.

You are wrong. Apology accepted. :D
Not wrong. See this:

Canadian Unemployment Rate (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm)

Shows the unemployment rate to be 7.0%. In the US, at last report, it is 5.2%.

Canadian income tax (look at the table with combined federal and provincial income tax) rates:

Canadian Income Tax (http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates)

The US federal income tax is:

US Income Tax (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133625,00.html)

Some states have income tax as well, but usually no more than 2%.

You just highlight my point.. those people sitting on assembly lines.. enjoying unionization (primarly the people cursing the blood sucking Capitalists) are paid so low simply because they are unionized and have not made themselves marketable.. If you were in the US and exploited your campegin experiance.. you would be raking in the dough right now.. that kind of experiance is invaluable.. even if you did almost nothing.

I suspect you underestimate such experiances and their potential value.. By the way ive been working as a waiter while doing my internships and volunteer work.. tips arn't as great as you might think.. the whole food industry sucks in my view and would not recomend it.. Thank god i can now reap the rewards of all my extracirruclar work and get an excellent paying job i will enjoy
1. my assembly line experience was through an agency. i could have been fired at any moment for anything. i was sexually harassed while i worked there by a company employee and i couldn't do anything unless i wanted to get fired.
2. my unionized job is at a grocery store. retail rarely pays above minimum wage for people who have no retail experience.
3. it wasn't a campaign. i did data entry for the government. i actually had to sign a form saying i wouldn't campaign or anything for the duration of the election to maintain impartiality (so people wouldn't think i was only registering say ndp voters)
4. the only reason i'm considering waitressing over my current job is that my current job is boring (also in food service... a grocery store... i make pizza) and i'm still a full time student during the year. it makes it hard to find a good job when you tell people you return to school after 4 months of working. the only real stuff is seasonal. i think i may see if i can get a job as one of the people who direct traffic in construction zones or something. they get like $20 an hour for nothing.

1. my assembly line experience was through an agency. i could have been fired at any moment for anything. i was sexually harassed while i worked there by a company employee and i couldn't do anything unless i wanted to get fired.
2. my unionized job is at a grocery store. retail rarely pays above minimum wage for people who have no retail experience.
3. it wasn't a campaign. i did data entry for the government. i actually had to sign a form saying i wouldn't campaign or anything for the duration of the election to maintain impartiality (so people wouldn't think i was only registering say ndp voters)
4. the only reason i'm considering waitressing over my current job is that my current job is boring (also in food service... a grocery store... i make pizza) and i'm still a full time student during the year. it makes it hard to find a good job when you tell people you return to school after 4 months of working. the only real stuff is seasonal. i think i may see if i can get a job as one of the people who direct traffic in construction zones or something. they get like $20 an hour for nothing.
$20 an hour for nothing. Hm. Your tax dollars at work . . .

I have to disagree with your statement. If you notice, Canada has been outperforming the US in GDP for the past 3 years. One of the main reasons is due to the US having an ever increasing trade deficit:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_2002_Dec/ai_98032822

Also in 3 of the past 4 years, Canada has led in regards to consumer confidence and growth.

your mis reading the information on that site.. Canada has out preformed in Growth true.. but the US still enjoys a higher overal GDP and disposible income levels

And if I were you I would check your numbers... Consumer Confidence indexes fluxate through each year.. and comparing the highs and lows of each year.. the consumer confidence of the United States outpreformed Canadian consumer Confidence by a dramatic margin in most cases..

consumer confidence in the US had highs of 124.3 in 2002, 123.2 in 2003, 127.0 in 2004, and now currently holds at 117 today.

Not wrong. See this:

Canadian Unemployment Rate (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm)

Shows the unemployment rate to be 7.0%. In the US, at last report, it is 5.2%.

Canadian income tax (look at the table with combined federal and provincial income tax) rates:

Canadian Income Tax (http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates)

The US federal income tax is:

US Income Tax (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133625,00.html)

Some states have income tax as well, but usually no more than 2%.
First off, our unemployment rates are at or near a statisical low. Secondly, our unemployment rates are actual unemployment rates, not like the US rates that are done by phone survey and include anyone who has worked for more than one hour for the month.

The US unemployment rates are hardly scientific and if they were calculated by a true unemployment method, the US rate would be close to 10%.

$20 an hour for nothing. Hm. Your tax dollars at work . . .
better to be on the receiving end of it. and i suppose they preform an important function... directing traffic so you don't end up with massive backups around construction zones. nor does it seem a particularly pleasant task. standing outside for 8 hours a day in the heat...

If the people don't like what a job pays, they don't have to work there.
You must live in The Fantastic Delusional State of Endless Possibilities which is straight across the poppy field from Oz. Not everyone has the ability to be so selective.

well, in the u.s. many people can't earn enough working full time on minumum wage to have both a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.

i think i would rather live somewhere that allows people a shot in hell at supporting themselves on minimum wage.

i actually don't earn enough to pay taxes, plus i end up with huge tax credits for being a student... so i pay nothing in taxes (which is why i can't wait until april when i get my refund) and even when i do, i'll be glad that i'll be helping others along the way.
Minimum-wage jobs are not meant to support families. They are meant as starting points for those just entering the workforce or needing some initial job experience, i.e. high school students earning money for college, college students to supplement college money from their parents, etc.

So you raise the minimum wage to 10$ an hour. The minimum cost of a product that takes an hour to produce just went up 4.75 (I think the current US is 5.25). All those products now cost almost 100% more. The minimum wage worker has to pay that increased cost as well. So there is no real gain, inflation increases, the employer hires fewer employees or cuts the hours of the employees he has, and the standard of living goes down.

First off, our unemployment rates are at or near a statisical low. Secondly, our unemployment rates are actual unemployment rates, not like the US rates that are done by phone survey and include anyone who has worked for more than one hour for the month.

The US unemployment rates are hardly scientific and if they were calculated by a true unemployment method, the US rate would be close to 10%.

... i dont think one single thing you said on US unemployment rates were true.. unemployment rates are not conducted by phone survey.. I dont know where you get your information from.. It is calculated by the number of people still trying to enter the job market... and the US has an extensive history of maintaining amazingly low unemployment rates.. unlike most European countries and even canada.. our lows were near 4.1 % though the 5.7 we are now are still considered good.

Inform your self on these statistics before you spout untruthful information.

First off, our unemployment rates are at or near a statisical low. Secondly, our unemployment rates are actual unemployment rates, not like the US rates that are done by phone survey and include anyone who has worked for more than one hour for the month.

The US unemployment rates are hardly scientific and if they were calculated by a true unemployment method, the US rate would be close to 10%.
Proof that Canadian unemployment rates are more "real"? Proof that US rate would be close to 10%? And I wouldn't brag that your "statistical low" is 7.0%!!!

... i dont think one single thing you said on US unemployment rates were true.. unemployment rates are not conducted by phone survey.. I dont know where you get your information from.. It is calculated by the number of people still trying to enter the job market... and the US has an extensive history of maintaining amazingly low unemployment rates.. unlike most European countries and even canada.. our lows were near 4.1 % though the 5.7 we are now are still considered good.

Inform your self on these statistics before you spout untruthful information.
Latest US unemployment rate is actually 5.2.

Latest US unemployment rate is actually 5.2.

sry i mean to say 5.2 i know.. it just decresed recently.. i belive from 5.4

Latest US unemployment rate is actually 5.2.
And Canada's participation rate is 2 points higher even when you include 15 year olds. Point?

Again how is this somehow GW Bush's fault? Or is this another anti-american rant? Who gives a rats ass that some canadians are unemployed. I dont! Those idiots that work there deserve those jobs. Same type of idiots that work for them in the US. Damn! Not everyone in this great world of ours can be paid $50 an hour and be a millionaire. Take your places in life. If you cant be smart enough to lift yourself out of poverty. You deserve to be there!

Minimum-wage jobs are not meant to support families. They are meant as starting points for those just entering the workforce or needing some initial job experience, i.e. high school students earning money for college, college students to supplement college money from their parents, etc.

So you raise the minimum wage to 10$ an hour. The minimum cost of a product that takes an hour to produce just went up 4.75 (I think the current US is 5.25). All those products now cost almost 100% more. The minimum wage worker has to pay that increased cost as well. So there is no real gain, inflation increases, the employer hires fewer employees or cuts the hours of the employees he has, and the standard of living goes down.

i never said to raise it to $10 an hour.

and in stores with unions, they tend to have some rate of increase in pay as you work there longer. for instance, if i stayed at my current job for 3 years or so i would be earning around $14 an hour for the exact same job. so hey, it's all well and good to start on somewhat liveable wages (if i worked 20 hours a week, i could easily support myself on minimum wage, but that's taking tuition out of the picture... and this is living in student housing... in a city that's cheap to live in...) if i were to stay at the same job long enough to get to the stage where i'm married and have a kid, well, by then i'd be getting a decent chunk of cash.

some people don't move out of menial jobs. for whatever reason, lack of opportunity for higher education, getting tied down with some sort of obligation and not being able to afford quitting and starting a new line of work et c. so at least giving them a raise every so oftennot only rewards long term employees, but allows them to live off their earnings.

for students and the like, it is possible to live off minimum wage here. i consider that to be rather important...

... i dont think one single thing you said on US unemployment rates were true.. unemployment rates are not conducted by phone survey.. I dont know where you get your information from.. It is calculated by the number of people still trying to enter the job market... and the US has an extensive history of maintaining amazingly low unemployment rates.. unlike most European countries and even canada.. our lows were near 4.1 % though the 5.7 we are now are still considered good.

Inform your self on these statistics before you spout untruthful information.
I don't just make stuff up you know. I do a lot of research and in this case, l I get the information from your very own Bureau of Labour Statistics:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Each month, 1,500 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the week that includes the 12th of the month (the reference week). This information, relating to all household members 16 years of age and over, is entered by the interviewers into laptop computers; at the end of each day's interviewing, the data collected are transmitted to the Census Bureau's central computer in Washington, D.C. In addition, a portion of the sample is interviewed by phone through two central data collection facilities.



http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123051/2093511/2093543/UnemploymentChart.gif

Now mind you, this chart is from the end of 2002 but it does back up my argument, as does the article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094690/

This chart shows the paths of this alternative measure—let's call it the adjusted unemployment rate—and the unemployment rate over the past several years. In December 2003, the adjusted unemployment rate was 9.9 percent, compared with 5.7 percent for the unemployment rate. In other words, on top of the 5.7 percent of the labor force who said they didn't have a job, a low figure by recent historical standards, 4.2 percent of the labor force was either marginally attached or wanted to work full-time but couldn't. That's a high figure by recent historical standards.

So make of it what you will.

US Unemployment Rate determination method:

US Unemployment Rate Methodology (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm)

Canadian Unemployment Rate determination method (you may have to dig):

Canadian Unemployment Rate Methodology (http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/3701.htm)

You are right when you say employment is counted by working only 1 hour a week in the US. I haven't yet determined from the Canadian website how they determine. Working . . .

Again how is this somehow GW Bush's fault? Or is this another anti-american rant? Who gives a rats ass that some canadians are unemployed. I dont! Those idiots that work there deserve those jobs. Same type of idiots that work for them in the US. Damn! Not everyone in this great world of ours can be paid $50 an hour and be a millionaire. Take your places in life. If you cant be smart enough to lift yourself out of poverty. You deserve to be there!
instead of scapegoating the victims of republican class warfare why dont you support an economy that benefits everyone?

Im sure Canadas unemployment level is lower then Americas

i never said to raise it to $10 an hour.

and in stores with unions, they tend to have some rate of increase in pay as you work there longer. for instance, if i stayed at my current job for 3 years or so i would be earning around $14 an hour for the exact same job. so hey, it's all well and good to start on somewhat liveable wages (if i worked 20 hours a week, i could easily support myself on minimum wage, but that's taking tuition out of the picture... and this is living in student housing... in a city that's cheap to live in...) if i were to stay at the same job long enough to get to the stage where i'm married and have a kid, well, by then i'd be getting a decent chunk of cash.

some people don't move out of menial jobs. for whatever reason, lack of opportunity for higher education, getting tied down with some sort of obligation and not being able to afford quitting and starting a new line of work et c. so at least giving them a raise every so oftennot only rewards long term employees, but allows them to live off their earnings.

for students and the like, it is possible to live off minimum wage here. i consider that to be rather important...

The reason why the impoverished remain poor is because we spend all our efforts telling the poor how poor they actually are and how they are being taken advantage of and giving them free hand-outs hardly suitable to fix the cause of their condition that they are never educated of the opprotunities infront of them... In most cases poor people have the greatest opprotunity to get a college education for next to nothing, if not for nothing through governmental grants and finacial aid. This is all that is needed to make them more markitable in this economy giving htem more opprotunity. I dont buy the fact that people are traped in their socio economic segment. In fact that is least true in this country then any other.. this is the only country where people can easily move out of their socioeconomic segment within their lifetime.

Proof that Canadian unemployment rates are more "real"? Proof that US rate would be close to 10%? And I wouldn't brag that your "statistical low" is 7.0%!!!
To collect unemployment insurance in Canada, the unemployed person has to submit documentation at a local Employment Insurance office. No paperwork = no funds.

Canada does not conduct telephone surveys to ascertain unemployment rates.

Also, unlike the US, Canada does not classify a person as employed who only works a minimum of 1 hour in a month.

i never said to raise it to $10 an hour.

and in stores with unions, they tend to have some rate of increase in pay as you work there longer. for instance, if i stayed at my current job for 3 years or so i would be earning around $14 an hour for the exact same job. so hey, it's all well and good to start on somewhat liveable wages (if i worked 20 hours a week, i could easily support myself on minimum wage, but that's taking tuition out of the picture... and this is living in student housing... in a city that's cheap to live in...) if i were to stay at the same job long enough to get to the stage where i'm married and have a kid, well, by then i'd be getting a decent chunk of cash.

some people don't move out of menial jobs. for whatever reason, lack of opportunity for higher education, getting tied down with some sort of obligation and not being able to afford quitting and starting a new line of work et c. so at least giving them a raise every so oftennot only rewards long term employees, but allows them to live off their earnings.

for students and the like, it is possible to live off minimum wage here. i consider that to be rather important...
The point wasn't the actual number ($10), the point was that minimum-wage jobs cannot be and should not be considered as living wages. Every time that wage increases, the people working at the current minimum wage get hurt, because employers will cut hours or just cut employees to save the difference in costs to running their business. Menial jobs are just that - menial, and should be paid according to supply and demand. Like it or not, there is a huge supply of people who can do menial jobs, and a rather small supply of people who can do, say, chemical engineering, and they are compensated accordingly.

for what..the benifit of the US ? for his benifit ? who exactly is benifiting in these class warfare policies you describe.. oh yes.. every other nation other then the US... i agree free trade is trash, NAFTA an abomination and i damn the administration who brought it in to existance >.> (Clinton administration)
It was a bipartisan decision. Bush Sr. & Co. was on his "new world order" rant and supported NAFTA, et. al.. The thinking was it would help the corporate bottom lines by opening up cheaper labor south & north of the border and ending the tariffs for doing so.

Im sure Canadas unemployment level is lower then Americas

I can tell you quite difinitavly right now its not.. Canadian unemployment is 7%.. unemployment in the United States is 5.2%

look it up for yourself

I can tell you quite difinitavly right now its not.. Canadian unemployment is 7%.. unemployment in the United States is 5.2%

look it up for yourself
anything from the Bush administration is a pathological lie. Im sure theres an independent source of true information that must have the real figures. Ill post them when I find it

Apparently not. Canada needs all the industry that it can get, I don't see Walmart pulling out of there as a win for Canada.

Wal-Mart isn't industry.

If Wal-Mart is going to leave town because a store wants to unionize it's their loss, there's more then one 'big box' retailer in Canada and someone else will move in, or maybe the 60 mom and pop stores that Wal-Mart forced to close(because they didn't exclusively carry sweatshop brand products) might just make a come back.

One less Wal-Mart is only a temporary loss for a town.

the world economy would be far better off if Walmart was forced into bankruptcy

To collect unemployment insurance in Canada, the unemployed person has to submit documentation at a local Employment Insurance office. No paperwork = no funds.

Canada does not conduct telephone surveys to ascertain unemployment rates.

Also, unlike the US, Canada does not classify a person as employed who only works a minimum of 1 hour in a month.

First of all.. just like Canada.. if you want to collect social security benifits while unemployed.. guess what.. you have to submit paper work.. no paper work.. no money.. and guess what.. JUST LIKE CANADA an the unemployment rate is determined by the number of people attempting to enter or looking to enter the work force.

please stop Spouting this trash your putting out as credible information when it is clearly NOT!

I don't just make stuff up you know. I do a lot of research and in this case, l I get the information from your very own Bureau of Labour Statistics:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Each month, 1,500 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the week that includes the 12th of the month (the reference week). This information, relating to all household members 16 years of age and over, is entered by the interviewers into laptop computers; at the end of each day's interviewing, the data collected are transmitted to the Census Bureau's central computer in Washington, D.C. In addition, a portion of the sample is interviewed by phone through two central data collection facilities.



http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123051/2093511/2093543/UnemploymentChart.gif

Now mind you, this chart is from the end of 2002 but it does back up my argument, as does the article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094690/

This chart shows the paths of this alternative measure—let's call it the adjusted unemployment rate—and the unemployment rate over the past several years. In December 2003, the adjusted unemployment rate was 9.9 percent, compared with 5.7 percent for the unemployment rate. In other words, on top of the 5.7 percent of the labor force who said they didn't have a job, a low figure by recent historical standards, 4.2 percent of the labor force was either marginally attached or wanted to work full-time but couldn't. That's a high figure by recent historical standards.

So make of it what you will.
The articles you cite are from Slate.com, a notoriously liberal online journal. They actually did an article on who each employee there would vote for:

Slate Vote Tallies (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108717)

46 for Kerry, 5 for Bush, 1 for Badnarek.

Hardly an impartial source. You are correct about the labor statistic methodology, however.

I can tell you quite difinitavly right now its not.. Canadian unemployment is 7%.. unemployment in the United States is 5.2%

look it up for yourself
Again, those are just two rates. The US rate is actually higher when considering the web site that I posted.

anything from the Bush administration is a pathological lie. Im sure theres an independent source of true information that must have the real figures. Ill post them when I find it

stupidity.. Bush is far less powerful then you make him out to be.. you think this is China or North Korea where the only source of information is the president ?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/02/04/usjobs-050204.html

and every other major finacial group who studies such things indepth..

The reason why the impoverished remain poor is because we spend all our efforts telling the poor how poor they actually are and how they are being taken advantage of and giving them free hand-outs hardly suitable to fix the cause of their condition that they are never educated of the opprotunities infront of them... In most cases poor people have the greatest opprotunity to get a college education for next to nothing, if not for nothing through governmental grants and finacial aid. This is all that is needed to make them more markitable in this economy giving htem more opprotunity. I dont buy the fact that people are traped in their socio economic segment. In fact that is least true in this country then any other.. this is the only country where people can easily move out of their socioeconomic segment within their lifetime.
i'm not saying to give them handouts... i'm saying give them at least some room to move up in terms of menial jobs. give them opportunity to earn living wages if they work somewhere long enough...

take my manager at work. she didn't go to higher education, instead she got married, had a kid and i'm assuming got divorced or something... she doesn't talk about that part... at any rate, she is a single mother. she started the same place i did, earning minimum wage, got increases in pay as she went along, started working as a full time person and then after so long of that, became manager of the department. she is now salaried and well, reasonably well off

due to the fact that the store we work in is unionized, there is health insurance to cover medications and things that aren't covered by ohip. it also means that the company can't completely fuck you over like say what happened to my boyfriend who worked in a non-unionized job. he got injured on the job and his company deceided to say it was a preexisting condition despite all the doctors he saw saying otherwise. he couldn't afford to fight the claim and was more worried about his health than anything when the chance to fight it expired. meanwhile, if i get injured on the job, i get disability pay, if they try to get out of it, i get the union to fight it for me. i get health benefits as a part time worker, i can't get fired because someone doesn't like me... and hey, if someone sexually harasses me at work, i can do something about it, unlike at my previous non-union job.

First of all.. just like Canada.. if you want to collect social security benifits while unemployed.. guess what.. you have to submit paper work.. no paper work.. no money.. and guess what.. JUST LIKE CANADA an the unemployment rate is determined by the number of people attempting to enter or looking to enter the work force.

please stop Spouting this trash your putting out as credible information when it is clearly NOT!
How is mine trash, when I back it up with credible information. I don't see you posting ANYTHING to back up your assertions. If you choose to wallow in your beliefs rather than relying on facts than that is your choice, but to call my information trash, well then I think you need to take a serious run at disproving my posts rather than just bad mouthing me?

Otherwise your credibility = zero?

Again, those are just two rates. The US rate is actually higher when considering the web site that I posted.

Here is a fascinating paper comparing just the statistics we are talking about. I haven't read the entire article, but the upshot seems to be, at least with regards to what we are debating, that the two statistics, while there are some differences, are comparable and similar in their measures of the unemployment rates in both Canada and the US:

US/Canadian Unemployment Rate Comparison (http://www.csls.ca/journals/cpp0.asp)

no hes not controlling Walmart directly--but he enables a climate of corporate fascism

Last I checked, Congress wrote the laws and the president signs them. Correct me if my perception of the system set up by our constitution is completely off base.

i'm not saying to give them handouts... i'm saying give them at least some room to move up in terms of menial jobs. give them opportunity to earn living wages if they work somewhere long enough...

take my manager at work. she didn't go to higher education, instead she got married, had a kid and i'm assuming got divorced or something... she doesn't talk about that part... at any rate, she is a single mother. she started the same place i did, earning minimum wage, got increases in pay as she went along, started working as a full time person and then after so long of that, became manager of the department. she is now salaried and well, reasonably well off

due to the fact that the store we work in is unionized, there is health insurance to cover medications and things that aren't covered by ohip. it also means that the company can't completely fuck you over like say what happened to my boyfriend who worked in a non-unionized job. he got injured on the job and his company deceided to say it was a preexisting condition despite all the doctors he saw saying otherwise. he couldn't afford to fight the claim and was more worried about his health than anything when the chance to fight it expired. meanwhile, if i get injured on the job, i get disability pay, if they try to get out of it, i get the union to fight it for me. i get health benefits as a part time worker, i can't get fired because someone doesn't like me... and hey, if someone sexually harasses me at work, i can do something about it, unlike at my previous non-union job.
If you are unionized, you don't get paid extra for doing better work, thus, you cannot "move up in terms of menial jobs", because you get paid the same regardless. And many companies provide health insurance without prompting by a union.

How is mine trash, when I back it up with credible information. I don't see you posting ANYTHING to back up your assertions. If you choose to wallow in your beliefs rather than relying on facts than that is your choice, but to call my information trash, well then I think you need to take a serious run at disproving my posts rather than just bad mouthing me?

Otherwise your credibility = zero?

... I can't belive i was draged into this type of argument.. im usualy so good at avoiding them.. seeing how I dont need to defend the fact that 5.2% unemployment rate is a credible statistic i will make this point clear..

go to OECD.org .. this website.. the Organizatino of economic Co-opperation and Development will explain to you the standarized methods by which unemployment rates are caluclated among member states including the US and Canada..

I might also add that if what you say about Canadian unemployment statistics are true.. you can aswell expect that 7.0% to be higher if the national unemployment rate is solely calcuated by those people registered at the labor department collecting benifits.. Individuals not collecting benifits yet still seeking employment are as well suppose to be included in that unemployment rate. Excluding this population one might expect that % of unemployment to be dramatically higher.. though i expect you're uninformed on how Canada actually assesses its unemployment rate and this number of people is actually considered in thier calculation

... I can't belive i was draged into this type of argument.. im usualy so good at avoiding them.. seeing how I dont need to defend the fact that 5.2% unemployment rate is a credible statistic i will make this point clear..

go to OECD.org .. this website.. the Organizatino of economic Co-opperation and Development will explain to you the standarized methods by which unemployment rates are caluclated among member states including the US and Canada..

I might also add that if what you say about Canadian unemployment statistics are true.. you can aswell expect that 7.0% to be higher if the national unemployment rate is solely calcuated by those people registered at the labor department collecting benifits.. Individuals not collecting benifits yet still seeking employment are as well suppose to be included in that unemployment rate. Excluding this population one might expect that % of unemployment to be dramatically higher.. though i expect you're uninformed on how Canada actually assesses its unemployment rate and this number of people is actually considered in thier calculation
Invidentia, take a look at my last post #185 and look at the website there. That paper was written by Canadians and seems to support our arguement that unemployment in the US is less than that of Canada, "for real".

Notice that no one has contested income tax rate differences between the two...

If you are unionized, you don't get paid extra for doing better work, thus, you cannot "move up in terms of menial jobs", because you get paid the same regardless. And many companies provide health insurance without prompting by a union.
actually, if i impress my boss, i can jump ahead in terms of pay when the pay increase period comes up.

furthermore, we're not talking highly skilled jobs here... and it is possible to move up. how do you think managers get to be managers?

Notice that no one has contested income tax rate differences between the two...
...no shit...

i get better services from my government though and we've got a surplus instead of a massive defecit... what's your point?

actually, if i impress my boss, i can jump ahead in terms of pay when the pay increase period comes up.

furthermore, we're not talking highly skilled jobs here... and it is possible to move up. how do you think managers get to be managers?
By no longer being in the union ...

You cannot jump ahead, because you only get what the union says you should get, unless your union works differently ...

Here is a fascinating paper comparing just the statistics we are talking about. I haven't read the entire article, but the upshot seems to be, at least with regards to what we are debating, that the two statistics, while there are some differences, are comparable and similar in their measures of the unemployment rates in both Canada and the US:

US/Canadian Unemployment Rate Comparison (http://www.csls.ca/journals/cpp0.asp)
Certainly an in depth document and it does clearly spell out at least one major difference between the two countries. Canadians who just "looked at ads", were considered as unemployed in that country, while the same people in the US were considered not attached to the worforce, therefore not considered as unemployed.

One drawback to this document, is that it is a bit outdated.

One big question. In Canada, maternity leave is paid by unemployment insurance for up to one year and can be shared between the parents. Does the US have paid maternity leave?

...no shit...

i get better services from my government though and we've got a surplus instead of a massive defecit... what's your point?
I'm sure you do get better services. I get more choice. Your government decides what kind of services you get. I decide what kind of services I get. Right about the deficit, though.

Certainly an in depth document and it does clearly spell out at least one major difference between the two countries. Canadians who just "looked at ads", were considered as unemployed in that country, while the same people in the US were considered not attached to the worforce, therefore not considered as unemployed.

One drawback to this document, is that it is a bit outdated.

One big question. In Canada, maternity leave is paid by unemployment insurance for up to one year and can be shared between the parents. Does the US have paid maternity leave?
Not paid. Unpaid leave is federally mandated throught the recently passed FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act):

"Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

*for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
*for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
*to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
*to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition." From the US Department of Labor website.

Basically it protects the employee's job for the period of time they are gone on leave. Many of the larger corporations make this leave paid as a benefit to lure potential employees, but it is not mandatory.

... I can't belive i was draged into this type of argument.. im usualy so good at avoiding them.. seeing how I dont need to defend the fact that 5.2% unemployment rate is a credible statistic i will make this point clear..

go to OECD.org .. this website.. the Organizatino of economic Co-opperation and Development will explain to you the standarized methods by which unemployment rates are caluclated among member states including the US and Canada..

I might also add that if what you say about Canadian unemployment statistics are true.. you can aswell expect that 7.0% to be higher if the national unemployment rate is solely calcuated by those people registered at the labor department collecting benifits.. Individuals not collecting benifits yet still seeking employment are as well suppose to be included in that unemployment rate. Excluding this population one might expect that % of unemployment to be dramatically higher.. though i expect you're uninformed on how Canada actually assesses its unemployment rate and this number of people is actually considered in thier calculation
You seem to be glued to your 5.2% figure regardless of information posted that might indicate that that figure is not a "true" figure. I have to give credit to Selgin though in that he at least posts links to augment his case.

...no shit...

i get better services from my government though and we've got a surplus instead of a massive defecit... what's your point?

America also enjoys 3 to 4 percent anual GDP growth.. while Canada is stagnant at 1.7% GDP growth... there is a good point

Not paid. Unpaid leave is federally mandated throught the recently passed FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act):

"Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

*for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
*for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
*to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
*to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition." From the US Department of Labor website.

Basically it protects the employee's job for the period of time they are gone on leave. Many of the larger corporations make this leave paid as a benefit to lure potential employees, but it is not mandatory.
WOW!! Then that one year "paid" maternity/paternity leave is a huge benefit that Canadians enjoy over their US counterparts.

WOW!! Then that one year "paid" maternity/paternity leave is a huge benefit that Canadians enjoy over their US counterparts.
True. But that "paid" maternity/paternity leave is indeed paid by someone: the Canadian taxpayer. Not saying I wouldn't like the same here for when I had each of my three kids, but I would rather have the choice to either save the money to do such a thing or structure my family income so that we can live on one income for a year - which would be impossible if taxed at a rate to make all the social programs available in Canada available here as well, IMHO.

By no longer being in the union ...

You cannot jump ahead, because you only get what the union says you should get, unless your union works differently ...
no, i can move up faster if i work harder.

i just have to wait until i get 300 hours, but after that point, i can jump a couple levels of pay if i realyl do well.

furthermore, the full time people are still part of the union and they've moved up from part time.

and you completely ignored the whole bit about the union actually taking care of you should you get injured at work or treated unfairly or hell, sexually harassed, didn't you? because it goes against your union=bad mentality.

i'll be the first to admit i'm not terribly fond of having to pay union dues, but better that than get fucked over by the company later on.

this isn't a job i want to keep forever, but for now it's alright, if boring and annoying at times (you would think that people would deceide beforehand what they want before ordering, right?)

You seem to be glued to your 5.2% figure regardless of information posted that might indicate that that figure is not a "true" figure. I have to give credit to Selgin though in that he at least posts links to augment his case.

If you actuall paid attention to my post though.. you would see that there is a standarized method by which to determine the unemployment rate. And i also pointed out that if the unemployment rate of Canada is determined as you so say.. we can expect that Canada neither expresses a "true" unemployment rate, since it only takes into account those people registered with the department of labor drawing on benifits. And does not account for those people looking for work yet who are not drawing on benifits.

essentially im saying the numbers are quite comparible by the methods each country uses. The unemployment rate in the US is not determined just by phone survey but by a forumula in which the number of people looking for work is divided by the number of people in the labor force.

I stick to the 5.2 % number because it is for all intensive purposes statisically accurate.. and youve provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.. i think the thosuands of experts that came before you are far more credible that your bantering

So when you come up with a site saying the US unemployment rate is actually now at 10% perhaps i shall take a second look at your otherwise frivlious accusations...

you say i have zero credibility because i do not present evidence.. but i take the side of an overly informed and studied subject by those experts far more qualified then you or me.. while you.. draw numbers from thin air

True. But that "paid" maternity/paternity leave is indeed paid by someone: the Canadian taxpayer. Not saying I wouldn't like the same here for when I had each of my three kids, but I would rather have the choice to either save the money to do such a thing or structure my family income so that we can live on one income for a year - which would be impossible if taxed at a rate to make all the social programs available in Canada available here as well, IMHO.
uh... maternity leave here isn't paid... it's a placeholder.

believe me, i get bored on breaks and we've got a thing posted in the break room about all the worker's rights.

edit: oh, except for employment insurance...

but that's not really from tax dollars, you pay into it as you work...

America also enjoys 3 to 4 percent anual GDP growth.. while Canada is stagnant at 1.7% GDP growth... there is a good point
That rate is only for the 4th quarter due to the increase in value of the Canadian dollar against the Us dollar. Previously, Canada was 3.2% in the 3rd quarter. It is expected that Canada's GDP will return to 3.25% in 2005.

*this is another example of how the terrorist in the WhiteHouse is exporting his culture of corporate fascism internationally and threaten to bankrupt the world economy the same way hes destroying the American economy at home :gundge:

Go peddle your garbage where it belongs: with the proleteriate masses in Loony Land.

uh... maternity leave here isn't paid... it's a placeholder.

believe me, i get bored on breaks and we've got a thing posted in the break room about all the worker's rights.
Actually, it is a paid leave as well as a job holder:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml#Who

That rate is only for the 4th quarter due to the increase in value of the Canadian dollar against the Us dollar. Previously, Canada was 3.2% in the 3rd quarter. It is expected that Canada's GDP will return to 3.25% in 2005.

why is the value of the canadian dollar expected to drop dramatially.. your trying to tell me that GDP growth HALVED because of a currency value change.. im quite sure the Canadian dollar didn't rise that dramatically.. and dont see how they can expect GDP growth to double again absent a drop in the canadian dollar value

no, i can move up faster if i work harder.

i just have to wait until i get 300 hours, but after that point, i can jump a couple levels of pay if i realyl do well.

furthermore, the full time people are still part of the union and they've moved up from part time.

and you completely ignored the whole bit about the union actually taking care of you should you get injured at work or treated unfairly or hell, sexually harassed, didn't you? because it goes against your union=bad mentality.

i'll be the first to admit i'm not terribly fond of having to pay union dues, but better that than get fucked over by the company later on.

this isn't a job i want to keep forever, but for now it's alright, if boring and annoying at times (you would think that people would deceide beforehand what they want before ordering, right?)
I didn't address it, but I did not ignore it. My wife is in the teacher's union, and it served her well in a dustup with the principal at her last school. Unions do serve a purpose in legal protection, but do not serve their members well when they negotiate the same payscale for everyone. Also, often the union bosses are corrupt (Teamsters Union, anyone?). And it makes it practically impossible to fire someone even for the grossest imcompetence.

And I, as a dutiful fast-food consumer, completely agree that someone should decide in line BEFORE getting to the register! It makes me wait longer! And I'm not nice when I'm hungry!!!! :D

Actually, it is a paid leave as well as a job holder:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml#Who
yeah, i checked somewhere else

Will I get paid?
Maternity leave is unpaid, but you might be entitled to maternity benefits. These are provided under Employment Insurance.

i edited my post for the correction.

and for a rebuttal of the earlier statement that the payment over maternity leave comes out of tax dollars. it does not.

http://www.workrights.ca/Taking+time+off/Maternity.htm

damn, that link is out of date. the minimum wage has increased twice in ontario since.

uh... maternity leave here isn't paid... it's a placeholder.

believe me, i get bored on breaks and we've got a thing posted in the break room about all the worker's rights.

edit: oh, except for employment insurance...

but that's not really from tax dollars, you pay into it as you work...
Sounds like a tax to me, but tax or not, it does come from your pocket.

Sounds like a tax to me, but tax or not, it does come from your pocket.
not really. the person who is about to go on maternity leave has been paying into this insurance as well, it is coming out of their employment insurance plan.

my boyfriend is applying for employment insurance since he has been unable to work due to his injury and well, he was paying into the damn thing for three years so he might as well get something for it.

also, if it was a tax, then i could get a refund on that too coming this april...

however that part of my pay is gone forever. :'( (or until i'm unemployed with good reason..)

Funny thing. If Wal-Mart closed a store in the US because the employees organized and then voted to form a collective barganing unit (in other words unionized), they would probably get into a shit load of trouble from the government for unfair labor practices. (Unless they had a damn good pretext for closing like the store was bankrupting the company).

Unionize another Wal-Mart, another and then another until they shut them all down ! The workers have a right to organize, Wal_mart has the right to shut down. If you back down from them it's just another nail in the coffin of the middle class.

Not wrong. See this:

Canadian Unemployment Rate (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm)

Shows the unemployment rate to be 7.0%. In the US, at last report, it is 5.2%.

Canadian income tax (look at the table with combined federal and provincial income tax) rates:

Canadian Income Tax (http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates)

The US federal income tax is:

US Income Tax (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133625,00.html)

Some states have income tax as well, but usually no more than 2%.
2%! Not in NYC!

Setting aside all other forms of taxation such as property, sales, transfer, estate, etc. and factoring in health insurance cost using pre tax earnings, on a $52,000.00 income it looks like this;

Income.......... $52,000.00
Federal.......... $ 8,295.04 = 15.952%
SS................ $ 3,224.00 = 6.200%
Medicaid........ $ .. 754.00 = 1.450%
State............ $ 3,138.72 = 6.036%
City.............. $ 1,554.80 = 2.990%
All Taxes...... $16,996.56 = 32.628%

*Hlth Ins. ..... $10,390.07 = 19.980%
Combined....... $27,356.63 = 52.609%

NET................$24,643.37 = 47.391%

From here Canada looks pretty good.

First off, our unemployment rates are at or near a statisical low. Secondly, our unemployment rates are actual unemployment rates, not like the US rates that are done by phone survey and include anyone who has worked for more than one hour for the month.

The US unemployment rates are hardly scientific and if they were calculated by a true unemployment method, the US rate would be close to 10%.
In support of your argument, the US rates only reflect those actually collecting Unemployment Benefits. After 6 months they expire. So if a college grad can't find work in 6 months plus a day he is no longer counted. Additionally if that grad is now driving a taxi because he can't find suitable work but enjoys eating from time to time, he is statistically employed.

If you actuall paid attention to my post though.. you would see that there is a standarized method by which to determine the unemployment rate. And i also pointed out that if the unemployment rate of Canada is determined as you so say.. we can expect that Canada neither expresses a "true" unemployment rate, since it only takes into account those people registered with the department of labor drawing on benifits. And does not account for those people looking for work yet who are not drawing on benifits.

essentially im saying the numbers are quite comparible by the methods each country uses. The unemployment rate in the US is not determined just by phone survey but by a forumula in which the number of people looking for work is divided by the number of people in the labor force.

I stick to the 5.2 % number because it is for all intensive purposes statisically accurate.. and youve provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.. i think the thosuands of experts that came before you are far more credible that your bantering

So when you come up with a site saying the US unemployment rate is actually now at 10% perhaps i shall take a second look at your otherwise frivlious accusations...

you say i have zero credibility because i do not present evidence.. but i take the side of an overly informed and studied subject by those experts far more qualified then you or me.. while you.. draw numbers from thin air
Numbers from "thin air"? Hardly....

If you feel comfortable with the fact that the US employment statistics include people who work at least 1 hour during the survey, as being employed, and that people looking at ads are considered not part of the workforce than good for you. If you choose to ignore the Slate chart that I posted than good for you. It really doesn't matter to me and it makes me think of the following lyrics:

"All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

Simon and Garfunkel

A union needs to realize that a companies success and an employees salary and benefits are related. Many union (I'm not saying yours) don't seem to realize that if the company fails, the workers will be without jobs.



And companies need to realize that their employees are key to their success as well. The firms that shit on those that do the work eventually find themselves full of shit.

Minimum-wage jobs are not meant to support families. They are meant as starting points for those just entering the workforce or needing some initial job experience, i.e. high school students earning money for college, college students to supplement college money from their parents, etc.

So you raise the minimum wage to 10$ an hour. The minimum cost of a product that takes an hour to produce just went up 4.75 (I think the current US is 5.25). All those products now cost almost 100% more. The minimum wage worker has to pay that increased cost as well. So there is no real gain, inflation increases, the employer hires fewer employees or cuts the hours of the employees he has, and the standard of living goes down.
This looks right on paper. But prices increase ragardless even as wages deflate in real dollars.

... i dont think one single thing you said on US unemployment rates were true.. unemployment rates are not conducted by phone survey.. I dont know where you get your information from.. It is calculated by the number of people still trying to enter the job market... and the US has an extensive history of maintaining amazingly low unemployment rates.. unlike most European countries and even canada.. our lows were near 4.1 % though the 5.7 we are now are still considered good.

Inform your self on these statistics before you spout untruthful information.
See above & then spout off. The US stats are a sham.

2%! Not in NYC!

Setting aside all other forms of taxation such as property, sales, transfer, estate, etc. and factoring in health insurance cost using pre tax earnings, on a $52,000.00 income it looks like this;

Income.......... $52,000.00
Federal.......... $ 8,295.04 = 15.952%
SS................ $ 3,224.00 = 6.200%
Medicaid........ $ .. 754.00 = 1.450%
State............ $ 3,138.72 = 6.036%
City.............. $ 1,554.80 = 2.990%
All Taxes...... $16,996.56 = 32.628%

*Hlth Ins. ..... $10,390.07 = 19.980%
Combined....... $27,356.63 = 52.609%

NET................$24,643.37 = 47.391%

From here Canada looks pretty good.


You forgot your deductoin(s)/exemptions.

Also, what's with the hlth ins costs. (plus around $6000 of that is tax deductible IIRC)

2%! Not in NYC!

Setting aside all other forms of taxation such as property, sales, transfer, estate, etc. and factoring in health insurance cost using pre tax earnings, on a $52,000.00 income it looks like this;

Income.......... $52,000.00
Federal.......... $ 8,295.04 = 15.952%
SS................ $ 3,224.00 = 6.200%
Medicaid........ $ .. 754.00 = 1.450%
State............ $ 3,138.72 = 6.036%
City.............. $ 1,554.80 = 2.990%
All Taxes...... $16,996.56 = 32.628%

*Hlth Ins. ..... $10,390.07 = 19.980%
Combined....... $27,356.63 = 52.609%

NET................$24,643.37 = 47.391%

From here Canada looks pretty good.

... what is city tax I dont pay it? as well health insurance is vastly different for everyone...usually included in your annual salary in the form of benifits not subtracted from your salary as you've identified here.. unless of course your making 52k minus benifits which isn't a very good deal at all.. and if ur living in NYC your more likely then not to be making more then that ... Your most accurate figure is the 32.6% in annual taxes.. even if u include the 20% extra you have to take out from health insurance which is outragous at best if ur not getting that included as benifits from your company ... your still only payin gout 52.6% in taxes.. as far as i know Canadians pay upward of 60% of their annual salaries in taxes.. so is canada looking pretty good ?

Now that I think of it, health care should be around 3500 at most, even if you are paying the whole thing.

Even the super ultra super dooper plan wouldn't be more than 6000-7000 for a family.

stupidity.. Bush is far less powerful then you make him out to be.. you think this is China or North Korea where the only source of information is the president ?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/02/04/usjobs-050204.html

and every other major finacial group who studies such things indepth..
The article you cite merely reports the USDOL press release. It is the usual unadjusted figure.

In support of your argument, the US rates only reflect those actually collecting Unemployment Benefits. After 6 months they expire. So if a college grad can't find work in 6 months plus a day he is no longer counted. Additionally if that grad is now driving a taxi because he can't find suitable work but enjoys eating from time to time, he is statistically employed.

that is untrue.. the unemployment rate is calucated by determining the number of people looking to enter to labor force.. so if someone is working only 1 hour a week.. but is no longer looking for work.. then he is not counted in the unemployment rate.. if u actually listened to the argument of the person who you are agreeing with.. he stated that unemployment rates are determined through phone surveys.. (Which is actually part of the process i admit). If it were deteremined only by people collecting unemployment benefits.. there would be no need phone surveys would there.. and college grads arn't eligable for unemployment benefits unless they were laid off from some other job.. you just dont come out of school and start collecting benifits.. it is Canada according to the other fellow who determines their unemployment rate by those people registered with the labor department.. not the US

... what is city tax I dont pay it? as well health insurance is vastly different for everyone...usually included in your annual salary in the form of benifits not subtracted from your salary as you've identified here.. unless of course your making 52k minus benifits which isn't a very good deal at all.. and if ur living in NYC your more likely then not to be making more then that ... Your most accurate figure is the 32.6% in annual taxes.. even if u include the 20% extra you have to take out from health insurance which is outragous at best if ur not getting that included as benifits from your company ... your still only payin gout 52.6% in taxes.. as far as i know Canadians pay upward of 60% of their annual salaries in taxes.. so is canada looking pretty good ?
what are you talking about?

in ontario, the most you end up paying is 40%, not 60%.

http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#ONTaxRates

the highest rate is in quebec with slightly over 50... but hey, that's quebec.

The article you cite merely reports the USDOL press release. It is the usual unadjusted figure.

even if it is not adjusted.. if the number were to change so dramatically to 10% (a number which has not been reached since the great depression) then the 5.2 % wouldn't even be worth mentioning if it suddently doubled.. You people are uninformed have no basis for your arguments and facts to back any of this crap up with.. until i see some numbers, ill just write u off for what you are.. kids who dont know crap about unemployment

Last I checked, Congress wrote the laws and the president signs them. Correct me if my perception of the system set up by our constitution is completely off base.
Can you say Bureaucracy? The various elements of the executive branch to which the president appoints directors.

If you are unionized, you don't get paid extra for doing better work, thus, you cannot "move up in terms of menial jobs", because you get paid the same regardless. And many companies provide health insurance without prompting by a union.
That is absurd. Apparently you've never spent any significant time in a union shop. Talent, ability & work ethic are definitely recognized by management by way of placing that person in positions of greater responsibility.

what are you talking about?

in ontario, the most you end up paying is 40%, not 60%.

http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#ONTaxRates

the highest rate is in quebec with slightly over 50... but hey, that's quebec.

admitadly i dont know much about Canadian tax rates thats why i said as far as i know.. in the US however the rates are dramatically lower then what that other fellow stated.. after the tax cuts the greatest tax one must pay now i belive is 32% which will drop to 29% i belive if Bush's tax cuts are made permanent.

That is absurd. Apparently you've never spent any significant time in a union shop. Talent, ability & work ethic are definitely recognized by management by way of placing that person in positions of greater responsibility.
that's why i was the first person who experienced the joy of closing by themselves...

it's also why my manager tends to ask me if i can work before the people with more seniority (which she really isn't supposed to do) if i can work an extra shift. that plus i have no life and am more likely to come in for said extra shift.

admitadly i dont know much about Canadian tax rates thats why i said as far as i know.. in the US however the rates are dramatically lower then what that other fellow stated.. after the tax cuts the greatest tax one must pay now i belive is 32% which will drop to 29% i belive if Bush's tax cuts are made permanent.
well, given my status as a broke-ass student, i'll be paying 22%... but since i'm going to be earning less than $17,000 i don't think i have to pay anything whatsoever.

and i get everything back... due to tax credits for two previous years of schooling that i didnt' earn enough to use.

even if it is not adjusted.. if the number were to change so dramatically to 10% (a number which has not been reached since the great depression) then the 5.2 % wouldn't even be worth mentioning if it suddently doubled.. You people are uninformed have no basis for your arguments and facts to back any of this crap up with.. until i see some numbers, ill just write u off for what you are.. kids who dont know crap about unemployment
Kids? I wouldn't expect my 21 year old son to support an argument in the fashion that you have chosen. But enough of the ad hominen attacks. If I have offended you by retaliation, I sincerely do apologize.

This forum can be beneficial if people are willing to share information in a civilized manner, which allows us to gain a better understanding of each other and our lives.

That is absurd. Apparently you've never spent any significant time in a union shop. Talent, ability & work ethic are definitely recognized by management by way of placing that person in positions of greater responsibility.
This is absolutely true and the "greater responsibility" could materialize as a higher paying job in the ranks of management.

... what is city tax I dont pay it? as well health insurance is vastly different for everyone...usually included in your annual salary in the form of benifits not subtracted from your salary as you've identified here.. unless of course your making 52k minus benifits which isn't a very good deal at all.. and if ur living in NYC your more likely then not to be making more then that ... Your most accurate figure is the 32.6% in annual taxes.. even if u include the 20% extra you have to take out from health insurance which is outragous at best if ur not getting that included as benifits from your company ... your still only payin gout 52.6% in taxes.. as far as i know Canadians pay upward of 60% of their annual salaries in taxes.. so is canada looking pretty good ?
NYC has an income tax. If you don't pay it, you don't live here.
Good deal or not, health insurance is not a given. Many smaller companies do not offer it or offer an extremely modest hospitalization plan which must be supplemented by individual policies.
The salary I used makes the numbers easier to see. Your assumption that the workers in NYC (management aside) make more than $1,000.00 a week is misplaced. The majority make less.
The Hlth Ins (Health Insurance) figure is based on pre tax earnings necessary at that tax rate to arrive at $7,000.00 net pa.
As for the Canadian rates, I used the Canadian tax link (http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates) you provided. None of the provinces come in at 60% for $52,000.00 pa (or for any other income I saw listed) Most were in the mid 30% to low 40% range.

I am not about to run off to Canada. But we may do better to take the health insurance costs we are currently faced with and nationalizing coverage with employers and employees making the payments with tax breaks for the costs.

that is untrue.. the unemployment rate is calucated by determining the number of people looking to enter to labor force.. so if someone is working only 1 hour a week.. but is no longer looking for work.. then he is not counted in the unemployment rate.. if u actually listened to the argument of the person who you are agreeing with.. he stated that unemployment rates are determined through phone surveys.. (Which is actually part of the process i admit). If it were deteremined only by people collecting unemployment benefits.. there would be no need phone surveys would there.. and college grads arn't eligable for unemployment benefits unless they were laid off from some other job.. you just dont come out of school and start collecting benifits.. it is Canada according to the other fellow who determines their unemployment rate by those people registered with the labor department.. not the US

No. The Department of Labor's unemployment rate does not count those whose unemployment benefits have run out. I thought that was common knowledge, but knowledge is not common to everyone, it seems.

that is untrue.. the unemployment rate is calucated by determining the number of people looking to enter to labor force.. so if someone is working only 1 hour a week.. but is no longer looking for work.. then he is not counted in the unemployment rate.. if u actually listened to the argument of the person who you are agreeing with.. he stated that unemployment rates are determined through phone surveys.. (Which is actually part of the process i admit). If it were deteremined only by people collecting unemployment benefits.. there would be no need phone surveys would there.. and college grads arn't eligable for unemployment benefits unless they were laid off from some other job.. you just dont come out of school and start collecting benifits.. it is Canada according to the other fellow who determines their unemployment rate by those people registered with the labor department.. not the US
I didn't address the ludicrous USDOL "scientific" method of computation by survey. As if!
My theoritical grad wasn't fresh from school but had lost his job.
The published figure is unadjusted to reflect reality or underemployment. It is a red herring unless one adjusts their perception of it to reflect the existing economic realities.

even if it is not adjusted.. if the number were to change so dramatically to 10% (a number which has not been reached since the great depression) then the 5.2 % wouldn't even be worth mentioning if it suddently doubled.. You people are uninformed have no basis for your arguments and facts to back any of this crap up with.. until i see some numbers, ill just write u off for what you are.. kids who dont know crap about unemployment
Gee, thanks!

I haven't been called a kid in about 35 years.

YOU ARE THE MAN!

The Hlth Ins (Health Insurance) figure is based on pre tax earnings necessary at that tax rate to arrive at $7,000.00 net pa.
As for the Canadian rates, I used the

It still seems awfully high. GHI offers a plan for a single male non-smoker aged 35 for $330 a month short term. (1-12 months). Probably you could go quite a bit lower.

This is absolutely true and the "greater responsibility" could materialize as a higher paying job in the ranks of management.
Poor, unfortunate Dakini ( ;) ) aside, yes. That is imliplied in my statement. The potential for economic growth SHOULD go along with that added responsibility.

It still seems awfully high. GHI offers a plan for a single male non-smoker aged 35 for $330 a month short term. (1-12 months). Probably you could go quite a bit lower.
Boy, you had to reach pretty low for that rate. How much if you are 36, male, married with 2 kids?

Added after - $330.00 a month comes out to $3,960.00. About $4,000.00. Why is a ballpark of $7,000.00 for a couple or a family so far out of line? If anything I am being conservative.

Boy, you had to reach pretty low for that rate. How much if you are 36, male, married with 2 kids?

not really, it was the first quote I got. And that would substantially change the rest of your tax picture. Give me a minute and I'll get it for you.

For a man with two kids, the premium is $814 per month.

But, the federal tax is now around $1200 (double standard deduction, four exemptions, plus child credit - actually it might be even lower I'm probably forgetting some extra deductions)

There would be similar reductions in state and city,

Boy, you had to reach pretty low for that rate. How much if you are 36, male, married with 2 kids?

Added after - $330.00 a month comes out to $3,960.00. About $4,000.00. Why is a ballpark of $7,000.00 for a couple or a family so far out of line? If anything I am being conservative.

@edit, you had a figure of around $10,000 IIRC, and the taxes you gave were for a single man. I admit I thought a family was only around 500-600.

OTOH, the plan I got the quote for was zero dedutible in network, and the rest, so you probably could get something quite a bit cheaper if you went the healthcare savings account and high deductible route.

why are they a multi billiion dollar corporation again ? oh yes.. because of their successful buisness practices.. look at how well unions worked out for the airline industry...

Southwest is the most Unionized airline by percentage in the industry, yet it is the most profitable of them all.

Toyota also has unionized plants in US, yet they are still the most profitable car maker in the world.

So UNION isn't neccessaryily detrimental to the company. You should put the blame on the management, where it blongs.

@edit, you had a figure of around $10,000 IIRC, and the taxes you gave were for a single man. I admit I thought a family was only around 500-600.

OTOH, the plan I got the quote for was zero dedutible in network, and the rest, so you probably could get something quite a bit cheaper if you went the healthcare savings account and high deductible route.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Sleep called.

My initial figues can vary given different circumstances, that is a given. Also different states & localities have different tax structures that will move the figures significantly. Looking at a chart of state income taxes (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html) 7 states have no income tax. 2 just tax dividends & interest. 18 states have a starting rate of 2% or lower but range as high as 11%. The remaining 23 states and the District of Columbia have initial rates higher than 2% and range as high as 9.5%. None of these address local taxes where they exist.

The point I was reaching for is that the disparity between various US localities and various Canadian localities is not as vast as suggested here. Additionally Canada has the benefit of a nationalized health plan which must be factored into the comparison. End user healthcare costs should be compared in pre tax earnings when comparing with Canada since that is how their per capita costs are distributed in their tax structure.