Minimum Wage still kills jobs

It's stunning to me that man can rise to be President of the United States and be an economic ignoramus.

Want evidence? Here is what Barak Obama said during the State of the Union:

"Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on."

Of course the last sentence gets to the heart of one of the many causes of poverty. The government keeps printing more money, which is supposed to help "fix" the economy, yet it is just devaluing money that is already in circulation. Inflation makes everyone poorer, except those that keep getting raises like Obama's CEO reference. But that is another story.

Economics is complicated, so when a smart guy tells the people (who are also mostly economically illiterate) that raising minimum wage will solve so many problems, one has to wonder if he really believes it. He must have heard the counter arguments, so I can only infer that he is telling a bit of a lie to placate the working poor. Am I giving Obama too much credit? It doesn't really matter. What matters is that people understand what's going on, so that they can make educated decisions. So just in case you have not heard the counter arguments, do yourself a favour and watch this:

A problem identification strategy: by Zork Hun

Compared to large American cities, the Toronto (GTA) region has very little gun violence. But like those same cities, the gun violence that does happen, happens for virtually the same reasons. 

Zork Hun, a fellow libertarian, recently posted his take on the murder of black youth in the GTA. I think he has nailed it. 

Zork spent a rebellious youth growing up in Soviet Era Hungary, not a good combination. You can find his story here, and his original post and his very interesting view on life, here.

It is only the middle of February, but we already have the third teenage murder victim in the Toronto ghettos.
I am always amazed and puzzled when listening to the ‘nice’ people of the media talking about such subjects.
Like Matt Galloway, the host of CBC’s ‘Metro Morning.” He is the embodiment of the honest to goodness good intentions and its associated utter cluelessness when looking at the dismal results of the policies inspired by those good intentions.
Considering how much he is trying to understand, it is quite amazing how little he actually does.

Talking about ‘youth violence’ and an epidemic of ‘gun violence’ then another, this time ‘the epidemic of fatherlessness’ (which will sure make it into the books of epidemiology) Saying about the broken families that “somebody has to have the responsibility and stepping up”
I had to keep asking myself: Can anybody be this clueless? Isn’t this simply willful ignorance of the real issues or politically motivated avoidance of discussing the real subjects, the real questions? Is it stupidity, sleaze or cowardliness?

YOU TELL ME, because the answer to these questions is at the heart of the problem. What motivates the wide eyed puzzlement when we know the answers? There is an incredible amount of evidence to show us what the roots of the problems are and the volume of this evidence is growing constantly. The evidence is indisputable and so is the logic behind explaining it. Why is it ignored then by the leftist mainstream media? Why are some of the subjects taboo for discussion? Why are we talking about ridiculous “epidemics” and “youth violence strategies” while carefully avoiding any discussion about the real issues and real solutions?

These are not poetic questions. I will suggest some answers in the end but let’s start with the problems.

Call a spade a spade

Why don’t we start by not bullshitting about the problem? By calling the spade a spade. Black/ghetto/gang/drug violence instead of “gun” and “youth” violence? Stop calling ghettos “communities”. Stop calling the predictable and inevitable results of government policies “epidemics”. Stop treating the problems we created as if they were mysterious forces of nature. Stop blaming phantom causes and start examining the workings and the effects of government policies. Stop pointing fingers and looking for scapegoats and have an honest look at the problems and their causes.

Stop glorifying single mothers, stop destroying the institution of family

“Why aren’t we talking about the role of the family in this in shutting this down to make sure that this is not happening?” – asks Matt Galloway to get an answer that is not an answer but a description. So why don’t we? Why don’t we start with discussing the government’s role in destroying the institution? Our political left is glorifying single motherhood while our politicians are constantly working on making it an ever more acceptable and even attractive choice for young women on the margins of society. It used to be a stigma to be a single mother, but these days our media is celebrating them as if they were some sort of heroes. Restoring the stigma of illegitimacy will restore families. Taking away the financial incentives will get rid of the “epidemic”. Stop any financial support to single mothers and if they cannot take care of their children, put the kids up for adoption. Single parent families would disappear in a decade.

Get rid of welfare – stop subsidizing bad behaviour

Stop subsidizing idleness which breeds dissatisfaction, boredom and very often criminal behaviour. If “youth” would have to worry about how to pay the rent, put food on the table and help their families, they would not have the time to do all the bad things they do. Break the multi-generational cycle of dependence. Make welfare existence unattractive.

Get rid of minimum wage laws

In his 1984 book, “Losing Ground” Charles Murray made the point that minimum wage laws are the most racist laws in the books. It hurts the people who would need opportunity the most. Minimum wage laws are depriving young, unskilled, inexperienced workers from finding work, from stepping on the road toward a better future.

Get rid of government ghettos

They are ALL disasters, they are all destined to be disasters. There is evidence to show and logic to explain why it is so. The only way governments can run anything is into the ground. There is absolutely no excuse for the existence of organizations such as the TCHC unless we consider giving jobs to the corrupt bureaucracies running them an acceptable excuse. Even giving individual rent subsidies would be a better deal for society as a whole. No amount of revitalization, no amount of money wasted on it will change a ghetto as long as the government runs it.

Get the “youth” out of the government schools

As with all the other suggestions, people on the margins of society are also the most vulnerable group when it comes to education. Children from middle class and intact families get a lot more help from home so that they can fill the gaps left by our abysmal state run schools. Even simple things such as giving responsibility to parents to choose the school for their children may make the difference.

Legalize drugs

This would be probably the simplest way to turn around the “gun violence epidemic”. Most crime in the black ghettos are related to drugs as involvement in its trade is the most attractive job prospect for an unskilled “youth”. The most important benefit of ending drug prohibition would be crime reduction in general and the burden it would take off from the shoulders of the most vulnerable members of our societies. Legalization would make the illegal trade and the associated violence disappear. The lifting of the alcohol prohibition in the US resulted in an immediate sharp reduction in violent crimes and health problems such as alcohol poisoning. Drug legalization would have a similar effect, an effect that would be most marked in the environment where the prohibition today is causing the most harm. Ghettos are the trenches of the war on drugs and young black people are the cannon fodder.

Take crime and punishment seriously

Although I have not yet seen a Canadian jail from the inside, from what I hear, they are not like the ones of my own experience. For most members of the ghetto, getting locked up is a badge, a rite of passage. We have to stop indulging ourselves with delusional dreams about rehabilitation and focus on deterrence. For the crimes that remain after the drug legalization, making the prisons a bit more of a punishment would go a long way towards crime prevention.

Deport criminal immigrants

We do not know yet who the shooter in this last case was but we do know that an overwhelming proportion of the “gun-violence” is perpetrated by immigrants from cultures with higher degree of violence than ours. Maybe we can consider expediting deportation procedures for convicted felons.

Taboo

Each of the above subjects would deserve a book on its own. Some of you may think that they are a little radical but I must tell you that there is nothing new about them. None are original, and they all have a large body of supporting evidence. Most have full books written about, yet none of them can be discussed in polite company. Why? We can disagree about them, but why can’t we even discuss them?

Matt Galloway’s interview with Gene Jones, the President of TCHC, was a flashback to the darker years of communism. Déja vue all over again.
Cocky, righteous aggression seeking a scapegoat. The phony bravery of telling a comrade that he was not a good comrade.
In the communist world, the system itself is always beyond discussions. If something does not work, it must be the fault of someone. The imperialist saboteurs, the enemy inside, maybe the people floundering in their devotion to the cause. Since we cannot question the idea of public housing, we must attack the people who run it.

Just about all the talk around this subject is substitution.

We can talk about the poor living conditions and the failures of management, but not about the systemic failures of government housing. We cannot question whether it should exist at all.
We can talk about poverty, but not about the welfare system that created the dependence for entire generations.
We can talk about ‘broken families’ but not about the racist government policies that created them, not about subsidizing bad choices and child abuse.
We can talk about lack of education, but cannot question the public school system that is responsible for not educating.
We can talk about crime, but not about the war on drugs that is responsible for the brunt of it.
We can talk about unemployment, but not the minimum wage laws that make it nearly impossible for the unskilled and inexperienced to get a job.
We can talk about the difficulties of immigrant life, but not about its cost or the difficulties of getting rid of the bad apples that slip in.

We don’t stand a chance solving the problems if we don’t even have the guts to talk about them honestly.

Faith

Why wouldn’t the CBC, the liberal media or politicians ever discuss these options seriously? Because it would go against the most foundational believes of the left.
The God of the left is the state, its most basic tenet is the unquestioning belief that it can be the solution to all problems known to mankind. If only the good people with good intentions would get together, elect the right leaders to come up with the good plan then our problems will be solved. The free market is evil because it does not have good intentions and how could we possibly create a good world without a plan and good intentions?

The faith in the state is just as impervious to reality as the faith in God and just as difficult to argue against. ‘Proving’ that something doesn’t work will only reinforce the desire to try harder DOING THE SAME THING! If fate (God) hits you with some misfortune, it must be because you are not a sufficiently devout believer. If the state causes harm it’s because we didn’t put the right people in charge, we did not have the right strategy or – the most typical answer – we did not devote enough resources to it. No evidence, no logic can work against this blind faith.

Self Interest

Let me ask again: why wouldn’t the CBC, the liberal media or politicians ever discuss these options seriously? Because it would also be in a way suicidal. Because they are part of the state, part of the very ideas they are promoting. Both guests on this morning show were rent seekers, people looking out for their own interest, looking for opportunities, looking for a well-paid role for themselves in that “youth violence strategy” they advocate.
The tremendous power of this interest should not be underestimated. After all, the state, the government, is people. People who want to do good and want to be paid well for doing good. What do you think they care more about? Their cushy jobs or the losers who are the excuse for it?

If I could guaranty to them that I can make the people in their charge much better off but only at the cost of their jobs, how many would go for it? How much bullshitting would you be willing to do to keep a $100K job?
(To understand this last point better, look for my next post: “Socialist Class Theory”)

We could disagree on what the best answer, the best approach may be, but I have no doubt that another youth strategy, another basketball program will simply not cut it.

This posting originally appeared here.

Why are things so much cheaper in the United States?

Here is a view from an Austrian economist on the perplexing question of why prices on many items are some much higher in Canada, than the US even with the currencies at par value. This post first appeared here.

In 2011, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty asked a committee to look into why Canadians are paying more than Americans for the same goods. Last week, the committee’s report came out, urging the federal government to close the price gap by lowering tariffs among other recommendations.
On the heels of a senate committee report on Canada-USA price gaps, Senator Joseph Day, chairman of the committee, acknowledged at a press conference there’s only so much government can do to address price discrepancies: “The government doesn’t determine prices. The marketplace determines prices,” says Senator Day.

To which Acting Vice-Provost and Program Head of Business at the University of Guelph-Humber, Dr. George Bragues, shakes his head.

“He’s being somewhat disingenuous,” says Dr. Bragues. He says that Senator Day is not realizing the full government role by neglecting the fact that while prices are mostly set by the market, the government influences the room in which the market has to operate.

“Sure, the market sets prices, but they do so within the confines set by public policy. And currently, public policy permits retailers to charge higher prices because they don’t have to worry about competition from the United States.”

“Canadians aren’t allowed to freely travel across the border and bring back whatever they want – without having to lie to a customs officer,” he adds.

The Chairman’s response to the problem of price discrepancies was to urge Canadians to bargain more aggressively with retailers for a better price.

Dr. Bragues: “The fundamental fact is, you really can’t be expected to bargain more aggressively for a pair of pants, or for a carton of milk at the store. Prices are set – and that’s just the way we do business in our society.”

Dr. Bragues explains that the leverage that a person has comes from the fact that there exists competitors that they can go to, who will offer lower prices. “That’s the bargaining advantage. And the government can provide that advantage with one simple solution.”

This brings Dr. Bragues to point out what he sees as the missing recommendation in the senate committee’s report.

“[The committee’s] recommendations focused on tariffs. But the key tariff is border crossing. Allow people to go to the United States – and as soon as they cross the border, allow them to bring back, say, $500 worth of goods without duty.”

“I guarantee that would jolt prices down. We would see a very different retail environment.”

Listen to Dr. Bragues’ interview on the same subject on Saskatoon’s CKOM NewsTalk 650

Business Program

Your money: The untold story

I've said many times I am not an economist, but I am interested in economics, as we all should be. 

My daughter posted an interview with a legitimate economist regarding the demise of the penny. Very briefly here is what the main stream media are missing from this story.

Withdrawn from circulation this week, the penny is suffering a battering of name-calling. An annoyance, a pest, a nuisance – a budget document on the penny’s elimination reads “Some Canadians consider the penny more of a nuisance than a useful coin. We often store them in jars, throw them away in water fountains or refuse them as change.”

But according to Dr. George Bragues, Acting Vice-Provost and Program Head of Business at the University of Guelph-Humber, the real story behind the end of the penny is one that has yet to be told.

Throughout mainstream media, the elimination of the penny is being touted as something we’re all happy to see disappear. But what’s the real story here?

The story that many seem to be missing is, Why has the government been compelled to give up the money in the first place? Why has the value of the penny become so minimal? And that story has to do with how the government has managed money.

How so?

The real story is that over the last couple of generations, we have seen inflation increase on average 2-3% per year. Seems minimal - but over time, that adds up.

We know that it now costs 1.6 Canadian cents to produce each one cent coin. To this end, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared the penny as “a currency without any currency in Canada.”

Again, this should raise the question – what has happened here? That the price of the copper that goes into the penny is now worth more than the penny itself is an indication of the government’s inflation of the money supply.

So the fact that we’re giving up the penny should be alerting us as to how the government has been systematically cheapening our currency. That tells me that the government has not managed its money as well as it should have.

Obviously not the message the government would want to send out.

Of course, the government has no interest in declaring that. They can’t say, We’ve inflated the currency for the last 50-60 years, so we’re now going to have to go to nickels as the smallest unit of account.

Also, the economic establishment tends to be in favour of the monetary policy we’ve had in the post WWII era – which has essentially been an inflationist policy, where we tolerate 2-3% inflation per year. Prior to WWII, and certainly prior to WWI, that was not the norm. Throughout the 19th century, prices were either stable or declining. But with the Great Depression – the most seminal event of modern economic history – came an interpretation of that event that has shaped our current policy.

The predominant interpretation of that event – what went wrong, where policy makers failed – has led to a phobia of declining prices, or in other words, deflation. This became viewed as economically destabilizing. And now because of this horror, we’ve since gone with this inflationist policy, which basically says we should do everything in our power to keep prices from coming down, which includes increasing the money supply.

Where do you see this headed?

There is the slippery slope argument – that this will inevitably lead to a recession or even a depression and the next thing you know you’re the new Zimbabwe.

I share the view that at certain times, like now, increasing the money supply out of fear of deflation leads to bad policy. I would argue that this fear of deflation led to the financial crisis of 2008 – and has since led to an excessively easy monetary policy that has put too many people into debt, particularly in the United States and around the world. I fear that the policy now, where we’re pumping up the money supply while having 0% interest rates, is going to create the same sort of distortion – perhaps not in the real estate market, but may appear elsewhere.

Originally posted here.

Rounding OUT the penny

Beginning this week Canadian currency will be penniless, or should I say, 'less the penny.' That's right the penny is passé, about to be rounded out of existence.

For many Canadians, the penny has so little value it's looked upon as an annoyance, an unnecessary weight, for me, a strange way to view money. For the Canadian Mint, the penny is worth less than it costs to make (currently 1.6 cents).

The beginning of the end of the penny is Monday, February 4th, though we have known about it for some time now.  On Monday the mint stops distribution and businesses are encouraged to round all cash transactions up or down to the nearest nickel. As a result the Canadian government will save about 0.004% of its total budgetary expenses by not producing pennies. Apparently they believe 'every penny counts,' a phrase also destined for extinction.

The rounding of cash transactions will likely end up costing everyone just a bit more. Think of how many prices currently end in the number NINE. Lots, it's a gimmick to get customers, so, no more 99 cent sales for CASH transactions. Will 99 cent sales be kept for non-cash transactions? Will that discourage cash transactions in favour of debit or credit? Or will businesses start pricing things that end with '2 cents' -  which will be rounded down to encourage cash transactions, to make people think they are getting a deal? Who knows?

Either way, this is inflationary, and of course it is inflation, the debasement of currency, that caused the disappearance of the penny.

Is this just a Canadian problem? No. The Americans are in the same boat, and according to some sources both the US penny and nickel are in jeopardy. Am I getting carried away when I worry about the revaluation of our money? Well, maybe not in the near future. The Canadian dollar has actually appreciated considerably in recent years compared to its American counterpart. But many think that the US dollar and Euro are doomed. We trade with them, how can we not be affected?

The lesson of history is that the fall of nations is presaged by the collapse of their currencies. It's happened over and over, no fiat currency has survived the foibles of corrupt government practices. This time it's our turn.        

Climate (or is it weather) Consensus

Years ago, whenever Groundhog Day rolled around, the official word for predicting the arrival of spring came from Pennsylvania, the town of Punxsutawney. That was the place made famous in the 1993 classic movie starring Bill Murray.

First of all, its difficult to believe that it (the movie) was 20 years ago, and second, (if I'm not mistaken, and I could be) it was shortly after that movie that prognosticating groundhogs started popping up all over the place like, well, groundhogs.

Wikipedia has a list of some 15 big rodent celebrations, including the largest and original one from Punxsutawney, and many much smaller ones. I guess people saw it as a way to cash in on once-a-year notoriety, and bring in tourists during the dead of winter.

So, I was amused today when my local all-news-radio station announced that a "consensus of groundhogs" agreed on a prediction, 2-to-1 in favour. I'm not certain if it was to be an early spring or six more weeks of winter, but to me that is six-of-one or half-a-dozen of the other, no difference.

Groundhog Day defenders claim that the furry creatures have uncanny accuracy, 75% accurate 90% of the time, which I think means being right about two-thirds of the time, not bad. However a Canadian study (who would pay for that?) claims only 37% accuracy in about 40 cities.

When I heard the news report of a consensus of groundhogs, I thought immediately about the UN and IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming (a measure of my deep respect for this claim). Now, I'm not really equating the IPCC scientists with groundhogs (as much as I'd like to), but their consensus opinion in some ways resembles any consensus opinion, even a groundhog's. 

If the premise on which the opinion is based is faulty, it doesn't really matter how many are in the group that makes up the consensus. They could all be wrong. The problem with catastrophic global warming is, that trying to reverse it by eliminating CO2 as a waste gas, by severely cutting back on fossil fuel use, seriously impacts those of us that live in places that are too cold and or too hot. That includes a lot of people. Then, saying that climate impacts will be felt in 50 years or so, well, that just means I won't see it, and those young enough now to appreciate the dilemma (if there is one) will be seniors by then. 

So, even if we humans are somehow unknowingly tinkering with the climate to some degree, is it worth the pain of slowing the warming? We did not start the warming, the ice age glaciers began melting while our ancestors were using spears to kill mammoths. The warming has continued and is ongoing, and possibly we are hastening the event, but like groundhogs we really don't know whats going on. What I'd like to know is this, do the groundhogs predict weather or climate?        

Who cares about politics?

Imagine drawing a circle on a white board that is about the diameter of a basketball. Then, pretend to make a dot a bit smaller than the size of a pea in the centre of that circle. If the area inside the basketball-sized circle represents the population, that dot represents the number of people who are involved and care about politics, most of the time.

That's how Gerry Nicholls started his presentation on getting the Libertarian message out, back in April of 2011 to a group of us. He went on to say that if another circle was drawn with the diameter of a softball, inside the big one but centred on the dot, the area within the softball-sized circle represents the population that is somewhat involved in politics (especially during elections). The area from the boundary of the soft-ball circle to the boundary of the basket-ball circle, well, that's the majority of the population and they are clueless about politics most of the time.

I used to think that clueless meant apathetic. But look at it this way. The great majority of car owners, have no idea how their car's engine works, or any other system for that matter, but they certainly are not apathetic about the operation of their car. When it works, they're happy, when it doesn't work, well, you get it.

So it is with politics, very few care or are involved with how things work. Why should they be? They rely or the political pros, who are the mechanics that keep the machine of government working. People are far more interested in political personalities than political issues which actually drive politics. What was Michelle Obama wearing during the recent US Inauguration? Was Barak chewing gum after the Inaugural Address? (Yes) Did you check the link, see what I mean?

So it's not fair to say that people don't care about politics, to continue my metaphor, they are just very reluctant to open the hood and get all greasy. Who can blame them? People are busy trying to live their lives, trying to earn a living to feed themselves and their family, as well as the ever growing government - actually several governments. Its worse that kids, kids may become independent, that is never true about government.

This week I was introduced to a new website called Rate My Government. As a former teacher I'm quite familiar with Rate-My-Teachers, which I found very accurate in my day. If you scroll down this page on the right side you will see a link to rate your doctor, it works pretty well too. Why not Rate-My-Government?

The site itself, still pretty new, has lots of potential, and it should work well even for the clueless, but it looks to be designed for the "involved." That could be a problem, especially since they are relying on many eyes to read many ads, look back at Gerry's diagram.     

Canadian healthcare shows that human freedom is an individual issue

This week the Fraser Institute released a new book authored by 13 people titled Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. Contained within the book is a new comprehensive index of human freedom in which Canada places fourth in the world, tied with Ireland and Australia, sounds pretty good.The US places seventh.

Here is what the Fraser Institute says about its report: "Our new report measures the degree to which people are free to enjoy classic civil liberties—freedom of speech, religion, individual economic choice, association and assembly—in 123 countries. We also look at indicators of crime and violence, freedom of movement, legal discrimination against homosexuals, and women's freedoms."

I have a great deal of respect for the Fraser Institute and I'm sure their new report, done in conjunction with Germany’s Liberales Institut, is as accurate and comprehensive as possible.

The problem I have, and have always had with these types of reports is that rights and freedoms don't really apply to groups or countries, they are in fact individual. So you may be free in Canada to do many things, but if you are blocked from doing just one thing, that harms no one else, then you are not really free. For example, the "rules" around healthcare in Canada are simply Draconian.

The video below also comes from the Fraser Institute. In it, Dr. Brian Day of British Columbia, talks about healthcare in Canada. He points out that Canada is the only country on Earth "which outlaws the right of citizens to spend their own money on their own healthcare" when they want to. In fact, in parts of the country, clinics are fined heavily if they treat "uninsured" patients (patients who pay outside the system), and in Ontario, any patient that "jumps the queue" (and there are many, many queues) can be fined $10,000. What kind of freedom is that?

I don't consider either the Fraser Institute or Dr. Brian Day as representing the principles of libertarianism, you will no doubt be able to pick out why in the video. However, the healthcare system is so broken here, that I believe any movement in the direction of a freer market for healthcare is a step that I can support. Dr. Day makes a persuasive argument, and the issue of healthcare freedom will be in front of the courts later this year.    

"I hate Laurel Broten."

Actually, I don't really, but that headline is an exact quote overheard in teacher's lounge at a neighbourhood government school today. That same sentiment was probably echoed across the province by numerous other teachers.

Ms. Broten is the current Minister of Education (probably not for long) and like many Ministers before her, she is coming under fire from the province's teachers. Of course that is part of the problem, why should one person assume all the faults of a broken system? It's not her fault, not entirely.

Today was the first day back to work for most teachers in Ontario after the two week holiday break. Numerous School Boards had no contract agreement with their teachers on December 31, 2012, at 11:59 pm, now they do. A contract was imposed by legislation, Bill 115, which was passed last summer.

But labour peace is not about to break out in Ontario's education sector, far from it. The teachers and their respective unions have been royally pissed off with Bill 115, because it places a series of constraints on their "working conditions" without going through the steps of collective bargaining. Teachers called it undemocratic. I guess it is, of course teachers are forced to join and contribute to a union, then pay heed to that union or be fined. Recent single-day rotating strikes around the province by ETFO (one of the larger more militant unions),  were enforced by fines of $500 to disobedient teachers. In addition Boards may not negotiate with any teacher that is not a member the union, Catch 22, not exactly democratic either. None of that is the fault of the union or the teachers, they are just operating under the Education Act which grants everyone all of their privileges. It's an amazing document that really should be more widely read.

For example, one of the large unions, OSSTF, withdrew all extracurricular activities from schools as a sign of their discontent with Bill 115. But no where in the Education Act are teachers required to perform extracurricular activities. In Section 264 of the Act, Duties of Teachers, there is no mention of extracurriculars. Why should their be? If you work for any service industry are you required to organize your clients into competitive teams after work and supervise them? No, of course not, its voluntary, as it is with teachers. But since it is such an integral part of the school "experience," why is it not a contracted duty?

What is more surprising is what are the contracted duties, here is a part of the duties from the Education Act:

264. (1) It is the duty of a teacher and a temporary teacher,
 religion and morals
(c) to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues;

Alas, nothing about love of liberty.

Notice that in everything I have said so far there is not a word about the clientele in this business of education. No word of the students or the parents, they are less than irrelevant in this story, even though they foot the bill. There is no "opt out" of taxation during a public sector labour tiff. Yet this is a service that parents MUST send their children to, or face penalties in the Education Act (Section 21 Compulsory Attendance)

21. (1) Unless excused under this section,

(a) every person who attains the age of six years on or before the first school day in September in any year shall attend an elementary or secondary school on every school day from the first school day in September in that year until the person attains the age of 18 years; and...etc

Ironically there is a new section that includes bullying, but I won't bore you.

So, how can this be fixed? Andrew Coyne, whom I usually don't agree with, points in a direction in a column he wrote this week, I recommend it. He ends with the quoted paragraph below, I like it.

"So the question becomes: if we want to change the culture, are we prepared to change the model? The alternative, of simply carrying on as before, in a sullen war of attrition with an increasingly embittered teaching corps — union leaders have suggested the boycott of extra-curricular activities might remain in place for the whole two years — is hardly appetizing. Will anyone grasp the nettle of fundamental education reform, taking power away from bureaucrats and school boards and union leaders, and giving it to schools, and parents, and individual teachers?"

Bang, bang! Something must be done!

Police-reported crime rates, Canada, 1962 to 2010

On the morning of Friday, December 14, 2012, a young man walked into an elementary school in Newtown Connecticut and committed an atrocity. He shot and killed 20 children, all just 6 and 7 years old, and six teachers of the school, I'm sure you all know the story.

I've been reluctant to write anything about that, not because I was not affected, just the opposite.

My wife and I have spent Friday's with our grandson for the past 7 months now, and many more to come I hope. We entertain each other. Our house is his plaything and we just supervise, its always fun and lots of work. I know we treat this little one differently than we did our own children years ago, wisdom does come with experience.

So as I heard news reports of the shootings that day, while our little guy was playing at my feet, I knew what kind of reaction to expect from the media and the talking heads on TV. The presence of my grandson made the pain of this story much more acute for me. I tried, but could not imagine the pain of the grandparents and parents of those children killed in Connecticut. There are no words.

As expected the debate and the discussion around the Newtown killings centred on how to prevent a future occurrence as if that were possible. Of course that means removing guns from people. The reaction was reflexive, and from the highest levels. The US President visited the town and made assurances that something would be done.
Of course, its for events just like this that laws are enacted by the political class. Good laws come from rational discussion and debate, where the rights of individuals are protected, where unintended consequences are considered, where time is taken without the emotion or trauma of events to cloud judgment.

After 9/11 and many orders of magnitude greater, the same kind of reflexive reactions among the political class and the media happened. Did that improve things? Are we safer, more certain that events of that sort won't ever happen, or are things worse? Have freedoms been lost? Have unnecessary wars been fought? Bodies heaped on bodies in far off lands, with a generation of afflicted children there, now sworn to vengeance. It has been made far worse by clouded judgement.

Newtown is not the same as 9/11, but the cries to do something are just as loud in proportion and the political class just as eager to appease irrational demands.

So lets be rational, is there a correlation between guns and crime? This Harvard study says no in the conclusion: "the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra....To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

The media and political class seem to imply that mass shootings such as Newtown and crime in general is on the rise, is that true?

No, not in Canada anyway, the graph above (from here) clearly shows that crime did rise until the early 1990's, but has been falling steadily ever since. The severity of crime is down in almost every jurisdiction in Canada, and crime rates in 2011, the most recent year for data, is the lowest in 40 years. The reasons probably to do with aging boomers.

To appease critics in Ontario, where we already have stringent gun controls, Premier McGuinty recently announced a locked door policy for schools. About time, I always lock my door at home, don't the children in government schools deserve the same consideration?

So how about the US, are things just getting worse and worse there? Is crime on the rise? Are shootings an every day occurrence? Watch this short video for an interesting analysis, you may be surprised.

Postscript: Obviously this is a complex and controversial issue, there is no simple single answer. I have some experience with firearms, but not nearly enough, certainly not as much as I would like. But I found a blogger who is very experienced and has an opinion that I can support, here.

   

Self-management in business

It almost sounds like spontaneous organization with echoes of communal cooperation. Here is a huge business venture where the employees run the show:

Junk Food Jury 2

I hope you have been paying attention to your junk food intake during the holiday season. Why do I care? I don’t really.

But just because I think it is a personal choice and responsibility what you eat, that does not mean everyone else does.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA), infinitely wise, and powerful, has pronounced on junk food. Apparently, it's the cause of the obesity epidemic sweeping our society and OMA knows how to combat the problem. OMA president Dr. Doug Weir: “We are raising a generation of children that will suffer from devastating and wholly preventable diseases, overwhelm the health system, and die prematurely…. The time for gentle admonitions has come and gone. We need to fight…with…. tax incentives and graphic warnings.”

Privately run and voluntary advocacy groups should be able to push an agenda, but OMA is a special case. They bargain with government when physician’s contracts expire. Effectively they are a union monopoly, with the ear of government. They represent the "political, clinical and economic interests" of the Ontario's medical profession. When they advocate legislation to increase taxes, or restrict marketing, you can be certain such legislation is inevitable. Of course their monopoly plus the government monopoly on healthcare, gives them the credibility to say they can mitigate healthcare costs by behavioural engineering.

OMA uses the unfortunate precedent and apparent success of the anti-tobacco campaign to bolster their case. However, tobacco is not an essential requirement of life, food is. The reasons for the steady decline in Canadian smoking rates over the years may be in part due to government action, but I suspect it has more to do with education and societal pressures. There is little reason to ask someone standing beside you to refrain from drinking cola; smoking is different.

Strangely, there is no real scientific evidence that points to junk food as being the cause of shorter lifespans in people or the primary cause of obesity. Diet is so variable, volume of food may be more important. Should we legislate the size of cutlery? Scientifically, there are too many questions to answer before we impose any judgment on food, even if it were appropriate. Agreement on what is junk food will end up being extremely arbitrary.

Last February three Alberta physicians suggested that junk food be reclassified as "pathogenic," disease-causing, like viruses. I wrote about that story here. Their argument is that junk food contains so many excesses related to various chronic conditions, junk food must be the causative agent. Yet that has never been established because very few people (if any) eat junk food exclusively.

So why is OMA so concerned about your diet that they want to warn you using government legislation? Because we let them, its become fashionable for the political elite to rail against junk food. Lots of stories in the States from the West coast, and the East.

I don't really have a problem with an educational assault on junk food without any government involvement. Good advice on diet is to be expected from physicians, why don't they leave it at that?   

The main argument against the OMA proposal is the libertarian one. Should government use its monopoly on the use of force to control our diets? Certainly not!

A climate science debate? We'll see.....

It's been almost six months since I've mentioned global warming. That recent IPCC conference in Doha was barely worth mentioning, not much of consequence happened. I guess just going to a part of the world that depends on the fossil fuel business, with an anti-fossil fuel message is worth noting. So there, noted.

In case you are wondering, I am not denying global warming (climate change or whatever). I believe the planet has been warming, certainly since the last ice age. It's still warming. Are humans the cause? Maybe to some extent, but not to the extent that we need to take any drastic global action, now or ever.

Over the past 22 years IPCC has put out an "assessment"  of the "climate crisis." The fifth one, AR5, was just prematurely released here. Each report since 1990 made predictions based on the climate models IPCC runs. 

The graphic, which comes from this site, shows predictions from the first assessment (FAR) to the last AR4, including an actual measured record (black arrow), at least according the this website.

Terrence Corcoran in the National Post, says AR5 has a “game-changing admission” about the effect of the Sun's magnetic field on climate. He also points out that a debate has broken out among the priesthood of climate science: "we have a science debate, rather than a dumped consensus. It’s not pretty, but it is an improvement over the secretive science that has dominated the IPCC since its inception."

Its good to see debate, that is the essence of science after all, that's how it corrects itself so the truth does emerge....eventually.

The rest of us can get on and discuss the real manmade problems of sovereign debt and currency. There is your real crisis and looming catastrophe. 

Lots of REASON to be optimistic....

...at the end of 2012.

How to increase the cost of post secondary education

Perhaps you have seen the recent television ads from the Ontario government explaining that school isn't like the movies. The ads show dramatized scenes of a student making an extraordinary football catch, another completing an arcane math equation on a blackboard, and both being offered fully paid university scholarships.
Alas, those were movies, in real life students and their parents need to pay for education, so the Ontario government has a solution. It will give qualified students 30% off on their tuition.

You might think that qualifying for this discount would be difficult, not at all, easy as pie. This eligibility wizard lets you know if you qualify, you should try it. You might be surprised to read that in order to qualify gross parental income must be less than $160,000. Thats right $160K, not exactly poverty, not by a long shot. So, if your parents only make a paltry $150K per annum, you're in.
A brief check of average per capita income in Ontario, and you find that most families pull in considerably less than $100K, let alone $160K.
Now lets look at tuition, average undergrad tuition in Ontario is the highest in Canada at just under $7200. A 30% discount brings it down to about $5000.
Sure, even that is a strain on any family, but children take about 18 years before they are ready for university, and planning and saving is something I would expect everyone to do, but thats me, and that is the responsible thing to do.

The point is, making the cost of education lower for many people, actually makes it more expensive for everyone.

When something of value becomes cheaper, more of that something is consumed. Demand for that something becomes greater. Greater demand generally results in higher prices. That is what will happen and is happening to the cost of education in many jurisdictions.

This is another example of how a well-meaning government action is not fully thought through, but in fact leads to unintended consequences as this video points out: