LATEST ARTICLES

Food insecurity at record levels as economy shrinks

Troy Media
-
0
Food insecurity at record levels as economy shrinks

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Earlier this month, Feed Ontario (formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks) disclosed that over a million residents in Ontario, Canada’s wealthiest province, sought assistance from food banks over the past year.

A million people. That’s essentially Nova Scotia’s entire population.

This revelation is in stark contrast to the situation south of the border. In 2023, while 13.5 percent of American households grappled with food insecurity – characterized by low or very low food security – the rate in Canada was significantly higher at 22.9 percent. This suggests that food insecurity in Canada is a staggering 69.6 percent more prevalent than in the United States – a profoundly unsettling statistic.

The challenge of affording food in Canada is exacerbated by anemic food sales, particularly stark when compared to the United States, where grocery store sales increased by 1.8 percent in the last 12 months, according to U.S. Federal Reserve Economic Data. In stark contrast, Canadian grocery store sales have plummeted by a worrying 3.2 percent, according to Statistics Canada.

One plausible explanation for this disparity lies in the higher interest rates in Canada, which likely impose a heavier burden on Canadian households than on their American counterparts, given that the average debt per household is considerably higher in Canada. The Bank of Canada’s pathway to achieving a more stable inflation rate without detrimentally affecting Canadians appears much narrower than that of the U.S. Federal Reserve, evidenced by the harsh reality of 10 consecutive rate hikes last year, compelling Canadians to economize, particularly on food expenditures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Canada’s per capita economy is shrinking, lacking the wealth growth seen in the U.S. According to World Bank data, in 2002, when Jean Chretien was prime minister, the U.S. GDP per capita was 56.6 percent higher than Canada’s. The current gap, at 53.07 percent, is perilously close to this historical peak.

The main drivers of GDP growth in Canada are currently immigration and public spending, with the government shouldering much of the economic burden. The situation is becoming increasingly dire. Moreover, the early enthusiasm for the Trudeau administration’s push for a green economy is fading.

The carbon tax, Trudeau’s principal policy for fostering an eco-friendly economy, is losing support due to ongoing economic struggles. Even within the federal NDP and the BC NDP government, growing voices are questioning whether the carbon tax is the best way forward.

The failures of the carbon tax reflect a broader trend in recent policymaking: the adoption of populist policies devoid of rigorous metrics to measure their long-term success, paired with extensive communication campaigns aimed at convincing Canadians of their value.

The federal carbon tax is set to rise to $95 per metric ton by April 2025, with a target of $170 per metric ton by 2030. Despite mounting pressure, the Trudeau government has failed to evaluate whether this policy effectively reduces emissions or to assess its long-term economic impact, especially on the agri-food sector, from farm to table.

The design of the rebate system ostensibly allows Canadians to overlook the real costs of this poorly conceived policy. However, administering this massive program is not only costly but also fails to leverage the Canadian economy effectively. It is imperative to devise policies that genuinely foster both economic and environmental sustainability for the nation.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Canada’s federal debt doubles to $1.2 trillion under Trudeau

Troy Media
-
0
Canada’s federal debt doubles to $1.2 trillion under Trudeau

Franco Terrazzano

Pop the campaign; it’s official: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doubled the federal debt.

It took nearly two dozen prime ministers and a century-and-a-half to rack up $616 billion in debt, where the total stood before Trudeau’s first year in office.

Less than a decade later, on Aug. 30 of this year, Trudeau officially doubled the debt to $1.232 trillion.

Trudeau’s debt binge has a material impact on Canadians’ lives.

First, Canadians want to leave their kids and grandkids with a bright financial future.

But a baby born today is already on the hook for about $30,000 in federal government debt. That debt must be paid back with interest, which means higher taxes for future generations unless future governments cut spending.

The future looks bleak.

New data published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) forecasts the next federal balanced budget in 2040. That would mean another $296 billion added to the debt.

And even that balanced budget projection won’t materialize if the government introduces new spending and the economy doesn’t grow for 16 years straight.

Second, more debt means more money wasted on interest charges.

The federal government’s debt interest charges cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every week.

The government now wastes more money servicing the debt than it sends to the provinces in health transfers. In fact, it takes every penny collected from the GST to pay the interest on the debt.

According to PBO projections, debt interest charges over the next decade-and-a-half will cost taxpayers $847 billion. That’s a cost of more than $18,000 for every Canadian.

Third, big deficits make it more likely the government will take more money from Canadians, as evidenced by this year’s capital gains tax hike.

“Canada could finance these critical investments by taking on more debt, but that would place an unfair burden on younger generations,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said while introducing her capital gains tax hike.

That tax hike was sold to Canadians, in part, to keep the debt from spiralling further. But it illustrates how the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The capital gains tax hike is expected to take $6.9 billion from taxpayers this year. But with the government spending $535 billion, it will burn through that cash in five days.

Trudeau can’t lay the blame for this fiscal dumpster fire on the pandemic.

Trudeau promised to balance the budget in 2019. He broke that promise and instead ran a $20-billion deficit before the pandemic struck.

In fact, the Trudeau government was spending at all-time highs in 2018, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. That means the Trudeau government was spending more money than the government did during any year of the world wars or past recessions.

Trudeau then used the cloud of a pandemic to go on a debt-fueled spending spree.

The federal government announced $576 billion in new spending during the pandemic. Of that new spending, $205 billion was for “non-COVID-19 measures,” according to the PBO.

You may believe that a high level of spending was warranted, even though the auditor general found $32 billion – 15 percent – of pandemic subsidies went to ineligible or suspicious recipients.

You may even believe there was no way to cut other areas of the budget to fund pandemic subsidies, even though families and businesses make these tough decisions all the time.

But $205 billion, or 35 percent, of new spending announced during the pandemic had nothing to do with the pandemic.

And spending is still ballooning.

Last year, the government promised to find $15 billion in savings over five years.

How is that going? Well, the government increased spending by $24 billion last year and plans to increase spending by another $111 billion over the next five years.

Taxpayers have many reasons to be pessimistic.

Trudeau doubled the debt in less than a decade. Debt interest charges blow a $1-billion hole in the budget every week. The government is on track to run deficits for the next decade and a half. And this government has proven it doesn’t care about fiscal responsibility.

But here’s a reason to be optimistic: things aren’t too far gone, yet.

The federal government could reverse its capital gains tax hike and still balance the budget next year if it stuck to its spending plan from just two budgets ago. And nobody was screaming about austerity when Trudeau tabled his 2022 budget.

After a decade of runaway government borrowing, limiting spending growth isn’t enough. Canadians need the government to cut spending.

Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Are we losing control over what we eat?

Troy Media
-
0
Are we losing control over what we eat?

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Less than five percent of people really understand how our food goes from farm to table. A quick look at social media shows that misinformation spreads faster than scientific facts, and many people struggle to find reliable information.

Whether it’s GMOs, organic foods, buying local, climate change, or corporate greed in agri-food, most people just don’t grasp the full picture, even with efforts from the media and experts. This lack of understanding could worsen with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).

As bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari points out in his book Nexus, AI could make people more disconnected from many aspects of their lives, including food. While some compare AI’s rise to the internet revolution, the two aren’t the same. The internet is a tool, but AI can act independently, making decisions for us. This could lead to a situation where people are even less engaged with food systems than they are now, which is a real concern.

AI is currently playing a significant role in the food industry, bringing both advantages and challenges:

            •           Efficiency and waste reduction: AI is helping food manufacturers improve their supply chains, predict customer demand, and reduce food waste. By accurately forecasting what customers will want, companies can produce the right amount of food, potentially cutting waste by up to 35 percent.

            •           Personalized nutrition: AI is being used to offer personalized dietary advice tailored to individual preferences and health needs. This growing market could revolutionize how we approach nutrition, providing customized plans to millions of people based on their unique requirements.

            •           Food safety: AI enhances food safety by monitoring contamination risks and helping companies comply with regulations. This makes the food supply chain safer and more reliable, reducing the risks of foodborne illnesses.

            •           Job replacement: AI can potentially replace many jobs in the agri-food sector, particularly in management roles. It can optimize processes like logistics, waste management, and resource planning, which may lead to significant changes in the industry and create job disruptions.

            •           New food products: AI could create custom foods and flavours based on personal preferences and even design new, self-sustaining food systems. Imagine AI recreating historical recipes or developing ethical food systems that address climate change faster than we can today.

But while AI offers clear benefits, there are also serious ethical concerns:

            •           Influencing consumer behaviour: AI could give more power to those who control data, shaping our food choices and behaviour. Dynamic pricing and advanced marketing techniques might make it harder to tell what’s true or fair. Consumers could end up disadvantaged, unaware of how their preferences are being manipulated.

            •           Cultural impact: AI might influence our food cravings, shape culinary trends, and even erode culinary traditions. Food is deeply tied to culture, traditions, and personal preferences – can AI truly improve these human aspects, or will it harm cultural diversity?

            •           Widening inequality: Wealthier individuals could access better, AI-optimized diets, while poorer communities might be stuck with less nutritious options. This inequality already exists, but AI could make it worse, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

AI could potentially completely reshape the way we think about food. While it aims to make food production more efficient, we must ensure it doesn’t erode local autonomy or food identities. It’s crucial to involve everyone in discussions about how AI is used in food and agriculture and to create regulations that prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few.

Finally, while AI holds enormous potential to revolutionize the food industry, it’s vital that we remain cautious about its broader impacts on society. AI is transforming how we produce, consume, and think about food, and it’s up to us to ensure these changes are positive and equitable.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Three rules for a Hollywood-ending job search

Troy Media
-
0
Three rules for a Hollywood-ending job search

Nick Kossovan

Troy Media

Some years back, a late afternoon on New Year’s Eve. My phone rang as I walked along the newly snow-plowed sidewalk to my home. After three months of back-and-forth with a financial service provider, my to-be boss was calling me to tell me I got the job. What a way to end 2013!

Then there was the time I was given the “you’re no longer a fit” speech, which I knew was coming. (TIP: Learn to read the room.) As I was packing, a company I’d been interviewing with – as I said, I knew what was coming – called, hiring me to manage their customer service department. Within 10 minutes, I’d call my wife to tell her I had lost my job and then call her back to say I got a new one.

Always be reading the room. Always be looking.

I’ve had several Hollywood-ending job searches, not quite “a dream job offer, champagne celebration, and living happily ever after,” but very close.

Based on my experience, a “Hollywood-ending” job search can be moderately orchestrated, but only to a certain extent. The main influencing

factors are:

            •           Establishing yourself as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) through a compelling personal brand, LinkedIn profile, resume, cover letter, and digital footprint.

            •           Actively networking and building relationships.

            •           Interviewing skillfully and leaving an impression that makes your interviewer say, “We need [your name]!”

            •           Negotiating an attractive compensation package.

            •           Feeling a genuine sense of excitement about your new job.

However, external factors such as economic conditions, employer priorities, and ubiquitous “hiring manager’s preferences” also play a significant role in the job search process. It would be naive to believe getting a job offer doesn’t involve some element of luck.

Ultimately, you can increase your chances of a “Hollywood ending,” but you can’t fully orchestrate or guarantee it. All you can do is put in the work, remain flexible, and be open to unexpected opportunities. While your job search should be characterized by positivity and persistence, remember that a degree of luck plays a role in your job search, as it does throughout your life.

I credit my success to several Hollywood-ending job searches to following these key rules:

            •           Think for yourself

The Internet, especially LinkedIn, is populated with self-proclaimed job search experts – talking heads – who are willing to take your money for information you can find for free. I’ve yet to come across a “job search expert” or “career coach” who doesn’t offer rehashed cookie-cutter advice. Following the same advice as other job seekers will not differentiate you in today’s hyper-competitive job market. Thinking for yourself, a practice that is decreasing – following and looking for shortcuts are easier – will.

Because I learn by doing, I advocate DIY job searching. In addition to saving money, DIY job searching is how you learn and develop job searching skills, which, with layoffs having become the norm, is a crucial career management skill.

I attribute much of my job search and career success to thinking critically – evaluating the pros and cons against my needs and wants – avoiding groupthink, exploring unconventional paths, charting my job search course and most importantly, trusting my instincts. Nobody knows me better than me. Rocky, Whiplash, Ford v Ferrari, The Founder and Steve Jobs are just a fraction of the many Hollywood movies where the protagonist walks their own path while thinking for themselves and ends up achieving their end goal(s).

            •           Know what you can and can’t control

A recipe for frustration: Trying to control what isn’t yours to control.

Long ago, I accepted that employers own their businesses and, therefore, own their hiring process. Instead of obsessing over (read: wasting time and energy) how employers hire, which many job seekers do, I shrug my shoulders and say to myself, “If that’s how they want to run their business, then so be it,” and move on.

Accepting that you can’t control how employers hire will improve your frame of mind.

            •           Acknowledge your limitations

“A man’s got to know his limitations.”
– Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) in Magnum Force.

Another reason many job seekers are frustrated is that they aren’t acknowledging their limitations (e.g., skills gaps, lack of experience). Life’s harshest truism is that none of us are equal biologically, genetically and at an intelligence level. Biology is the root reason why “life isn’t fair.” Therefore, let go of the belief life should be played on an even playing field.

At the onset of my career, I was frustrating myself by trying to compete against those with inborn aptitude or affinity – I call them naturals – for the jobs I was aiming for. It wasn’t until I acknowledged and accepted my limitations and my naturals that my job search results improved, and my career started heading in the right direction.

A sense of self-awareness and critical thinking has given me the smarts to target roles and employers suited to my capabilities and present myself authentically and confidently; after all, I’m in my wheelhouse. Take it from me: humility and honesty lead to better job search results and sometimes to an ending worthy of the silver screen.

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job.

How the bank of Canada could ease back-to-school lunch costs

Troy Media
-
0
How the bank of Canada could ease back-to-school lunch costs

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Due to mixed economic spending data released by Statistics Canada over the summer, the Bank of Canada lowered its overnight rate by 25 basis points on Wednesday. Further rate cuts are also anticipated in October and December.

If the overnight rate decreases by 0.5 percent by October, a family with a $500,000 variable-rate mortgage amortized over 25 years could see their annual payments decrease by up to $1,800. This reduction could cover the cost of 246 to 345 school lunches, offering meaningful financial relief for parents.

Parents across the country again face the challenge of preparing daily lunches for their children. Fortunately, this year’s grocery landscape offers some relief compared to last year’s financial pressures. While certain items have experienced price increases, others have become more affordable, allowing families to pack nutritious and varied lunches without breaking the bank.

With a bit of planning, navigating this school year’s lunch needs can be a smoother process.

Protein remains a cornerstone of a balanced school lunch, and the meat aisle presents a varied picture. While beef products, such as stewing cuts and ground beef, have seen price hikes, prices are expected to drop this fall. Poultry, including chicken breasts, thighs, and drumsticks, has become more affordable in recent months, making them an excellent option for cost-effective, protein-rich sandwiches, wraps, or salads. However, turkey may be a different story as supplies might be lower this year.

In the dairy section, prices for milk and yogurt have risen modestly but remain within reach for most households. Adding a small container of yogurt or a cheese stick to a lunchbox is still a nutritious and economical choice, ensuring that children receive the necessary calcium and protein intake throughout the day.

The produce aisle, often a source of nutrients and financial strain, presents both challenges and opportunities this year. While staple fruits like apples and oranges have seen modest price increases, other popular options, such as grapes and strawberries, are more affordable. The increased domestic production of these fruits and a strong Canadian dollar, supported by a weaker American dollar, are expected to help keep prices lower in the produce section. This trend allows parents to pack a variety of fruits in their children’s lunches, keeping them both nutritious and budget-friendly.

Vegetable prices also vary. Items like lettuce and cucumbers have become less expensive, making them ideal for sandwiches or as healthy sides. However, the price of certain vegetables, including onions and sweet potatoes, has risen. Parents can strike a balance by mixing more affordable produce with smaller portions of the pricier items, ensuring a variety of nutrients without overspending.

Pantry staples are essential for school lunches, and this year, they offer some stability compared to the volatility experienced last year. While some items have seen price increases, others, such as canned beans, pasta sauce, and cooking oils, have remained stable or even decreased in cost. Canned tuna and salmon are also expected to be more affordable, making them excellent choices for sandwiches.

Frozen foods provide convenience and flexibility for busy mornings. Prices for some frozen vegetables and fruits, such as strawberries, have decreased, making them an attractive option for quick and nutritious additions to lunch boxes. These frozen items can be used in smoothies or packed directly into lunchboxes.

While the back-to-school season always brings some level of adjustment, the grocery landscape this year is more favourable. Depending on your location, prices may vary, but the nationwide trends suggest that, with a bit of foresight, families can manage their lunch preparations more effectively, making this school year a little easier on both wallets and minds.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

To stand out in your job search, understanding the employer’s needs is crucial

Troy Media
-
0
To stand out in your job search, understanding the employer’s needs is crucial

Nick Kossovan

Troy Media

Employers are human beings; like all humans, they look out for their interests. In other words, companies structure their hiring processes to identify and select candidates who will effectively serve their company’s interests.

People with meteoric careers often envied, acknowledge, and therefore strategically work with two facts:

            •           The employer’s interest dictates the workplace.

            •           It’s not the candidate’s place to decide what’s in the employer’s best interest.

Most job seekers hold the opinion that employers should select candidates purely based on their skills and qualifications. For the employer, “most qualified” doesn’t necessarily equal “best.” When recruiting and selecting new employees, employers have the right and responsibility to prioritize their organizational interests.

Two harsh truisms:

            •           Companies choose what’s best for them.

            •           There’s no such thing as a “must-have” candidate.

The concept of a great candidate (yes, a great candidate is a concept) is highly subjective. No company has gone bankrupt because it failed to hire a supposed “great candidate.”

Merely labelling yourself as a great candidate or talented without demonstrating your potential to enhance the employer’s bottom line isn’t a convincing reason to hire you. Unsubstantiated opinions are worthless. For your opinion(s) of yourself to be taken seriously, it must be backed up by credible evidence.

During the hiring process, employers protect their interests in the following areas:

Prioritizing relevant skills and experience:

Employers look for candidates with job-specific skills, knowledge, and experience. They want to ensure the new hire can hit the ground running and be productive immediately.

Assessing cultural fit:

Employers evaluate a candidate’s values, working style, and personality to ensure they’ll fit into the company’s culture. All hiring decisions come down to: Will this candidate fit in?

Considering long-term potential:

Employers prefer candidates with growth potential who can take on more responsibilities in the future.

Avoiding excessive costs:

Employers strive to hire the best possible candidate while managing labour costs (salary, benefits, training requirements).

Mitigating risks:

To minimize the risk of making a bad hire, employers review a candidate’s background and digital footprint and speak to their references beforehand.

With all of the above in mind, it’s your responsibility as a job seeker to demonstrate to employers why hiring you would be in their best interest by:

Understanding the employer’s perspective

Many job seekers struggle with their job search because of their mindset. A person’s mindset is everything, especially when looking for work, as it influences how they perceive employers and job possibilities. The savvy job searcher knows that it’s not about them; it’s about the employer. They envision the employer as a potential customer. Employers create jobs and, therefore, paychecks; consequently, they’re the customers. As Harry Gordon Selfridge, the founder of Selfridge’s department store in London, famously said, “The customer is always right.”

By empathizing with the employer’s perspective, it’ll become apparent that employers are making strategic investments in their human capital rather than simply filling open positions. An organization’s long-term success requires hiring people who can contribute (read: add measurable value), not those with an extensive resume that doesn’t show what measurable value-adds they can contribute to the employer.

Employers are responsible for building a workforce that can drive productivity, protect the company’s competitive advantages, and mitigate legal/reputation risks. Therefore, think about how you can position your candidacy as an excellent strategic investment.

Highlighting your unique value proposition

When communicating with employers, you must go beyond simply stating your qualifications and experience. Focus on articulating a unique value proposition – your ability to meet the employer’s most pressing needs and objectives – to answer the question in the back of the employer’s mind, “Why should I hire this person? What difference will they make to the company?”

Do you have a proven track record of boosting productivity and efficiency? Maybe you possess niche technical skills that would give the company a competitive edge. Perhaps you have a book of clients. Most job seekers fail to demonstrate how they’ll provide a substantial return on their compensation – the employer’s investment. Don’t be like most job seekers! If you’re asking for a salary of $95,000, be ready to explain quantitatively what the employer will get in return.

Demonstrating your commitment to their success

Employers are not just looking for someone to fill a role; they want someone passionate about contributing to the company’s success. Show them that you’re that person.

Ultimately, the hiring process is not a charity or a favour employers do for job seekers. It is a strategic business decision that can make or break an organization’s ability to thrive. While employers should treat all candidates with respect and fairness, they’re well within their rights to design their hiring practices to serve their best interests. Just because an employer’s hiring process doesn’t work for the job seeker doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for the employer.

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job.

Saskatchewanians are overtaxed. They need tax relief

Troy Media
-
0
Saskatchewanians are overtaxed. They need tax relief

Politicians should commit to tax relief for Saskatchewan taxpayers in the upcoming election while also ensuring the budget returns to balance

Gage Haubrich, Troy Media

Compared to the rest of the country, Saskatchewan residents are the most likely to report that they are struggling financially.

While rent and groceries both eat away at a family’s budget, even together those costs pale in comparison to the largest cost a family faces every year – taxes.

In Saskatchewan, the average family pays 47 percent of their yearly income in taxes. Families pay so much in taxes that, for the first six months of the year, you aren’t working for yourself: all your earnings essentially go toward filling up the government’s piggy bank.

The upcoming election is a perfect time for politicians to commit to putting more money back in Saskatchewanian’s pockets.

So far, the NDP is the only party that has promised any new tax relief if elected. NDP leader Carla Beck has promised to slash the province’s 15 cent-per-litre gas tax.

Premier Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party haven’t made any new election commitments on tax relief yet, but they do point out their government’s past tax cuts.

Let’s look at the tax-cutting record of both parties.

The Saskatchewan Party has been in power for almost two decades. In 2007, families making $75,000 a year could expect to pay about $6,400 in provincial taxes. Today, that same family pays $3,860 to Regina every year.

That $2,540 of savings is because of years of tax cuts that have added up over time. In 2008 and 2011, the government increased the basic personal amount. That means you can earn more money without being hit by provincial income taxes. In 2017, the government also reduced each tax bracket by half a percentage point.

But while Moe and his predecessor have had ample time to lower taxes, they have also done their best to ensure taxpayers pay more Provincial Sales Tax (PST).

In 2017, the government raised the PST from five to six percent and removed exemptions for used cars, restaurant meals and children’s clothes. In 2022, Moe started charging the PST on all different types of event tickets.

But what about the NDP?

In 2006, the NDP cut the PST from seven to five percent, which meant Saskatchewan had the lowest PST outside of Alberta. In the same year, the NDP also cut business taxes from 17 percent to 12 percent.

But they haven’t hesitated to raise taxes either. In the 1993 budget, former NDP Premier Roy Romanow hiked the gas tax, PST, and business taxes.

If Moe wants to prove to taxpayers that he cares about affordability, a PST cut is the way to do it. Unlike the NDP’s promise to cut the gas tax, a PST cut would make almost everything a family buys cheaper. And it would show that the government has learned from its mistake of raising the tax in the past.

Finance Minister Donna Harpauer has stated that it wasn’t “possible” to lower taxes and balance the budget because of all the government’s spending increases.

This means that any politician promising a much-needed tax cut in Saskatchewan will need to present a concrete plan for reducing government spending to make it feasible.

According to the Fraser Institute, the Saskatchewan government has spent an average of about $900 million per year on corporate welfare since 2007. Slashing these handouts would be enough to cut the gas tax or reduce the PST by one percentage point and eliminate the deficit.

The NDP has rightly called out Moe for increasing the debt. But promising a tax cut without a plan to balance the budget just means taxpayers will end up paying off the government’s debt later, when the bill will be even bigger.

Both parties need a plan to make life affordable for Saskatchewan taxpayers, but they also need a plan to get the budget back to balance at the same time.

Gage Haubrich is the Prairie Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Can consumer-based altruism succeed at grocery stores?

Troy Media
-
0
Can consumer-based altruism succeed at grocery stores?

Montreal’s 3 Paniers grocery store tests a new approach to pricing and social equity

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Experimenting with consumer-based philanthropy at the grocery store level is an idea that fascinates both economists and social entrepreneurs. The idea of relying on consumers’ generosity and altruistic nature to help those in need while keeping a grocery store afloat raises important questions.

But can this approach truly succeed in practice?

A unique experiment is taking place in Montreal with the opening of an independent grocery store called 3 Paniers. This store offers three pricing options: the “Solidarity Price,” which reduces profit margins to make groceries more accessible for those on a tight budget; the “Suggested Price,” which includes a standard profit margin necessary for the store’s financial sustainability; and the “Pay-it-Forward Price,” which not only covers costs but also helps subsidize the Solidarity Price, supporting the store’s mission of social equity.

The question remains whether many consumers will opt for the Pay-it-Forward option. While one can be hopeful, the reality may differ. Consumers, regardless of their financial means, often manage their food budgets in a variety of ways. Stores like 3 Paniers may attract individuals drawn to the mission, but their numbers are likely to remain small.

A similar concept was tested at The Anarchist, a self-described “anti-capitalist” café in Toronto, which operated on a “pay what you can” model. It closed last year after just over a year in business. Despite this, the idea has not disappeared. Another Pay-What-You-Can food market opened in Kitchener in June, aiming to improve food accessibility in the community. Numerous lesser-known initiatives across the country share this goal: how to encourage the more fortunate to support those left behind while grocery shopping. Yet, this remains an elusive concept that has not yet proven successful.

Altruism is more easily harnessed by food banks and food-rescue organizations like Second Harvest. However, integrating different socio-economic groups within a single grocery store has always been challenging. The idea of wealthier customers supporting the poor in real-time, as they interact within the same shopping environment, is precisely what these initiatives aim to achieve. While these concepts have the potential to create inclusive spaces that bridge socio-economic divides, they often face long-term sustainability issues. Human nature tends to focus on personal interests, so people are often reluctant to overpay for their own groceries to support others.

However, charitable activities such as this are already being done on a much larger scale, albeit without much fanfare. Despite facing criticism for years, major grocers like Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro, Costco, and Walmart Canada contribute significantly to food banks and food-rescue agencies. For instance, Metro, the smallest of the country’s big three grocers, donated more than $60 million to food banks last year. These companies, while profitable, also play a substantial role in supporting people in need, contributing to various initiatives such as child welfare, literacy, education, and housing.

Smaller social enterprises, on the other hand, focus on uniting communities by involving volunteers and fostering a sense of collective responsibility. It’s hard to argue against the value of these efforts. Most of us would like to see these enterprises succeed and thrive. Yet, making these initiatives sustainable will remain a significant challenge.

Allowing consumers to choose their price is certainly an intriguing concept. It’s just a shame we can’t do the same with our personal income taxes.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

How employers decide how much to pay you

Troy Media
-
0
How employers decide how much to pay you

Nick Kossovan

Troy Media

Being paid what you’re worth is a hot topic.

Five anecdotal examples of how employers assess a job’s worth:

            •           A Vancouver-based software company pays $180,000 for a senior developer role, citing the high cost of living and intense competition for talent.

            •           A nationwide retail chain compensates its store associates according to regional minimum wage laws rather than their skills and experience.

            •           Even though the ideal candidate must have extensive fundraising expertise, a non-profit organization lowers the salary range for a grant writer position to accommodate the decline in donations.

            •           A rural manufacturing plant pays its production workers less than their urban counterparts, citing the lower cost of living.

            •           A consulting firm’s compensation packages for junior analysts include a base salary, bonuses, and stock options designed to attract top graduates.

In the same way, the price of milk, housing, or dog food varies from store to store and region to region; a position’s worth isn’t universal. What’s universal when determining the value of a position is to consider the expected return on investment (ROI) for the employee’s salary:

            •           Productivity: For production roles, employers estimate the candidate’s potential output, efficiency, and contribution to revenue or cost savings based on their skills, experience, and track record.

            •           Revenue Generation: For revenue-generating roles, employers predict how the candidate will increase sales, secure new clients, or expand the business.

            •           Cost Savings: For operational roles, employers estimate the employee’s potential to improve processes, reduce errors, or streamline workflows, quantifying the expected cost savings the candidate will deliver.

            •           Market Rates: Companies research salary benchmarks for similar roles in their industry and region.

            •           Affordability (cash flow): How much can the company spend on payroll? (Companies closely monitor their payroll, their largest expense, to keep it from being a “profit distraction.”)

These factors help employers determine what compensation will make the position worthwhile; in other words, the employee adds more value than their salary will cost.

Three key takeaways:

            •           Employers seek to maximize the ROI on their human capital.

            •           Candidates are more valuable when they’re seen as synonymous with profits.

            •           Worth (read: value) in the business world isn’t subjective; it must be proven.

Internet talking heads, trying to appeal to today’s prevalent sense of entitlement, advise job seekers to “demand their worth.” This advice is the cause of the dilemma many job seekers struggle with: Should I base my compensation expectation on what I think I’m worth or what the job market says the job is worth?

Wrong question!

Job seekers should ask themselves, “Should I base my compensation expectation on what I can prove I’m worth or what the job market says the job is worth?”

Always strive to prove what you’re worth, especially during an interview, while considering the following:

Evaluate the job responsibilities

Higher compensation is paid for expertise-intensive, decision-making-intensive, complex, or business-critical roles. For instance, senior data scientists earn more than entry-level data analysts.

Additionally, there’s the scope and scale of the role. Directors and managers overseeing multimillion-dollar budgets or large teams are valued more highly than those in minor managerial roles.

Know the industry standard

Platforms like Glassdoor, PayScale, and Salary.com, as well as government labour statistics and industry association surveys, provide crowdsourced salary data you can use as a starting point. Even though the objective of proving your worth is to obtain the highest compensation possible, you don’t want to ask for compensation that’s excessively outside the ballpark.

Supply and demand (a critical factor)

ECON 101: Supply and demand influence price; hence, roles with a limited talent pool and high demand will naturally command a higher salary.

The shortage of certain specialized technical skills, such as cybersecurity or data engineering, increases the cost of hiring those candidates. Conversely, recruiters and talent acquisition specialists are abundant, so employers can be more selective and offer lower salaries.

The employer’s budget (the most significant determining factor)

Employers aren’t a bottomless pit of money. As much as 70 percent of a business’s expenses can be attributed to labour costs (wages, benefits, payroll tax). Much like we’re constrained by financial realities when shopping for “whatever,” employers are similarly constrained when hiring.

Organizational size, revenue, profitability, investor and shareholder demands, and strategic priorities are considered when determining a position’s wage. Generally, companies allocate higher compensation budgets to roles essential to achieving their key objectives.

Never base your expectations solely on your own sense of worth. Research industry benchmarks, regional pay trends, and the specific demands of the role. Then, be prepared to discuss and justify the measurable value (key) you can bring to the employer. Highlight your unique skills, experience, and, most importantly, the results you’ve delivered.

            •           Grew email subscriber list from 300 to 2,000 in eight months with no budget increase.

            •           Managed 500+ customer accounts for five years without a complaint and got a 98 percent rating on reviews online.

            •           Wrote 400+ informative articles, increasing organic website traffic by 21 percent.

The job market is the primary determinant of a role’s worth – not your personal assessment. (Why should employers be responsible for the lifestyle you created?) A successful job search comes down to convincing an employer that your compensation request will result in a positive ROI.

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job.

Golden Arches faces mounting pressure

Troy Media
-
0
Golden Arches faces mounting pressure

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Most investors would caution against betting against McDonald’s. The world’s leading restaurant chain has consistently demonstrated resilience, constantly modernizing and adapting to market changes.

However, the company now faces significant challenges, as revealed in its most recent quarterly results. McDonald’s has experienced a global decline in sales for the first time in almost four years, driven by rising prices, weaker demand in Asia, and ongoing boycotts related to the conflict in Gaza.

The fast-food giant reported a one percent decrease in same-store sales for the second quarter, marking its first drop since the pandemic led to the closure of thousands of branches in early 2020. This decline is substantial, particularly given that higher food inflation is typically advantageous for the fast-food industry. Yet, McDonald’s has not been able to capitalize on this trend.

Boycotts against the company began last year after McDonald’s Israel announced it was donating thousands of free meals to Israel’s troops engaged in combat in Gaza. The company acknowledged during their earnings call that these boycotts have negatively impacted its sales.

McDonald’s today is markedly different from a decade ago. In 2014, the chain employed over 400,000 people to support its operations and restaurants. Thanks to significant operational efficiencies, that number has now decreased to 150,000, excluding restaurant outlet employees. Introducing self-service kiosks and automation has transformed the customer experience, albeit making it slower and more cumbersome as patrons navigate menu options and payment methods.

The company’s product offerings have also evolved. McDonald’s now offers Happy Meals for adults, priced between $16 to $18 before taxes, and the Big Mac is no longer as substantial, appearing more medium-sized. Consequently, McDonald’s is no longer perceived as fast or cheap. This has prompted the company to rethink its pricing strategy, as reduced customer spending has impacted sales.

Despite offering discounts in certain markets, the perception of McDonald’s as an affordable option is waning, exacerbated by price increases of 21 to 23 percent, aligning with general food inflation in many countries.

A critical issue for McDonald’s has been the speed at which it has raised prices compared to its rivals. The company’s price increases are almost double those observed at competitors like Burger King, Wendy’s, and Harvey’s. In today’s market, consumers are more price-sensitive and have noticed these differences.

Despite these setbacks, McDonald’s continues to grow. The chain now operates nearly 41,900 restaurants worldwide, a record number. For every restaurant they close, they open two more, maintaining a significant lead over the second-largest chain, Starbucks. Canada, with 1,466 McDonald’s restaurants, ranks ninth globally in restaurants per capita. While Canada’s growing population offers room for expansion, many Canadians question if McDonald’s can remain viable in a budget-conscious market.

McDonald’s supply chain practices prominently feature Canadian farmers, and the company heavily advertises its commitment to local agriculture. McDonald’s Canada is one of the country’s largest purchasers of beef, potatoes, and eggs, maintaining strong support for farmers, bolstering its reputation in farming communities.

Canadians currently spend about 35 percent of their food budget on dining out, compared to 39 percent before the pandemic. As mobility increases, spending on food away from home will likely rise, even though menu price increases are double those seen in grocery stores.

Historically, every time McDonald’s has faced adversity, it has rebounded stronger. The current economic situation mirrors conditions from 40 years ago, when inflation, unemployment, and interest rates were all above 15 percent. During that period, McDonald’s not only survived but thrived, growing even more influential. It stands to reason that the chain will navigate the present challenges and emerge resilient again.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

123...22Page 1 of 22