Alan T Perry 🇨🇦

Priest in the Anglican Church of Canada. Canon lawyer. Views my own.

Public Key

npub1ch0u354cc2shvf9y6nsdlq5hrcwxax3mergg2jy207ltkk27ss2slq3hgw

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvth7g62uv9gtkyjjdfcxls2t3u8rwngau35y9fz98l04mt90gg9gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dszed9ul

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1ch0u354cc2shvf9y6nsdlq5hrcwxax3mergg2jy207ltkk27ss2slq3hgw

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-05-11 12:15:21 UTC

- reply

Living Wage campaigns are certainly helpful in putting pressure on companies to boost the lowest wages they pay, and on the statutory minimum wage. Good to see this group turning their attention to pensions as well. There's also the issue of unemployment and disability benefits being far from adequate. Lots of work to do, but the most important is to change the culture to expect that all members of society are entitled to live decently.
We may not fully end inequality, but we can end poverty. If poverty is a policy choice, so could universal flourishing also be a policy choice. There may be a question of how best to get there, but a half century of the trickle-down experiment shows it doesn't work. Neither does the gig economy.
Decent pay, decent pensions, decent benefits are all a worthwhile start.

2026-05-05 11:29:46 UTC

- reply

That's a problem I hadn't considered with respect to disability insurance. My employer's Long Term Disability (LTD) plan contributes to the employer pension plan, but would not cover any growth in earnings including inflation. And I have carried supplemental private LTD insurance for years, which would also pay into a private saving scheme. But neither would pay into our contributory state pension though that also includes a disability income component. It's a gap in our respective systems.

2026-05-05 11:00:58 UTC

- reply

I sat on my employer's pension committee for 18 years, and I agree. DB pensions, whether state-run or private, are truly pensions. DC "pensions" are not. As you say, they are tax-advantaged savings schemes. Same for personal retirement saving schemes. (In Canada we call them Registered Retirement Saving Plans or RRSPs for short.)
But the downside is that they are costly and carry considerable risk and uncertainty for the employee. And they are lucrative for the financial services industry. Plus, as I have said elsewhere recently, they presume a level of financial sophistication that most workers simply don't have.

2026-03-31 10:43:01 UTC

- reply

It doesn't have to be either/or. We could create money (MMT) *and* tax the techbros.

2026-03-31 10:37:04 UTC

- reply

As a frequent visitor, one thing I really like(d) about free entry to museums is that you can pop in for an hour or less and meaningfully engage with an exhibit or part of one in the time available. When paying a large entry fee you really want to commit to significant time to see most of of the museum to justify the fee. If all you have is 45 minutes, you simply won't go.

2026-03-29 12:12:41 UTC

- reply

This is then transmitted uncritically to the populace by journalists who don't understand or ignore the assumptions built in to models and the intrinsic limitations that should be inferred.
The same is true of polling.
What we need is much more humility among "experts" of all stripes, and more critical thinking across society. We just don't seem to be capable of dealing with nuance or uncertainty in public discourse.

2026-03-26 11:57:57 UTC

- reply

Two thoughts arise from this.
First, the article says that "a chatbot did not kill those children. People failed to update a database, and other people built a system fast enough to make that failure lethal." Classic GIGO, but on steroids, and with lethal implications for scores of innocent schoolgirls.
Second, as the saying goes, a poor workman blames his tools. So maybe the primary problem isn't the tools, however suspect these particular ones are, but the workmen. (And, yes, I use the masculine advisedly.)

2026-03-18 11:29:35 UTC

- reply

A critical question with assisted dying (referred to in Canada as MAID - Medical Assistance In Dying) is whether it is last resort or first resort. What alternatives are being suggested and truly made available? Is there proper access to good palliative care? Are there supports available to make the choice not to receive MAID a viable choice?
What we have in Canada is a set of circumstances that push people toward MAID. Inadequate access to and funding of palliative care, increasing concern about care homes (especially the corporate-run homes), benefits so inadequate that at least one recipient publicly requested MAID to end the stress of trying to survive without enough, families requesting MAID so the timing of the patient's death doesn't interfere with an upcoming holiday....
There may be a place for MAID, but it cannot be a substitute for a caring society.
In my view it needs to be seen as last resort, but is increasingly becoming the default position for lack of funding and imagination.

2026-03-12 13:11:21 UTC

cc @npub12pw…zvxn
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/redistribution-through-a-basic-income/

2026-03-12 10:46:36 UTC

- reply

Whilst I'm not averse to this release of reserves, they are finite so this move may only be slowing the inevitable. The best move would be to use the time being bought to double down on decarbonisation.

2026-03-10 11:24:10 UTC

- reply

As Canadian economist Jim Stanford recently pointed out, the petrol you are pumping into your car at inflated prices was refined weeks ago from oil extracted months ago. So why, other than profiteering, is the price rising? Funny how an increased *future* price of oil is applied retroactively.
FWIW, Canada is a net exporter of fossil fuels and the price of petrol has jumped 15-20%. Fossil fuel sovereignty is an illusion.
Personally, I'm not directly affected by the increase as I gave up car ownership in 2018. Indirectly, of course, other prices will rise/are rising as the profiteering works its way through the economy.

2026-03-01 13:32:46 UTC

- reply

Enforcement is certainly a work in progress, but there is progress. The International Criminal Court, for all its limitations, is still useful and effective. Though of course the US denies its jurisdiction and of late has been abusing its officials through sanctions.
Nevertheless, even absent full enforcement law still has value in setting out norms which, to the extent that they are agreed, are generally observed. We see this in particular with quasi-legislation - guidelines, codes of practice, etc. - which is not subject to enforcement yet still influences behaviour.
It may seem quixotic, but pointing out that there are norms which must be respected is still in my view a useful effort, in calling attention to the egregious violations of those norms, in expressing outrage, in calling the violators of the norms to account, and in encouraging them to reign in their actions. And if the generals won't stop ordering atrocities, maybe some of the soldiers will begin refusing orders.

2026-02-24 13:00:38 UTC

- reply

I presume that, having won the lawsuit, FedEx will then refund its customers the tariffs it passed on to them.

2026-02-24 12:45:10 UTC

- reply

That said, aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions. So does streaming video. Whilst we can and should reduce those emissions, there is more to be gained from addressing other sources of emissions. I'm not saying it's either/or, but a little perspective is helpful.
Cloud computing and AI are voracious and growing users of (often fossil fuel produced) electricity.
Electricity generation and heating are by far the number 1 sources of emissions.
Transportation is huge.
Manufacturing, building, industry are all big emitters.
Here's a useful chart of emissions by sector:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-by-sector

2026-02-24 12:36:00 UTC

- reply

Frequent flyer here. A few points:
First, reducing emissions from aviation is a laudable goal, and can be achieved by numerous strategies, such as more efficient aircraft, fewer flights, access to alternatives such as high-speed rail, and so on.
The aviation industry is doing plenty of things such as improving load factors, lightening equipment, and running more point to point flights rather than hub and spoke services. All of that helps.
Part of the calculus of the business class seats ignored by the article is that they are heavy. Those lovely lie-flat pods weigh a significant amount more than an economy seat, and weight means emissions. However, being able to arrive from a 14 hour flight relaxed and well rested has value.
Part of the calculus of business class is that it's higher price subsidizes those cheaper economy class tickets. Reducing or eliminating business class would mean an increase in economy class prices. .../

2026-02-17 12:36:37 UTC

- reply

I've long said that UBER is an acronym for Unethical Business Evading Responsibility.

2026-02-17 12:13:33 UTC

RE: https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/116085742947462240
Must read thread. Now if you are a customer of these exploitative apps, consider your role in using them. Sure, it's convenient. At what price?
#note1yyc…urmg

2026-02-14 16:36:10 UTC

- reply

One way to counter the influence of money in politics was in place in Canada: partial public funding of political parties. In addition to donation caps, each federal party got $2 per year for each vote cast for it in the previous general election. It encouraged voting - your preferred candidate may lose, but your vote gives the party $2 per year. And it somewhat mitigated the constant fundraising efforts of the parties.
Sadly, this policy was discontinued under Stephen Harper.

2026-02-11 11:57:02 UTC

- reply

Excellent!
Reminds me of the comment that the constant breathless reporting of various indicators such as stock market levels, GDP, etc. amounts to "economic pornography."

2026-02-07 15:48:13 UTC

'Supposedly, eliminating waste and corruption was the mantra of “free trade” neo-liberals. But the massive waste and corruption in the financial sector is easy for anyone with clear eyes to see.'
https://cepr.net/publications/oren-cass-uses-good-economics-in-attacking-finance-in-nyt/
cc: @npub12pw…zvxn

2026-02-06 12:17:27 UTC

- reply

A fundamental problem with our various democratic systems is that they are built on the underlying assumption of reasonable men acting reasonably. (I use the masculine deliberately.) Rules exist in part to mark the boundaries of reasonability and in part to restrain the unreasonable men acting unreasonably. But the latter are assumed to be outliers. When they are in the ascendant, as now in various places, the system breaks down. A system built on care, compassion and an ethic of selflessness degenerates quickly into cronyism, corruption and self-dealing.
The bullies don't win in the end, but they cause immense damage and suffering while they have their moment in the spotlight.

2026-02-02 12:25:32 UTC

- reply

Yes, individual bonds are repaid with interest, but net debt still rises as new bonds are issued. I was too hasty in my comment.

2026-02-02 12:23:20 UTC

- reply

Which implies that in my case, though I always pay my cards off on time, and thus never pay interest on them, I also always carry debt as I use cards regularly. (I don't use debit cards at all, and not much cash.)
Fair enough, but on the macro level a society with widespread use of credit cards will appear very different on the table to a society that tends to use cash or debit more.

2026-02-02 12:09:25 UTC

- reply

My non-economist take:
A difference between private vs public debt is that by and large private debt is expected to be repaid, whilst public debt isn't. Increasing private debt can lead to widespread defaults with obvious consequences.

2026-02-02 12:04:08 UTC

- reply

Methodology question re credit cards: how is that reflected? E.g., I have a card with a $20,000 limit, just received a bill for $2000, which will be paid in full before the due date, and meanwhile have already charged $200 in the new billing cycle. What is the debt? $20,000? $2200? $2000? $0?

2026-01-22 12:50:07 UTC

- reply

This is why we need pension reform. Cut pensions enough so that senior staff are unable to retire, so there's no need for junior staff. And save corporate money in the process to enhance CEO bonuses! What's not to love?
/sarcasm

2026-01-21 12:10:43 UTC

- reply

This raises the question of whether there is any point in negotiating about anything with a party that will unilaterally abrogate any agreement on a whim. So if that's the way things are, why waste everyone's time?

2026-01-16 11:56:00 UTC

- reply

It's the government telling academics "heads I win, tails you lose."
But, not to discount the efforts of academics, I can imagine two other possible contributing factors:
1) students may be more motivated to work harder to succeed in an increasingly competitive world;
2) some more marginal potential students may be discouraged from applying by the increasing student debt loads, which would increase average grades, albeit not numbers of first class degrees.
Neither hypothesis has been tested, of course.

2026-01-10 18:50:28 UTC

- reply

FWIW, in Canada, maximum unemployment benefit is $20.82 per hour, assuming a 35 hour work week (it's $729 per week). Minimum wage in Ontario is $17.60 per hour, but living wage in Toronto (the most expensive city to live in in Ontario) is $27.20. Annualized that's $37,908 on benefit vs $49,504 living wage. For context, median salary in Toronto is around $62,000.
Benefits are 55% of average weekly earnings to a maximum of $68,900 per year. So anyone earning up to $68,900 who goes on benefits sees an immediate drop in income of 45%. Anyone earning more than that sees a bigger percentage drop. For anyone reading, if you're employed, consider what a drop in income of 45% or more would mean for you.

2025-12-31 16:24:01 UTC

- reply

She's definitely worth following. She was with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and now the Atkinson Foundation. CCPA has loads of material worth reading, academically rigorous, but accessible to non-experts like me. It is, of course, Canadian in its focus, but still of value I think to non-Canadians who can translate its insights to their own context.

2025-12-31 11:59:45 UTC

- reply

Canadian progressive economist Armine Yalnizyan often speaks of what she calls the care economy. She notes that it is a significant and generally under-discussed part of the total economy. I think you would find a lot in common.

2025-12-31 11:53:30 UTC

- reply

Best wishes for the year ahead! May it be happy and healthy for you and those whom you love.

2025-12-28 14:59:56 UTC

- reply

Further to the first point, if progressive *income* taxation discourages higher earning, would not progressive *consumption* taxation discourage higher consumption? This has implications for a consumption based economy.

2025-12-28 14:33:47 UTC

- reply

It might be worth a conversation, but this article doesn't seem to me to be a starting place.
First, the article asserts that progressive taxation discourages higher earnings. It conveniently compares two people earning £50k and £70k. The tax band in England and Wales is 40% for incomes between £50-125k. (20% below £50k and 45% above £125k). So the article asserts that someone earning £50k would turn down a job paying £70k because they would have to pay a higher rate of tax on the excess. Really?
Second, the only example of progressive consumption tax in the article is in fact a tweak of the income tax system to allow income averaging, which would reduce taxes on higher earners, thus reducing progressive income taxation. No mention of consumption!
Finally, it ignores the mobility of the wealthy, much of whose consumption is abroad and thus untaxable at home. Even among the less well off this would discourage domestic tourism and might encourage smuggling.
Just a few thoughts.

2025-12-21 12:29:31 UTC

- reply

As I have said elsewhere, charities step in to mitigate the harms caused by the failings of governments. In an ideal world they would not be necessary. But since this is not an ideal world we each are asked to contribute proportionately to what we have. I encourage a goal of 5% of income. The math is easy: $£€1 per week for every $£€1,000 you earn per year. If that sound generous, that's because it is! But it would make an enormous difference.

2025-12-07 08:35:13 UTC

- reply

My take is that during the tech bubble of the late 1990s employers loved taking contribution holidays because the investments performed so well, then when the bubble burst employers were shocked that they had to start contributing anything at all, so converted to DC schemes.

2025-12-07 08:27:13 UTC

- reply

Costs to employers are not necessarily higher. In fact, for the same cost they can provide much better pensions, and risk can still be shared. Target Benefit schemes are a reasonable compromise.

2025-12-07 00:01:17 UTC

- reply

A related problem with DC schemes is that they assume the employees have a certain level of financial sophistication whilst accumulating retirement funds during their employment. Some might, but many don't.
DB plans provide better pensions, with predictability for workers, at lower cost. There has to be a better way.

2025-12-02 23:22:29 UTC

- reply

Happy Anniversary to you both!

2025-12-01 03:38:27 UTC

- reply

Good food for thought. Well organized, hybrid work could provide the best of both the fully present and fully remote worlds. But it would be important to avoid it providing the worst of bot worlds.
The biggest challenge I would watch for is incorporation of new hires into the team. A second issue is how the employer fulfils the duty of care both when an employee is frequently not physically present and when the employee is working from home.
And, of course, there is a class divide between those whose work is amenable to a remote or hybrid setting and those for whom that is simply impossible because of the nature of the work. Will the latter become even more of an under-class?

2025-11-29 01:14:35 UTC

- reply

From a US perspective, but still useful, I think, the Robert Reich film Inequality for All is worthwhile. It's a few years old, but still worth a view.

2025-11-24 11:40:41 UTC

- reply

And how much will this proposed crackdown cost against the amount to be saved?

2025-11-24 11:26:07 UTC

- reply

As the saying goes, it's a lot easier to borrow a billion than a million.

2025-11-11 11:27:00 UTC

- reply

If you have 6 minutes, here's a great take on banking from the Canadian economist and humourist, Stephen Leacock. Made into a wonderful animated short film by the National Film Board of Canada.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/my_financial_career/

2025-10-31 11:39:30 UTC

- reply

Tipping is totally out of control in North America. It fosters attitudes of subservience among serving staff and entitlement among customers, leading to all sorts of abuses in interactions, ranging from callous indifference toward staff through rudeness, aggressive behaviour and sexual harassment.
Add in rampant double tip inflation where not only have restaurant prices increased but the suggested tip percentage has also increased in recent years from 15% as "standard" to 18% as minimum through 25% and even 30%! And these levels simply magically appear on the credit card terminal for easy selection.
And, as you suggest, no-one knows how these inflated tips actually get divided up among staff, management and owners. Bear in mind, too, that credit card companies also take a percentage of each transaction, presumably including the tip.
We really need to rethink how we treat and pay servers. Fairness and dignity in all work.

2025-10-28 10:16:36 UTC

- reply

I'm no economist, but wouldn't front-end loading the redistribution lead to growth in a consumer led economy? 🤔

2025-10-23 15:22:20 UTC

- reply

And often not very good ones at that. I remember looking at the rates of return versus fees in one such scheme and they all represented negative net value added. Where there were excess returns above the benchmark, fees exceeded those returns. And for some of the funds, returns were worse than the benchmark plus fees on top! The real (and only, in my view) winner in this scheme was the investment manager.
The scheme was wound up and the members transitioned to a proper DB pension at the same contribution level.

2025-10-23 11:10:45 UTC

- reply

I served on my employer's pension committees for 22 years. There are many problems with DC schemes, including the one you cite. Really, they shouldn't be called pensions at all. They generate inferior retirement income at higher risk and higher cost than traditional DB pensions.

2025-10-20 13:16:37 UTC

- reply

Echoes of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

2025-10-12 11:29:44 UTC

- reply

Or indeed any assessment of what a job entails, even absent a consideration of automation.

2025-10-06 11:13:15 UTC

- reply

Interesting development.
There is a significant class divide between those whose work can be done from home, or otherwise remotely, and those whose work by its nature can only be done on site. Broadly, white collar versus blue collar. Class privilege.
Questions, too, about how employers fulfil their duty of care toward remote workers.
Whilst there are some obvious attractions to increased remote work, it will nevertheless be interesting to watch for any unintended consequences.
Personally, I think a four-day work week would be a higher priority. And could mitigate the class privilege.

2025-09-21 12:12:46 UTC

- reply

Georges Clemenceau comes to mind:
"America is the only nation in history which, miraculously, has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation."
A bit harsh, perhaps, but it's definitely in the degeneration phase.

2025-09-07 13:14:54 UTC

- reply

Thank you. Must look for a copy of your book!

2025-09-07 11:41:57 UTC

- reply

There is, I think, a critical difference between Rule *of* Law and Rule *by* Law, which governments forget at everyone's peril.
Rule *of* Law is a system of coherent and well-formed rules in which the weak are protected against the abuses of the strong, and everyone in society is equally subject to those rules. It leads to predictable outcomes, rather than arbitrary or even capricious actions by those who govern.
Rule *by* Law is a weaponization of law in which governments enact rules that assert their authority in, frankly, arbitrary fashion with a fig leaf of "democratic" legitimacy.
We see examples of Rule by Law on both sides of the Atlantic, and the ensuing protests by people who, accustomed to Rule of Law, are outraged by the arbitrary weaponization of law and the intrinsic unfairness therein.

2025-08-25 10:36:19 UTC

- reply

There are two separate issues here that are dependent on perspective. For websites the issue is reduced traffic from Google searches. For searchers the issue is increasing extraneous "information" to wade through.
FWIW, as a searcher, you can put "-ai" at the end of your search parameters in Google to omit the AI chaff.

2025-08-19 10:57:47 UTC

- reply

As someone else has said, men tend to choose high paying careers such as engineer, solicitor, doctor, whilst women tend to choose lower paying careers such as female engineer, female solicitor, female doctor. 🙄

2025-08-13 11:17:43 UTC

- reply

Yes, but my point was it's not the government's role to determine whether those arrested are guilty or, if so, what the penalty will be. The quoted comment downplaying the probable sentence for those arrested presumes guilt and usurps the court's role in sentencing. The government has done its work (well or badly), the police have done theirs (well or badly), now let the courts do their work.
(And, of course, as you and others have pointed out, the mere finding of guilt carries consequences beyond any penalty levied.)

2025-08-12 10:39:18 UTC

- reply

Perhaps I'm missing something but would not the decision on guilt vs innocence and any sentence levied be matters for the courts to decide?

2025-06-21 22:52:17 UTC

- reply

I once came across a design for solar panels installed as awnings above windows, which provided:
1) shade to reduce heating from the sun, and
2) electricity to power air conditioning.

2025-06-12 10:37:03 UTC

- reply

2025 figures will be interesting.

2025-06-09 11:58:14 UTC

- reply

Along similar lines, I recommend Rutger Bregman's book Utopia for Realists.

2025-06-09 09:58:28 UTC

- reply

This is perfectly illustrated by the Housing First approach to homelessness. Providing housing and wrap around services to a homeless person costs significantly less that managing that person's situation via emergency services. And it's much more humane! See Finland.
Austerity is both a false economy and an unnecessary cause of suffering.

2025-04-22 11:10:35 UTC

- reply

One big trouble is that when they offer investment choices to the employees, they presume said employees are sophisticated investors able to make good choices. There are myriad other problems.

2025-04-22 10:35:19 UTC

- reply

DC retirement saving schemes really shouldn't be dignified with the name "pension". They're perhaps better than nothing, but can't hold a candle to proper (DB) pensions.

2025-04-01 10:54:32 UTC

- reply

https://cdn.mastdn.ca/media_attachments/files/114/262/329/555/302/962/original/2fc6def3d6aed942.png

2025-03-12 10:47:10 UTC

- reply

Three comments:
1) This is 2024; if done today I imagine the US would rank a lot lower.
2) Gives a whole new meaning to the US distinction between blue vs red states.
3) Democracy is very fragile, and should not be taken for granted.

2025-03-04 11:35:39 UTC

- reply

Ouch! I wonder how closely this correlates with the growth of AirBnB.

2025-02-25 11:47:22 UTC

- reply

For some reason I recall Plato's comment that democracy tends to produce decisions that are popular (in the case with a specific constituency) rather than good.

2025-02-05 11:58:12 UTC

- reply

Canadian here. Can confirm. We're checking labels carefully and steering clear of anything that says "Product of USA".

2025-01-05 13:51:29 UTC

- reply

On this side of the Atlantic at least, we have a public perception that higher education is primarily a personal investment for the future monetary benefit of the graduate. Uni educated professionals earn lots of money, and thus benefit from their education so the should pay for it. But when 1000 people drive over a bridge that doesn't collapse, who benefits from the engineer's education?

2025-01-05 13:43:53 UTC

- reply

Those are eye-watering figures. In the case of my programme, it was small and very niche. It was part-time, four weekends per year. There were a maximum of 12 students per year. About half of those in my year were international. In the 30 years of its existence the programme produced about 200 graduates. A programme of that size is hardly a goose that lays golden eggs. More like a sparrow that lays tiny golden eggs.

2025-01-02 12:32:18 UTC

- reply

And the amount of money the dean was salivating over would have amounted to a rounding error out of the total faculty budget.

2025-01-02 12:16:32 UTC

- reply

P.S. this was a humanities programme, not STEM.

2025-01-02 12:14:50 UTC

- reply

Fast forward to now. The programme has been discontinued due to skyrocketing tuition increases that have even priced UK students out. (Fortunately taken on in a slightly different form by another uni.)

2025-01-02 12:12:43 UTC

- reply

I attended a reception for international students the night before graduation. Met the dean, who upon learning the number of international students in the programme (>50%) beamed an exclaimed that they should increase international tuition! I thought, sure if you want to price international students out of the programme.
.../3

2025-01-02 12:07:58 UTC

- reply

I was an international student 20 years ago, around the time that tuition fees were first introduced for UK students. I was in a taught Masters consisting of 8 modules taught at weekends, 1 module per weekend, 8 weekends over 2 years. Plus a dissertation. I flew in from Canada 8 times for the modules. International tuition roughly doubled from the time I was accepted to the time I graduated. .../2