fredsmith: (Default)
[personal profile] fredsmith

Do you know what the Minister's argument was that I should lose?

Do you KNOW what it was?!

They said that 'wage indexing is not relevant to a disability recipient as of the date that they stop participation in wage labour'.

WTF? Horseshit! What does that even MEAN? I mean, the words are english words, and the sentence structure is gramatically correct, but it's completely meaningless. Things are only 'relevant' in relation to something else. You can't just be freestandingly 'relevant'.

So what is indexing 'relevant to'? Because you have to know that to answer why would it be 'relevant' to the able-bodied, in the workforce person, and not to the disabled, not working person.

And, if you look at the 1964 White Paper which is THE definitive statement and explanation fo the structure of the CPP (cos that was when it came into effect) Wage indexing is relevant to the GOAL of reproducing 25% of average national income. Wage indexing is a conceptual method of measuring inflation to ensure that contributions will be given the same value in 2006, when you get them back, as they did in 1966, when I gave them in.

I mean.. Say in 1950 I handed over to you $100. I am making the national average salary and that amount of money consttitutes half my salary at the time. If I didn't give it to you I could by $100/worth of widgets, which is at the time, 50 widgets. We make an agreement that you will pay me back in fifty years.

Fifty years passes. I want my money back. How much do I get? Do I get $100? But due to inflation $100 is worth hardly anything these days, but when I gave it to you it was a really significant amount! So it can't be that I only get $100 back. So some adjustment for inflation has to be done. And there are two ways we can go about it. One is Wage Indexing and one is Price Indexing.

On Wage Indexing, we figure it was half my salary when I gave it to you. I was making the national average salary. We know what the national average salary is NOW, in 2000, so give me half of a national average salary now and we're even.

OR, on Price Indexing, we figure it could have bought me 50 widgets at the time, so we'll give me enough to by 50 widgets now. The Price of widgetss has gone up over time too, and now it would cos me more to buy those 50 widgets.

But the thing is, in real life, wages go up faster than prices. Well, actually they don't, but on average they do. Between 1960 and 2000 wage DISPARITY has increased hugely. The mean wage has not inccreased as fast as the increase in prices. But because of the small group of extremely high earners, this drags the AVERAGE national wage up above the increase in price of goods. So increasing by WAGE indexing actually gets you more in today's dollars than an increase by PRICE indexing.

REally, they are just two different ways of thinking about inflation, and the method you choose depends on the result you want to acheive. So the method you choose is RELEAVENT only in relatino to the end you want to acheive. Do you want my contributions to have the same Purchasing power as they did back in the day I gave them to you? Or do you want it to bear the same relation to average wages as it did back in the day?

And the CPP was specifically and explicitely geared to adjust all past pension contributions by means of WAGE indexing. All able-bodied persons past contributions are adjusted for WAGE inflation.

When you say that WAGE inflation isn't RELEVANT to the disabled, you're really saying, we've decided on a different goal for disabled persons, we've decided that our goal is to reproduce purchasing power for their contributions not wage ratio. So wage ratio inexing isnt' relevant to them.

BUT THAT IS TOTALLY CIRCULAR. WE are arguing that the difference in indexing is discriminatory because it produces different results depending on whether you're able bodied or disabled. They are responding that the method of calculation isn't relevant because the goal is to produce a difererent result depending on whether you're able bodied or disabled!


You have to justify the picking a formula that has a lesser result, you don't justify different the formula on the basis that it is the appropriate way to get a different result!

And yet, when you read that sentence 'Wage indexing isn't relevant to those out of the workforce' it SOUNDS rational and scientific and like it's making a good point.

If the Board makes me lose because it accepts the Minster's arguments I will be seriously, seriously pissed. It will also mean that they have completely misunderstood the Plan, Economic basics and my submissions.

SEriously. My head will explode if I lose for that reason.

Date: 2006-11-11 11:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
". . .the words are english words, and the sentence structure is gramatically correct, but it's completely meaningless. Things are only 'relevant' in relation to something else. You can't just be freestandingly 'relevant'."

I so hope you got to point that out.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


fredsmith: (Default)

December 2015

67891011 12
20 212223242526

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:04 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios