B.C.'s billboard pokes fun at Toronto

[Archivist]

I personally find the service I get in the states to be obsequious and irritating. It's probably just me, but I don't particularly enjoy being fawned over, and I actually quite prefer chilly but efficient service. I like nordic countries and places like Japan for this.

When I've been to Georgia, for instance, and someone is just oh-so-nice and chatty as they serve me coffee, I always think "Just shut up and give me coffee, I know you when you get off work you're going to drive your 1991 hatchback that needs a new transmission on clogged highways while listening to Gospel rock to your trailer park somewhere, and that your youngest kid, Jaysounne, is slowly dying of some disease from a nearby factory that has no environmental controls whatever and you have no health insurance, and you're going to vote Republican anyways so that the taxes of those who have 10 times your wealth can be lowered and the factory that's owned by Koreans and that's slowly killing your family can get better tax breaks to make more enormous profits while your children have education that would be scorned in Gambia and will go nowhere except weekly to the tattoo shop, and they won't even understand how babies are made until they have four of them because you're against everything discovered since 1902".

But like I said, it's probably just me.

 

[OttoSchloss]

^lol.

I agree, sometimes shop people are a little too familiar but it wouldn't hurt sales to say "hello" or "i'll be over here if you need anything" rather than giving the impression I'm ruining your life by asking for a size.

If the people who work in Holt Renfrew ever gave the same service in a Saks or Barney's they'd be broke and fired. I guess the problem is Canadians aren't very likely to ask for a manager or complain if they get attitude from a salesperson. I know people who will even leave a tip for a really nasty waiter "oh I'll leave them 15% instead of 20%, that'll teach them".

Now European service definitely sucks. Rarely will someone help you or even acknowledge you unless they see you are going to spend money and thus worth their time. The worst thing they do is ignore you yet follow you around furtively.

 

[syn]

I personally find the service I get in the states to be obsequious and irritating. It's probably just me, but I don't particularly enjoy being fawned over, and I actually quite prefer chilly but efficient service. I like nordic countries and places like Japan for this.

When I've been to Georgia, for instance, and someone is just oh-so-nice and chatty as they serve me coffee, I always think "Just shut up and give me coffee, I know you when you get off work you're going to drive your 1991 hatchback that needs a new transmission on clogged highways while listening to Gospel rock to your trailer park somewhere, and that your youngest kid, Jaysounne, is slowly dying of some disease from a nearby factory that has no environmental controls whatever and you have no health insurance, and you're going to vote Republican anyways so that the taxes of those who have 10 times your wealth can be lowered and the factory that's owned by Koreans and that's slowly killing your family can get better tax breaks to make more enormous profits while your children have education that would be scorned in Gambia and will go nowhere except weekly to the tattoo shop, and they won't even understand how babies are made until they have four of them because you're against everything discovered since 1902".

But like I said, it's probably just me.

Customer service in the US is far ahead of what it is here. A lot of Canadian businesses seem to think they're doing you a favour.

 

[afransen]

Overlooking the fact that we're not a nanny-state, this is the crux of our discussion.

Love of big government (which we don't) = Rude sales-people?

Tenous indeed.

America doesn't have a large enough safety net. Their taxes are chronically low, which is why they're in debt-hell. So, to conclude, they don't have a significant safety net YET they're wallowing in debt.

And not for lack of spending. US social spending is almost as high as Canada's, yet they see much poorer results.

 

[lordmandeep]

Plus from looking at some commercials it appears the restaurants especially fast food places are way cheaper.

 

[salvius]

Customer service in the US is far ahead of what it is here. A lot of Canadian businesses seem to think they're doing you a favour.

Now that we're talking about this, really, I've found service in the US to be highly dependent on where I was, same as here. I've had tons of bad service in NYC and Chicago, etc. (and some really excellent service, too); worst service in my life was in Boston (and I find it repeatedly awful). I don't find that much difference in service in Toronto, where it is usually civil and polite but far from overbearing. If anyone is rude, I let them know. I think it's far more to be a big city thing than anything else. For example, I find great service in Winnipeg and have recently experienced the same thing in Halifax (although, yes, too chatty).

 

[OttoSchloss]

As far as the coldness of the average Torontonian, yeah there's a certain aloofness (could be shyness, could be impatience). But I'd also add, it's one of the few places in Canada where people have an across the board sense of humor.

There's a certain cohesion in Toronto despite the fact that everyone comes from elsewhere that's completely missing in other cities in the country. And if you open your mouth once in awhile, friends are pretty easy to come by.

 

[Tewder]

a) Taxation for most residents in Canada is on par with many US states - can we please stop pretending otherwise? We just get much more for our money, that's all. That's a sign that our government is working, and quite well. The 'over-taxed nanny state' phrase makes you sound utterly clueless (at best).


b) The link between supposed lackluster business environment and 'generous safety net' is laughably tenuous here. What, we'll take welfare instead of work?

I disagree, unless you have legitimate stats to demonstrate otherwise. Calling me 'clueless' or my points 'laughable' is gratuitous not to mention obnoxious, back up your points and we can discuss.

a) Our government as a portion of GDP has been shrinking. The size of the US government is increasing, with the military budget and the homeland security growing steadily. There is no less bureaucracy in the US governments. However, instead of providing benefits to citizens, it uses the collected tax to strip more and more civil liberties and also to help finance some very expensive wars (and it doesn't seem to be stopping with Obama). How this is supposed to be individualism, I'll never know.

b) Our social safety net is less than the vast majority of industrialized nations, excepting the US because they choose to spend their money elsewhere.

c) Finally, the Europeans tend to have some of the most productive and innovative of enterprises, and they tend to have far more generous benefits than this supposed over-taxed nanny state.

Shall we talk about customer service in Europe? You're not helping your point by pointing to France as an example of where the customer is king.

'Big Government' is a relative concept. It is painfully obvious to point out that of course the US has a bigger government because it has a bigger nation. Whether they choose to put more money into the military which Canada woefully ignores or social programs which they do woefully ignore is a different debate. I'm not necessarily arguing for one in favour of the other. At the end of the day though the service experience there is vastly superior because it is part of their culture to respect the consumer which is the 'bread and butter' of private enterprise. It is not quite the 'laughable' connection you blindly choose to view it as.

 

[salvius]

I disagree, unless you have legitimate stats to demonstrate otherwise. Calling me 'clueless' or my points 'laughable' is gratuitous not to mention obnoxious, back up your points and we can discuss.

Afarseen has nicely posted the social spending chart already. To see what you take back home yourself, look here:

www.paycheckcity.com

Yes, calling Canada an 'over-taxed nanny state' is clueless and laughable (in addition to also being obnoxious). It is not even close to the truth. I mean - what are you comparing the size of the government to? Somalia?

Shall we talk about customer service in Europe? You're not helping your point by pointing to France as an example of where the customer is king.

I'm not sure where you're drawing the link here because I was talking about productivity and innovation. Service in Europe is all over the place, as it is here.

'Big Government' is a relative concept. It is painfully obvious to point out that of course the US has a bigger government because it has a bigger nation. Whether they choose to put more money into the military which Canada woefully ignores

Woefully ignores? Canada's one of the top 20 spenders on military in the world!

or social programs which they do woefully ignore is a different debate. I'm not necessarily arguing for one in favour of the other. At the end of the day though the service experience there is vastly superior because it is part of their culture to respect the consumer which is the 'bread and butter' of private enterprise. It is not quite the 'laughable' connection you blindly choose to view it as.

No, I still fail to see the link because, as I understand, you've set up this idea that our service is terrible (which I don't really find to be true) because there's a large safety net here to catch us. But that's not true.

 

[Tewder]

Afarseen has nicely posted the social spending chart already.

We've already determined that a comparison of social spending as a share of GDP is misleading in that it only tells part of the story. The United States spends far more on defense and the military than Canada which has the luxury of not having to do so and is able to direct more funds to more politically popular spending programs such as healthcare. Regardless of any ideological considerations of where the tax funds are spent, however, the 'Tax Burden' as a share of GDP is 34% in Canada vs 24% in the US, and according to the Fraser Institute Canadians spend more on taxes than on basic needs, with 44% to taxes vs 34% to basic needs (food, shelter, clothing). These numbers are also actually after the tax cuts of the Federal Conservatives (2% to GST among others) that were so vehemently criticized by 'tax and spend' Canadian political parties...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CalculatingtheTaxBurden.pdf

Yes, calling Canada an 'over-taxed nanny state' is clueless and laughable (in addition to also being obnoxious). It is not even close to the truth. I mean - what are you comparing the size of the government to? Somalia?.

Thanks for the supporting information. Yet again you've ignored my request that you back up your gratuitous insults: you must work in the service industry in Toronto

I'm not sure where you're drawing the link here because I was talking about productivity and innovation. Service in Europe is all over the place, as it is here.?

Service in Europe is consistently bad, and service compris generally ensures this. Yes, there are nice and helpful people everywhere but finding them is far more of a crap shoot in Europe or Canada than in the USA where customer service is expected from employers and from the public. Competition is far higher there and so is consumer choice which means, generally speaking, that you have to distinguish yourself through service or risk loosing your customers to the ten other competitors down the street.

Woefully ignores? Canada's one of the top 20 spenders on military in the world!.?

Not sure where you found this stat. According to the following site Canada ranks 133rd in its spending on the military as a percentage of GDP. Apparently we spend less than Latvia and Lithuania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure

No, I still fail to see the link because, as I understand, you've set up this idea that our service is terrible (which I don't really find to be true) because there's a large safety net here to catch us. But that's not true.

I've set up a number of suggestions why this might be the case.

 

[BobBob]

Apparently we spend less than Latvia and Lithuania.

You say that like it should be surprising. Those countries were invaded a bunch of times in living memory, I would expect them to be interested in defense spending.

 

[MisterF]

Tewder, nobody's going to take your arguments seriously if they come from a conservative mouthpiece like the Fraser Institute.

Not sure where you found this stat. According to the following site Canada ranks 133rd in its spending on the military as a percentage of GDP. Apparently we spend less than Latvia and Lithuania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure

This is a red herring - percentage of GDP has nothing to do with the post you were responding to. With a military budget of almost $20 billion, Canada is in fact one of the top 20 military spenders in the world. It's 16th or 17th depending on the source.

 

[salvius]

We've already determined that a comparison of social spending as a share of GDP is misleading in that it only tells part of the story. The United States spends far more on defense and the military than Canada which has the luxury of not having to do so and is able to direct more funds to more politically popular spending programs such as healthcare.

Wait, what? US has to spend more on defence than almost every country on earth combined? News to me. US could literally HALVE its defence budget and start financing its health care, something every other developed country seems to have no problem doing.

And where have determined the comparison is misleading?

Regardless of any ideological considerations of where the tax funds are spent, however, the 'Tax Burden' as a share of GDP is 34% in Canada vs 24% in the US, and according to the Fraser Institute Canadians spend more on taxes than on basic needs, with 44% to taxes vs 34% to basic needs (food, shelter, clothing). These numbers are also actually after the tax cuts of the Federal Conservatives (2% to GST among others) that were so vehemently criticized by 'tax and spend' Canadian political parties...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/CalculatingtheTaxBurden.pdf

Posting a Fraser Institute does not help you establish credibility.

Since paycheck calculations weren't good enough for you, here's an Australian government report:

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-07.asp

As you can plainly see, the Canada-US tax wedge is quite close (except we really punish single-income married couples, which I do think is wrong). Canada is below OECD tax levels on almost EVERY single calculation, and below the EU-19 and EU-15 on every single one.

Also, why do you also wish to destroy your credibility further by labeling other political parties as 'tax and spend.' Why throw a Toronto Sun-style empty phrase into the mix? If you're going to tax, you should spend the money or keep it into reserve funds. What would you rather? Tax and burn the money taxed? I don't get it. Of course, the 2% GST cut squandered the predicted $10 billion surplus, which we will pay for by increased year-to-year deficits. According to Dale Orr Economic Insight, we are on track for 160 billion extra debt by 2016-2017. (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/691126) It would have been nice to have a few billion in the piggy bank, but it is not happening.

So, tewder, is that your preferred scenario? Borrow and spend? Canada, for a second, appeared to steer clear of that (generally, but not always disastrous) option, but it's going to happen again. By the way, it has become the preferred source of financing for US:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...1,136&s=GGD,GGD_NGDP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=43&pr.y=13

So, our taxes - and their taxes - are too low for ours/their expenditures. Just to highlight this further, the total government expenditures (as a proportion of GDP) are almost exactly the same between the two countries as of 2008:



Notice also that a serious reduction occurred during the tenure of 'tax and spend' liberals.

So, once again, I ask - if Canada has a big 'nanny state' government, what are you comparing this to? An African anarchy or developed OECD nations?

Service in Europe is consistently bad, and service compris generally ensures this. Yes, there are nice and helpful people everywhere but finding them is far more of a crap shoot in Europe or Canada than in the USA where customer service is expected from employers and from the public.

If service compris explains it, then why is service in Canada so horrific (according to you)? Also, service compris is not the norm in many European countries.

Competition is far higher there and so is consumer choice which means, generally speaking, that you have to distinguish yourself through service or risk loosing your customers to the ten other competitors down the street.

Competition for what? This is extremely vague.

Not sure where you found this stat. According to the following site Canada ranks 133rd in its spending on the military as a percentage of GDP. Apparently we spend less than Latvia and Lithuania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure

So social spending as a proportion of the GDP is not good enough, but military expenditures as a proportion of the GDP = fine?

And even using that list, the OECD median is 1.5% of GDP (by the way, ours is not 1.1% but 1.2% so I'm not sure of the wikipedia entry's accuracy ; http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/fp-pf/msd-add/2007-2008/ndp-pdn-eng.asp). So, far from the OECD bottom, and far above OECD average in terms of total spending.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder, nobody's going to take your arguments seriously if they come from a conservative mouthpiece like the Fraser Institute.

I suppose your socialist mouthpieces are objectively legitimate then

This is a red herring - percentage of GDP has nothing to do with the post you were responding to. With a military budget of almost $20 billion, Canada is in fact one of the top 20 military spenders in the world. It's 16th or 17th depending on the source.

Perhaps a refresher course in 'real vs relative' terms is in order?

 

[Tewder]

Wait, what? US has to spend more on defence than almost every country on earth combined? News to me. US could literally HALVE its defence budget and start financing its health care, something every other developed country seems to have no problem doing.

We've gone over this ad nauseum: The USA underspends on healthcare and Canada underspends on military/defence. Spending policies are political. No argument here.

Since paycheck calculations weren't good enough for you, here's an Australian government report:

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-07.asp

As you can plainly see, the Canada-US tax wedge is quite close (except we really punish single-income married couples, which I do think is wrong).

You're right, we do 'punish' single-income married couples. We also punish the average married family (with two children) whereby the income tax paid on a median income level is double that of the same in the USA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada)

You continue to lose credibility when you blindly cherry-pick sites without questioning them. Citing an Australian site is problematic, its numbers only take into account income taxes and payroll deductions (after welfare deductions no less!) but doesn't include the vast array of other taxes, hidden and otherwise we pay: provincial sales taxes, GST and municipal and so on... which together do give a true picture of the real tax burden.

Why throw a Toronto Sun-style empty phrase into the mix? If you're going to tax, you should spend the money or keep it into reserve funds.

Here's a novel idea for you: how about taxing less and letting Canadians keep their own money in their own pocket to spend as they see fit. Not enough regulation there for you? Canadians don't know what's best for them?? Not nanny-state enough for you, even as you claim we are not one.

And clearly it's not an 'empty' phrase given your reaction, methinks you doth protest too much...

So, once again, I ask - if Canada has a big 'nanny state' government, what are you comparing this to? An African anarchy or developed OECD nations?

Once again your simplifications undermine your credibility. You focus on income taxes (which we have already established to be higher across the board anyway) deliberately choosing to overlook all the other taxes imposed on us in our triple-level government system: GST, provincial sales taxes, property taxes, alcohol taxes in restaurants, gas taxes (15% higher at the pump in Canada than in the USA), capital and corporate taxes, liquor and cigarette taxes, and the politically hidden taxes of municipal user fees, 407 toll fees, crown corporation profits and government profits (on top of the taxes) from the LCBO that are transferred directly to the government coffers out of your pocket. I could go on, there are many more and across the board they are substantially higher in Canada than any equivalents that may exist (when they do) in the USA. Again, to point to only income taxes and claim that Canada is somehow undertaxed is ridiculous.

So social spending as a proportion of the GDP is not good enough, but military expenditures as a proportion of the GDP = fine?

Yet again, this has already been addressed. You were the one who made the erroneous claim that Canada is one of the largest spenders on military.