Discussion:
ENMAX RANT!
(too old to reply)
Cooter
2003-10-08 23:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft ball
( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in course
with not working bills get behind!
So in Sept Corporate Greed Inc (ENMAX) sent me a disconnection notice.
Understandable.
So after futile attempts at making payment arrangements (not willing to
except any of course).I swallowed my pride and went out to seek assistance
before the cut off date.
I found some very nice peeps at the Salvation Army. (Boy do I have a BIG
donation to make when I start working again) who were willing to offer
assistance.The said it would take a week for them to get it to Corporate
Greed.
I immediately called Corporate Greed and informed them what was happening.
Told them the money would be mailed out by those wonderful peeps at the
Salvation Army, and would arrive late the next week, and even told them it
would most likely be Thursday or Friday.
young guy says OK he will extend the cut off date till then.
Well! On the Thursday guess what.
DARKNESS FELL!
yup, with agreements made and the check in the mail BOOM!
So I run to my neighbors and called Corporate Greed and asked them what
happened? Why was I cut off?
they said they money was supposed to be in last week. I informed them I
called them and told them The money would be in today or tomorrow and that
it would be extended till then!(obviously it didn't make it in on the
Thursday).
Well apparently they had no record of that call. (surprise surprise). I had
to get The beautiful peeps at the Salvation Army to fax them the details.
Had to be letter head and faxed as Corporate Greed wouldn't trust them.After
the fax was sent Corporate Greed had me reconnected that nite. Very timely
response I must say and appreciated.

Did it end there?

OF course not.

I just got my Corporate Greed bill and guess what?

Charged for the reconnection ($67.28)AND a Deposit of $210.00 due to my
disconnection!!!!!!!

Lovely peeps I just spoke to at Corporate Greed. (Their call center staff
are very good!I would hate to deal with someone like me when i get irate!)
and now expecting a call back tomorrow (maybe) from a supervisor.
Bet I can guess what the supervisor will say . "No record of the call so
sorry we can't waive the fee's."

Now this is a city owned business and they forget who pays the bills. They
have a monopoly and ding us to no end!
They WILL NOT accept responsibility for there mistakes and the little guy
gets screwed again. For give me for spending money on food and shelter!

Another highlight of the bill is this......
I got a $7.75 credit for a then a few lines later I get a "Cost Recovery
Rider" of $5.77
Sound like they are trying to recover from the "Elec Energy Charge Adj"
Have you looked at you bill in detail? Amazing the things that are on there.

Nothing makes you feel like a small fish in a large ocean then dealing with
a monopoly. (or would that small fish swallowed by a large fish)

Sorry to carry on about my feelings but DAM it made me feel better!
(And I will send this forth to Corporate Greed depending on the response I
get from the supervisor)
Mr.Big
2003-10-09 01:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time a couple of years ago, Ralph had a program to help
people who couldn't make their utilities, It was $1000 for any
albertan, once only. It's probably still in place, but there were
conditions. You had to apply at the welfare or social assistance
offfice, and had to have a disconnect notice in hand. Had to be low
income.

Check it out make a few calls, maybe it's still there for you...



On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:02:03 GMT, "Cooter" <***@telus.net> wrote:

>Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft ball
>( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in course
>with not working bills get behind!
>So in Sept Corporate Greed Inc (ENMAX) sent me a disconnection notice.
>Understandable.
>So after futile attempts at making payment arrangements (not willing to
>except any of course).I swallowed my pride and went out to seek assistance
>before the cut off date.
>I found some very nice peeps at the Salvation Army. (Boy do I have a BIG
>donation to make when I start working again) who were willing to offer
>assistance.The said it would take a week for them to get it to Corporate
>Greed.
>I immediately called Corporate Greed and informed them what was happening.
>Told them the money would be mailed out by those wonderful peeps at the
>Salvation Army, and would arrive late the next week, and even told them it
>would most likely be Thursday or Friday.
>young guy says OK he will extend the cut off date till then.
>Well! On the Thursday guess what.
>DARKNESS FELL!
>yup, with agreements made and the check in the mail BOOM!
>So I run to my neighbors and called Corporate Greed and asked them what
>happened? Why was I cut off?
>they said they money was supposed to be in last week. I informed them I
>called them and told them The money would be in today or tomorrow and that
>it would be extended till then!(obviously it didn't make it in on the
>Thursday).
>Well apparently they had no record of that call. (surprise surprise). I had
>to get The beautiful peeps at the Salvation Army to fax them the details.
>Had to be letter head and faxed as Corporate Greed wouldn't trust them.After
>the fax was sent Corporate Greed had me reconnected that nite. Very timely
>response I must say and appreciated.
>
>Did it end there?
>
>OF course not.
>
>I just got my Corporate Greed bill and guess what?
>
>Charged for the reconnection ($67.28)AND a Deposit of $210.00 due to my
>disconnection!!!!!!!
>
>Lovely peeps I just spoke to at Corporate Greed. (Their call center staff
>are very good!I would hate to deal with someone like me when i get irate!)
>and now expecting a call back tomorrow (maybe) from a supervisor.
>Bet I can guess what the supervisor will say . "No record of the call so
>sorry we can't waive the fee's."
>
>Now this is a city owned business and they forget who pays the bills. They
>have a monopoly and ding us to no end!
>They WILL NOT accept responsibility for there mistakes and the little guy
>gets screwed again. For give me for spending money on food and shelter!
>
>Another highlight of the bill is this......
>I got a $7.75 credit for a then a few lines later I get a "Cost Recovery
>Rider" of $5.77
>Sound like they are trying to recover from the "Elec Energy Charge Adj"
>Have you looked at you bill in detail? Amazing the things that are on there.
>
>Nothing makes you feel like a small fish in a large ocean then dealing with
>a monopoly. (or would that small fish swallowed by a large fish)
>
>Sorry to carry on about my feelings but DAM it made me feel better!
>(And I will send this forth to Corporate Greed depending on the response I
>get from the supervisor)
>
>
>
>
>
MadRedHatter
2003-10-09 01:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Cooter" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:LH0hb.17165$***@edtnps84...
> Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft ball
> ( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in course
> with not working bills get behind!
<snip>

Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.

Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for awhile
then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't make
bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing I
did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
utilities and asked the same thing. And guess what .. they were quite happy
I came to them beforehand. I was late with everything but was able to
catchup within a month. No interuption in service. No eviction.
alberta_girl
2003-10-09 04:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The rich (corporations) get richer and the poor get poorer.... don't even
get me started on the banks!!!!



"MadRedHatter" <***@mee.com> wrote in message
news:%93hb.51130$***@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Cooter" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:LH0hb.17165$***@edtnps84...
> > Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft
ball
> > ( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in
course
> > with not working bills get behind!
> <snip>
>
> Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
> notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.
>
> Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for
awhile
> then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't make
> bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing I
> did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
> utilities and asked the same thing. And guess what .. they were quite
happy
> I came to them beforehand. I was late with everything but was able to
> catchup within a month. No interuption in service. No eviction.
>
>
GlennMor <>
2003-10-09 06:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>"MadRedHatter" <***@mee.com> wrote in message
>> Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
>> notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.
>>
>> Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for
>> awhile
>> then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't make
>> bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing I
>> did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
>> utilities and asked the same thing.

Indeed, it works with banks, and other organizations as well. If you can arrange
to pay even part of the bills (and arrange it well before you're actually cut
off) then you can get decent treatment.

If you wait and wait and wait and pay nothing and say nothing, then they'll
figure you're probably just a deadbeat trying to steal from them.
MadRedHatter
2003-10-09 06:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<GlennMor> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> >"MadRedHatter" <***@mee.com> wrote in message
> >> Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
> >> notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.
> >>
> >> Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for
> >> awhile
> >> then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't
make
> >> bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first
thing I
> >> did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
> >> utilities and asked the same thing.
>
> Indeed, it works with banks, and other organizations as well. If you can
arrange
> to pay even part of the bills (and arrange it well before you're actually
cut
> off) then you can get decent treatment.
>
> If you wait and wait and wait and pay nothing and say nothing, then
they'll
> figure you're probably just a deadbeat trying to steal from them.

Exactly! During my times of trouble (and we all have them) I was responsible
enough to contact all the people I owed money. They appreciated my honesty
and worked with me through it. And because of my actions my credit rating
wasn't affected.
MadRedHatter
2003-10-09 06:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"alberta_girl" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:095hb.49659$***@pd7tw2no...
>
> The rich (corporations) get richer and the poor get poorer.... don't even
> get me started on the banks!!!!
>
And this has .. what to do with my post?
OgreMan
2003-10-09 14:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yeah, the nerve of these companies, EXPECTING YOU TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE!
"alberta_girl" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:095hb.49659$***@pd7tw2no...
>
> The rich (corporations) get richer and the poor get poorer.... don't even
> get me started on the banks!!!!
>
>
>
> "MadRedHatter" <***@mee.com> wrote in message
> news:%93hb.51130$***@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > "Cooter" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:LH0hb.17165$***@edtnps84...
> > > Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft
> ball
> > > ( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in
> course
> > > with not working bills get behind!
> > <snip>
> >
> > Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
> > notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.
> >
> > Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for
> awhile
> > then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't
make
> > bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing
I
> > did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
> > utilities and asked the same thing. And guess what .. they were quite
> happy
> > I came to them beforehand. I was late with everything but was able to
> > catchup within a month. No interuption in service. No eviction.
> >
> >
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-09 17:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message news:nCehb.16$***@edtnps84...

| Yeah, the nerve of these companies, EXPECTING YOU TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE!

Yah, and what nerve to expect good and humane service from these monopolistic
companies.

2tec ~ from the far side

ps. Great nickname, it's very appropriate
OgreMan
2003-10-09 19:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Enmax is not a monopoly.

Nice try though.
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ydhhb.524$***@edtnps84...
> OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nCehb.16$***@edtnps84...
>
> | Yeah, the nerve of these companies, EXPECTING YOU TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU
USE!
>
> Yah, and what nerve to expect good and humane service from these
monopolistic
> companies.
>
> 2tec ~ from the far side
>
> ps. Great nickname, it's very appropriate
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 00:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message news:SMihb.770$***@edtnps84...

| Enmax is not a monopoly.

ROTFLMAO ... sure dood, as if there's any real competition. Maybe you buy that
bs, but personally, I'm not that naive. Please, just go back to your corporate
fantasies and don't expect me to consider your point as valid. By the way, are
you having fun being a wage slave?

2tec ~ doesn't buy into bs
OgreMan
2003-10-10 15:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Enmax is not a monopoly.

corporate fantasies?? Is this what passes for pinko-commie ramblings
nowadays? I expected better.

Being a wage slave is pretty good actually. I make enough to cover my
tuition, food, rent, UTILITIES and the occasional beer. Mind you, it might
be because I don't waste my time lamenting how the system's got me down. Try
working instead of bitching, you might make enough to donate to some of your
poor 'friends' who just need one last handout.
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Imhb.2333$***@edtnps84...
> OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:SMihb.770$***@edtnps84...
>
> | Enmax is not a monopoly.
>
> ROTFLMAO ... sure dood, as if there's any real competition. Maybe you buy
that
> bs, but personally, I'm not that naive. Please, just go back to your
corporate
> fantasies and don't expect me to consider your point as valid. By the way,
are
> you having fun being a wage slave?
>
> 2tec ~ doesn't buy into bs
>
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 17:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:TuAhb.53023$***@news1.telusplanet.net...
| Enmax is not a monopoly.
|
| corporate fantasies?? Is this what passes for pinko-commie ramblings
| nowadays? I expected better.

Yup, just more labeling and prejudging ... sadly, I expected no better.

| Being a wage slave is pretty good actually. I make enough to cover my
| tuition, food, rent, UTILITIES and the occasional beer. Mind you, it might
| be because I don't waste my time lamenting how the system's got me down. Try
| working instead of bitching, you might make enough to donate to some of your
| poor 'friends' who just need one last handout.

Slavery is slavery. Well, at least you're happy, I guess. By the way, being
charitable is a good thing. I find it the most rewarding thing, amazingly
enough. However, I doubt you'll understand. But hey, maybe you can, after all,
who am I to judge you. Personally, I think you have every right to your opinions
and every right to learn from your own mistakes. In fact, I'd defend your right
to have them asnd make them with my very life if that is ever required of me.

It's just sad , in my opinion, that corporations, and the people who hide behind
them, don't have the same respect for either of us.

2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-10 17:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> 2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility

How can you say that with a straight face, while promoting minimum
wages, and price controls?

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
news:***@libertydice.org...
| Tom2Tec wrote:
| > 2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility
|
| How can you say that with a straight face, while promoting minimum
| wages, and price controls?

It's not hard. It's called questioning authority, which is my responsibility.
and, as well, it comes from having the courage to speak out against injustice.
It's just too bad more people didn't do more to balance the unbridled power of
the establishment. I guess it seems easier to go along and be comfortably numb.
However, trust me, eventually we all have to settle our own accounts. I'd rather
pay up front myself. <grin>

2tec ~ gladly pays whatever price
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-10 22:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
> news:***@libertydice.org... | Tom2Tec wrote: | > 2tec ~
> promotes freedom and responsibility | | How can you say that with a
> straight face, while promoting minimum | wages, and price controls?
>
> It's not hard. It's called questioning authority, which is my
> responsibility.

questioning authority != promoting freedom. Not all authority is bad, or
wrong.

> and, as well, it comes from having the courage to
> speak out against injustice. It's just too bad more people didn't do
> more to balance the unbridled power of the establishment. I guess it
> seems easier to go along and be comfortably numb. However, trust me,
> eventually we all have to settle our own accounts. I'd rather pay up
> front myself. <grin>

My you have definitely found a libertarian slant in the past few weeks
haven't you? You seem to be on the right track, now all you have to do
is get over the "altruism is good" block. I know it's hard it was for me
too, but once you realize that altruism through the use of force does
more damage than it can ever do good then you'll be well on your way to
being a hard core an-cap like me. =8)

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 00:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message

| questioning authority != promoting freedom. Not all authority is bad, or
| wrong.

I never said it was. However, authority without responsibility is like sex
without love. It's cheap. shallow and can't be maintained. ;~)

| My you have definitely found a libertarian slant in the past few weeks
| haven't you? You seem to be on the right track, now all you have to do
| is get over the "altruism is good" block. I know it's hard it was for me
| too, but once you realize that altruism through the use of force does
| more damage than it can ever do good then you'll be well on your way to
| being a hard core an-cap like me. =8)

Heavin forbid! Get over altruism? No thanks, but I'm no parasite. I always try
to give as good as I get.

2tec ~ knows that the harder they are, the quicker they crack
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 13:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> | My you have definitely found a libertarian slant in the past few weeks
> | haven't you? You seem to be on the right track, now all you have to do
> | is get over the "altruism is good" block. I know it's hard it was for me
> | too, but once you realize that altruism through the use of force does
> | more damage than it can ever do good then you'll be well on your way to
> | being a hard core an-cap like me. =8)
>
> Heavin forbid! Get over altruism? No thanks, but I'm no parasite. I always try
> to give as good as I get.

Re-read what I wrote, you seemed to have missed the point. I didn't say
you should get over altruism, you need to get over "altruism is good".
Most Altruism does more harm than good, only altruism that flows from
the individual without force is ever good, and even then only if the
individual properly applies his/her altruism to solve the problem,
instead of just enabling those in need to continue being in need.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 18:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
news:***@libertydice.org...
| Tom2Tec wrote:
| > 2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility
|
| How can you say that with a straight face, while promoting minimum
| wages, and price controls?

BTW, please, please, quote me where I promote "low" minimium wages or price
controls. I dare ya.

Now you're the one misrepresenting others.

Just to be perfectly clear. I'd just as soon eliminate "minimium wage" or raise
it to where it should be. Either is acceptable to me. No minimium or at least
the same, in real dollars as it was in, say, 1953.

I believe that if wages were free to find thier own levels, they would be
higher. Personally, I believe that "minimium wage" has been used to suppress
wages for the sole benefit of the overly affluent and big business.

As for price controls. I'm against controlling a free market. Now, if only we
had one.

2tec ~ cuts to the quick
OgreMan
2003-10-10 19:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O2Dhb.8934$***@edtnps84...
>
> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
> news:***@libertydice.org...
> | Tom2Tec wrote:
> | > 2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility
> |
> | How can you say that with a straight face, while promoting minimum
> | wages, and price controls?
>
> BTW, please, please, quote me where I promote "low" minimium wages or
price
> controls. I dare ya.
>
> Now you're the one misrepresenting others.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear. I'd just as soon eliminate "minimium wage" or
raise
> it to where it should be. Either is acceptable to me. No minimium or at
least
> the same, in real dollars as it was in, say, 1953.
>
> I believe that if wages were free to find thier own levels, they would be
> higher. Personally, I believe that "minimium wage" has been used to
suppress
> wages for the sole benefit of the overly affluent and big business.

Minimum wage doesn't suppress wages. It's a MINIMUM, not a MAXIMUM. For
further clarification, I direct you to www.dictionary.com.
>
> As for price controls. I'm against controlling a free market. Now, if only
we
> had one.
>
> 2tec ~ cuts to the quick
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 20:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:GJDhb.8990$***@edtnps84...


| Minimum wage doesn't suppress wages. It's a MINIMUM, not a MAXIMUM. For
| further clarification, I direct you to www.dictionary.com.

Yup, and that comment shows exactly how little you know about economics.

2tec ~ thought about it
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-10 22:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
> news:***@libertydice.org... | Tom2Tec wrote: | > 2tec ~
> promotes freedom and responsibility | | How can you say that with a
> straight face, while promoting minimum | wages, and price controls?
>
> BTW, please, please, quote me where I promote "low" minimium wages or
> price controls. I dare ya.

No worse you seemed to be promoting "high" minimum wages, and you
seemed to be saying in this tread that the price should somehow be
forced/regulated so it is lower. I'm sorry if I was wrong on that,
because that is the impression you gave off with all your "rich is
bad" banter. If you are in favor of a free market, and your beef is just
with the regulated/corporatist/monopoly market then, hey we are on the
same side.

> Now you're the one misrepresenting others.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear. I'd just as soon eliminate "minimium
> wage" or raise it to where it should be. Either is acceptable to me.
> No minimium or at least the same, in real dollars as it was in, say,
> 1953.

Raising the "minimum" has only ever had one effect, increased
unemployment. Like most altruism, it is it's own punishment.

> I believe that if wages were free to find thier own levels, they
> would be higher. Personally, I believe that "minimium wage" has been
> used to suppress wages for the sole benefit of the overly affluent
> and big business.

It doesn't suppress wages so much as employment.

> As for price controls. I'm against controlling a free market. Now, if
> only we had one.

Have you always been this libertarian, and I just missed it? This
doesn't sound like your regular "eat the rich" rant.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 00:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message

| No worse you seemed to be promoting "high" minimum wages, and you
| seemed to be saying in this tread that the price should somehow be
| forced/regulated so it is lower. I'm sorry if I was wrong on that,
| because that is the impression you gave off with all your "rich is
| bad" banter. If you are in favor of a free market, and your beef is just
| with the regulated/corporatist/monopoly market then, hey we are on the
| same side.

At the risk of repeating myself again. I'm not against wealth, if it's honestly
earned. However, I believe that's almost never the case anymore. I absolutely
believe in the free market. I also absolutely believe we don't have one. I don't
mind running in the race, but I only want to win if I can do so fairly. Winning
any other way isn't worth anything.

| Raising the "minimum" has only ever had one effect, increased
| unemployment. Like most altruism, it is it's own punishment.

Not true. If the minimium wage was a realistic return for effort invested, we
would all benefit as there would then be capital to be invested. If more people
had more capital, more investments would lead to greater economic diversity and
growth. We are being strangled by our own greed. It's happened to every previous
civilization and now it's happening to ours.

| It doesn't suppress wages so much as employment.

I believe that what suppresses employment is an upper class which uses
unemployment as a threat to ensure compliance and the unwilling co-operation of
those without fair or free access to capitial.

| Have you always been this libertarian, and I just missed it? This
| doesn't sound like your regular "eat the rich" rant.

Perhaps not everyone fits into the narrow right versus left viewpoint that you
seem to assume they do? By the way, I've been a rational anarchist ever since I
took the time to investigate what being responsible really means.

2tec ~ word worker
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 14:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> At the risk of repeating myself again. I'm not against wealth, if
> it's honestly earned. However, I believe that's almost never the case
> anymore. I absolutely believe in the free market. I also absolutely
> believe we don't have one. I don't mind running in the race, but I
> only want to win if I can do so fairly. Winning any other way isn't
> worth anything.

Absolutely.

> | Raising the "minimum" has only ever had one effect, increased |
> unemployment. Like most altruism, it is it's own punishment.
>
> Not true. If the minimium wage was a realistic return for effort
> invested, we would all benefit as there would then be capital to be
> invested. If more people had more capital, more investments would
> lead to greater economic diversity and growth. We are being strangled
> by our own greed. It's happened to every previous civilization and
> now it's happening to ours.

The second you impose a minimum wage though, you no longer have a free
market. Plus are you really gaining anything? would you rather see 80
people working for $8/h or 100 people working at $6.40/h ? See the
difference? How do you think those 20 people are going to survive? Off
the avails of the 80 through taxation is how.

Not to mention how Inflation kicks in under your plan. Any wage not set
by the natural forces of the market, are doomed to increase inflation.

I agree people should be paid more, I disagree the State has any
business in forcing businesses to do so.

> | It doesn't suppress wages so much as employment.
>
> I believe that what suppresses employment is an upper class which
> uses unemployment as a threat to ensure compliance and the unwilling
> co-operation of those without fair or free access to capitial.

Wow, that is an interesting outlook, it doesn't hold water, but
interesting none the less. In case you haven't been paying attention
there is plenty of fair access to capital in our society, as the is to
jobs. Over the next 20 years we are going to be seeing the retirement of
the largest generation ever, what that means is a distinct lack of
workers. In a free market that mean wages naturally will go up as
workers become harder and harder to find. Unfortunately as long as we
deal with a regulated market (with the odd free market pocket) overall
we will continue to see wages regulated too.

> | Have you always been this libertarian, and I just missed it? This |
> doesn't sound like your regular "eat the rich" rant.
>
> Perhaps not everyone fits into the narrow right versus left viewpoint
> that you seem to assume they do?

I'm the first to denounce the left and right. Neither find any favor
with me, as both are the tools of Statism.

> By the way, I've been a rational anarchist ever since I took the time
> to investigate what being responsible really means.

Part of responsibility is accepting you can't be responsible for others.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Andrew Handerson
2003-10-11 00:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If you eleminate the "minimum" wage, do you honestly think the business
would pay more? Hell, they would pay less, because they could, and there
would be no way to stop them.


"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O2Dhb.8934$***@edtnps84...
>
> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
> news:***@libertydice.org...
> | Tom2Tec wrote:
> | > 2tec ~ promotes freedom and responsibility
> |
> | How can you say that with a straight face, while promoting minimum
> | wages, and price controls?
>
> BTW, please, please, quote me where I promote "low" minimium wages or
price
> controls. I dare ya.
>
> Now you're the one misrepresenting others.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear. I'd just as soon eliminate "minimium wage" or
raise
> it to where it should be. Either is acceptable to me. No minimium or at
least
> the same, in real dollars as it was in, say, 1953.
>
> I believe that if wages were free to find thier own levels, they would be
> higher. Personally, I believe that "minimium wage" has been used to
suppress
> wages for the sole benefit of the overly affluent and big business.
>
> As for price controls. I'm against controlling a free market. Now, if only
we
> had one.
>
> 2tec ~ cuts to the quick
>
>
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 01:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Andrew Handerson wrote:
> If you eleminate the "minimum" wage, do you honestly think the
> business would pay more? Hell, they would pay less, because they
> could, and there would be no way to stop them.

They could offer to pay less, but then again they can go out of business
when they can get any employees.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Determinator
2003-10-11 17:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote:

>Andrew Handerson wrote:
>> If you eleminate the "minimum" wage, do you honestly think the
>> business would pay more? Hell, they would pay less, because they
>> could, and there would be no way to stop them.
>
>They could offer to pay less, but then again they can go out of business
>when they can get any employees.


hmm... I think you meant "can't"

..but only when the supply of labour is scarce.... people seem
to forget the years when unemployment was higher.. we've had
those periods and we will have those years again..

There are people in Calgary who are being paid minimum wage.
There are employers who will only pay minimum wage despite the
turn-over of employees.

Not every industry will pay better than minimum wage.
HD
2003-10-10 07:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Enmax "is" a monopoly.

Regardless of what Enmax is or isn't, the very fact of getting cut off is
simple. Pay the bills and quit gripping.

As others in this group have done, if you anticipate going in to arrears
for whatever reason, acknowledging it with your creditors is always
advisable. Many of the utilities I have found go to great lengths to avoid
cutting clients off. Many have families too and understand the
difficulties no work creates. Yes, you'll have the odd jerk who you
cannot make any concessions with. If that's the case move up the ladder.
Or ask for someone else. At some point you , or I , or all of us,
have to realize they are running a business. Like it or not, they want
profit. They also want to pay their bills.

Unfortunately there is no 'real ' competition who offers any substantially
lower prices in Calgary. Nor any competition who will extend credit to six
months or more. If you want off the grid, go solar or produce your own
source of power. If you have a surplus, heck you never know , you can even
sell it back to Enmax.

"OgreMan" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:SMihb.770$***@edtnps84...
> Enmax is not a monopoly.
>
> Nice try though.
> "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ydhhb.524$***@edtnps84...
> > OgreMan <***@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:nCehb.16$***@edtnps84...
> >
> > | Yeah, the nerve of these companies, EXPECTING YOU TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU
> USE!
> >
> > Yah, and what nerve to expect good and humane service from these
> monopolistic
> > companies.
> >
> > 2tec ~ from the far side
> >
> > ps. Great nickname, it's very appropriate
> >
> >
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 14:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HD <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message news:pYshb.58083$***@pd7tw3no...

| Regardless of what Enmax is or isn't, the very fact of getting cut off is
| simple. Pay the bills and quit gripping.

The problem is, is that some people can no longer afford to pay. The cost of the
necessities exceeds the amount earned at minimium wage.

| As others in this group have done, if you anticipate going in to arrears
| for whatever reason, acknowledging it with your creditors is always
| advisable. Many of the utilities I have found go to great lengths to avoid
| cutting clients off. Many have families too and understand the
| difficulties no work creates. Yes, you'll have the odd jerk who you
| cannot make any concessions with. If that's the case move up the ladder.
| Or ask for someone else. At some point you , or I , or all of us,
| have to realize they are running a business. Like it or not, they want
| profit. They also want to pay their bills.

I agree, reasonable profits are necessary to a normal business. However,
excessive profits are the issue here. Normally competition ensures that
excessive profits are not achievable, except, as you pointed out, there isn't
any. Two, I believe they don't want to go to great lengths, they'd rather not do
that much work, they have no choice as it's policy, they'd rather collect the
extra fees and they don't really care. Furthermore, no, they aren't running a
business, they are running a public utility. One that we already paid for and
was built as a shared public service. It's just like saying Petro-Canada could
take over Deerfoot Trail and run it as a toll road. If you don't pay the toll,
you can't use the road. Is that a good thing? I don't think so.

| Unfortunately there is no 'real ' competition who offers any substantially
| lower prices in Calgary. Nor any competition who will extend credit to six
| months or more. If you want off the grid, go solar or produce your own
| source of power. If you have a surplus, heck you never know , you can even
| sell it back to Enmax.

If only this was possible. However, Enmax would never pay you as much as they
charge you. Nor do they, at this point, allow that to happen. Heck, they won't
even put in meters that indicate time of usage so you could use power at non
peak, therefore cheaper times.

My main gripe is the high salaries. I wouldn't mind paying if it wasn't making
some priviliged people unfairly wealthy.

2tec ~ plugs fair shares
GlennMor <>
2003-10-10 15:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:17:34 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>HD <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message news:pYshb.58083$***@pd7tw3no...
>
>| Regardless of what Enmax is or isn't, the very fact of getting cut off is
>| simple. Pay the bills and quit griping.
>
>The problem is, is that some people can no longer afford to pay. The cost of the
>necessities exceeds the amount earned at minimium wage.

The cost of providing power (in this instance) doesn't have anything to do with
the financial staus of the users. If you're on minimum wage and you can't afford
to pay for your electricity supplies, then you'd better get yourself a roomie or
just use far less power.

>| At some point you , or I , or all of us,
>| have to realize they are running a business. Like it or not, they want
>| profit. They also want to pay their bills.
>
>I agree, reasonable profits are necessary to a normal business. However,
>excessive profits are the issue here. Normally competition ensures that
>excessive profits are not achievable, except, as you pointed out, there isn't
>any.

The provincial government is still trying to create competition, but as yet it
applies only in the industrial sector, not the residential. That's why
residential rates are still regulated... and the key criterion for changing the
price is the return on equity that companies like Enmax achieve. That means that
they are regulated against excessive profits.

>Two, I believe they don't want to go to great lengths, they'd rather not do
>that much work, they have no choice as it's policy, they'd rather collect the
>extra fees and they don't really care.

"That much work" for what? They work to supply power, and all the maintenance
and construction needed to do so. It's not their job to give power away for free
to anyone who doesn't bother to pay their bills.

>| If you want off the grid, go solar or produce your own
>| source of power. If you have a surplus, heck you never know , you can even
>| sell it back to Enmax.
>
>If only this was possible. However, Enmax would never pay you as much as they
>charge you.

No business will buy from customers at retail prices; their only way to make a
living is to buy wholesale and sell retail. The value of unpredictable and
unreliable residential back-power is far far lower than the value of generated
power that can be called upon to produce any time the load on the system
increases.

>Nor do they, at this point, allow that to happen. Heck, they won't
>even put in meters that indicate time of usage so you could use power at non
>peak, therefore cheaper times.

Industrial users can do that, but residential use is still regulated at fixed
rates, so it wouldn't make any difference. If you want, you could have such
meters installed on your home, though. It probably doesn't cost too terribly
much. Of course, if the whole system goes to instantaneous pricing, then you
might find yourself paying very high rates at some times.

>My main gripe is the high salaries.

Well, we all know that from long experience.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 17:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<GlennMor> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:17:34 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
|
| >HD <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message news:pYshb.58083$***@pd7tw3no...
| >
| >| Regardless of what Enmax is or isn't, the very fact of getting cut off is
| >| simple. Pay the bills and quit griping.
| >
| >The problem is, is that some people can no longer afford to pay. The cost of
the
| >necessities exceeds the amount earned at minimium wage.
|
| The cost of providing power (in this instance) doesn't have anything to do
with
| the financial staus of the users. If you're on minimum wage and you can't
afford
| to pay for your electricity supplies, then you'd better get yourself a roomie
or
| just use far less power.

and if you've already done both those things?

| >| At some point you , or I , or all of us,
| >| have to realize they are running a business. Like it or not, they want
| >| profit. They also want to pay their bills.
| >
| >I agree, reasonable profits are necessary to a normal business. However,
| >excessive profits are the issue here. Normally competition ensures that
| >excessive profits are not achievable, except, as you pointed out, there isn't
| >any.
|
| The provincial government is still trying to create competition, but as yet it
| applies only in the industrial sector, not the residential. That's why
| residential rates are still regulated... and the key criterion for changing
the
| price is the return on equity that companies like Enmax achieve. That means
that
| they are regulated against excessive profits.

Sure, sure they are. There's been a 100% increase in my power bill despite the
fact I use less power now than ten years ago. You, sir, are ignoring the
evidence and the fact of the matter. They've corrupted the process. So, no, I
don't believe they are regulated effectively.

| >Two, I believe they don't want to go to great lengths, they'd rather not do
| >that much work, they have no choice as it's policy, they'd rather collect the
| >extra fees and they don't really care.
|
| "That much work" for what? They work to supply power, and all the maintenance
| and construction needed to do so. It's not their job to give power away for
free
| to anyone who doesn't bother to pay their bills.

No one asked for free power. You know, when you make such extreme exaggerations,
you only prove my point.

| >| If you want off the grid, go solar or produce your own
| >| source of power. If you have a surplus, heck you never know , you can
even
| >| sell it back to Enmax.
| >
| >If only this was possible. However, Enmax would never pay you as much as they
| >charge you.
|
| No business will buy from customers at retail prices; their only way to make a
| living is to buy wholesale and sell retail. The value of unpredictable and
| unreliable residential back-power is far far lower than the value of generated
| power that can be called upon to produce any time the load on the system
| increases.

Other utilities manage. By the way, they are not a private business, for the
tenth time, They are a PUBLIC UTILITY.

| >Nor do they, at this point, allow that to happen. Heck, they won't
| >even put in meters that indicate time of usage so you could use power at non
| >peak, therefore cheaper times.
|
| Industrial users can do that, but residential use is still regulated at fixed
| rates, so it wouldn't make any difference. If you want, you could have such
| meters installed on your home, though. It probably doesn't cost too terribly
| much. Of course, if the whole system goes to instantaneous pricing, then you
| might find yourself paying very high rates at some times.

No, no you can't. Sheesh

| >My main gripe is the high salaries.
|
| Well, we all know that from long experience.

So, address the issue. Oh, you can't, so therefore you avoid it.
GlennMor <>
2003-10-11 07:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:07:16 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>| to pay for your electricity supplies, then you'd better get yourself a roomie
>| or just use far less power.
>
>and if you've already done both those things?

If? So what? if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it.

>| price is the return on equity that companies like Enmax achieve. That means
>| that they are regulated against excessive profits.
>
>Sure, sure they are. There's been a 100% increase in my power bill despite the
>fact I use less power now than ten years ago.

Your usage and your costs aren't the criterion; it's return on equity that
drives the regulated prices of just about any monopoly (natural or otherwise).

> It's not their job to give power away for
>free
>| to anyone who doesn't bother to pay their bills.
>
>No one asked for free power. You know, when you make such extreme exaggerations,
>you only prove my point.

Look a few lines above. You wrote "and if you've already done both those
things", meaning cut back on usage and gotten help to pay for it. What did you
mean, then, if not free power from the companies that supply it?

>| No business will buy from customers at retail prices; their only way to make a
>| living is to buy wholesale and sell retail. The value of unpredictable and
>| unreliable residential back-power is far far lower than the value of generated
>| power that can be called upon to produce any time the load on the system
>| increases.
>
>Other utilities manage. By the way, they are not a private business, for the
>tenth time, They are a PUBLIC UTILITY.

Only if forced to do so, and even then they require considerable compensation to
permit such nonsense. Public or not has no bearing (you still come up with the
most amazing non-sequiturs) since it is in the public's interest not to have to
subsidize uneconomic activities by public power companies, and it is of course
not at all in the interest of the paying consumer to have to subsidize thieving
scoundrels who steal from the system.

>| Industrial users can do that, but residential use is still regulated at fixed
>| rates, so it wouldn't make any difference. If you want, you could have such
>| meters installed on your home, though. It probably doesn't cost too terribly
>| much. Of course, if the whole system goes to instantaneous pricing, then you
>| might find yourself paying very high rates at some times.
>
>No, no you can't. Sheesh

Can't what"? Install instantaneous rated meters? Of course you can, but you'll
get charged the same rates for power anyway. If, however, you install a cheating
meter, that underreports your use of power, then you will have committed a fraud
and deserve the full weight of the Law against you.

>| >My main gripe is the high salaries.
>|
>| Well, we all know that from long experience.
>
>So, address the issue. Oh, you can't, so therefore you avoid it.
>
What issue? High salaries is your own obsession, not an issue in and of itself.

If you want to talk about corporate (mis)governance, then that's another type of
topic, namely stealing from shareholders. It has nothing to do with retail
prices, employee wages, statutory minimum wages, or the like.
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-10 15:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> The cost of the necessities exceeds the amount earned at minimium
> wage.

You know I see this claim made all the time, and every time I see it, I
just have to call bollix.

Tom if a person can't live on $826-$944 dollars a month they aren't
trying very hard.

35h * $5.90 * 4weeks = $826
40h * $5.90 * 4weeks = $944

ok, what is the Tax on all that? Maybe $200 ($200 dollars you are sure
to get back BTW, though I'd seriously talk to my employer about
arranging to give me the money up front)

So let's call it $626/m or just to be conservative $600/m

$400 rent inc. water and electric(don't tell me it can't be done cause
that is bollix)
$100 food (again don't tell me it can't be done)
$30 phone
$20 mad money (a pint of beer at the pub each week)
$50 savings/debt payment

And that is a fairly worst case scenario.

Is it glamorous, no. Nor is it meant to be. Honestly Tom, how many
people in this province earn the *minimum* wage, or even better how many
stay there for any length of time, or depend on only one job. Christ
even burger flippers make $7-$8/h nowadays.

Want to ease their burden Tom, get the Fed's to remove income tax from
everyone. Not only will it help these people out, but the rest of us
would have more money, thus more buying power, which would translate
into more jobs.

Pham ~ doesn't play the blues for those unwilling to control their spending.
--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 17:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
news:***@libertydice.org...
| Tom2Tec wrote:
| > The cost of the necessities exceeds the amount earned at minimium
| > wage.
|
| You know I see this claim made all the time, and every time I see it, I
| just have to call bollix.
|
| Tom if a person can't live on $826-$944 dollars a month they aren't
| trying very hard.
|
| 35h * $5.90 * 4weeks = $826
| 40h * $5.90 * 4weeks = $944
|
| ok, what is the Tax on all that? Maybe $200 ($200 dollars you are sure
| to get back BTW, though I'd seriously talk to my employer about
| arranging to give me the money up front)
|
| So let's call it $626/m or just to be conservative $600/m
|
| $400 rent inc. water and electric(don't tell me it can't be done cause
| that is bollix)
| $100 food (again don't tell me it can't be done)
| $30 phone
| $20 mad money (a pint of beer at the pub each week)
| $50 savings/debt payment
|
| And that is a fairly worst case scenario.

What about bus fare, clothing, bank fees, insurance, health care, dental work,
Internet, childcare and or support, school fees, gas, medicine, facility & user
fees, etc, etc. Oh, and don't forget that you can't afford time off, pets,
music, etc. or all the other "rewards" of working. You over-simplify things.
Sure it can be done. Is it fair. No.

| Is it glamorous, no. Nor is it meant to be. Honestly Tom, how many
| people in this province earn the *minimum* wage, or even better how many
| stay there for any length of time, or depend on only one job. Christ
| even burger flippers make $7-$8/h nowadays.

LOL, thirty percent of the people in Alberta make minimium wage and the numbers
are rising. Of course, that's of no concern. So much for progress.


| Want to ease their burden Tom, get the Fed's to remove income tax from
| everyone. Not only will it help these people out, but the rest of us
| would have more money, thus more buying power, which would translate
| into more jobs.

Sure, minimum wage, in real dollars has been dropping for thirty years. Oh and
look at unemployment. It's almost all gone, now isn't it. Get real eh.

2tec ~ doesn't want to support the overly affluent privileged people
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-10 23:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> What about bus fare, clothing, bank fees, insurance, health care,
> dental work, Internet, childcare and or support, school fees, gas,
> medicine, facility & user fees, etc, etc. Oh, and don't forget that
> you can't afford time off, pets, music, etc. or all the other
> "rewards" of working. You over-simplify things. Sure it can be done.
> Is it fair. No.

Over-simplify things, I don't think so. I lived for a year on that
budget, don't tell me it's simple. It's called making due, and you put
off things you can't afford. I call that incentive to better yourself.
Now I pull in a hell of a lot more, and I enjoy it, but I also earned
it. It chokes me when people say I got it good because others have it
bad, because it's bollix. ANYONE can pull themselves up and do better,
and those that can't we have more than generous programs to help out
with. I don't think anyone is hard done by here, who isn't getting
exactly what they put into it.

Again, "fair" isn't a good goal, "just" is.

> LOL, thirty percent of the people in Alberta make minimium wage and
> the numbers are rising. Of course, that's of no concern. So much for
> progress.

Got a source?

> Sure, minimum wage, in real dollars has been dropping for thirty
> years. Oh and look at unemployment. It's almost all gone, now isn't
> it. Get real eh.

Raise the minimum wage then, just be prepared for the increase in
unemployment. History has shown over, and over, that minimum wage
increases are followed by unemployment increases.

PS. your quoting with the pipe (|) really screws up responding. You
really should switch it back to the standard (>).

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 01:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
news:***@libertydice.org...

> Over-simplify things, I don't think so. I lived for a year on that
> budget, don't tell me it's simple. It's called making due, and you put
> off things you can't afford. I call that incentive to better yourself.
> Now I pull in a hell of a lot more, and I enjoy it, but I also earned
> it. It chokes me when people say I got it good because others have it
> bad, because it's bollix. ANYONE can pull themselves up and do better,
> and those that can't we have more than generous programs to help out
> with. I don't think anyone is hard done by here, who isn't getting
> exactly what they put into it.

That was then, this is now. It's gotten worse, of course, you may simply not
have noticed. Yes, having to live close to the edge will sharpen almost
everyone. Unfortunately, not everyone possesses the same abilities, advantages,
depth of character, experience or good health. You assume too much when you
assume that everyone is as capable as you are or were. Generous programs? LOL,
not in Alberta, the PC's gutted every social support program we had. Sure, it
fostered more self reliance, but at the cost of many cast aside lives. Of
course, you'd like to believe that everyone gets what they deserve because that
feeds your sense of self worth. However, personally I believe thats simply a
common, convenient, easy and popular rationalization. Perhaps you still have
work to do? Or do you believe you're already perfect?

> Again, "fair" isn't a good goal, "just" is.
>
> > LOL, thirty percent of the people in Alberta make minimium wage and
> > the numbers are rising. Of course, that's of no concern. So much for
> > progress.
>
> Got a source?

Not off hand, I'll look for that info and post it when I can recall where I saw
it. In the interm, we'll put that aside if you like.

> Raise the minimum wage then, just be prepared for the increase in
> unemployment. History has shown over, and over, that minimum wage
> increases are followed by unemployment increases.

Got a source? <grin> Actually, as wages rise, so does overall prosperity. That
seems unarguable, no?

> PS. your quoting with the pipe (|) really screws up responding. You
> really should switch it back to the standard (>).

Done.

2tec ~ never does just the minimium
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 15:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:
> You assume too much when you assume that everyone is as capable as
> you are or were.

Short of physical/mental disabilities they are.

> Generous programs? LOL, not in Alberta, the PC's gutted every social
> support program we had.

Bollix. Christ, they cut 5% for 3 years back in 96, since then every
year every program you can name has typically ended up with bigger
budgets. Go ahead pick a program, and we'll see ho they have done over
the last 10 years. Tom there is a lot of retoric out there that just
doesn't add up. When I worked at CHR we kept hearing from the nurses
about how the "cuts" were killing health care, however every year I was
there I got a 3% "cost of living" raise PLUS any other raise I earned.
Every year the CHR budget grew $700M, $800M, $850M, $900M, $1B, $1.2B,
this year I hear they are projecting it at $1.5B+. The numbers just
don't match the rhetoric IMHO.

> Of course, you'd like to believe that everyone gets what they deserve
> because that feeds your sense of self worth. However, personally I
> believe thats simply a common, convenient, easy and popular
> rationalization. Perhaps you still have work to do? Or do you believe
> you're already perfect?

No one is perfect. Life is a matter of struggle, those who don't die.

> Not off hand, I'll look for that info and post it when I can recall
> where I saw it. In the interm, we'll put that aside if you like.

Sure, I think the 30% is WAY too high to be believable though.

>> Raise the minimum wage then, just be prepared for the increase in
>> unemployment. History has shown over, and over, that minimum wage
>> increases are followed by unemployment increases.
>
> Got a source? <grin> Actually, as wages rise, so does overall
> prosperity. That seems unarguable, no?

Only if the wages rise naturally, otherwise you typically lose any wage
gain in inflation, and unemployement.

Sources:

http://www.epf.org/ebyte/eb990510.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/min/2002/pd032002a.html
http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/min/pd111301b.html

Those are off the cuff, and I haven't read them thourghly myself, but
each show the sort thing I'm talking about.

>> PS. your quoting with the pipe (|) really screws up responding. You
>> really should switch it back to the standard (>).
>
> Done.

That is much better, thanx.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-11 04:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> So let's call it $626/m or just to be conservative $600/m
>
> $400 rent inc. water and electric(don't tell me it can't be done cause
> that is bollix)
> $100 food (again don't tell me it can't be done)
> $30 phone
> $20 mad money (a pint of beer at the pub each week)
> $50 savings/debt payment
>
> And that is a fairly worst case scenario.

While it might be possible to live on that little money for short
periods of time, it doesn't work on the scale of the minimum
wage population. $100 per month for food is not enough to stay
healthy, and there aren't enough places with rent that low for
all the people making minimum wage. You'd have to make them
share apartments, or better yet keep them in labor camps.
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 16:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
> While it might be possible to live on that little money for short
> periods of time, it doesn't work on the scale of the minimum wage
> population.

and just what "scale" is that?

> $100 per month for food is not enough to stay healthy,

It is if you are smart about it. It may not be the Atkins diet, but it
is balanced. Last night I went to safeway and bought:

Noodles 1kg = $2.00
Beans (6) = $4.20
Bread (2) = $2.00
soup (12) = $10.80
Ham 1kg = $10.00
Cheese = $8.80
eggs = $2.00
vegtables 1kg = $4.00
turkey .5kg = $5.00
stuffing = $1.00

Tax = $3.50
========================
Total = $53.30

It includes a thanksgiving dinner, and more than enough food to last the
better part of two weeks. If I wanted to stretch my dollar further it
certainly would be possible. The problem most people run into is they
buy into junk food too easily. Contrary to popular belief junk food is
an expensive luxury, it is far cheaper to eat a balanced diet.

> and there aren't enough places with rent that low for all the people
> making minimum wage. You'd have to make them share apartments,

<sarcasm>
Boo Hoo, Having your own seaside apartment isn't an option for the
average unskilled worker, what ever will we do?
</sarcasm>

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
GlennMor <>
2003-10-11 16:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:06:16 GMT, Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org>
wrote:


>> and there aren't enough places with rent that low for all the people
>> making minimum wage. You'd have to make them share apartments,
>
><sarcasm>
>Boo Hoo, Having your own seaside apartment isn't an option for the
>average unskilled worker, what ever will we do?
></sarcasm>

That's for sure; the easiest way to cut living expenses is to split the rent
with roomies. After my wife and I bought our first house we rented out much of
it on a 'shared accomodation' basis. It meant we couldn't buy nice furniture
(the tenants don't generally take care of stuff that isn't their own) and we had
to put up with the noise and occasional other annoyances.

However, we paid off our mortgage in 8 years at a time when interest rates were
17 1/2 and 15 3/4 for the second and first mortgages (respectively). Once we had
the mortgages beaten into submission we cut back on the number of renters,
naturally, and once we had paid them all down we stopped renting out. It's a
lifestyle and an economic choice, that's all.

At one point we had 5 renters and three dogs, plus ourselves, living in a 1050
square foot bungalow. If we could put up with it, I don't see why anyone else
can't.
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 16:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
GlennMor wrote:
> It's a lifestyle and an economic choice, that's all.

Except for the very few being poor is a choice, not a condition. Anyone
who applies themselves to it, can improve themselves.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 19:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You've got to respect those who get ahead because they work both hard and smart.
If only more people were so together. I think though, that most people aren't as
able or as intelligent as you and Glenn. Remember, a lot of money is spent to
make sure people make the wrong choices. As well, they don't really try to teach
thinking in school. As well, some parents mess up their kids pretty bad. Sure,
most people deserve what they get, but not everyone. Some people just seem to
have shit luck sometimes. Furthermore, there are a lot of dishonest companies
and people out there who are quite good at ripping people off.

2tec ~ sees two sides ... and a middle and an outside
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-12 02:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> GlennMor wrote:
>> It's a lifestyle and an economic choice, that's all.
>
> Except for the very few being poor is a choice, not a condition. Anyone
> who applies themselves to it, can improve themselves.

More Calgarian social darwinism crap. I never thought I'd see you
parroting GlennMor. :)
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-12 14:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:

> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
> news:***@libertydice.org:
>
>
>>GlennMor wrote:
>>
>>>It's a lifestyle and an economic choice, that's all.
>>
>>Except for the very few being poor is a choice, not a condition. Anyone
>>who applies themselves to it, can improve themselves.
>
> More Calgarian social darwinism crap. I never thought I'd see you
> parroting GlennMor. :)

How is that social darwinism? Are you telling me that poor people are
poor by condition, and therefore will always be poor no matter what they
do? That is social darwinism, not what I said.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-13 02:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
>> More Calgarian social darwinism crap. I never thought I'd see you
>> parroting GlennMor. :)
>
> How is that social darwinism? Are you telling me that poor people are
> poor by condition, and therefore will always be poor no matter what they
> do? That is social darwinism, not what I said.

So it's some other word then. It's still wrong.
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-12 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
GlennMor <> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

> At one point we had 5 renters and three dogs, plus ourselves, living in
> a 1050 square foot bungalow. If we could put up with it, I don't see why
> anyone else can't.

Because other people aren't like you? I for one hate humans and don't trust
them. There are very, very few people I could tolerate sharing space with.
I think everyone should be able to live alone if they want to.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 19:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ever thought of trying to buy bulk at the Great Canadian Warehouse place? IMHO,
Safeway's prices and selection really suck.

2tec ~ shops to save
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 19:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Ever thought of trying to buy bulk at the Great Canadian Warehouse place?

Won't even go near it. I went once to see it and walked away not very
impressed with the quality.

> IMHO, Safeway's prices and selection really suck.

I shop Safeway mostly because it is a block away. I rarely buy meat
there unless it is a real good deal, or I need something specific. I
find it has the best produce, and bakery though. IGA I hit every other
week, and it is good for sales, but I definately don't like their meat,
or produce. Costco is the king for bulk things in my house (well worth
the yearly $50 fee) pop, meat, frozen food, bulk cans of stuff, etc...
all from Costco.

Pham ~ Shops around for the best deals.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 21:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yah, that only makes cents. ;-} I know a guy who'd drive ten miles to save ten
cents. But hey, wtf is with that $50 Costco fee? I'd shop there if it wasn't for
exactly that reason. Thank goodness there's no such foolishness at that Great
Canadian place. Of course, they do do their own stupid management tricks.

While we're on this subject, can anyone explain why every store sucks at having
enough open tills? I wish I was paid for all the time I wasted waiting in line
ups. Of course, I foolishly always pick the short line which always takes the
freakin longest. On that note, why can't they have an express lane that really
is? Like how about one for people with just one or two things?

2tec ~ prefers wasted time to time wasted
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-11 22:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Yah, that only makes cents. ;-} I know a guy who'd drive ten miles to
> save ten cents.

10 miles ~== 16 Km
50 Litres ~== 500 Km [city](in my car at least)
1.6 L ~== 16Km
at 66.9/L that is $1.07 for 16Km

The guy you know is an idiot. =8)

> But hey, wtf is with that $50 Costco fee? I'd shop there if it wasn't
> for exactly that reason. Thank goodness there's no such foolishness
> at that Great Canadian place. Of course, they do do their own stupid
> management tricks.

I save that $50 in 2 months or less typically. Besides I saved enough on
one purchase there a few years ago that I could buy that membership for
the next 40 years and still end up ahead.

> While we're on this subject, can anyone explain why every store sucks
> at having enough open tills? I wish I was paid for all the time I
> wasted waiting in line ups. Of course, I foolishly always pick the
> short line which always takes the freakin longest. On that note, why
> can't they have an express lane that really is? Like how about one
> for people with just one or two things?
>
> 2tec ~ prefers wasted time to time wasted

But if you want fast service, then the best way is to remove the cashier
and replace them with electronic systems. Aren't you worried about all
the poor minimum wage earners you would lay off? =8)

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 23:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nope, they'll find better work
Andrew Handerson
2003-10-12 00:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
> But if you want fast service, then the best way is to remove the cashier
> and replace them with electronic systems. Aren't you worried about all
> the poor minimum wage earners you would lay off? =8)
>

There are actually a number of stores now doing exactly this. I don't
recall seeing any here in Calgary, but I spent the first 6 months of the
year in Toronto, and virtually ever store I went to had them. Work like a
hot damn if you ask me.
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-12 02:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
>> While it might be possible to live on that little money for short
>> periods of time, it doesn't work on the scale of the minimum wage
>> population.
>
> and just what "scale" is that?

Beats me. I'm guessing high school dropouts, discharged criminals,
children of welfare families and unskilled laborers in general.
This is just protonumerology, but I've always perceived that
unskilled and menial workers outnumber skilled workers.

>> $100 per month for food is not enough to stay healthy,
>
> It is if you are smart about it. It may not be the Atkins diet, but it
> is balanced. Last night I went to safeway and bought:
>
> It includes a thanksgiving dinner, and more than enough food to last the
> better part of two weeks.

I doubt that. There's hardly any protein in there at all. The turkey is
good for two or three meals and the ham for another four. That leaves
you with the cheese and eggs, which aren't much on their own.

Also, I think you're underestimating what you actually eat. If you bought
twice that order and ate nothing else, I think you'd find yourself
living off mustard by the end of the month. :)

>> and there aren't enough places with rent that low for all the people
>> making minimum wage. You'd have to make them share apartments,
>
><sarcasm>
> Boo Hoo, Having your own seaside apartment isn't an option for the
> average unskilled worker, what ever will we do?
></sarcasm>

LOL! It's just as true whether I say it or Adolf Hitler says it. :)
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-12 14:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
> news:***@libertydice.org:
>
>
>> Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
>>
>>> While it might be possible to live on that little money for short
>>> periods of time, it doesn't work on the scale of the minimum
>>> wage population.
>>
>> and just what "scale" is that?
>
> Beats me. I'm guessing high school dropouts, discharged criminals,
> children of welfare families and unskilled laborers in general. This
> is just protonumerology, but I've always perceived that unskilled and
> menial workers outnumber skilled workers.

You are right it is proctonumerology. Both you and Tom are WAY OFF on
this one.

First unskilled/menial != minimum wage, Second.....

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B53A51F26
From the Article:
> About 33,000 Albertans are working for minimum wage - about 2% of the
> labor force - and just under half of those work in the hospitality
> industry, the committee heard.

This in 1998 when it was $5/h and unemployment was about 5.8%.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P14A51F26
From the Article:
> Mason released information showing that 140,900 Albertans earn less
> than $8.00 per hour. This represents more than 8 per cent of
> Alberta’s employed labour force. In addition to the 16,100 Albertans
> making less than $5.99/hour, there are an additional 53,700
> Albertans making $6.99/hour or less, and yet another 71,100 making
> $7.99/hour or less. He said the province’s Human Resources and
> Employment Ministry compiled the numbers from Statistics Canada
> Labour Force Surveys.

This in 2003 when it is $5.90/h and unemployment is about 5.0%. 16,100
people represents approximately 0.5% of the population.

*** CAUTION PDF ***
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q12A31F26
Second chart down, left side, "Unemployment Rate, Alberta"

Take special note of the huge spike just starting in July 1999 and then
the slow slide down toward Nov 1999. That spike is the direct effect of
the minimum wage increase in Oct 1999 from $5.00 - $5.90. Now other
factors conspired (OPEC & Y2K) to make that not so bad a time to raise
it, as the price of oil shot up and unemployment was greatly reduced.

>>> $100 per month for food is not enough to stay healthy,
>>
>> It is if you are smart about it. It may not be the Atkins diet, but
>> it is balanced. Last night I went to safeway and bought:
>>
>> It includes a thanksgiving dinner, and more than enough food to
>> last the better part of two weeks.
>
> I doubt that. There's hardly any protein in there at all. The turkey
> is good for two or three meals and the ham for another four. That
> leaves you with the cheese and eggs, which aren't much on their own.

The Ham was sliced into 14 portions quite easily, and each portion is
more than enough for a meal. The Turkey is 3 portions. You also missed
the 6 cans of Beans. for an extra $2.20 I could have gotten a pack of 20
large hot dogs. Both the Ham, and Turkey are luxury items relatively
speaking, that Ham can actually be had cheaper as processed ham, as
opposed to a real ham like I bought, the Turkey was a special item. I
could have bought a Kg of ground beef for the same price and gotten 6
meals at least out of that.

> Also, I think you're underestimating what you actually eat.

What I eat is far more than what I need to eat. We do tend to be
gluttons here in North America. Granted I love food, but I have, and
could if necessary keep myself on far less than I do. Hell it would be
healthy if I did compared to what I do eat.

> If you bought twice that order and ate nothing else, I think you'd
> find yourself living off mustard by the end of the month. :)

Only if poorly planned.

>>> and there aren't enough places with rent that low for all the
>>> people making minimum wage. You'd have to make them share
>>> apartments,
>>
>> <sarcasm> Boo Hoo, Having your own seaside apartment isn't an
>> option for the average unskilled worker, what ever will we do?
>> </sarcasm>
>
> LOL! It's just as true whether I say it or Adolf Hitler says it. :)

Godwin! =8)

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-12 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message

> First unskilled/menial != minimum wage, Second.....

You ignore the fact that many people may have "minimium wage" jobs while still
being very skilled. Many people have to work at whatever they can at some point
in their lives. Sadly, for whatever reason, some people never manage to rise
above this. For you to lay the entire blame for that upon those individuals is
simply a generalization and evasion, no matter how you cut it.

> This in 1998 when it was $5/h and unemployment was about 5.8%.

Yes, and in 1998, $5.00 was worth more than the current wage. In fact, if we go
all the way back to 1953, $5.00 would be worth $37.21 today. Granted, the
minimium wage was lower then, if there was one? Does anyone know where to find a
reference to historical mininimium wage levels? I'd like to se a comparison in
real dollars.

www.bankofcanada.ca/en/inflation_calc.htm

As for the number of people earning minimium wage exactly, I think low income
levels is a more accepted perspective.

www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/famil60c.htm

> This in 2003 when it is $5.90/h and unemployment is about 5.0%. 16,100
> people represents approximately 0.5% of the population.

Yes, and on that same page it also says that the "Incidence of low income %" in
Alberta was 13.8% in 2000.

> Take special note of the huge spike just starting in July 1999 and then
> the slow slide down toward Nov 1999. That spike is the direct effect of
> the minimum wage increase in Oct 1999 from $5.00 - $5.90. Now other
> factors conspired (OPEC & Y2K) to make that not so bad a time to raise
> it, as the price of oil shot up and unemployment was greatly reduced.

You assume it's the direct effect. Can you prove it? Personally, I remain
unconvinced. The truth is it's evident to me that we would be much better off if
wages had even just kept pace with prices let alone, actually risen faster than
prices.

No matter how you spin it, the facts are clear. Income is rising for the top few
and falling for the rest.

> >>> $100 per month for food is not enough to stay healthy,
> >>
> >> It is if you are smart about it.

I agree here, $100 for just food is adequate for a single person in order to
remain healthy. In my personal experience though, I could easily more without
being unreasonable.

2tec ~ does the diminish

ps. so I guess this thread is dead,
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-12 19:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in message
>
>
>> First unskilled/menial != minimum wage, Second.....
>
> You ignore the fact that many people may have "minimium wage" jobs
> while still being very skilled.

I never said otherwise.

> Many people have to work at whatever they can at some point in their
> lives. Sadly, for whatever reason, some people never manage to rise
> above this. For you to lay the entire blame for that upon those
> individuals is simply a generalization and evasion, no matter how you
> cut it.

A generalization yes, again I never said otherwise, and I believe a
correct one. "evasion" however, what am I evading?

> Yes, and in 1998, $5.00 was worth more than the current wage. In
> fact, if we go all the way back to 1953, $5.00 would be worth $37.21
> today. Granted, the minimium wage was lower then, if there was one?
> Does anyone know where to find a reference to historical mininimium
> wage levels? I'd like to se a comparison in real dollars.

A good question.

> www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/famil60c.htm
>
>> This in 2003 when it is $5.90/h and unemployment is about 5.0%.
>> 16,100 people represents approximately 0.5% of the population.
>
> Yes, and on that same page it also says that the "Incidence of low
> income %" in Alberta was 13.8% in 2000.

A completely construed statistic if you look at the notes. lies, damn
lies, and statistics. If a stat has to be "arbitrarily estimated" and
"adjusted", one has to wonder how honest they are, and what they are
actually measuring.

> The truth is it's evident to me that we would be much better off if
> wages had even just kept pace with prices let alone, actually risen
> faster than prices.

I agree, what you have to ask yourself is why wages haven't risen. I
think that is obvious, because of state interference in the free market
system, through regulations, duties, taxes, and licensing.

> No matter how you spin it, the facts are clear. Income is rising for
> the top few and falling for the rest.

That doesn't make raising the minimum wage in of itself a good idea.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-13 02:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> This in 2003 when it is $5.90/h and unemployment is about 5.0%. 16,100
> people represents approximately 0.5% of the population.

Now try finding 16,100 apartments for $400 or less per month in Alberta,
with a distribution matching that of the population. Can't be done.

> The Ham was sliced into 14 portions quite easily, and each portion is
> more than enough for a meal. The Turkey is 3 portions. You also missed
> the 6 cans of Beans.

Beans aren't meat.

>> LOL! It's just as true whether I say it or Adolf Hitler says it. :)
>
> Godwin! =8)

Been a while since I've seen my old friend Godwin mentioned. :)
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-13 16:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:

> Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
> news:***@libertydice.org:
>
>>This in 2003 when it is $5.90/h and unemployment is about 5.0%. 16,100
>>people represents approximately 0.5% of the population.
>
> Now try finding 16,100 apartments for $400 or less per month in Alberta,
> with a distribution matching that of the population. Can't be done.

Bollix, I refer you to <GTrib.8694$***@clgrps13>

"$400.00/month utilities included"

there is one down, I expect the other 16099 would be just as easy. There
is no housing shortage.

>>The Ham was sliced into 14 portions quite easily, and each portion is
>>more than enough for a meal. The Turkey is 3 portions. You also missed
>>the 6 cans of Beans.
>
> Beans aren't meat.

Beans are protein though.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-13 16:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yup, and as a vegetarian, I can personally attest to the fact that eating meat
is a choice, not a necessity. It also lowered my food bill considerably and I
believe I'm healthier because of it.

2tec ~ doesn't do flesh
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-14 02:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jGAib.14002$***@edtnps84:

> Yup, and as a vegetarian, I can personally attest to the fact that
> eating meat is a choice, not a necessity. It also lowered my food bill
> considerably and I believe I'm healthier because of it.

Good for you. In my case though, the Caveman diet - eliminating carbs
and eating mostly meat, and using protein for energy instead of carbs - is
the only thing that has ever enabled me to lose weight and keep it off.
It's especially nice because I love eating tasty animals, but finding non-
boring ways to cook them is a problem.
Dr. Fred Mbogo
2003-10-14 02:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote in
news:***@libertydice.org:

> Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
>> Now try finding 16,100 apartments for $400 or less per month in Alberta,
>> with a distribution matching that of the population. Can't be done.
>
> Bollix, I refer you to <GTrib.8694$***@clgrps13>
>
> "$400.00/month utilities included"
>
> there is one down, I expect the other 16099 would be just as easy. There
> is no housing shortage.

You're just saying that because you're not only lucky enough to have found
a low-rent place years ago and kept it low, but also you're sharing it.
I think if you had to move you'd have a hard time finding something with a
comparable price/quality/convenience tradeoff.
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-14 19:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr. Fred Mbogo wrote:
> You're just saying that because you're not only lucky enough to have
> found a low-rent place years ago and kept it low, but also you're
> sharing it. I think if you had to move you'd have a hard time finding
> something with a comparable price/quality/convenience tradeoff.

I also don't work for minimum wage.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Diogenes
2003-10-12 05:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen wrote:
>
>>$100 per month for food is not enough to stay healthy,
>
>
> It is if you are smart about it. It may not be the Atkins diet, but it
> is balanced. Last night I went to safeway and bought:
>
> Noodles 1kg = $2.00
> Beans (6) = $4.20
> Bread (2) = $2.00
> soup (12) = $10.80
> Ham 1kg = $10.00
> Cheese = $8.80
> eggs = $2.00
> vegtables 1kg = $4.00
> turkey .5kg = $5.00
> stuffing = $1.00
>
> Tax = $3.50
> ========================
> Total = $53.30
>
> It includes a thanksgiving dinner, and more than enough food to last the
> better part of two weeks. If I wanted to stretch my dollar further it
> certainly would be possible. The problem most people run into is they
> buy into junk food too easily. Contrary to popular belief junk food is
> an expensive luxury, it is far cheaper to eat a balanced diet.
>

Thanks for the math Pham. BTW, you don't pay tax on food
items like these. Perhaps this is hypothetical, I think
maybe it is. Did you drive to Safeway? Let's figure out
cab fare. And why are you shopping at Safeway, the 7-11 of
supermarkets? Perhaps because price does not matter
anymore? Then there are things like laundry soap, bus fare,
milk, juice, children and other sundry items that you
overlook in your minimum wage lifestyle calculation.

It's Pham and not Phffffft, right?

-Dio ~ read Ayn Rand, prefer Oscar Wilde

And sorry, I don't like the 99 cent loaves of bread.
>
>>and there aren't enough places with rent that low for all the people
>>making minimum wage. You'd have to make them share apartments,
>
>
> <sarcasm>
> Boo Hoo, Having your own seaside apartment isn't an option for the
> average unskilled worker, what ever will we do?
> </sarcasm>
>
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-12 14:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Diogenes wrote:
> Thanks for the math Pham. BTW, you don't pay tax on food items like
> these. Perhaps this is hypothetical, I think maybe it is.

Ah right you are, my goof I calculated the tax, but the tax was on other
items I bought but didn't list for the purpose of this exercise. Thank
you for stretching the minimum wage earners dollars by an extra $3.50,
he can use that to buy a beer at the pub.

> Did you drive to Safeway?

Only because I was coming from work, If I had been at home, I'd walk. It
only two blocks.

> Let's figure out cab fare.

Why? why the fuck do you need a cab to carry 4 bags of groceries, a
couple of blocks? Note, I used to carry 8 bags 16 blocks in the dead of
winter from the CO-OP to where I was living at the time. If your on
minimum wage suck it up, and make due. If you waste your money on cabs
and things, of course you aren't going to be able to make ends meet.

> And why are you shopping at Safeway, the 7-11 of supermarkets?
> Perhaps because price does not matter anymore?

It's close, I find the prices very comparable, and IMHO it has the best
produce.

> Then there are things like laundry soap,

One time cost every 3 months, you work it into your budget.

> bus fare

I though you were taking cabs? Again work it into your budget. If you
are working for minimum wage though I'd ask what you are doing working
so far away it requires a bus.

>, milk, juice,

Don't drink milk (lactose intolerant), as for juice again work it in.
It's not hard you just have to make choices.

> children and other sundry items that you overlook in your minimum
> wage lifestyle calculation.

If you have Kids your eligible for programs to help out with that, and
one would think that both parents aren't on minimum wage.

> And sorry, I don't like the 99 cent loaves of bread.

(Well I do) But if you are on minimum wage you have a choice, you can
suck it up and eat 99 cent bread, or you can eat cake.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Determinator
2003-10-12 15:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen <***@libertydice.org> wrote:

>Diogenes wrote:
>> Thanks for the math Pham. BTW, you don't pay tax on food items like
>> these. Perhaps this is hypothetical, I think maybe it is.
>
>Ah right you are, my goof I calculated the tax, but the tax was on other
>items I bought but didn't list for the purpose of this exercise. Thank
>you for stretching the minimum wage earners dollars by an extra $3.50,
>he can use that to buy a beer at the pub.
>
>> Did you drive to Safeway?
>
>Only because I was coming from work, If I had been at home, I'd walk. It
>only two blocks.
>
>> Let's figure out cab fare.
>
>Why? why the fuck do you need a cab to carry 4 bags of groceries, a
>couple of blocks? Note, I used to carry 8 bags 16 blocks in the dead of
>winter from the CO-OP to where I was living at the time. If your on
>minimum wage suck it up, and make due. If you waste your money on cabs
>and things, of course you aren't going to be able to make ends meet.

at least you had a coop.. we lived in a swamp and had to get our
groceries from a tree .. 22 BLOCKS.. where a giant lived

and everyday he's murder us..... and dance on our graves...
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-12 16:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Determinator wrote:
> at least you had a coop.. we lived in a swamp and had to get our
> groceries from a tree .. 22 BLOCKS.. where a giant lived
> and everyday he's murder us..... and dance on our graves...

LOL! alrighty then... someone needs lower the dosage.

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Diogenes
2003-10-14 05:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pham Nuwen wrote:
> Diogenes wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the math Pham. BTW, you don't pay tax on food items like
>> these. Perhaps this is hypothetical, I think maybe it is.
>
>
> Ah right you are, my goof I calculated the tax, but the tax was on other
> items I bought but didn't list for the purpose of this exercise. Thank
> you for stretching the minimum wage earners dollars by an extra $3.50,
> he can use that to buy a beer at the pub.
>
>
>>Did you drive to Safeway?
>
>
> Only because I was coming from work, If I had been at home, I'd walk. It
> only two blocks.
>
>
>>Let's figure out cab fare.
>
>
> Why? why the fuck do you need a cab to carry 4 bags of groceries, a
> couple of blocks?

Hey asshole, I'm not the one who drives his car to work. I
guess everybody (in Pham's world) lives a couple of blocks
from Safeway. Sheesh, how stupid of me.

Note, I used to carry 8 bags 16 blocks in the dead of
> winter from the CO-OP to where I was living at the time.

Eight bags of what? Popcorn? I would have trouble carrying
eight bags of normal groceries to my car. Maybe that makes
me a fat lazy bastard.

If your on
> minimum wage suck it up, and make due. If you waste your money on cabs
> and things, of course you aren't going to be able to make ends meet.
>

Those who can waste their money at Safeway should not talk
about wasting money on cabs.

>
>>And why are you shopping at Safeway, the 7-11 of supermarkets?
>>Perhaps because price does not matter anymore?
>
>
> It's close, I find the prices very comparable, and IMHO it has the best
> produce.
>
>
>>Then there are things like laundry soap,
>
>
> One time cost every 3 months, you work it into your budget.
>

Righto bucko. You tell 'em. Share the bathwater with your
roommate. Dry your underwear in the microwave to save energy.

>
>>bus fare
>
>
> I though you were taking cabs? Again work it into your budget. If you
> are working for minimum wage though I'd ask what you are doing working
> so far away it requires a bus.
>
>
>>, milk, juice,
>
>
> Don't drink milk (lactose intolerant), as for juice again work it in.
> It's not hard you just have to make choices.
>

Hey, I like that - Pham. the intolerent!

>
>>children and other sundry items that you overlook in your minimum
>>wage lifestyle calculation.
>
>
> If you have Kids your eligible for programs to help out with that, and
> one would think that both parents aren't on minimum wage.
>

Right, and government programs are always fair and always
there. Your arguments are falling apart.

>
>>And sorry, I don't like the 99 cent loaves of bread.
>
>
> (Well I do) But if you are on minimum wage you have a choice, you can
> suck it up and eat 99 cent bread, or you can eat cake.
>

So maybe you like the cheap loaves that have no flavour and
marginal nutrition. I like the multigrains, stonegrounds,
etc. Better value for the money.

But there is little point in discussing value when one is
obsessed with cost. If 99 cents is good enough for you,
well then, that should be good enough for everybody!

Pham the intolerant - I like that.

-Dio ~ doubts this will be the last word
Pham Nuwen
2003-10-14 19:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Diogenes wrote:
> Pham Nuwen wrote:
>> Why? why the fuck do you need a cab to carry 4 bags of groceries, a
>> couple of blocks?
>
> Hey asshole, I'm not the one who drives his car to work. I guess
> everybody (in Pham's world) lives a couple of blocks from Safeway.
> Sheesh, how stupid of me.

Holy take things personal. Look I don't earn minimum wage, I paid my
dues. When I did earn minimum wage, I didn't have a car, I rode a bike,
and I shared my apartment, and I made the sacrifices to get ahead. Why?
So I don't have to do it now. I can enjoy my nice car, and spend more
than $25 a week on food. But don't tell me it can't be done, because I
have been there and done that.

>> Note, I used to carry 8 bags 16 blocks in the dead of winter from
>> the CO-OP to where I was living at the time.
>
> Eight bags of what? Popcorn? I would have trouble carrying eight
> bags of normal groceries to my car. Maybe that makes me a fat lazy
> bastard.

Maybe it does, that is up to you to decide.

> Those who can waste their money at Safeway should not talk about
> wasting money on cabs.

Well that is a non sequitur if I ever heard one. Like I said, I don't
earn minimum wage. I'll tell you if I did, I wouldn't be riding around
in taxi cabs.

>> If you have Kids your eligible for programs to help out with that,
>> and one would think that both parents aren't on minimum wage.
> Right, and government programs are always fair and always there.

Nope, but that isn't the point.

> Your arguments are falling apart.

How so?

>>> And sorry, I don't like the 99 cent loaves of bread.
>>
>> (Well I do) But if you are on minimum wage you have a choice, you
>> can suck it up and eat 99 cent bread, or you can eat cake.
>>
> So maybe you like the cheap loaves that have no flavour and marginal
> nutrition. I like the multigrains, stonegrounds, etc. Better value
> for the money.
>
> But there is little point in discussing value when one is obsessed
> with cost. If 99 cents is good enough for you, well then, that
> should be good enough for everybody!

It's called choices. No one owes you a better loaf of bread, you want
it, then EARN it.

> Pham the intolerant - I like that.

whatever....

--
/---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---\
I ***@libertydice.org II No nation was ever ruined by I
I http://www.libertydice.org II trade, even seemingly the most I
I remove "3d6" to e-mail II disadvantageous. - Ben Franklin I
\---+----+----+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+----+----+---/
Tom2Tec
2003-10-09 17:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message
news:%93hb.51130$***@pd7tw3no...

| Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
| notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.

| Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for awhile
| then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't make
| bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing I
| did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
| utilities and asked the same thing. And guess what .. they were quite happy
| I came to them beforehand. I was late with everything but was able to
| catchup within a month. No interuption in service. No eviction.

While I agree that calling Enmax earlier would have, perhaps, avoided
disconnection as you suggested, you also avoided several of the original issues.
As well there are other considerations. How about addressing these point
directly?

1) He did call and he did make arrangement, which Enmax didn't keep.
2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the time.
3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
6) They don't accept credit card payments
7) They charge people to reconnect
8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect and deposit
costs
9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to generate extra
revenue
10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities
11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have a fax or
even a phone
12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor
13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
15) They will not accept partial payments
16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls
17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now
18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's inquiries
19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and unsympathetic
20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years
21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
completely
22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were illegal
yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course, theyr'e not
called the same

I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can speak
from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax are
simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies are
justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also don't feel
that the public has the right to question what they consider is private business
policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is effective
and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've questioned these
policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in treating
people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any alternatives.

This is, in my opinion, abuse of power and irresponsibility at the very least.
Of course, it's also toeing a hard line and inhumane. It all stems from the
belief that people who are disconnected are trying to cheat or steal from Enmax.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The large majority of people in this
position are just either going temporarily through bad times or are simply
incompetent when it comes to crisis or financial management. I'm in no way
negating their responsibilities, however, I expect Enmax to be even more
responsible and find a less abusing method of seeking overdue payments. Their
main argument always comes down to cost. They, of course, overlook the larger
social costs to those who are the least able to afford additional trouble and
expense. They don't care about people as much as they care about profits. Is
this a good and responsible position? I personally don't believe so. Certainly
not one that deserves double someone's already extremely high salary. Of course,
City Hall doesn't care about my perspective. I've heard Enmax is considering
putting in a system to phone people before disconnection. So, with all due
respect, they are trying to address one of the concerns I brought up here.
However, they have a long way to go and to me it seems like they've been going
in the wrong direction.

You know, you talk a lot about responsibility. I'd like to hear what you have to
say about their responsibilities rather than always talking about ours. After
all we pay them to be responsible, on the other hand we don't get paid to be
responsible. We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies, which, of
course, we have little or no real say in. My main point is, and remains, that
our bills should be getting LESS expensive and our wages should be INCREASING.
Otherwise, these people shouldn't be giving themselves raises. Which is why I
believe that Ms. AL said, "The rich (corporations) get richer and the poor get
poorer". See?

2tec ~ grew up watching Underdog

PS, Yes Glen, I thought about your comments too, so, please feel free to
consider this a response to you as well. By the way, thanks for your
perspectives.
MadRedHatter
2003-10-10 01:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ahhb.503$***@edtnps84...
> MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message
> news:%93hb.51130$***@pd7tw3no...
>
> | Or what you could have done is called them BEFORE you got the cut off
> | notice. Let them know you would be late with your payment.
>
> | Why do people always cry foul when they let their bills go unpaid for
awhile
> | then get services cutoff? I have been in situations where I couldn't
make
> | bill payments because of a loss of employment. Know what the first thing
I
> | did was? I called my landlord and asked for an extension. I called my
> | utilities and asked the same thing. And guess what .. they were quite
happy
> | I came to them beforehand. I was late with everything but was able to
> | catchup within a month. No interuption in service. No eviction.
>
> While I agree that calling Enmax earlier would have, perhaps, avoided
> disconnection as you suggested, you also avoided several of the original
issues.
> As well there are other considerations. How about addressing these point
> directly?
>
> 1) He did call and he did make arrangement, which Enmax didn't keep.

Only after his account went delinquent.

> 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
time.

Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
constantly get notices in the mail.

> 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble

Is it Enmax's job to determine who is in fiscal trouble and who isn't? Can I
call up Shaw and tell them to stop charging me because I am in "fiscal
trouble"? Of course not .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to be
paid.

> 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits

Welcome to capitalism 101. Businesses are in existance to make money. Did
the OP do anything to reduce his power consumption? Was he living outside
his means?

> 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection

Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone with a
history of not paying.

> 6) They don't accept credit card payments

I can't comment on this as I pay all my bills online. But if I recall can't
you pay your bills at the most banks? This guy was unemployed .. spend $2
and take a bus to Enmax.

> 7) They charge people to reconnect

Yeah .... so?

> 8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect and
deposit
> costs

Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.

> 9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to generate
extra
> revenue

I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever getting
disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.

> 10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities

You know how many times I have had to contact Enmax in the last 3 years?
Twice ... once to get power turned on in my old place and another time when
I moved. Both times the CSR were very friendly and my power was hooked up
when promised.

> 11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have a
fax or
> even a phone

Can you blame them? How else would you suggest they get proof? As far as
having to fax ... Mailboxes Etc.

> 12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor

Never tried to so I can't comment.

> 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point

Bull! As I stated before I had to call them when I was unemployed and
negotiated a payment plan so my power didn't get cut off. But I did this
BEFORE the payment was late.

> 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you

Aren't those guys sub-contractors? Or am I thinking Shaw?

> 15) They will not accept partial payments

Bull .. see 13.

> 16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls

Mine were returned

> 17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now

So is the cost of mustard. It's known as inflation.

> 18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's
inquiries

Can't comment on this.

> 19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and unsympathetic

To delinquent accounts they probably are. To responsible people they are
quite friendly and accomidating.

> 20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years

And ...? What's your point?

> 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
> completely

How can they limit your power? No power between certain hours? I am sure
people would be pissed to have their freezer full of food spoiling. Cut the
power by 50%? Wouldn't this play havoc on any electrical device you have?

> 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were
illegal
> yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course, theyr'e
not
> called the same

I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?

> I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can
speak
> from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax are
> simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies are
> justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also don't
feel
> that the public has the right to question what they consider is private
business
> policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is
effective
> and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've questioned
these
> policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
> implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in
treating
> people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any
alternatives.

Might I ask what circumstances forced you to speak with every level of
management? Except for the two times (as I mentioned above) I have never had
to contact anyone at Enmax.

> This is, in my opinion, abuse of power and irresponsibility at the very
least.
> Of course, it's also toeing a hard line and inhumane. It all stems from
the
> belief that people who are disconnected are trying to cheat or steal from
Enmax.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The large majority of people in
this
> position are just either going temporarily through bad times or are simply
> incompetent when it comes to crisis or financial management. I'm in no way
> negating their responsibilities, however, I expect Enmax to be even more
> responsible and find a less abusing method of seeking overdue payments.
Their
> main argument always comes down to cost. They, of course, overlook the
larger
> social costs to those who are the least able to afford additional trouble
and
> expense. They don't care about people as much as they care about profits.
Is
> this a good and responsible position? I personally don't believe so.

Why should Enmax be responsible for people who can't manage money? Do you
think Visa would be all "Aww shucks mister .. you spent all your money on
beer and smokes and can't pay us? That's all right, you can catch us next
time."

Can you imagine how many people are late with their bills or don't pay at
all? Enmax has bills of their own to pay as well. If you ran a business and
provided a service would you take the excuse of not being able to balance
your checkbook from your customers?

>Certainly
> not one that deserves double someone's already extremely high salary. Of
course,
> City Hall doesn't care about my perspective. I've heard Enmax is
considering
> putting in a system to phone people before disconnection. So, with all due
> respect, they are trying to address one of the concerns I brought up here.
> However, they have a long way to go and to me it seems like they've been
going
> in the wrong direction.
>
> You know, you talk a lot about responsibility. I'd like to hear what you
have to
> say about their responsibilities rather than always talking about ours.
After
> all we pay them to be responsible, on the other hand we don't get paid to
be
> responsible. We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies,
which, of
> course, we have little or no real say in. My main point is, and remains,
that
> our bills should be getting LESS expensive and our wages should be
INCREASING.
> Otherwise, these people shouldn't be giving themselves raises. Which is
why I
> believe that Ms. AL said, "The rich (corporations) get richer and the poor
get
> poorer". See?

Enmax's responsibility? As I see it they need to provide me with electricity
24/7. And I have always received that from them. (of course with the
exception of interruptions out of their control .. ie: weather). They are
not there to cut the little guy some slack. They are there to make money.
They area business.

What basis do you have to make the comment "our bills should be getting LESS
expensive "? Should a company stop making money after a certain point?

"We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies"?? Well duh! What
good would policies be if there were no penalties for breaking them?

Bottom line is if you are responsible with your bills, live within your
means and take measures before your account becomes delinquent you won't
have any problems.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 15:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message
news:51ohb.57379$***@pd7tw3no...

| Only after his account went delinquent.

So what, they still can't try to work it out. After all, he did try to resolve
the situation by calling them. Of course, he tried to be responsible, but, heh,
they don't need to try. Sure.

| > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
| time.
|
| Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
| constantly get notices in the mail.

They have your phone number, they can't call it? But hey, they can send someone
to make sure the get thier $65. Yup, such care, such concern, such
professionalism. We should be really proud of how our City treats people when
they're down.

| > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
|
| Is it Enmax's job to determine who is in fiscal trouble and who isn't? Can I
| call up Shaw and tell them to stop charging me because I am in "fiscal
| trouble"? Of course not .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to be
| paid.

Sheesh, no one suggested not paying at all. Would it hurt to defer some part of
the bill for some time? Or set up a budget? Or not charge such high fees? Or, at
least, try to be less avaricious, demanding and inflexible?

| > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
|
| Welcome to capitalism 101. Businesses are in existance to make money. Did
| the OP do anything to reduce his power consumption? Was he living outside
| his means?

Capitalism, ROTFLMAO ... corruption is more like it. Oh my, are you naive.

| > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
|
| Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone with a
| history of not paying.

Yes, yes I can. What risk? People will be back, everyone needs power. Besides,
there's collection agencies and other avenues. Besides, why is the deposit so
needlessly high. It's just another penalty, in my opinion

| > 6) They don't accept credit card payments
|
| I can't comment on this as I pay all my bills online. But if I recall can't
| you pay your bills at the most banks? This guy was unemployed .. spend $2
| and take a bus to Enmax.

No, they want you to pay cash and they want you to do it a city hall during
office hours.

| > 7) They charge people to reconnect
|
| Yeah .... so?

Yup, that helps the situation. Thiers anyways.

> 8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect and
| deposit
| > costs
|
| Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.

Duh, yup must be nice to be always affluent. How is perfection?

| > 9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to generate
| extra
| > revenue
|
| I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever getting
| disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.

See above. Boy, for a perfect person, you're not very compassionate, caring,
concerned, humane, kind, or understanding, are you?

| > 10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities
|
| You know how many times I have had to contact Enmax in the last 3 years?
| Twice ... once to get power turned on in my old place and another time when
| I moved. Both times the CSR were very friendly and my power was hooked up
| when promised.

Yup, that makes it all ok alright. Now if only everyone was perfect.

| > 11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have a
| fax or
| > even a phone
|
| Can you blame them? How else would you suggest they get proof? As far as
| having to fax ... Mailboxes Etc.

Yes, remember, the issue here is what happens when people are broke. Oh, hey, I
thought you were perfect, did you overlook something? Awww ..

| > 12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor
|
| Never tried to so I can't comment.

So you say nothing?

| > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
|
| Bull! As I stated before I had to call them when I was unemployed and
| negotiated a payment plan so my power didn't get cut off. But I did this
| BEFORE the payment was late.

On this I agree, he should have called earlier. However, many poor people are
simply not as on the ball as you. Enmax needs to deal with all people. They
cannot expect not to have some people who aren't as competent as others. It's
their responsibility to deal with us. Not our responsibility to be perfect.

| > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
|
| Aren't those guys sub-contractors? Or am I thinking Shaw?

So, he's still there. Oh, and subcontracting. Oh, and hiring subs, that's not
very responsible.

| > 15) They will not accept partial payments

| Bull .. see 13.

Whatever, they could be more flexible and you know it. You're just conveniently
avoiding the issue

| > 16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls
|
| Mine were returned

Not mine.

| > 17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now
|
| So is the cost of mustard. It's known as inflation.

LOL, Enmax's bills, fees and penalties have risen far faster than inflation. As
have their salaries. That is the problem.
|
| > 18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's
| inquiries
|
| Can't comment on this.

Of course, nothing to say eh. Fiqures.

| > 19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and unsympathetic
|
| To delinquent accounts they probably are. To responsible people they are
| quite friendly and accomidating.

Boy, and I bet that helps. Oh, and it's justified. Everbody knows how useful it
is to beat a dying dead or dying horse.

| > 20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years
|
| And ...? What's your point?

Duh.

Enmax 'efforts' well paid byDon Braid For The Calgary Herald Friday, October 03,
2003

"Enmax CEO Bob Nicolay earned $698,468 in 2002, well over twice his total
compensation only two years earlier, when he was paid $340,015. In 2001, Nicolay
and other senior Enmax officials also received large extra payments for "special
efforts" in preparing the taxpayer-owned utility for private sale, although it
was never sold. Nicolay got $148,606 in 2001 under the heading "all other
compensation," which includes both the sale efforts and pension entitlements
paid for him by the company. Nicolay's total pay in 2002 certainly vaults him to
the top of the list for Calgary bosses of publicly-owned enterprises. Jack Davis
made $520,000 heading the Calgary Health Region. Dale Stanway, the city's CEO,
earned about $233,000. Nonetheless, Enmax doesn't seem to think facts about
executive pay are news. I do believe they're news, partly because Enmax wants to
get rid of 200 jobs, and is applying to charge customers 11 per cent more for
electricity. This seems to be the wonderful world of deregulation as it applies
to a city-owned utility; higher rates for consumers, higher pay for top
executives and fewer jobs for employees further down the ladder. Nicolay's pay,
and that of other senior officials, is studied annually by a committee and
approved by the board, which includes two aldermen (currently, Dale Hodges and
Bob Hawkesworth.) The salaries were disclosed through a regulatory filing in
July, but Enmax sure didn't fire off any press releases. One thing is certain:
the taxpayers, as indirect owners, have every right to know all the details, and
to ask what we're getting for such whopping salaries at the top. The company is
making more money -- profits went from $44 million in 1999 to $249 million two
years later. As much as $50 million of that comes back into city coffers as a
dividend that can be used for roads, services or to help keep down taxes. But
it's fascinating to compare Enmax with Edmonton's Epcor, also taxpayer-owned,
which holds $4.7 billion in assets compared to $1.2 billion for Enmax, and makes
more than twice the profits. Don Lowry, Epcor's CEO, made $706,000 in 2002, just
$8,000 more than Nicolay. You can hardly blame Nicolay for taking the money. The
question is, does Enmax's position as a rather small utility justify such
compensation? Enmax certainly thinks so. "Compensation is no different at Enmax
than at most companies," says spokesman Tony McCallum. "It's based on the
midpoint of what most companies are paying for similar positions. It's also
based on individual performance and the company's success at meeting its
targets." The Calgary customer/owner, facing another rate hike, might have
another view of success, and what these people should be paid. In 2002,
Nicolay's earnings of $698,468 were comprised of $390,260 in salary, $230,000 in
bonus, $11,400 as "other annual compensation" and $66,808 under the heading "all
other compensation." In 2000, his total pay of $340,015 was made up of $225,000
in salary, a bonus of $80,000, and $35,015 under the two headings of "other
compensation." Sean Durfy, vice-president of unregulated business, made a total
of $356,175 in 2002, up from $229,715 in 2000. Executive vice-president Randall
Henderson, who joined Enmax in 2001, earned $333,662 in 2002. Karen Anne
Prentice, vice-president of legal affairs, made $311,997 in 2002, compared to
$205,995 in 2000. Customer service vice-president Lori Rae Topp, who has since
left Enmax, was paid $294,545 in 2002. She had joined the company in 2001. These
executives saw substantial jumps in their extra pay during 2001, for "one-time
compensation for special efforts rendered during the proposed sale of Enmax." In
the regulatory sense, this was all properly disclosed. But there was no effort
whatever, either from city hall or the company, to make the public aware of the
facts. For a taxpayer-owned enterprise, that won't do."

www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/columnists/story.asp?id=BF3CC41A-4A7B-480B-
9E09-487E51EA03AF

| > 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
| > completely
|
| How can they limit your power? No power between certain hours? I am sure
| people would be pissed to have their freezer full of food spoiling. Cut the
| power by 50%? Wouldn't this play havoc on any electrical device you have?

They have and can use a device that limits wattage. No, no it only means you can
only run one thing at a time. It's an inconvenience, but it allows your furnace
to maintain heat, and your fridge to keep all your food from spoiling. By law,
they must use it in the winter. Of course, without the law, I'd bet they
wouldn't bother. Face it, they're uncaring and self serving. They don't give a
sh*t if people freeze or starve,

|
| > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were
| illegal
| > yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course, theyr'e
| not
| > called the same
|
| I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?

Yup, why can't you do your own research?

Hobsbawn v. Enmax Corporation and The City of Calgary

| > I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can
| speak
| > from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax are
| > simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies are
| > justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also don't
| feel
| > that the public has the right to question what they consider is private
| business
| > policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is
| effective
| > and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've questioned
| these
| > policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
| > implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in
| treating
| > people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any
| alternatives.
|
| Might I ask what circumstances forced you to speak with every level of
| management? Except for the two times (as I mentioned above) I have never had
| to contact anyone at Enmax.

Sure you can ask. What difference would it make? We weren't discussing my
advocacy.

| Why should Enmax be responsible for people who can't manage money? Do you
| think Visa would be all "Aww shucks mister .. you spent all your money on
| beer and smokes and can't pay us? That's all right, you can catch us next
| time."

Duh, Enmax isn't Visa, it's monopolistic public utility which provides a
necessity, that's why they are responsible. Why do I bother explaining this to
you. Obviously you can't get it. IMHO, it appears that you're just not caring or
deep enough or you're too biased. Sad really.

| Can you imagine how many people are late with their bills or don't pay at
| all? Enmax has bills of their own to pay as well. If you ran a business and
| provided a service would you take the excuse of not being able to balance
| your checkbook from your customers?

I have and do run a business. I did and do better, and I didn't and don't expect
excessive compensation. Nor did I have my customers over a barrel.

| Enmax's responsibility? As I see it they need to provide me with electricity
| 24/7. And I have always received that from them. (of course with the
| exception of interruptions out of their control .. ie: weather). They are
| not there to cut the little guy some slack. They are there to make money.
| They area business.

No, they don't. Never had a power outage? Ever been compensated? By the way,
they aren't a business, they're a utility, and a public one. Get over it. Face
facts. Stop twisting words.

| What basis do you have to make the comment "our bills should be getting LESS
| expensive "? Should a company stop making money after a certain point?

See above. It's the same lame and false argument.
|
| "We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies"?? Well duh! What
| good would policies be if there were no penalties for breaking them?
|
| Bottom line is if you are responsible with your bills, live within your
| means and take measures before your account becomes delinquent you won't
| have any problems.

Ahh, Mr. The World Is Perfect, so therefore others must be losers attitude.
That's just a shallow justification for the mistreatment of others in my view.

2tec ~ thinks bullies are bad.

On December 11th Enmax filed its Regulatory Rate Option with Lethbridge City
Council. Included in the rates is a $10.00 per month charge for invoice
processing. This appears to be the cost of an envelope and postage. The charge
is excessive and negates half of the monthly rebate provided by the provincial
government, guaranteeing that regulated rate option customers in Lethbridge will
pay more in 2001 than in 2000. Enmax would not appear to be a company that has
the customers interests at heart. Customers who choose Enmax may be
inadvertently subsidizing the city of Calgary.
www.iasa.ca/ED_documents_IASA/Issue09.html

Also:
www.iasa.ca/ED_documents_IASA/Issue09.html
MadRedHatter
2003-10-11 00:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yhAhb.8686$***@edtnps84...
>
> MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message
> news:51ohb.57379$***@pd7tw3no...
>
> | Only after his account went delinquent.
>
> So what, they still can't try to work it out. After all, he did try to
resolve
> the situation by calling them. Of course, he tried to be responsible, but,
heh,
> they don't need to try. Sure.

Yeah .. AFTER he was forced into being responsible for his delinquent
account. Why should Enmax bend over backwards for someone who doesn't pay
their bills?

> | > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
> | time.
> |
> | Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
> | constantly get notices in the mail.
>
> They have your phone number, they can't call it? But hey, they can send
someone
> to make sure the get thier $65. Yup, such care, such concern, such
> professionalism. We should be really proud of how our City treats people
when
> they're down.

Why are people so surprised when their utilites get cut off? The guy knew he
didn't pay .. so why wait until it got cut off to complain? The letters
usually give you a week or more before the cutoff to contact them.

> | > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
> |
> | Is it Enmax's job to determine who is in fiscal trouble and who isn't?
Can I
> | call up Shaw and tell them to stop charging me because I am in "fiscal
> | trouble"? Of course not .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to
be
> | paid.
>
> Sheesh, no one suggested not paying at all. Would it hurt to defer some
part of
> the bill for some time? Or set up a budget? Or not charge such high fees?
Or, at
> least, try to be less avaricious, demanding and inflexible?

Is Enmax in the financial planning business? Why should it be their
responsibility to set up a budget for someone? Did this guy do things like
trying to reduce his electricity consumption?

> | > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
> |
> | Welcome to capitalism 101. Businesses are in existance to make money.
Did
> | the OP do anything to reduce his power consumption? Was he living
outside
> | his means?
>
> Capitalism, ROTFLMAO ... corruption is more like it. Oh my, are you naive.

Explain how it's corruption. I have never seen evidence of this.

> | > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
> |
> | Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone
with a
> | history of not paying.
>
> Yes, yes I can. What risk? People will be back, everyone needs power.
Besides,
> there's collection agencies and other avenues. Besides, why is the deposit
so
> needlessly high. It's just another penalty, in my opinion

What risk?? The guy didn't pay his bill .. he might not again.

> | > 6) They don't accept credit card payments
> |
> | I can't comment on this as I pay all my bills online. But if I recall
can't
> | you pay your bills at the most banks? This guy was unemployed .. spend
$2
> | and take a bus to Enmax.
>
> No, they want you to pay cash and they want you to do it a city hall
during
> office hours.

Since he was unemployed he could have hopped a bus and went to pay.

> | > 7) They charge people to reconnect
> |
> | Yeah .... so?
>
> Yup, that helps the situation. Thiers anyways.

Yeah ... don't let your account go delinquent and this won't happen.

> > 8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect
and
> | deposit
> | > costs
> |
> | Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.
>
> Duh, yup must be nice to be always affluent. How is perfection?

As I said before I went through a time of unemployment and called Enmax
before my account went delinquent. They were more then happy to work
something out.

> | > 9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to
generate
> | extra
> | > revenue
> |
> | I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever
getting
> | disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.
>
> See above. Boy, for a perfect person, you're not very compassionate,
caring,
> concerned, humane, kind, or understanding, are you?

Seeing above doesn't answer my question. Why shouldn't a company discontinue
a service to someone who doesn't pay them?

And yes I am a compassionate person .. but not to people who don't take
responsibility.

> | > 10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities
> |
> | You know how many times I have had to contact Enmax in the last 3 years?
> | Twice ... once to get power turned on in my old place and another time
when
> | I moved. Both times the CSR were very friendly and my power was hooked
up
> | when promised.
>
> Yup, that makes it all ok alright. Now if only everyone was perfect.

Just citing an example to counter your claim.

> | > 11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have
a
> | fax or
> | > even a phone
> |
> | Can you blame them? How else would you suggest they get proof? As far as
> | having to fax ... Mailboxes Etc.
>
> Yes, remember, the issue here is what happens when people are broke. Oh,
hey, I
> thought you were perfect, did you overlook something? Awww ..

So you what are you trying to say here? That a business should continue
providing a service to someone who doesn't pay?

> | > 12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor
> |
> | Never tried to so I can't comment.
>
> So you say nothing?

What do you want me to say? I never tried so I make no comment. I could lie
and say I did but why bother?
>
> | > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
> |
> | Bull! As I stated before I had to call them when I was unemployed and
> | negotiated a payment plan so my power didn't get cut off. But I did this
> | BEFORE the payment was late.
>
> On this I agree, he should have called earlier. However, many poor people
are
> simply not as on the ball as you. Enmax needs to deal with all people.
They
> cannot expect not to have some people who aren't as competent as others.
It's
> their responsibility to deal with us. Not our responsibility to be
perfect.

Wow ... we agree. :) Cool stuff.
I have a hard time accepting the excuse of not being on the ball. Everyone
should know that you pay your bills every month. Do people really expect the
bills to just go away? It isn't really rocket science.

> | > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
> |
> | Aren't those guys sub-contractors? Or am I thinking Shaw?
>
> So, he's still there. Oh, and subcontracting. Oh, and hiring subs, that's
not
> very responsible.

So .. Enmax uses subcontractors? If they do why is it not responsible?

> | > 15) They will not accept partial payments
>
> | Bull .. see 13.
>
> Whatever, they could be more flexible and you know it. You're just
conveniently
> avoiding the issue

I am avoiding nothing. When I couldn't pay my full Enmax bill when I was
unemployed I paid part of it. Enmax was happy.

> | > 16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls
> |
> | Mine were returned
>
> Not mine.

We have reached an impass. :)

> | > 17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now
> |
> | So is the cost of mustard. It's known as inflation.
>
> LOL, Enmax's bills, fees and penalties have risen far faster than
inflation. As
> have their salaries. That is the problem.

Fees and penalties can be avoided.

> | > 18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's
> | inquiries
> |
> | Can't comment on this.
>
> Of course, nothing to say eh. Fiqures.

Again .. what do you want me to do? Lie? I have never talked to my alderman
regarding this. I have never heard of Enmax ignoring aldermen.

> | > 19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and
unsympathetic
> |
> | To delinquent accounts they probably are. To responsible people they are
> | quite friendly and accomidating.
>
> Boy, and I bet that helps. Oh, and it's justified. Everbody knows how
useful it
> is to beat a dying dead or dying horse.

What more can I say? Put yourself in their position .. would you be all
happy and friendly to someone who doesn't pay their bills?

> | > 20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years
> |
> | And ...? What's your point?
>
> Duh.
>
> Enmax 'efforts' well paid byDon Braid For The Calgary Herald Friday,
October 03,
> 2003
>
> "Enmax CEO Bob Nicolay earned $698,468 in 2002, well over twice his total
> compensation only two years earlier, when he was paid $340,015. In 2001,
Nicolay
> and other senior Enmax officials also received large extra payments for
"special
> efforts" in preparing the taxpayer-owned utility for private sale,
although it
> was never sold. Nicolay got $148,606 in 2001 under the heading "all other
> compensation," which includes both the sale efforts and pension
entitlements
> paid for him by the company. Nicolay's total pay in 2002 certainly vaults
him to
> the top of the list for Calgary bosses of publicly-owned enterprises. Jack
Davis
> made $520,000 heading the Calgary Health Region. Dale Stanway, the city's
CEO,
> earned about $233,000. Nonetheless, Enmax doesn't seem to think facts
about
> executive pay are news. I do believe they're news, partly because Enmax
wants to
> get rid of 200 jobs, and is applying to charge customers 11 per cent more
for
> electricity. This seems to be the wonderful world of deregulation as it
applies
> to a city-owned utility; higher rates for consumers, higher pay for top
> executives and fewer jobs for employees further down the ladder. Nicolay's
pay,
> and that of other senior officials, is studied annually by a committee and
> approved by the board, which includes two aldermen (currently, Dale Hodges
and
> Bob Hawkesworth.) The salaries were disclosed through a regulatory filing
in
> July, but Enmax sure didn't fire off any press releases. One thing is
certain:
> the taxpayers, as indirect owners, have every right to know all the
details, and
> to ask what we're getting for such whopping salaries at the top. The
company is
> making more money -- profits went from $44 million in 1999 to $249 million
two
> years later. As much as $50 million of that comes back into city coffers
as a
> dividend that can be used for roads, services or to help keep down taxes.
But
> it's fascinating to compare Enmax with Edmonton's Epcor, also
taxpayer-owned,
> which holds $4.7 billion in assets compared to $1.2 billion for Enmax, and
makes
> more than twice the profits. Don Lowry, Epcor's CEO, made $706,000 in
2002, just
> $8,000 more than Nicolay. You can hardly blame Nicolay for taking the
money. The
> question is, does Enmax's position as a rather small utility justify such
> compensation? Enmax certainly thinks so. "Compensation is no different at
Enmax
> than at most companies," says spokesman Tony McCallum. "It's based on the
> midpoint of what most companies are paying for similar positions. It's
also
> based on individual performance and the company's success at meeting its
> targets." The Calgary customer/owner, facing another rate hike, might have
> another view of success, and what these people should be paid. In 2002,
> Nicolay's earnings of $698,468 were comprised of $390,260 in salary,
$230,000 in
> bonus, $11,400 as "other annual compensation" and $66,808 under the
heading "all
> other compensation." In 2000, his total pay of $340,015 was made up of
$225,000
> in salary, a bonus of $80,000, and $35,015 under the two headings of
"other
> compensation." Sean Durfy, vice-president of unregulated business, made a
total
> of $356,175 in 2002, up from $229,715 in 2000. Executive vice-president
Randall
> Henderson, who joined Enmax in 2001, earned $333,662 in 2002. Karen Anne
> Prentice, vice-president of legal affairs, made $311,997 in 2002, compared
to
> $205,995 in 2000. Customer service vice-president Lori Rae Topp, who has
since
> left Enmax, was paid $294,545 in 2002. She had joined the company in 2001.
These
> executives saw substantial jumps in their extra pay during 2001, for
"one-time
> compensation for special efforts rendered during the proposed sale of
Enmax." In
> the regulatory sense, this was all properly disclosed. But there was no
effort
> whatever, either from city hall or the company, to make the public aware
of the
> facts. For a taxpayer-owned enterprise, that won't do."
>
>
www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/columnists/story.asp?id=BF3CC41A-4A7B-4
80B-
> 9E09-487E51EA03AF
>
> | > 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
> | > completely
> |
> | How can they limit your power? No power between certain hours? I am sure
> | people would be pissed to have their freezer full of food spoiling. Cut
the
> | power by 50%? Wouldn't this play havoc on any electrical device you
have?
>
> They have and can use a device that limits wattage. No, no it only means
you can
> only run one thing at a time. It's an inconvenience, but it allows your
furnace
> to maintain heat, and your fridge to keep all your food from spoiling. By
law,
> they must use it in the winter. Of course, without the law, I'd bet they
> wouldn't bother. Face it, they're uncaring and self serving. They don't
give a
> sh*t if people freeze or starve,

Hmm .. ok, I didn't know such a device existed. But I see that as relieving
people of personal responsibility. If you know you are struggling then put
on a sweater don't turn up the heat. Do you have too many lights on? There
are ways a person can reduce their consumption. Why is it Enmax's
responsibility to limit power intake?

> |
> | > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge
were
> | illegal
> | > yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course,
theyr'e
> | not
> | > called the same
> |
> | I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?
>
> Yup, why can't you do your own research?
>
> Hobsbawn v. Enmax Corporation and The City of Calgary

You made the claim so I asked for a citation. A perfectly reasonable
request.

I found only one link to this. It is quite long so I will read it and
comment later.
>
> | > I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can
> | speak
> | > from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax
are
> | > simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies
are
> | > justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also
don't
> | feel
> | > that the public has the right to question what they consider is
private
> | business
> | > policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is
> | effective
> | > and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've
questioned
> | these
> | > policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
> | > implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in
> | treating
> | > people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any
> | alternatives.
> |
> | Might I ask what circumstances forced you to speak with every level of
> | management? Except for the two times (as I mentioned above) I have never
had
> | to contact anyone at Enmax.
>
> Sure you can ask. What difference would it make? We weren't discussing my
> advocacy.

What I am getting at is why should you expect shiny happy people at Enmax
when you (not you in particular) are delinquent on your account?

> | Why should Enmax be responsible for people who can't manage money? Do
you
> | think Visa would be all "Aww shucks mister .. you spent all your money
on
> | beer and smokes and can't pay us? That's all right, you can catch us
next
> | time."
>
> Duh, Enmax isn't Visa, it's monopolistic public utility which provides a
> necessity, that's why they are responsible. Why do I bother explaining
this to
> you. Obviously you can't get it. IMHO, it appears that you're just not
caring or
> deep enough or you're too biased. Sad really.

So because I don't agree with you .. I don't get it??

I am a very caring person. I just have no time for people who are
irresponsible and want companies to baby them.

> | Can you imagine how many people are late with their bills or don't pay
at
> | all? Enmax has bills of their own to pay as well. If you ran a business
and
> | provided a service would you take the excuse of not being able to
balance
> | your checkbook from your customers?
>
> I have and do run a business. I did and do better, and I didn't and don't
expect
> excessive compensation. Nor did I have my customers over a barrel.

So now take what you do and multiply it by 100,000 .. you then have Enmax.
Why shouldn't there be a bit of a penalty for people who don't take
responsibility with their bills?

> | Enmax's responsibility? As I see it they need to provide me with
electricity
> | 24/7. And I have always received that from them. (of course with the
> | exception of interruptions out of their control .. ie: weather). They
are
> | not there to cut the little guy some slack. They are there to make
money.
> | They area business.
>
> No, they don't. Never had a power outage? Ever been compensated? By the
way,
> they aren't a business, they're a utility, and a public one. Get over it.
Face
> facts. Stop twisting words.

If the power outage is a result of weather why should I be compensated?
So now Enmax isn't a business? What is the difference between a business and
utility?

> | What basis do you have to make the comment "our bills should be getting
LESS
> | expensive "? Should a company stop making money after a certain point?
>
> See above. It's the same lame and false argument.

Well since I am not sure how you differentiate a business and utility I
can't comment.

> |
> | "We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies"?? Well duh!
What
> | good would policies be if there were no penalties for breaking them?
> |
> | Bottom line is if you are responsible with your bills, live within your
> | means and take measures before your account becomes delinquent you won't
> | have any problems.
>
> Ahh, Mr. The World Is Perfect, so therefore others must be losers
attitude.
> That's just a shallow justification for the mistreatment of others in my
view.

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I am more for personal
responsibility.

> 2tec ~ thinks bullies are bad.
>
> On December 11th Enmax filed its Regulatory Rate Option with Lethbridge
City
> Council. Included in the rates is a $10.00 per month charge for invoice
> processing. This appears to be the cost of an envelope and postage. The
charge
> is excessive and negates half of the monthly rebate provided by the
provincial
> government, guaranteeing that regulated rate option customers in
Lethbridge will
> pay more in 2001 than in 2000. Enmax would not appear to be a company that
has
> the customers interests at heart. Customers who choose Enmax may be
> inadvertently subsidizing the city of Calgary.
> www.iasa.ca/ED_documents_IASA/Issue09.html
>
> Also:
> www.iasa.ca/ED_documents_IASA/Issue09.html
>
>
Tom2Tec
2003-10-11 06:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Look, nothing personal, but it seems that you may think of yourself as caring
but really, it just seems to me that you care more about companies and profits
than people. As well, perhaps someday maybe, perhaps, you'll realize that all
people aren't all as capable, or all as fortunate as you are and have been.
Perhaps someday you'll be in a situation where you must depend on the
forgiveness or kindness of others. I'm sure you'd appreciate a little slack
then. This is called being humane. Humane, human ... see any connection? To me
it just seems like you're advocating kicking people when they're already down
and out rather than trying to help them get back on their feet.

Utilities provide necessities at a minimal expense ... companies sell products
for profits. There is a difference. Or there was.

If these guys had invested their own capital and built the business themselves
based on a good product at a fair price, I'd have a lot more sympathy for their
position. The truth is, we the taxpayers paid to build this system. It was built
to serve all the citizens of Calgary. Why should it be transformed into a
private concern for a privleged few that we have no real control over and is
used to profit from our one of our most basic and unavoidable necessities? As
well, we don't seem to have any real alternatives to their policies or prices.

Of course, this is just my perspective. I guess everyone should just see it the
way you and Enmax want. I guess I really should expect to have no right to have
a different perspective on this. Oh, and let's not even attempt to be humane in
any way, let's just expect people to always serve some big businesses interests.
After all, it seems that Enmax's profits are more important than people's
problems.

Oh, and $137 million in profits next year and what, Enmax can't afford to let a
few dollars slide for a month or two. Oh yah, right, this guy's obviously a
deadbeat trying to rip them off. He's going to skip town because of an overdue
electric bill. In fact, we're all gone to rip off Enmax and move to Mexico or
something, Yup, that's what I'm planning. Me and thousands of other deadbeat
Calgarians.

Man, I can't wait until the corporations really finish taking over. Boy, is that
going to be a lot of fun.

2tec ~ sees a dark powerless future
GlennMor <>
2003-10-11 07:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:31:42 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>| Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
>| constantly get notices in the mail.
>
>They have your phone number, they can't call it? But hey, they can send someone
>to make sure the get their $65. Yup, such care, such concern, such
>professionalism. We should be really proud of how our City treats people when
>they're down.

Why should "they" call? It's the delinquent who's responsible for paying the
bills on time. If they don't, then they don't deserve free service. Being 'down'
or 'up' doesn't have anything to do with purchasing goods or services. If you
can't aford something, and you hope that someonme will loan you some or give
some to you for free, then it's up to you to grovel, beg, and plead for such
gifts.

>| .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to be
>| paid.
>
>Sheesh, no one suggested not paying at all. Would it hurt to defer some part of
>the bill for some time? Or set up a budget? Or not charge such high fees? Or, at
>least, try to be less avaricious, demanding and inflexible?

People who approach their creditors for deferrals, budget plans, and so forth
are better treated than those who just skive off and pay nothing at all. That's
been a repeated theme of this thread. As to the high fees... say what? A measly
$65.00 to reconnect is hardly exorbitant, especially given the administrative
costs involved in trying to track delinquents. Wht should the honest subsidise
the dishonest?

>| Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone with a
>| history of not paying.
>
>Yes, yes I can. What risk? People will be back, everyone needs power. Besides,
>there's collection agencies and other avenues. Besides, why is the deposit so
>needlessly high. It's just another penalty, in my opinion

Tracking the thieving scioundrels isn't cheap, nor are collection agencies (they
take a cut off the top for anything they manage to recover). Nor will 'everyone'
be back; some might just be fleeing to some other jurisdiction, and the sooner
they're cut off the less they'll be able to steal. The deposit not only helps
recover at least some of the costs of delinquent accounts, it also helps
discourage others from trying the same line of theft.

>No, they want you to pay cash and they want you to do it a city hall during
>office hours.

So? Now you expect the company to hire extra staff for evening or midnight shift
just for the convenience of thieves?

>| Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.
>
>Duh, yup must be nice to be always affluent. How is perfection?

Once more your train of thought has fallen off the tracks. Affluence and
perfection aren't what's required. People can be late with their payments, even
repeatedly, without being cut off. Neglecting any payment for months at a time
is not just a wee hair short of perfection; it's profligate irresponsibility.

>| I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever getting
>| disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.
>
>See above. Boy, for a perfect person, you're not very compassionate, caring,
>concerned, humane, kind, or understanding, are you?

You don't seem to show any caring for the honest souls who have to subsidize the
slack-ass losers who fail to pay on time.

>Yes, remember, the issue here is what happens when people are broke.

The issue here is what happens when people stop paying for the services they
want; they soon stop getting those services. Nobody deserves everything for
free.

>It's their responsibility to deal with us. Not our responsibility to be perfect.

And they DO deal with the imperfect according to what they deserve. Those who
pay, get power. Those who don't, don't.
Diogenes
2003-10-12 05:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> | I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?
>
> Yup, why can't you do your own research?
>
> Hobsbawn v. Enmax Corporation and The City of Calgary
>

Tom, do you know of any web site that lists this case?

This case involved the 5% penalty that utility companies
routinely levied against late payments. This is like 60%
per annum, which is usury.

There was a successful class action suit in Ontario and the
utility companies, IIRC, had to refund consumers.

There is no similar class action option available in
Alberta. Hobsbawn took it upon himself to challenge the
system and won. Does anybody even care?

-Dio ~ appreciates those who question the status quo


Enmax and Bobbo Nickleback should be accountable. Don't get
fooled again.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-12 06:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> Tom, do you know of any web site that lists this case?

nope, sorry
OgreMan
2003-10-10 15:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ahhb.503$***@edtnps84...
> > 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
> > completely

<snipped alot of garbage>

They don't cut you off completely. They put a 15A load limiter on so you
don't freeze to death. Be thankful, I'm not running the company.
HD
2003-10-10 18:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> They don't cut you off completely. They put a 15A load limiter on so you
> don't freeze to death. Be thankful, I'm not running the company.

They only do that if the temperatures are expected to stay below a certain
level. Even still, after they do that, and the bill isn't paid by a
certain point, they cut ya off totally.
OgreMan
2003-10-10 19:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"HD" <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message news:CBChb.62611$***@pd7tw3no...
>
> > They don't cut you off completely. They put a 15A load limiter on so you
> > don't freeze to death. Be thankful, I'm not running the company.
>
> They only do that if the temperatures are expected to stay below a certain
> level. Even still, after they do that, and the bill isn't paid by a
> certain point, they cut ya off totally.
>

No they don't. It's illegal for them to totally cut off your electricity
during cold weather.
HD
2003-10-10 21:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You might want to look into that! I took over a house four years ago
whereby the tenant went into arrears by a very long time. Enmax actually
shut off the premises. They had instructions on the paper as to what to do
with the pipes etc. to protect them from freezing. That was the last time
I was a Landlord. Sold the damn thing.

ManyYears ago, when it wasn't called Enmax, a fire occurred in a dwelling
because a couple tried to heat their home with a propane bbq after being cut
off.

Cut offs do and will occur . It's not illegal for them to stop a service
they aren't being paid for.


"OgreMan" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:VzDhb.8971$***@edtnps84...
>
> "HD" <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message
news:CBChb.62611$***@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > > They don't cut you off completely. They put a 15A load limiter on so
you
> > > don't freeze to death. Be thankful, I'm not running the company.
> >
> > They only do that if the temperatures are expected to stay below a
certain
> > level. Even still, after they do that, and the bill isn't paid by a
> > certain point, they cut ya off totally.
> >
>
> No they don't. It's illegal for them to totally cut off your electricity
> during cold weather.
>
>
Rockboy
2003-10-10 06:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection

So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?

--
Rockboy

I think my life is passing me by
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 15:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rockboy <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
news:Bishb.6728$***@edtnps84...

| > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection

| So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
| track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
| recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?

What proven track record?

Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.
OgreMan
2003-10-10 15:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AnAhb.8695$***@edtnps84...
>
> Rockboy <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
> news:Bishb.6728$***@edtnps84...
>
> | > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
>
> | So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
> | track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
> | recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?
>
> What proven track record?
>
> Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.
>
A little trusting?! As an Enmax shareholder, I would be livid if they
conducted business like that. They would be bankrupt within a few months.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 17:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
| A little trusting?! As an Enmax shareholder, I would be livid if they
| conducted business like that. They would be bankrupt within a few months.

Total bullshit, it wouldn't even dent their current profits. BTFW, I am a
shareholder. In fact I help pay to build the system, as have all of us who have
lived here our entire lives. Fat lot of good that does. In my opinion, they're
stealing our public infrastructure so they can use it for private, personal
gain.
OgreMan
2003-10-10 19:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DXBhb.8832$***@edtnps84...
>
> | A little trusting?! As an Enmax shareholder, I would be livid if they
> | conducted business like that. They would be bankrupt within a few
months.
>
> Total bullshit, it wouldn't even dent their current profits. BTFW, I am a
> shareholder. In fact I help pay to build the system, as have all of us who
have
> lived here our entire lives. Fat lot of good that does. In my opinion,
they're
> stealing our public infrastructure so they can use it for private,
personal
> gain.

Every citizen in Calgary is a shareholder. So they stole your publicly run,
inefficient institution, and turned it into a profitable private ( although
the EXACT same people own it as before ).

You greatly misuse the term personal. If by personal you mean the social
collective of Calgary, then I suppose you are right.
Determinator
2003-10-11 17:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"OgreMan" <***@telus.net> wrote:

>
>"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:AnAhb.8695$***@edtnps84...
>>
>> Rockboy <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
>> news:Bishb.6728$***@edtnps84...
>>
>> | > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
>>
>> | So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
>> | track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
>> | recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?
>>
>> What proven track record?
>>
>> Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.
>>
>A little trusting?! As an Enmax shareholder, I would be livid if they
>conducted business like that. They would be bankrupt within a few months.

but are we not shareholders of Enmax's parent corporation? (the
City of Calgary)
Rockboy
2003-10-11 05:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tom2Tec wrote:

> Rockboy <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
> news:Bishb.6728$***@edtnps84...
>
> | > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
>
> | So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
> | track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
> | recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?
>
> What proven track record?
>
> Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.

No business can afford to trust customers who won't pay their bills.
Nor should they.

--
Rockboy

I think my life is passing me by
GlennMor <>
2003-10-11 07:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:38:08 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>| So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
>| track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
>| recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?
>
>What proven track record?
>
>Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.
>

Iif they keep supplying power at no charge they won't be able to 'afford' much
trust.
Determinator
2003-10-11 17:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
GlennMor <> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:38:08 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>| So what you're saying is... When dealing with someone with a proven
>>| track record of not paying their bills they should go ahead and
>>| recconect them, and then sit and wait around for a deposit to show up?
>>
>>What proven track record?
>>
>>Sure, why not? Enmax could afford to be a little trusting.
>>
>
>Iif they keep supplying power at no charge they won't be able to 'afford' much
>trust.

If they are making millions fo rthe Mayor to by parkland (outside
the city limits) they are obviously charging more than they need
for operational cost and capital improvements...


BTW the enmax crews that deal with street lights etc. Does the
city pay for that on a separate invoice? or is that also paid out
of the home/business consumer billings??
HD
2003-10-10 07:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> 1) He did call and he did make arrangement, which Enmax didn't keep.

What history has he had with late payments and arrangements? Did he keep
them before? Not saying he's wrong but without knowing more about this
account one only sees his side... ( no I don't side with Enmax )

> 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
time.

I understand the number of accounts being cut off is so ridiculously high it
would take a long time to warn clients. Enmax sends out warnings via mail.
The time allotted to pay up is sufficient enough to make whatever
arrangements needed. Some people just wait too long to work something out
with them.

> 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble

I don't agree with them doing that either. However Enmax no longer does
their own cutoffs or reconnections. By hiring a contractor they say the
fee is necessary. $65? Jeez, the wannabe tech makes lots on default
accounts this way. I'm sure Enmax keeps a portion, but so does the
contractor.

> 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits

I agree more control is needed here.

> 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point

I had a hard year many moons ago. I found them very accomodating the couple
times I needed to work with them.

> 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you

Again, a contractor who preys on default accounts.

I had a freind of mine in Toronto who couldn't pay and couldn't make any
arrangements either. Obviously not Enmax. Knowing this idiot would show
up, he gaff taped the shit out of the meter and this guy spent a very long
time there trying to change the head off the meter. He was pissed off
enough to have left the home. God I wish I could have seen that.

> 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were
illegal

would love to read that case


As the expression goes, JMO.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-10 15:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HD <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message news:jathb.56298$***@pd7tw2no...

| What history has he had with late payments and arrangements? Did he keep
| them before? Not saying he's wrong but without knowing more about this
| account one only sees his side... ( no I don't side with Enmax )
|
| > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
| time.
|
| I understand the number of accounts being cut off is so ridiculously high it
| would take a long time to warn clients. Enmax sends out warnings via mail.
| The time allotted to pay up is sufficient enough to make whatever
| arrangements needed. Some people just wait too long to work something out
| with them.

Why do you think the numbers of accounts beening cut off is so high? Perhaps
because Enmaxs profits each time they cut someone off. Doesn't anyone see that
this is wide open to abuse?

Sure, some people wait too long. So, not everyone is perfect. People are often
barely able to manage. Enmax doesn't help such people, it dumps on them. Boy,
now isn't that humane and responsible of them?

|
| > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
|
| I don't agree with them doing that either. However Enmax no longer does
| their own cutoffs or reconnections. By hiring a contractor they say the
| fee is necessary. $65? Jeez, the wannabe tech makes lots on default
| accounts this way. I'm sure Enmax keeps a portion, but so does the
| contractor.

Yup, everbody wins. Oh, except those in dire straights. How kind, eh?

| > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
|
| I agree more control is needed here.

Me too! Of course, it hurts the fixed and low income people the most. My, how
noble that is eh.

| > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
|
| I had a hard year many moons ago. I found them very accomodating the couple
| times I needed to work with them.

Yah, they were much better back then. So much for why they get such big salaries
now.
|
| > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
|
| Again, a contractor who preys on default accounts.

Prey is exactly the word I'd use too.

| I had a freind of mine in Toronto who couldn't pay and couldn't make any
| arrangements either. Obviously not Enmax. Knowing this idiot would show
| up, he gaff taped the shit out of the meter and this guy spent a very long
| time there trying to change the head off the meter. He was pissed off
| enough to have left the home. God I wish I could have seen that.

ROTFLMAO. Actually, they can't assault you, so if you stand in front, they guy
has to leave, but then they send out a service truck and cut off people at the
pole. That costs the person who's cut off more than a hundred. So they win no
matter what.

| > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were
illegal

| would love to read that case

Sorry, can't find the news article. Damn, anyone else keep it?

2tec ~ prefers Davids to Goliaths


David

Goliath stood up clear in the assumption of status,
Strong and unquestioning of himself and others,
Fully determined by the limits of his experience.
I have seen such a one among surgeons, seargents,
Deans, and giants, the power implicit.

Then there was David, who made few assumptions,
Had little experience, but for more was ready.
Testing and trying this pebble or that pebble.
This giant or that giant.
He is not infrequent.

How could Goliath guess, with his many assumptions.
The force of the sling shot of the pure-hearted?
How could David fear, with his few hypotheses.
The power of status which is but two footed?
So he shot, and shouted!

~ Josephine Miles
OgreMan
2003-10-10 19:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezAhb.8717$***@edtnps84...
>
> HD <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message
news:jathb.56298$***@pd7tw2no...
>
> | What history has he had with late payments and arrangements? Did he
keep
> | them before? Not saying he's wrong but without knowing more about this
> | account one only sees his side... ( no I don't side with Enmax )
> |
> | > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
> | time.
> |
> | I understand the number of accounts being cut off is so ridiculously
high it
> | would take a long time to warn clients. Enmax sends out warnings via
mail.
> | The time allotted to pay up is sufficient enough to make whatever
> | arrangements needed. Some people just wait too long to work something
out
> | with them.
>
> Why do you think the numbers of accounts beening cut off is so high?
Perhaps
> because Enmaxs profits each time they cut someone off. Doesn't anyone see
that
> this is wide open to abuse?

Right, companies make MORE money by forcing their customers to NOT use their
product. I understand why you are anti-capitalist now.


>
> Sure, some people wait too long. So, not everyone is perfect. People are
often
> barely able to manage. Enmax doesn't help such people, it dumps on them.
Boy,
> now isn't that humane and responsible of them?

If Enmax stopped cutting people off, then what is the incentive to pay?! You
don't pay, you don't get the product. Seems to work in every other industry,
no? I must admit that I WISH people didn't get cut off. I WISH people could
always pay their bills. However, I also WISH people would get their
priorities straight and realize that paying their ENMAX bill is more
important than one more pack of smokes.

>
> |
> | > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
> |
> | I don't agree with them doing that either. However Enmax no longer
does
> | their own cutoffs or reconnections. By hiring a contractor they say
the
> | fee is necessary. $65? Jeez, the wannabe tech makes lots on default
> | accounts this way. I'm sure Enmax keeps a portion, but so does the
> | contractor.
>
> Yup, everbody wins. Oh, except those in dire straights. How kind, eh?

Part of it is punitive, so that you LEARN to pay your bills on time. "Gee,
paying that $65 was a pain in the ass, I had better pay my bills from now
on!"
>
> | > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
> |
> | I agree more control is needed here.
>
> Me too! Of course, it hurts the fixed and low income people the most. My,
how
> noble that is eh.
>
> | > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
> |
> | I had a hard year many moons ago. I found them very accomodating the
couple
> | times I needed to work with them.
>
> Yah, they were much better back then. So much for why they get such big
salaries
> now.
> |
> | > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
> |
> | Again, a contractor who preys on default accounts.
>
> Prey is exactly the word I'd use too.
>
> | I had a freind of mine in Toronto who couldn't pay and couldn't make any
> | arrangements either. Obviously not Enmax. Knowing this idiot would
show
> | up, he gaff taped the shit out of the meter and this guy spent a very
long
> | time there trying to change the head off the meter. He was pissed off
> | enough to have left the home. God I wish I could have seen that.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Actually, they can't assault you, so if you stand in front, they
guy
> has to leave, but then they send out a service truck and cut off people at
the
> pole. That costs the person who's cut off more than a hundred. So they win
no
> matter what.


They don't 'win' if you pay your bill. Maybe these people should put as much
effort into obtaining gainful employment as they do into 'winning' against
The Man.
>
> | > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge
were
> illegal.

No, a court ruled that the 5%/mth interest they charged for late payment was
excessive. This happened in Ontario or Quebec. They have since changed it.
>
> | would love to read that case
>
> Sorry, can't find the news article. Damn, anyone else keep it?
>
> 2tec ~ prefers Davids to Goliaths
>
>
> David
>
> Goliath stood up clear in the assumption of status,
> Strong and unquestioning of himself and others,
> Fully determined by the limits of his experience.
> I have seen such a one among surgeons, seargents,
> Deans, and giants, the power implicit.
>
> Then there was David, who made few assumptions,
> Had little experience, but for more was ready.
> Testing and trying this pebble or that pebble.
> This giant or that giant.
> He is not infrequent.
>
> How could Goliath guess, with his many assumptions.
> The force of the sling shot of the pure-hearted?
> How could David fear, with his few hypotheses.
> The power of status which is but two footed?
> So he shot, and shouted!
>
> ~ Josephine Miles
>
>
Andrew Handerson
2003-10-12 00:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
>
> They don't 'win' if you pay your bill. Maybe these people should put as
much
> effort into obtaining gainful employment as they do into 'winning' against
> The Man.
> >


Geez, it would be great if companies that people worked for wouldn't lay off
their employees so that they could keep gainful employement that they had,
to pay the bills that keep coming in. I mean, the nerver of companies,
wanting more "profit" so they close down locations to be able to pocket the
money as opposed to keeping them open and paying salaries. Thereby forcing
the working man to have an unexpected change in his lifes status, and become
a deadbeat. I can see exactly what you mean.
Tom2Tec
2003-10-12 01:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Andrew Handerson <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:nn1ib.70311$***@pd7tw2no...

Yup, and it seems to be getting worse instead better, boy. talk about
responsible management or what, eh ...

2tec ~ wishes he wasn't on a titanic
GlennMor <>
2003-10-11 07:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:50:34 GMT, "Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Why do you think the numbers of accounts beening cut off is so high? Perhaps
>because Enmaxs profits each time they cut someone off. Doesn't anyone see that
>this is wide open to abuse?
>

Letting people have power for free would most certainly be wide open to abuse,
and no matter what _I_ did I'd be a victim of that abuse. Anyone who pays their
bills as contracted has to cover the costs of delinquents.
OgreMan
2003-10-09 14:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cancel your internet provider. That should save you some money.


I would have disconnected you as well.

Calling them Corporate Greed doesn't make them any less correct. You use
their power, you pay for it. It's that simple.

"Cooter" <***@telus.net> wrote in message
news:LH0hb.17165$***@edtnps84...
> Since July 1/03 I have not worked, due to a injury i got playing soft ball
> ( no more sliding I will be a stand up player from now on). And in course
> with not working bills get behind!
> So in Sept Corporate Greed Inc (ENMAX) sent me a disconnection notice.
> Understandable.
> So after futile attempts at making payment arrangements (not willing to
> except any of course).I swallowed my pride and went out to seek assistance
> before the cut off date.
> I found some very nice peeps at the Salvation Army. (Boy do I have a BIG
> donation to make when I start working again) who were willing to offer
> assistance.The said it would take a week for them to get it to Corporate
> Greed.
> I immediately called Corporate Greed and informed them what was happening.
> Told them the money would be mailed out by those wonderful peeps at the
> Salvation Army, and would arrive late the next week, and even told them it
> would most likely be Thursday or Friday.
> young guy says OK he will extend the cut off date till then.
> Well! On the Thursday guess what.
> DARKNESS FELL!
> yup, with agreements made and the check in the mail BOOM!
> So I run to my neighbors and called Corporate Greed and asked them what
> happened? Why was I cut off?
> they said they money was supposed to be in last week. I informed them I
> called them and told them The money would be in today or tomorrow and that
> it would be extended till then!(obviously it didn't make it in on the
> Thursday).
> Well apparently they had no record of that call. (surprise surprise). I
had
> to get The beautiful peeps at the Salvation Army to fax them the details.
> Had to be letter head and faxed as Corporate Greed wouldn't trust
them.After
> the fax was sent Corporate Greed had me reconnected that nite. Very timely
> response I must say and appreciated.
>
> Did it end there?
>
> OF course not.
>
> I just got my Corporate Greed bill and guess what?
>
> Charged for the reconnection ($67.28)AND a Deposit of $210.00 due to my
> disconnection!!!!!!!
>
> Lovely peeps I just spoke to at Corporate Greed. (Their call center staff
> are very good!I would hate to deal with someone like me when i get irate!)
> and now expecting a call back tomorrow (maybe) from a supervisor.
> Bet I can guess what the supervisor will say . "No record of the call so
> sorry we can't waive the fee's."
>
> Now this is a city owned business and they forget who pays the bills. They
> have a monopoly and ding us to no end!
> They WILL NOT accept responsibility for there mistakes and the little guy
> gets screwed again. For give me for spending money on food and shelter!
>
> Another highlight of the bill is this......
> I got a $7.75 credit for a then a few lines later I get a "Cost Recovery
> Rider" of $5.77
> Sound like they are trying to recover from the "Elec Energy Charge Adj"
> Have you looked at you bill in detail? Amazing the things that are on
there.
>
> Nothing makes you feel like a small fish in a large ocean then dealing
with
> a monopoly. (or would that small fish swallowed by a large fish)
>
> Sorry to carry on about my feelings but DAM it made me feel better!
> (And I will send this forth to Corporate Greed depending on the response
I
> get from the supervisor)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rockboy
2003-10-10 06:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OgreMan wrote:

> Cancel your internet provider. That should save you some money.

No kidding. Can't afford electricity, yet still can keep the internet
connection going...

--
Rockboy

I think my life is passing me by
Andrew Handerson
2003-10-10 07:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Doesn't a person need electricity to use the internet?


"Rockboy" <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
news:9fshb.6705$***@edtnps84...
> OgreMan wrote:
>
> > Cancel your internet provider. That should save you some money.
>
> No kidding. Can't afford electricity, yet still can keep the internet
> connection going...
>
> --
> Rockboy
>
> I think my life is passing me by
>
HD
2003-10-10 07:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If he's on dial up... the cost is next to nothing. yet when people are in
dire straights and you find them drinking booze or racking up expenses on
smokes what are the comments then? Let's not be quick to poke at him. When
money is limited, this may be the only way to keep the mind off the
problems. JMO

"Rockboy" <***@rockboy.net> wrote in message
news:9fshb.6705$***@edtnps84...
> OgreMan wrote:
>
> > Cancel your internet provider. That should save you some money.
>
> No kidding. Can't afford electricity, yet still can keep the internet
> connection going...
>
> --
> Rockboy
>
> I think my life is passing me by
>
MadRedHatter
2003-10-10 12:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"HD" <#$%^@&*&&^.com> wrote in message
news:Edthb.58129$***@pd7tw3no...
> If he's on dial up... the cost is next to nothing. yet when people are
in
> dire straights and you find them drinking booze or racking up expenses on
> smokes what are the comments then? Let's not be quick to poke at him.
When
> money is limited, this may be the only way to keep the mind off the
> problems. JMO
>
When money is limited the first thing to be cut is entertainment expenses.
And for the vast majority of people that's exactly what the internet is ..
entertainment.
Loading...