The Long Weekend Gas-Gouging Myth

For those taking to the road this long weekend, they're probably quite aware of just how they're paying for fuel.
It's the sort of thing we all tend to pay closer attention to when setting off on a long journey.
From that, perhaps, has grown the belief that we pay more for gasoline on long weekends. It's become quite commonplace, in fact, to hear people say that motorists get "gouged" before holiday weekends.
However, as it turns out, the notion that we're being gouged at the pump is a myth.
A new study (PDF) by MJ Ervin & Associates finds that as much as prices have gone up before a long weekend, they's also gone down.
The study looked at week-over-week pump prices around holidays and non-holidays over a five-year span from April of 2006 to June of this year:

The aggregated results indicate that week-over-week retail prices are no more likely to increase during the week immediately before a holiday. In fact, our findings revealed that the number of price increases during the week of a holiday was slightly less than that of weeks not related to holidays.
The average magnitude of price changes over these same weeks indicates a negligible difference between holiday and non-holiday weeks. The average price increase during the week of a holiday was slightly less than for non-holiday weeks. Conversely, average price decreases were slightly higher during holiday weeks.

The study did find that gasoline tended to cost more in the spring and early summer, after demand spikes and inventories become squeezed.
But when it came to long weekends, prices were no different than any other weekend.
The study explores why this myth persists:

The perception held by many consumers that gasoline prices increase just before a holiday weekend is simply not supported by the objective data. We would therefore conclude that this perception can be viewed simply as a myth, likely perpetuated by a combination of distrust of oil companies, long-held beliefs, and commentary in the popular media that often takes a cynical view of oil companies.
Our findings suggest that the retailing of motor fuels is more competitive than many consumers might perceive. The "long weekend" myth is in direct opposition to this analysis showing petroleum price behaviours surrounding long weekends to be competitive.

In lieu of any evidence, the notion of the long weekend gas gouge is merely a conspiracy theory. Now we have the evidence to lay it to rest. Whether to choose to accept it is another matter.

Alberta's Problematic Distracted Driving Law

We've been hearing a lot about Alberta's much-balleyhooed distracted driving legislation, and we now know that September 1st will be the day it is finally implemented.
The new law bans the use of hand-held cell-phones while driving, as well as other electronic devices. It also prohibits drivers from reading, writing and grooming themselves while behind the wheel.  Much of this seems rather self-evident, and one has to wonder why this sort of behaviour can't be addressed under the driving without due care and attention law.
Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette says the law will help to keep Albertans safer while on the road .
Well, that remains to be seen.
Two studies released last year in the US by the Highway Loss Data Institute suggest otherwise. One study found that that states with bans on cellphone while driving saw no decrease in crashes compared to states with no ban. Another study found the same for states with bans on texting while driving - some states even saw increases in crashes.
Aside from the question of just how effective this law might be, we have the other problem of how confusing and contradictory this law is.
For example, it will still be legal to smoke while driving, but illegal to skip to the next song on your iPod. Yes, you can listen to your iPod, but only if you pre-program it before you get behind the wheel.
That's not only unenforceable, but frankly quite absurd.
Or, take this example, it will be legal to eat while driving, but illegal to look at your phone while stopped at a red light. Which activity sounds potentially more dangerous?
Even if you are stuck for several minutes while waiting for a passing train, you would still be subject to a 172 dollar fine if you're caught calling your wife to tell her you're stuck at a train.
This is all explicity laid out in the information released by the government yesterday. It seems the more "comprehensive" they try to make this bill, the more ridiculous it turns out to be.

The Roommate Police

Over the past few years, much has been said and written about the absurd rulings and proclamations from Canada's various human rights commissions.

 

One might think that the sharp criticism and all the negative attention would be enough to prompt some level of common sense to prevail. After all, the more human rights commissions are held up to ridicule, the less likely people are to support their continued existence.

 

Well, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) seems to be doing its utmost to demonstrate its irrelevance. If this is what the OHRC is concerned about these days, then presumably all other problems have been solved:

 

Landlords and those in the market for a roommate beware – the Ontario Human Rights Commission is reading your ads and it thinks you are being too picky about who you want to live in your apartment.
The commission studied 28 websites and found that up to 20 per cent of the advertisements for rental housing contain discriminatory restrictions that could keep would-be renters from living in their dream apartment.
(...)
“If you have a family and you see an ad that says an apartment is not soundproof, you may think twice about that apartment,” said commission spokesperson Afroze Edwards. “That is the sort of example we were given when we met with groups and held consultations regarding housing barriers.”
Other examples of discrimination included “ideal for quiet couple or professional single” and “perfect for female student.”

If you were seeking to parody the politically correct mindset of Canada's human rights commissions, you'd be hard-pressed to top this.

 

Things get even more ridiculous:

 

That could mean trouble for those who take out advertisements such as this one posted on the Toronto Craigslist site on Tuesday: “I’m looking for a woman roommate because women tend to be neater, and also because I just get along with women better then I do men.”
The tribunal can issue fines, and the “respondent may be ordered to correct the discriminatory situation.”
The commission’s letter suggests that online publishers stop problems before they arise by exposing users to pop-ups about unacceptable terms before each posting, and attaching a link to every page leading to more human rights information.

So a woman who would prefer a female roommate is someone of concern to the OHRC? Someone who may be subject to fines? Or "forced to correct the discriminatory situation" - whatever that means?

 

Not only that, but the OHRC apparently has no problem with inserting itself into the affairs of private businesses, either, by forcing websites to censor ads and to include OHRC literature.

 

How exactly does all of this improve human rights in Canada? If anything, it's incredibly detrimental to human rights in Canada.

 

If you're living in an apartment, and you'd like to take in a roommate, then the government has no business inserting itself in that decision.

 

Even if all the personal ads are to the liking of the OHRC, there's no way to control the final decision (let's hope). People will choose the people they're comfortable with.

 

This is the person you'll essentially be living with. The decision you make is none of the state's business.

 

It seems likely that this would scare off a lot of people from posting ads for roommates or even considering a roommate. That could mean fewer housing options.

 

What's next: are we going to crack down on personal ads? After all, isn't it "discriminatory" for people to seek relationships based on race, ethnicity, or gender and sexual orientation, for that matter?

 

"Single, white female"? Sounds like a case for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Pointless Ordeal of Joseph Singleton

The justice system has finally decided that it is finished with Joseph Bradley Singleton.
It's unfortunate, though, that things went this far.
The crown has withdrawn assault charges against the Singleton, which stemmed from an incident just over one year ago near Taber.
Singleton, though, always maintained that when he struck a burglar with the blunt side of a hatchet he was merely protecting his wife.
The RCMP and the crown, however, saw things differently. The decision to withdraw the charge wasn't a sudden change of heart, but rather the fact that Singleton had completed an alternative measures program. That was only agreed to after months of negotiations.
Singleton, though, was never given the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to see how he acted irresponsibly, let alone criminally.
When he and his wife arrived home to their acreage that fateful night, they found one intruder parked out front, and two more on the way with a truck.
Should he have just sat there and hoped that the suspects would quietly leave? Should he have waited to see if indeed the burglar's vehicle would ram the vehicle where Singleton's wife was sitting. That's exactly what Singleton was worried about, and he did what he felt he had to do.
No doubt it was a frightening moment for Singleton and his wife and they were left to deal with it alone.
Having already been victimized by the break-in, they felt as though they were being victimized once again by the system.
Clearly many other Canadians felt the same way, as there was a real groundswell of support for Singleton.
His case and several others played a role in the federal government's decision to introduce a bill amending the criminal code clarifying the rights of Canadians to defend themselves and to make citizen's arrest.
That bill, however, died on the order paper when the recent election was called.
Had this bill been the law in May of last year, it's possible that Singleton would not have had to endure this ordeal.
Those living in rural and remote areas are often on their own in confronting these sorts of situations. We need to give them the benefit of the doubt. We especially do not want to send a message to criminals that these Canadians are easy prey.

Editorial Comment: Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Burlesque?

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:12 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Monday's editorial comment:

Apparently here in Alberta, the pasties worn by burlesque performers are of great concern to the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commisssion.
Last year, the AGLC began cracking down on burlesque acts, particularily here in Calgary. One establishment was even fined $10,000.
Under the rules of the AGLC, the pasties worn over the nipples by burlesque performers still constitute nudity.
Those in the industry say Alberta's rules are far more strict than anywhere else in Canada, and burlesque performers are treated the same as exotic dancerns.
The rules get quite specific. Performers must remain one metre away from the audience and one metre away from any other performer. Props that may be viewed as "sexual" are also banned.
Who, exactly, are these rules intended to protect and what are they being protected from?
A protest was held over the weekend by a group of Calgary burlesque performers who say enough is enough. They want to call attention to these antiquated regulations and to demonstrate that burlesque is an art form.
In the meantime, we're left with bureaucrats from the AGLC deciding what counts as nude and what counts as sexual, and then deciding for others what's appropriate for them to see.
It's really quite pointless and really quite insulting.
Time for the AGLC to get over it's weird hang-ups and stop harrassing Alberta's burlesque performers.

More here, here, and here.

The Things People Believe

What if you had a dream that something horrible was going to happen to someone? What if you phoned police to warn them - would they / should they take you seriously (are we all precogs now?) ?

 

After reading this story out of Texas, I really have to wonder:

 

The Liberty County Sheriff’s Office has not yet found or identified the psychic tipster that sparked a wild hunt Tuesday for a mass grave and drew intense media attention from around the globe.
“We are still actively trying to identify and locate the caller,” Rex Evans, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office, said today.
The tipster claimed there was a grave on the residential property outside of Hardin with two dozen or more dismembered bodies, including those of children, but an exhaustive search later Tuesday proved pointless: The blood came from a weeks-old incident and the odor was a pile of rotting meat in a non-functioning deep freezer.
"There is no indication that there are in fact any bodies located at this residence or in the shed here," or anywhere on the property, said Liberty County sheriff's Captain Rex Evans, adding that there was no indication that any illegal activity had taken place on the property.

Seems that perhaps just a little more skepticism about the claims of a self-professed psychic might have gone a long way here. But a lack of skepticism isn't exclusive to the good folks of Texas, judging by this story about a "grave witcher" in Manitoba:

 

Jack Mavins has a mysterious ability to know what lies beneath.
He says "witching" a lot but allows that, "I really should say 'dowsing.' "
Mavins, 79, is a witcher of lost and unmarked graves, searching out unknown burial sites on windy hilltop cemeteries and vacant corners of old farm yards for the past 20 years.
He claims to not only find where the bodies are buried, but also determine whether it's a male or female, and whether it's an adult, adolescent or child. He uses two welding rods and they will cross each other where the body lies and uncross once he's walked past. The welding rods will spin counter-clockwise for a female and clockwise for males.
He can also tell whether it's animal or human. Humans lie straight whereas animals are typically on their side, often curled with their legs in front of them.
The only thing he can't say is why it works. His two sons can do it -his wife and daughter can't. 

Wow. Sounds pretty amazing. The story goes on and on about Mavins's "powers" until finally we get to this interesting tidbit:

 

Not that anyone's ever dug up a grave to prove Mavins right or wrong.

 

 

Now, if someone claims to have such remarkable abilities, I don't think it's unreasonable at some point to ask for proof. In this case, that is a somewhat grim task, but until it can actually be demonstrated that this guy isn't either full of it or delusional, shouldn't a little more skepticism be in order?

 

Heck, maybe we should just send Mr. Mavins to search for the non-existent mass graves down there in Texas.

Herald Column: Raising the Minimum Wage is Bad Policy

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Alberta government's plans for minimum wage, the reaction from other groups, and what the evidence tells us:

In one fell swoop, the Alberta government has managed to ensure the perpetuity of both future minimum wage increases and the controversy over the minimum wage itself.
After freezing the wage last year, Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk was under mounting pressure to increase it this year.
Last year, the government argued that given the impact of the recession, an increase in the minimum wage would threaten jobs and the viability of small businesses. However, the minister suggested he’d consider an increase once the economy had recovered.
Well, advocates of a wage increase got their wish, but they are not exactly celebrating. The minimum wage is indeed going up, but in the process two tiers of minimum wage are being created.
Alberta's minimum wage will go from $8.80 an hour to $9.40 effective September 1st. However, it will rise to just $9.05 for those who work as servers in licensed establishments. Eventually, there will be a permanent one-dollar discrepancy between the two tiers of minimum wage.
It makes the landscape more muddled, but also helps to reveal some plain truths about minimum wage.
The province quite rightly points out that servers, for whom a large portion of their income is derived from tips, are not exactly minimum wage earners. Such workers represent a significant proportion of those earning minimum wage in Alberta. How exactly does raising their wage in any way address poverty?
Employers who do pay minimum wage might have some tough decisions to make. If they intend to absorb the cost, that could mean fewer positions, fewer hours of work, and scaled-back benefits or training. Higher prices would be the other choice – bad news for low income earners.
Here in Alberta, however, most low-skill jobs already pay above the minimum. That's what really matters - not what the minimum wage is, but how relevant it is.
It’s true, for example, that Alberta will soon have Canada’s lowest minimum wage. What’s far more telling, though, is that only 1.4 per cent of workers in Alberta actually earn minimum wage.
When you factor in those earning tips, as well as students living at home, workers who take a second job for extra income, and those for whom their spouses are the primary household income earners, there are not many people left who represent the sort of minimum wage earner portrayed by labour groups.
A 2009 paper in the journal Canadian Public Policy pointed out that over 80 per cent of low wage earners are not members of poor households and, that over 75 per cent of poor households do not have a member who is a low wage earner. The paper concluded, then, that planned increases in Ontario's minimum wage would “lead to virtually no reduction in … poverty”.
However, groups like Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) who want the government to go much, much further. The AFL is pushing for much more: a “living wage” of $12.20 per hour.
While such an hourly wage might look more attractive when viewed in isolation, the effects of such a policy would far outweigh any benefit.
In 2002, the Quebec government conducted an extensive review of minimum wage. The report drew heavily on the work of Université du Québec à Montréal economist Pierre Fortin, who concludes that a minimum wage falling between 45 and 50 per cent of the average income represents an increasing danger to employment.
Alberta’s average hourly wage is $25.02, so the “living wage” puts us right in the danger category. In other words, the sort of policy that harms those it is intended to help.
For those who believe government’s role is to directly assist those in poverty, there are a plethora of others ways by which to assist such individuals.
For others - a 17-year-old living at home, for example - there is great benefit in simply having a job. Not just in terms of having an income, but in the valuable work experience earned. Higher minimum wages mean fewer such jobs, and therefore fewer such opportunities.
Given the far worse options being proposed by others, the Alberta government’s muddled approach may be the least detrimental.