http://www.vancouversun.com/news/There+will+pipeline/10122968/story.html

The Nak’azdli are fiercely opposed to a proposed oil/natural gas pipeline through their territory commissioned by Canadian energy giant Enbridge. This is no novel headline: native groups often align strongly against industrial development within their own lands, and with good reason. Living in a culture deeply connected to the land that they and their ancestors have lived on for centuries, it goes without saying that environmental degradation in the name of progress upon First Nations sovereign land is always going to be an area of conflict. However, there is a point where compromise is necessary, especially within some of the more marginalized reserve communities. In the case of Embridge, the company is offering a significant equity stake in the profits from the pipeline for the community, which could seriously benefit from these profits and reinvest them in the community to the benefit of all members. The issue I have with the Nak’azdli opposition to the project is not one of disrespect to the tribe’s sovereignty: these lands have been their ancestral territory for centuries and I believe that Embridge, as well as the Canadian government that approved the Northern Gateway pipeline should respect that. However, this article makes clear that the Nak’azdli’s opposition is not rooted in maintaining their sovereignty, nor really an overarching environmental argument; it is because they wish to preserve a specific part of their territory, the waterways which they fish, and a part of their territory that the Embridge pipelines should pose no significant threat to. Again, wishing to preserve their fishing territories is a noble cause for the Nak’azdli, however given the data on how unlikely an oil spill is (0.06% chance per year for a major rupture), and the fact that nowhere does the article mention that the mere development of the pipeline poses a risk to their food supply, the Nak’azdli are choosing the wrong reason to oppose a pipeline that, while contributing to overall environmental degradation, could provide serious economic benefits to their community.

Image Source:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/There+will+pipeline/10122968/story.html

This article from The Economist examines the darker side of the technological revolution: the stagnation of wages for less skilled workers and increased threat of rising unemployment as improving technology allows for employers to lower their labour force in favour of computers and machinery. Unlike the industrial revolution of the 19th century, where firms required massive work forces to operate new technologies and fill assembly lines, the digital revolution is allowing companies to conduct business with significantly smaller work forces than ever before, and is making entrepreneurship easier than ever; one example given is Facebook’s recent 2 billion USD acquisition of Oculus VR, makers of the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset, which employs only 75 people. Technological advancements are allowing firms to significantly decrease their costs by operating with a smaller workforce than ever before, creating huge profits for well educated CEOs and executives, while resulting in unemployment and stagnant wages for the less skilled members of the labour force. This begs the classic economic question of where and how the government should intervene to ensure that unemployment does not rise beyond acceptable levels and workers are still able to make a living. Interestingly, this article advocates for not increasing minimum wage or taxes on the upper class. I agree specifically with the idea of not increasing the minimum wage as the biggest problem bound to arise out of the tech revolution is unemployment as low-medium skilled workers are swapped out for machines, and increasing the minimum wage and therefore costs to employers is only going to accelerate this process and cause unemployment to rise. However, I disagree with the idea of not increasing taxes on the upper class because if this revolution plays out as expected (stagnant wages for the middle/lower class, increased unemployment), then increased government support for those left behind by the tech revolution will be necessary, and who better to get funding for this than those reaping all the benefits?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21621800-digital-revolution-bringing-sweeping-change-labour-markets-both-rich-and-poor

Article on effect of minimum wage on unemployment

:http://www.cato.org/blog/minimum-wage-unemployment-0

Earlier in September, Air France pilots went on strike for two weeks due to a contract dispute, leading to the cancellation of about half of Air France flights and hundreds of millions of Euros in losses for the carrier, the biggest in France and 3rd largest in Europe. Despite the loss in productivity and economic surplus resulting from said strike, Air France’s loss in profits have translated into a huge gain for British discount carrier EasyJet, which reported that the Air France strike has led to a 5 million pound (approx. 9 million CAD) increase in revenue, as well as a higher percentage of seats sold on each flight, which should drive down the price per seat as the marginal cost of fuel declines. The restricted supply of flights caused by Air France cancellations can be seen as a temporary partial exit of the European flight market by the carrier, which as stated above is one of the “Big Three” in European air travel along with German carrier Lufthansa and Irish Carrier Ryanair. Given that consumer demand for air travel would remain constant in spite of this decreased supply, it follows logically that EasyJet would enjoy a surge in demand for their lower-priced flights as competition declines between the big three carriers in Air France’s absence. The question now is whether or not EasyJet can sustain its gain in market share after the Air France return, and how much of an effect the strike will have on Air France’s annual profits.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-france-strike-wipes-out-more-than-half-its-global-flights-today-1.2766241

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_airlines_in_Europe