MAN: Hello! I bought one of your bicycles last week. I guess I didn’t look at it carefully enough, because yesterday when I had to ride home in the rain, I realized it doesn’t have any of those . . . uh . . . things that cover the wheels . . . you know . . . fenders. My clothes got all wet and dirty.

WOMAN: I’m sorry to hear that! None of the bikes we sell include fenders. They have to be purchased on their own.

MAN: Really? I just assumed they’d be part of the bike, like the handlebars.

WOMAN: I’m afraid not. [pause] We do have packages that include front and back fenders, and all the hardware you need to install them yourself.

MAN: All right, I guess I need to buy that package.

WOMAN: Hello again! Oh . . . is there a problem with the fenders you bought? MAN: No, they’re fine, but I had to ride home last night in the dark, and then I realized that the bike doesn’t have a light. WOMAN: Yes, they’re extra as well. We have battery-operated lights that go on the front of the bike—they’re white—and we have reflector lights that go on the back—they’re red. MAN: This is ridiculous! Soon you’ll be selling bikes and saying the wheels and seats are extra! Speaking of which, the seat on the bike is narrow and hard. It’s uncomfortable. WOMAN: I can special order a seat for you that’s wider and has more cushioning. MAN: How much is it? WOMAN: Well, it is expensive—$70—but this padded seat cover is only $17. MAN: Hm . . . I have a long ride . . . Can I return the seat cover if it doesn’t do the job? WOMAN: Well, we’re supposed to allow returns only on equipment that’s still brand new, but if you try it only for a few minutes and keep the original packaging, I suppose that it will be okay.

MAN: It’s me again. I’d like to get that seat you mentioned. If I order it today, when will it be here?

WOMAN: Friday. Would you like it in black or grey?

MAN: Black, please. Now, while I’m here, is there any other important thing that didn’t come with the bike?

WOMAN: The only other thing I can think of is that some people like to have a small horn or bell to warn pedestrians of their approach.

MAN: Oh, that’s a good idea. I don’t want to run into anyone by accident! I’ll buy whichever is loudest.

WOMAN: That would be the horn. Will there be anything else?

MAN: No, I’m not thrilled about how much all this is costing, but I’m happy to finally have everything I need.

MAN: Hi Janice. It looks like summer’s over, doesn’t it?

WOMAN: Yes, it does. Pretty soon it’ll be time for nice warm fires in the fireplace, right?

MAN: Yeah. Hey, you know that old tree in my backyard? The one that keeps its needles all year long? I forget what it’s called, but it looks like a Christmas tree.

WOMAN: Your evergreen is a fir tree. I love looking at it through my kitchen window when I’m doing the dishes. The birds enjoy the tree, too, especially the sparrows.

MAN: Well, I know nothing about trees or birds, but this tree looks kind of old. Maybe it should be cut down before a strong wind or a storm takes it down. What do you think?

WOMAN: Well, it’s easy enough to cut down because it’s a softwood tree. But do you really want to cut down your beautiful fir tree?



MAN: Well, you know we just had a woodstove installed, and I thought it would be good for firewood! However, John across the street said this kind of wood isn’t good for woodstoves. What do you think?

WOMAN: I agree with John because softwood has a lot of resin, or sticky sap. When it burns, it messes up the inside of your chimney. This causes a problem that has to be cleaned out by a chimney cleaning specialist or you’ll have a chimney fire.

MAN: Wow, I’m glad I asked you! You sure know a lot about firewood! Doesn’t the chimney have to be cleaned out every year, though, for safety and insurance reasons?

WOMAN: Definitely, but your chimney will stay cleaner if you burn only hardwood. All that firewood we have stacked beside our garage is hardwood. Take some of that, if you like, because we have more than enough.

MAN: That’s very generous of you, but Mary wants us to have our own woodpile. I thought cutting down that tree would be a good start.

WOMAN: Well, although it’s your tree, I really love it! Perhaps you could take a big stack of our firewood in exchange for leaving the tree as it is? Then we’ll all be happy!

MAN: Thank you for meeting with me. I wanted to ask for your advice about how to teach my kids some financial responsibility. They keep coming to me for money because they keep exceeding their maximum internet allotment. Every time they ask me, I give them my credit card to make the purchase. Oh my!

WOMAN: I take it your children are teenagers? I would advise not giving a credit card to a child. The concept of buying on credit would be beyond their comprehension.

MAN: I have two children. One is fifteen, the other is ten. Both have problems understanding money, but yes, only the teenager uses the credit card.

WOMAN: I see. What have you done to this point to teach them financial responsibility?

MAN: Well, I remind them that money doesn’t grow on trees, that I can’t keep giving them money.

WOMAN: And then you do just that? Keep giving them money?

MAN: Well, yes. They don’t have jobs . . .

WOMAN: They should! They should have chores, jobs at home that they need to do in order to get their allowance. You give them an allowance, right?

MAN: Well, actually . . . I thought that would be the wrong thing to do — to just give them money every week

WOMAN: Only part of it should be given, no matter what. The rest of it should be earned. It should be payment for doing the assigned chores. If they have never had to work for the money they get, you can see why they don’t value it, right?

MAN: Yes, you’re right . . . I did try giving them chores to do at one time, but they just . . . didn’t do them. We got into awful fights.

WOMAN: If they don’t do their chores, then they shouldn’t get paid. You should withhold that portion of their allowance. If they had to work for their money, and if you insisted they put some of it aside for Savings, some for Charity, and the rest for Fun. . .

MAN: Then they would develop some self-discipline. They would learn that money doesn’t grow on trees!

WOMAN: Exactly! And if they know there’s only so much they can earn, they would choose more carefully how to spend it.

When Pine Lake resident Kim Chu noticed what she thought was a dog stranded on a chunk of floating ice, she paddled out in her kayak to provide help. As she approached, she realized it was a fox! ’I wasn’t keen on having a wild animal in the kayak with me,’ Chu said. ’It didn’t look sick, but you never know.’ She thought maybe it would just step onto the prow for a ride back to shore, but the animal backed away at Chu’s approach, then paced back and forth, clearly distressed.

She returned to shore, tied a Styrofoam surf board to her kayak, put some food on it, then paddled back out. ’I pulled up beside the ice, then just waited,’ Chu said. Eventually the fox stepped onto the board and started nibbling. Chu carefully paddled away, back toward shore. ’The little fox just surfed its way back, behind me!’ she said. Chu speculates that the fox chased after some geese only to discover that the ice had shifted away from shore. ’And I don’t blame it for not wanting to swim back,’ she said.

You will hear a presentation about a controversial wage issue.

Canadian labour law stipulates the lowest hourly rate employers can pay their employees. Any increase in this minimum wage invariably draws attention, which invariably sparks suggestions that Canada implement a maximum wage. Philosopher Judith Meyer argues that such a proposal is consistent with principles of justice. There is a limit to how hard people can work, so there should be a limit to how much they are paid. If it is impossible for someone to work twenty times harder than everyone else, then that person shouldn’t be paid twenty times more than everyone else. Meyer points out that many high-income earners in Canada are paid two hundred times the average Canadian. She also points out that limiting the pay of CEOs, or Chief Executive Officers, to one hundred times the minimum wage would still enable them to make about $1.5 million per year.

Sociologist Michael Mishin counters that effort shouldn’t be the measuring stick. Using athletes’ exorbitant high incomes as an example, he suggests that it doesn’t matter if someone works harder than everyone else to run a hundred metres in under ten seconds. If that doesn’t contribute to society in any way, why should we pay the person anything at all, let alone more than everyone else? Measuring contribution to society, however, requires consensus about values, and Mishin admits such a consensus is unlikely.

Economist Ethel Ellis presents yet another view. If we reduce the income of our high-income earners, we reduce the amount of money they can put back into circulation by spending, she says. However, this assumption that money trickles down from high-income earners to the rest of us is challenged by several studies. Furthermore, Ellis says, if we reduce the income of our high-income earners, we reduce the amount of taxes they pay. That is a consequence we should think very carefully about. Cynics respond, however, that high-income earners are already paying reduced taxes because they know very well how to take advantage of loopholes in the tax laws.

Yet another argument against a wage ceiling is that it would reduce the drive to do more and to do better. A worst case scenario is that the high-income earners would leave and move to a country without a wage ceiling. Recalling Meyer’s point, though, surely $1.5 million per year provides motivation enough. And if not, perhaps people should re-evaluate their priorities. As they say, money can’t buy happiness—and I can certainly attest to that!