No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers

[DearSummer]

No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/such+thing+Flaherty+tells+picky+unemployed+workers/6620342/story.html


The Harper Conservatives are signalling they are preparing to get tough with unemployed Canadians who refuse jobs they consider below them or too far away.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday new rule changes to define “suitable employment” and “reasonable” efforts at finding work have yet to come down, but as far as he’s concerned people should be prepared to take pretty well any available job.

“There is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job,” he told reporters. “I drove a taxi, I refereed hockey. You do what you have to do to make a living.”

“We are going to have significant labour shortages in this country,” he said.

“That means we are going to have to encourage more persons with disabilities to work, more seniors to work, more aboriginal people to work, including young people. We need to get rid of disincentives in the employment insurance system to people joining the work force.”

Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

[rommelrommel]

Yes, but with qualifications. If there were good prospects in a field I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to take the first mcjob that comes along. Relocation would have to be better on the whole than staying where you are. Retraining, well that can be expensive so are we going to subsidize that instead of EI? For the people that use it a few times in a lifetime I think EI is fine. The people that choose to work in fields that are very cyclical however, not so sure that you should get EI 10-15-20 times in your life. However I'm skeptical of the govt's ability to mandate any of this efficiently or fairly.

[nagasadow]

I can tell you one thing. My father is going into our MP's office tomorrow and tearring a strip off the MP over this crap. What they dont realize is that these views over EI and jobs is not for all of canada. Currently there are a lot of jobs open but not filled due to wages, (talking skilled jobs in the oil patch) which are going unfilled due to the companies not wanting to hire at a fair wage. Now they bring in a bunch of foreign workers on a temporary visa while guys sit at home due to this crap. Its a revolving cycle and unfortunately Mr Flaherty doesnt see this. Also EI does not cover the costs of moving a family to find a job.

[hugh_da_man]

I can tell you one thing. My father is going into our MP's office tomorrow and tearring a strip off the MP over this crap. What they dont realize is that these views over EI and jobs is not for all of canada. Currently there are a lot of jobs open but not filled due to wages, (talking skilled jobs in the oil patch) which are going unfilled due to the companies not wanting to hire at a fair wage. Now they bring in a bunch of foreign workers on a temporary visa while guys sit at home due to this crap. Its a revolving cycle and unfortunately Mr Flaherty doesnt see this. Also EI does not cover the costs of moving a family to find a job.

I don't think they're going to force people to take jobs that are underpaying for the skill leveled required. I've never had the luxury of getting free money from the government because whenever I've lost a job I've worked my ***** off to find another but it only seems logical to tell people that they can't live on EI in an economically depressed area of the country while we bring in temporary foreign workers to fill the jobs in other areas. Americans will up and move anywhere for a job but it seems like Canadians won't.

I applaud the government for trying to get people working again but I hope they do safeguard the system from abuses that you bring up. If temporary foreign workers are cheaper and Canadians have to compete with them on wages then the temporary foreign worker program should be scaled back to get fair wages for Canadians.

[MrKap]

Maybe he should be pointing the finger at the failed education system and stop taking so many students into university when there are no jobs for them on completion?

Maybe he forgot to mention that part?

Nope he mentions it right here...


Flaherty agreed with that assessment and added that in future years, the issue will be one of worker shortages, not unemployment.



Now why would anyone take a no paying job, when they can just wait for the future when demand goes up?


In any event, this production by the canadian government should be a clear indication of who they are going after first.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IJBQcRYpQs



I will start to panic when they initiate a draft.




I can tell you one thing. My father is going into our MP's office tomorrow and tearring a strip off the MP over this crap. What they dont realize is that these views over EI and jobs is not for all of canada. Currently there are a lot of jobs open but not filled due to wages, (talking skilled jobs in the oil patch) which are going unfilled due to the companies not wanting to hire at a fair wage. Now they bring in a bunch of foreign workers on a temporary visa while guys sit at home due to this crap. Its a revolving cycle and unfortunately Mr Flaherty doesnt see this. Also EI does not cover the costs of moving a family to find a job.

Why don't they just give the jobs to the USA? Plenty of those guys would work there is heart beat.

People have been migrating to Alberta for the last decade. I know at least one person who has travelled all across the country taking industrial sector manual labor and has gone so far as to cross in the USA. He hasn't once gone to the Oil Sands, so there must be some other problem. That's the way it is.



not so sure that you should get EI 10-15-20 times in your life

I thought that's how seasonally employed fruit pickers made their money?



I applaud the government for trying to get people working again but I hope they do safeguard the system from abuses that you bring up. If temporary foreign workers are cheaper and Canadians have to compete with them on wages then the temporary foreign worker program should be scaled back to get fair wages for Canadians.

The last time I walked into a fast food place I saw 10 people standing around doing nothing. They weren't going to get busy either. Plenty of people are out there taking crappy jobs.


Come on guys, when was the last time you went anywhere and they said, sorry, we are understaffed right now, you'll have to wait around a little longer.




Article says...


The economy has created 750,000 jobs since the recession, but the unemployment rate, last measured at 7.3 per cent, remains more than a full point higher than before the 2008-09 economic downturn.

Well they must be 375,000 full time jobs splitting into 750,000 part time jobs.

How else can they explain that statistic without blaming it on some sort of rampant, unchecked, mass immigration.



Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

I have never collected EI in my life.

[BornRuff]

How much would it suck to show up to your hockey game and see Jim Flaherty as your ref?

[MrKap]

How much would it suck to show up to your hockey game and see Jim Flaherty as your ref?

Who plays hockey?

Taxi Driver's get paid boat loads. They are like the only union to really form in the last while are they not? In hamilton anyways, I don't know about everywhere else.

The few times I have gotten into a cab, the cabbie never stops about how great of job it is.

Hey, I would have taken a job as a cabbie anyday, if the provincial government didn't fail me 4x on the drivers test. I just refuse to dump any more money into their system. (And I mean that because I've passed it but the jerk failed me anyways.)

That article is interesting that it mentions a surplus with nurses and teachers of all things. How did they screw that one up? Don't people have to put money down into provincial training to become a registered nurse or a teacher?



In any event, this is the Finance minister. Shouldn't this be the job of the Industry minister?

I smell a problem with them balancing the books and blaming unemployment, rather than the economy.



This is nothing but rhetoric for corporate welfare.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ei-reform-set-to-redefine-suitable-work-for-job-seekers/article2432675/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2432675



Actually, I could be off entirely, it looks more like people are abusing EI.


But the budget-implementation bill, C-38, as currently worded removes existing definitions of work that EI recipients can turn down as “not suitable,” either because it is not in their field, pays less or does not offer good working conditions.

So essentially, this means there are either available jobs, which are probably good, that people aren't taking.

Or it means employers are not finding people with the right skills to fill the jobs they need.

Or it means there are no jobs and more people will slip into absolute poverty.


My guess is there are no jobs. I mean wasn't there a thread about a retailer holding auditions for employees? What kind of a retailer holds auditions instead of interviews? That should be a clear sign of the times in terms of a job market.

[fakishan]

The thing is if you're going from +25$ to 10$, you cannot support your existing quality of life. You lose your home, and possibly the family.

The jobs market is becoming more and more unstable. Real estate will crash and burn, but of course that's what some people want.

[MrKap]

The thing is if you're going from +25$ to 10$, you cannot support your existing quality of life. You lose your home, and possibly the family.

The jobs market is becoming more and more unstable. Real estate will crash and burn, but of course that's what some people want.

If you are working a full time job and getting $10,000.00 you should consider a job as an arsonist instead. I am just kidding, as I have made less than that some years, but someone paying out 10,000.00 for a full years work doesn't deserve to be bossing you around.

I can remember this one employer who used to withhold money all the time, show up hours late when dropping off pay, ect... there is no point continuing with some employers. They are not making money, they are just farming out thier own job, to someone who will work for a fraction of the price and pocketing the majority of the pay in the process.

[Syne]

Bring on the "significant labour shortages" please. I'd like the ball to be in my court for once.

[AudiDude]

Ei doesn't last forever and I have paid enough into it, so you can bet I will collect.

Note, I do not pick fruit seasonally and I am not seasonally unemployed.

[Syne]

Well precisely. You'd have to be a bloody idiot to take marginal employment and/or uproot rather than take temporary EI while you find suitable employment in your field.

The point of EI is so that people don't have to throw their entire lives into upheaval the minute they lose their job, so they can avoid having their hydro shut off. The whole idea of "getting tough" on this needs some context, otherwise it just looks like political bluster.

What exactly does Flaherty have in mind? Because there is an endless amount of scenarios that could result in someone moving from one job to another. This is not a black and white issue by any stretch of the imagination.

[Simkins]

Who plays hockey?

Hey, I would have taken a job as a cabbie anyday, if the provincial government didn't fail me 4x on the drivers test. I just refuse to dump any more money into their system. (And I mean that because I've passed it but the jerk failed me anyways.)
.

I don't think cabbies are making that much. Also, you failed the test. I doubt you passed although the failed you anyway.

[MrKap]

I don't think cabbies are making that much. Also, you failed the test. I doubt you passed although the failed you anyway.

When you fail the test they are supposed to end the test and let you know what happened, and provide a reason for why you failed. That wasn't the case with my last test, which I finished in it's entirety.

After that, I sort of realized all the other lame reasons for not passing the previous tests were all based on lies anyways. Failing me for using a parking break on the shoulder of the road, after specifically being instructed to, that sort of thing.

Actually one reason was that I didn't use a parking break on the shoulder, which they failed me for immediately and they ended test right there.

Another time I made a bad turn. That was a legimate fail (maybe), but they ended the test right then and there.

Another time, I finished the test in it's entirety and when I asked what I did wrong they claimed it was because passed someone at the start too aggressively and the instructor specifically told me to get in front of the car and pass him.


So screw it... I don't care...

They have mandates to fulfill, they are not making the roads safer.


http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/549793--would-be-drivers-shop-for-easy-road-tests


Drivers who test in Oakville fail at twice the rate of drivers in Kingston. Drivers who test in north Toronto fail at twice the rate of drivers in Sarnia. Even within the GTA, drivers who test at some locations fail significantly more often than drivers at others.


In Brampton, for example, one examiner failed 71 per cent of G1 drivers, another examiner 44 per cent. At Downsview, one failed 61 per cent, another 23 per cent.


I took it in Oakville every time, and I got a jerk more than just once.



The contract requires Serco, which declined to comment for this article, to maintain a monthly failure rate within four percentage points of the average pre-agreement failure rate for that month. But the government does not force Serco to maintain specific rates at individual testing centres, the ministry said, since such rules could be perceived as quotas and cause examiners to bias their judgments.



I doubt you passed although the failed you anyway.

What you think life is fair? You must be a hot chick who's a horrible driver, and got a male instructor.

[CRAZYBUBBA]

They do if you accepted the job and their $.


Someone paying out 10,000.00 for a full years work doesn't deserve to be bossing you around.

[DearSummer]

For those who would collect EI:

After is runs out, would you relocate, retrain, or settle for a lesser job or switch to whatever other public assistance is available to you?

[MrKap]

They do if you accepted the job and their $.

That's not usually what happens. Usually people screw you on pay here and there and then they try to get away with more. Swindlers. They lose their employees faster than what it's worth to swindle them. Swindlers don't stay in business very long.

[AudiDude]

For those who would collect EI:

After it runs out, would you relocate, retrain, or settle for a lesser job or switch to whatever other public assistance is available to you?

The only time I went on EI, I was working and going to school when I lost my job. I continued with school and began look for work. I had just bought a car, but didn't trust who I worked for and had saved up the money for the car, so I kept the cash and made payments. EI runs out and now I have my savings plus the money I saved for the car to pay bills. I opened my own business and slowed down the drain on my bank account. I had a few bad months and sold one of my cars (I had three).

I got my certificate and paid my bills and it was a great lesson in survival. I wouldn't relocate, I would retrain and I would take a lesser job to supplement my own business until I didn't need it or I would limit my business and take employment on my original level of pay (or higher of course.)

Never considered other forms of assistance even when I had less than $10 to my name. I see people on assistance and it angers me that they have the latest cell phones with all the trimmings and similar. If I don't have the money for it, you won't see me with it. Even after high school, I sold my modified Mustang to be able to afford to go to school and took the train/bus. I had a talk with someone a few weeks back about them applying for assistance and I had to remind them that they wasted money they could have saved by overspending. They had Rogers express internet, a new laptop, a new Blackberry ($80 per month minimum), a PVR and home phone. I make over four times as much as they do and I don't have a PVR and my laptop was $500 not $1200, no home phone and my max phone bill is $80 not $280.

Some people have no concept of how to live within their means, some of it is their parents fault for not teaching survival skills.

In regards to being picky for work, people want to use the education they paid for (or at least had sweat equity in) and do not want to lose their progress. It is a hard pill to swallow (especially if you are one of those a-holes that flaunted your position in everybody's face). It's like striking, you will not come out a winner, you don't work, you don't get paid. It's a gamble. If you are right, you gain your position and level of pay back. If you are wrong, you lose all your financial progress and will have to pack up and move on eventually anyway. I'm not someone with just one skill, so I have options. The poor souls that are only a one trick (skill) pony will get plowed under and might want to consider the lower paying job before they have nothing.

[Ojam]

I had a friend that lost his job last year, he applied everywhere he could, the only places that were hiring were those that were under his skill level, he still applied though, but they wouldn't hire him because they felt he was over qualified and would leave as soon as a better position somewhere else became available. Looking for employment and being willing to take something outside your field, or under your skill level is only half the equation. Employers have to be willing to hire an over skilled employee too.

[NorthYorker]

For those who would collect EI:

After is runs out, would you relocate, retrain, or settle for a lesser job or switch to whatever other public assistance is available to you?Just to test depth of your knowledge on the subject: What would this "other public assistance" be?
they wouldn't hire him because they felt he was over qualified He had to lie to them. After all, each employer who call their offering "permanent", lies through their teeth.
In regards to being picky for work, people want to use the education they paid for (or at least had sweat equity in) and do not want to lose their progress. This is exactly the line of thinking Flaherty and his ilk are looking to kill. The very idea that sweat equity should pay off is contrary to everything mining barons (who bankroll CPC) are trying to force on Canadian society. They need bottomless pool of desperate workforce willing to work for a bowl of rice, not humans with silly ideas of dignity or "progress in social pyramid". Since they make their profits by exporting resources, they don't need Canadian market in the least, so you're worker but not a consumer. And they have kids to occupy their positions in pyramid once they retire.

[neutral]

“We are going to have significant labour shortages in this country,” he said.

“That means we are going to have to encourage more persons with disabilities to work, more seniors to work,

What a scumbag. And this quote seems to be in conflict with his overall point. If there are going to be labour shortages, people being forced to take whatever they get should be less of a problem. Too many idiots in Canada apparently. When the writing is on the wall, it'll be time to go. The right is destroying Canada.

[NorthYorker]

this quote seems to be in conflict with his overall point. This is intentional. Flaherty is a smart individual, but he's looking for stupid or ideologically brainwashed followers.

[Psubs]

I paid for EI so I'm going to use it. It's kind of like an mid-work life pension that I contributed a lot towards.

[neutral]

This is intentional. Flaherty is a smart individual, but he's looking for stupid or ideologically brainwashed followers.

Unfortunately, he has a lot of those already.

[NorthYorker]

Unfortunately, he has a lot of those already.This campaign is aimed squarely at core idea of whole EI system - that those on EI should be able not to starve. EI is not by any mean luxurious, but, in certain areas of the country, can cover basic needs of a person living in mortgage-free housing and maybe having some small extra sources of providing for himself (as in "living in your grandparents' house and hunting rabbit for meat"). This is preposterous for Mr. Flaherty, even if Canadians, on average, pay more in the system than they draw. Workforce should have a fear of hunger hanging over their heads, it helps to reduce wage demands. Besides, EI is a government program and therefore runs contrary to Conservative beliefs. Conservative government should only fund army and police, to protect upper crust from external and internal threat.

[vero95]

What a scumbag. And this quote seems to be in conflict with his overall point. If there are going to be labour shortages, people being forced to take whatever they get should be less of a problem. Too many idiots in Canada apparently. When the writing is on the wall, it'll be time to go. The right is destroying Canada.

where do you see the conflict, comrade?
if there are labour shortages, it does not make sense to lose money on unemployment. the problem with lefties is they can't grasp anything that is opposite to spending :facepalm:

[NorthYorker]

where do you see the conflict, comrade?Yes, you're exactly the type of listener Mr. Flaherty is fishing for. Why do you need to tighten EI rules if you have more jobs than people? Do you really believe folks take 40% income cut by choice?

it does not make sense to lose money on unemployment.EI brought$ 50+ BILLION to conservative coffers, http://www.mowatcentre.ca/opinions.php?opinionID=49
Your level of knowledge pretty much pushes you to support CPC.

[neutral]

where do you see the conflict, comrade?
if there are labour shortages, it does not make sense to lose money on unemployment. the problem with lefties is they can't grasp anything that is opposite to spending :facepalm:

Of course you don't see it. You aren't bright enough to see it. Your entire post history confirms you wouldn't be able to see something as simple as this.

[CSK'sMom]

I can tell you one thing. My father is going into our MP's office tomorrow and tearring a strip off the MP over this crap. What they dont realize is that these views over EI and jobs is not for all of canada. Currently there are a lot of jobs open but not filled due to wages, (talking skilled jobs in the oil patch) which are going unfilled due to the companies not wanting to hire at a fair wage. Now they bring in a bunch of foreign workers on a temporary visa while guys sit at home due to this crap. Its a revolving cycle and unfortunately Mr Flaherty doesnt see this. Also EI does not cover the costs of moving a family to find a job.

They announced a few weeks ago that they are shutting the foreign temporary worker visas down in a big way. Currently they are rubber stamped through the system. They no longer will be, employers will have to actually prove they have advertised the position and could not fill it. Flaherty actually had it right shutting the visas down IMO. Far too many have come to rely on them for cheap, abusable labour.

[Mark77]

No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers

Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

If the job was available, and offered, sure. Big problem out there is that, at least for many professionals, the firms are getting 50-100 resumes for each entry-level job, and even more for the better jobs.

Flaherty's comments do nothing for all the engineering grads in Canada that send out their resumes, and are ignored, or alternatively, are told they're overqualified for jobs outside the field.

[flashy_mcflash]

If the job was available, and offered, sure. Big problem out there is that, at least for many professionals, the firms are getting 50-100 resumes for each entry-level job, and even more for the better jobs.

Flaherty's comments do nothing for all the engineering grads in Canada that send out their resumes, and are ignored, or alternatively, are told they're overqualified for jobs outside the field.

Flaherty says you, with your engineering degree, should be mopping the floor at an Olive Garden and thank whatever god you pray to for the opportunity.

[Mark77]

I had a friend that lost his job last year, he applied everywhere he could, the only places that were hiring were those that were under his skill level, he still applied though, but they wouldn't hire him because they felt he was over qualified and would leave as soon as a better position somewhere else became available. Looking for employment and being willing to take something outside your field, or under your skill level is only half the equation. Employers have to be willing to hire an over skilled employee too.

+1. Big problem with the economy is that we just haven't had the industries that have churned out jobs that need higher end skills. Nobody wants to do anything in the economy these days unless it provides cashflow almost instantly. Strategic long-term investment, it seems in many industries, has practically ground to a halt.

We train all these rocket scientists, engineers, etc., for high end jobs, and then we have idiots like Jim Flaherty suggesting that they should go wash dishes instead of attempting to utilize the education they received and the skills they developed.

[Mark77]

Flaherty says you, with your engineering degree, should be mopping the floor at an Olive Garden and thank whatever god you pray to for the opportunity.

Yeah as a voter, I'm kind of trapped. Vote for the Tory claptrap, and you get this sort of garbage. Vote for the NDP and their policies have usually ended up destroying the economy. It seems that nobody really seems to care about highly skilled professional workers anymore.

[NorthYorker]

They announced a few weeks ago that they are shutting the foreign temporary worker visas down in a big way. Actually they're expanding it and allowing (previously illegal technically, although omnipresent in real life situation) practice of paying TFW less than Canadian workers, using TFWs as a tool to drive wage levels down.

[FunSave22]

There's such silliness in this thread.

The EI office is hugely understaffed. You can try for hours on the phone before you finally reach someone. They simply don't have the personnel to enforce a law like this.


Flaherty is pretending to throw out some red meat to die hard conservatives and hoping the die hards don't notice that the promise is useless. Instead of red meat what they actually are getting is some pink slime.


So how are you enjoying the pink slime DearSummer? Tasty?

[MrKap]

The problem isn't foreign workers, it's a lack of overall sustainable jobs. Where did all the engineering students from the last 2 decades go? Aerospace?

I'm kind of serious. I'd like to know what those 750,000 jobs added to the economy are anyways. What are they seasonal jobs?


That's almost 1 Million jobs and it didn't make a dent. The statistic is worthless.

From 5 days ago...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/11/jobs-canada-economy.html


It was the second month in a row that employment grew, following a jump of 82,300 in March, and far exceeded the 10,000 jobs that economists had forecast for April.

Despite the unexpected surge in new jobs, the unemployment rate rose slightly, from 7.2 per cent to 7.3 per cent, as improving job prospects encouraged more people to look for work. That raises what economists call the participation rate, or the share of Canadians working and looking for work.



Over the past year, Canada has added 214,000 new jobs.

By industry, Statistics Canada said construction added the most workers, 24,600, followed by manufacturing, 23,800, welcome news in an export-dependent sector that has been struggling due to weak foreign markets and the high Canadian dollar.

Other gainers in April included natural resources, 11,000; agriculture, 10,000; and education services, 17,000.

Offsetting the gains, public administration shed 32,400 workers, likely an indication of government restraint.


Here is a summary of jobs created in March

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/05/march-jobs-canada.html


Health care and social assistance, at 32,000.
Information, culture and recreation, 28,000.
Public administration, 15,000.

Employment in the natural resources sector also rose, and there were even modest gains in manufacturing and construction — two industries that have suffered recent setbacks.

The only major outlier in the report was education services, which dropped 25,000 jobs, reversing increases the past two months.

[NorthYorker]

Flaherty says you, with your engineering degree, should be mopping the floor at an Olive Garden and thank whatever god you pray to for the opportunity.In all honesty, changes advocated by Mr. Flaherty geared mostly toward (former middle-class) unemployed industrial workers, who have this silly idea that honest work should provide for decent living. Underemployed professionals are just collateral damages.

[Kris81]

No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/such+thing+Flaherty+tells+picky+unemployed+workers/6620342/story.html




Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

If you pay into EI, and it runs out after x amount of time, who cares? Once that runs out then it's time to take a mcjob

[vero95]

Yes, you're exactly the type of listener Mr. Flaherty is fishing for. Why do you need to tighten EI rules if you have more jobs than people? Do you really believe folks take 40% income cut by choice?
EI brought$ 50+ BILLION to conservative coffers, http://www.mowatcentre.ca/opinions.php?opinionID=49
Your level of knowledge pretty much pushes you to support CPC.

LOL
you have no clue why? why would you spend money on unemployment if there are jobs to be had? if there is plenty of jobs, it should not affect those who want to find a job, no?
... and you are a lefite, comrade, because your lack of logic you've so nicely demonstrated in all your threads left you with no other choice

[Mark77]

The problem isn't foreign workers, it's a lack of overall sustainable jobs. Where did all the engineering students from the last 2 decades go? Aerospace?


Into hiding, a lot of them. Seriously, quite a few of the guys I graduated with are stay-at-home Dads. 2 went into the Ministry, one being a Catholic priest. A few others run service businesses such as restaurants.



I'm kind of serious. I'd like to know what those 750,000 jobs added to the economy are anyways. What are they seasonal jobs?


Mainly in the public sector. A Social Work professor I know has her phone ringing off the hook with government agencies trying to hire the students. Yet my engineering profs haven't fielded calls from recruiters for over a decade now.

The oilsands are great for employment, but the market capitalization of the entire Canadian energy industry still isn't anywhere near that of the Canadian tech sector circa 1999. Computer workers lost their jobs in droves; welders and oil engineers got jobs. It really all has washed out to a bunch of nothing, and left real craters in some professions.

[MrKap]

Into hiding, a lot of them. Seriously, quite a few of the guys I graduated with are stay-at-home Dads. 2 went into the Ministry, one being a Catholic priest. A few others run service businesses such as restaurants.

Mainly in the public sector. A Social Work professor I know has her phone ringing off the hook with government agencies trying to hire the students. Yet my engineering profs haven't fielded calls from recruiters for over a decade now.

The oilsands are great for employment, but the market capitalization of the entire Canadian energy industry still isn't anywhere near that of the Canadian tech sector circa 1999. Computer workers lost their jobs in droves; welders and oil engineers got jobs. It really all has washed out to a bunch of nothing, and left real craters in some professions.

IT isn't really an engineering students job. The barrier to entry is a one year adult continuing education course, if that. Anyone can be a "network engineer" so long as they have access to microsoft help guides, or a 1-800 vendor number. That's just the way it is. I don't know were all the jobs are but that CBC link posted earlier mentions an engineering student (in the video) looking for a nuclear engineering job. They just don't seem to exist. Not in the numbers they are supposed to.

[Electricute]

I paid for EI so I'm going to use it. It's kind of like an mid-work life pension that I contributed a lot towards.



Ei doesn't last forever and I have paid enough into it, so you can bet I will collect.

Note, I do not pick fruit seasonally and I am not seasonally unemployed.


you guys are seriously idiots. that's like saying i pay for house insurance so i'm going to burn down my house. or i pay car insurance so i'm going to crash my car.

Ei is an insurance, not a luxury. People on EI take A LOT more out of the system than they put into it. 1 full benefit period on EI, you will get more EI back than you will pay into over a lifetime.

I agree with flaherty. beggers cant be choosers. it's a simple choice between not having a job and having a job. Who says you can't apply to other jobs you want within your field and work at the same time?

For those that also don't know, you can work and collect EI at the same time. So if you take a lower paying job than what you're used to and only get to work part time hours, EI can still pay some of the difference. It's not much, but an option.

[NorthYorker]

why would you spend money on unemployment if there are jobs to be had?Sigh... You still don't get it, do you. Government, overall, gets more money into EI fund than it pays. So, there's no "spending", there's a gain.
if there is plenty of jobs, it should not affect those who want to find a job, no?You failed to understand one important caveat. Since EI allows recipients not to go hungry, tightening will only allow to fill jobs paying survival (or below) wages.
... and you are a lefite, comrade, because your lack of logic you've so nicely demonstrated in all your threads left you with no other choiceWould I try to illustrate my point better, I would not be able to. Super-ultra-mega illiterate paragraph, torturing every rule in English grammar book for 5th grade and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you is an illiterate stupido :D I have no doubts you don't get the irony...
For those that also don't know, you can work and collect EI at the same time. Aren't they deducting every cent you've earned from your EI payment?

[Syne]

This is exactly the line of thinking Flaherty and his ilk are looking to kill. The very idea that sweat equity should pay off is contrary to everything mining barons (who bankroll CPC) are trying to force on Canadian society. They need bottomless pool of desperate workforce willing to work for a bowl of rice, not humans with silly ideas of dignity or "progress in social pyramid". Since they make their profits by exporting resources, they don't need Canadian market in the least, so you're worker but not a consumer. And they have kids to occupy their positions in pyramid once they retire.

This is a pretty scathing but brutally accurate indictment of the mentality of business owners.

[MrKap]

I am pretty sure there have been efforts to increase the availability of foreign labor, specifically with India, no less. Canadians just aren't much of competition when compared to the american freeconomy. Is that what everyone is getting at?

Rim is just about the only high tech success story company in canada, and there is no guarantee it's going to stay around. jmo...

[Syne]

If the job was available, and offered, sure. Big problem out there is that, at least for many professionals, the firms are getting 50-100 resumes for each entry-level job, and even more for the better jobs.

I don't think you quite get it.

Flaherty isn't talking about entry level jobs. The words "entry level" imply upward mobility. The jobs Flaherty would have you take aren't careers, they are just work.

[ItechJester]

Anybody see the irony of a conservative, 'right leaning' government ordering people into specific occupations and jobs (ie like a communist government).

Didn't know Canadian politicians had an identity crisis.



Who's going to pay the relocation fees for these new workers btw? Their first months rent, travel and accommodations? I doubt very much that folks on ei have tens of thousands they can spend to relocate...

[Syne]

you guys are seriously idiots. that's like saying i pay for house insurance so i'm going to burn down my house. or i pay car insurance so i'm going to crash my car.

No, it's like saying that I pay for house insurance, so if my house burns down I'm going to make a claim, and I pay car insurance, so if I get into a car accident, I'm going to make a claim.

Your assumption of ill intent is what's idiotic.

[Rainne]

^

Basically

[MrKap]

The conservative government dumped all it's cards into the oil sands. That's just the way it is.

[squagles]

The jobs Flaherty would have you take aren't careers, they are just work.

That's all there is. A Career is just a notion that your current position will turn into one you would actually want. It's an empty promise for most.

[NorthYorker]

Anybody see the irony of a conservative, 'right leaning' government ordering people into specific occupations and jobs (ie like a communist government).Nope, this is the very core of traditional "conservatism" all over the world, it just used to be different in North America ("frontier factor"). Market and self-regulation are only good as long as they drive wages down, any upward wage move immediately causes implementation of indentured labour.
if I get into a car accident, I'm going to make a claim.This is not how things are working in CPC's Canada. Since your claims are reducing insurance companies' wages, you had to be bullied into not making a claim. But government must force you to buy insurance still. That is why Ontario insurance rates doubled during Mike Harris's reign.

[whampoa]

I had a friend that lost his job last year, he applied everywhere he could, the only places that were hiring were those that were under his skill level, he still applied though, but they wouldn't hire him because they felt he was over qualified and would leave as soon as a better position somewhere else became available. Looking for employment and being willing to take something outside your field, or under your skill level is only half the equation. Employers have to be willing to hire an over skilled employee too.

Here is a trick, always customize your resume to the job at hand.

It's not padding a resume if you understate your qualification and not over state it.

For example, instead of been specific about your programming prowess, just briefly mentioned about your computer competency for a McJob.

[Mark77]

Here is a trick, always customize your resume to the job at hand.

It's not padding a resume if you understate your qualification and not over state it.

For example, instead of been specific about your programming prowess, just briefly mentioned about your computer competency for a McJob.

The problem with that strategy is that you really don't know if the resume reviewer/interviewer would value the extra skills or not.

How much do you leave out? If there's 10 resumes on the pile for a McJob, and you eliminate/understate your qualifications, what advantage do you present over the other 10 applicants?

And maybe the company advertised only for the McJob, but they have a programming prowess job that is unadvertised. If you don't leave everything on your resume, how is a person supposed to get that job? Wouldn't it be awful if they hired you for the McJob, and didn't even consider your resume for the programming prowess job?

See the problem here? You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. If the economy is that bad that people have to understate, or delete their qualifications, in order to find a job, than that speaks to major problems with the economy and economic policy itself.

[Electricute]

No, it's like saying that I pay for house insurance, so if my house burns down I'm going to make a claim, and I pay car insurance, so if I get into a car accident, I'm going to make a claim.

Your assumption of ill intent is what's idiotic.

granted, but doesn't mean sit at home and not bother trying to get back to work. People get laid off all the time to no fault of their own then EI is there. But when you start picking and choosing saying that you are too good for a job doesn't make sense




Aren't they deducting every cent you've earned from your EI payment?

no you are given an "allowable" normall around $150, you can make under your allowable and still be paid your full EI. if you make more than you allowable, then the difference is deducted

[MrKap]

The problem with that strategy is that you really don't know if the resume reviewer/interviewer would value the extra skills or not.

How much do you leave out? If there's 10 resumes on the pile for a McJob, and you eliminate/understate your qualifications, what advantage do you present over the other 10 applicants?

And maybe the company advertised only for the McJob, but they have a programming prowess job that is unadvertised. If you don't leave everything on your resume, how is a person supposed to get that job? Wouldn't it be awful if they hired you for the McJob, and didn't even consider your resume for the programming prowess job?

See the problem here? You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. If the economy is that bad that people have to understate, or delete their qualifications, in order to find a job, than that speaks to major problems with the economy and economic policy itself.

There are better jobs than the mc jobs, and to be perfectly honest, these other jobs are probably paying way more than the low barrier to entry jobs. Nobody told the truth when they stole your job, there is no real need to show a resume which does not specifically target a specific opening.

[Mark77]

granted, but doesn't mean sit at home and not bother trying to get back to work. People get laid off all the time to no fault of their own then EI is there. But when you start picking and choosing saying that you are too good for a job doesn't make sense


Its often the employers that are making that decision, that certain folks are 'too good' for a job. I've never met, nor heard of anyone who didn't want to work who was capable of doing so.

[spike1128]

I would only listen to Flaherty, if he has details on his own family. If his kids didn't find a job after graduate or losing their jobs (and without freeloading at home) and can't find a job, would they take a job lower than their skill level? Doubt it. There is a set rule for the elites and there is a set rule for the rest of us. Shouldn't work this way.

I know that he comes from a modest background, but just because he MADE it he now tell us what to do. I think the globalization, bringing in immigrants/work visa has cause us jobs, the right leaning ideas, etc etc. Why is Canada going to listen to him?

If he wants Canadian to take whatever job they can get. Get rid of EI, then people has no choice but to find work.

[MrKap]

Its often the employers that are making that decision, that certain folks are 'too good' for a job. I've never met, nor heard of anyone who didn't want to work who was capable of doing so.

I though it had more to do with industry generally failing all around and not being able to support any significant growth. Let alone provide jobs for people with skills.

The only boom town in Canada is with the environment and energy industries. All primary industries correct?

We aren't comparable to silicon valley, hollywood, or wallstreet. Ect....

[Syne]

granted, but doesn't mean sit at home and not bother trying to get back to work. People get laid off all the time to no fault of their own then EI is there. But when you start picking and choosing saying that you are too good for a job doesn't make sense

One of the great things about EI is the ability to have a bit of breathing room to find comparable employment to that which was lost.

If I'm making 60% of my wages on EI, and find a job that pays 55% of my former wages, am I going to take that job? Probably not, providing it's still early in my claim. I will hedge for a better offer. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. If you were laid off making $xxhr, it would be very demoralizing to take 55% of that wage, unless the work had other qualities to consider, like less hours, better environment, less stress or opportunity for advancement. It's also not fair to an employer, to pretend to be satisfied with the compensation being offered, when you are clearly going to cut and run at the first opportunity.

It just seems like the endgame the OP is suggesting we mandate professionals to take scab labour. If we try to force these things, it just ends up making everyone unhappy.

[Mark77]

I though it had more to do with industry generally failing all around and not being able to support any significant growth. Let alone provide jobs for people with skills.

There's definitely an anti-growth agenda out there, that's for sure. I've suggested in numerous other posts that much of the blame can be laid at the hands of the federal government and the CMHC, in their induction of a capital investment preference that has favoured the house construction and real estate sectors, to the detriment of most other areas of the economy. Public servant employment is also quite negative for economic growth and investment.

Flaherty himself is the cause of many of the problems in the economy, and now he looks to blame some of the victims, especially those in out of favour sectors, for the very problems he created.

[Syne]

I would only listen to Flaherty, if he has details on his own family. If his kids didn't find a job after graduate or losing their jobs (and without freeloading at home) and can't find a job, would they take a job lower than their skill level? Doubt it. There is a set rule for the elites and there is a set rule for the rest of us. Shouldn't work this way.

I know that he comes from a modest background, but just because he MADE it he now tell us what to do. I think the globalization, bringing in immigrants/work visa has cause us jobs, the right leaning ideas, etc etc. Why is Canada going to listen to him?

This is the other thing. Regardless of the roots, it always seems disingenuous when well-connected and wealthy white men start giving out pro tips to unemployed and underemployed people. According to his Wiki page, Flaherty has three kids of his own. I'd be very interested in the sort of hardships they are enduring or will have to endure to climb the ladder in their fields, and how that compares to the average Canadian.

[NorthYorker]

If we try to force these things, it just ends up making......huge profits for oil industry, and current Conservative government is a little more than their PR and enforcement arm.

[MrKap]

One of the great things about EI is the ability to have a bit of breathing room to find comparable employment to that which was lost.

If I'm making 60% of my wages on EI, and find a job that pays 55% of my former wages, am I going to take that job? Probably not, providing it's still early in my claim. I will hedge for a better offer. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. If you were laid off making $xxhr, it would be very demoralizing to take 55% of that wage, unless the work had other qualities to consider, like less hours, better environment, less stress or opportunity for advancement. It's also not fair to an employer, to pretend to be satisfied with the compensation being offered, when you are clearly going to cut and run at the first opportunity.

It just seems like the endgame the OP is suggesting we mandate professionals to take scab labour. If we try to force these things, it just ends up making everyone unhappy.

Pretty sure the finance minister isn't trying to force anything, but instead is painting the picture of what is accurately happening.

[savermom84]

I'm curious to see how the Conservatives, who are downsizing the public sector workforce considerably, are planning on enforcing this. Will there be a question on the biweekly reports asking "did you apply to any crappy jobs in the period covered by this report?"

[NorthYorker]

I'm curious to see how the Conservatives, who are downsizing the public sector workforce considerably, are planning on enforcing this.This can be completely automated. Those who have crappy vacancies enter them into the system, and computer randomly sends 5 unemployed to them. If you are unemployed and failed to get a McJob after, let's say, 3 interviews, your benefits are automatically halved.

[a-tree]

This is the other thing. Regardless of the roots, it always seems disingenuous when well-connected and wealthy white men start giving out pro tips to unemployed and underemployed people. According to his Wiki page, Flaherty has three kids of his own. I'd be very interested in the sort of hardships they are enduring or will have to endure to climb the ladder in their fields, and how that compares to the average Canadian.

It's true Flaherty is well-connected and his children won't have trouble finding jobs. So what? The kids didn't choose Flaherty to be their father. You play with the cards you're dealt. Does anyone complain of how unfair their hand is at a poker table? Does it even matter? You can't control what your given. You just make the best of it. I skimmed through this thread for 30 seconds and surprise surprise, you and Northyorker again are the loudest whiners. Do you two ever learn?

[NorthYorker]

It's true Flaherty is well-connected and his children won't have trouble finding jobs. So what? The kids didn't choose Flaherty to be their father. You play with the cards you're dealt. Does anyone complain of how unfair their hand is at a poker table? Does it even matter? You can't control what your given. You just make the best of it. I skimmed through this thread for 30 seconds and surprise surprise, you and Northyorker again are the loudest whiners. Do you two ever learn?Yours mad at the fact that you can't provide coherent argument to defend something you've been brainwashed to believe in, so youRS resort to stupid juvenile biting. Completely predictable, yawn....

[a-tree]

Yours mad at the fact that you can't provide coherent argument to defend something you've been brainwashed to believe in, so youRS resort to stupid juvenile biting. Completely predictable, yawn....

You're just mad that I called you out.

[Simaahoy]

No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/such+thing+Flaherty+tells+picky+unemployed+workers/6620342/story.html




Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?


I would love to see him working twelve hours as a janitor at the airport. What he said is low...

[starkiller2010]

I kind of understand what Flaherty is saying, but it just doesn't sound very good. A lot of kids are brainwashed into thinking that just because you get a post-secondary education means you will get a good job in the field you are interested in. Of course this is not always true, but parents and schools all seem to plant these ideals in our head. Less people are willing to do the 'rough and dirty' jobs because of this as well; University means cushy office jobs for all!

[vero95]

Sigh... You still don't get it, do you. Government, overall, gets more money into EI fund than it pays. So, there's no "spending", there's a gain.You failed to understand one important caveat. Since EI allows recipients not to go hungry, tightening will only allow to fill jobs paying survival (or below) wages.Would I try to illustrate my point better, I would not be able to. Super-ultra-mega illiterate paragraph, torturing every rule in English grammar book for 5th grade and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you is an illiterate stupido :D I have no doubts you don't get the irony...Aren't they deducting every cent you've earned from your EI payment?

sigh, I see I can explain to you the history a bit. government stopped contributing to the EI fund in 1990. the fund must have a surplus. in fact, Chretien and Martin accumulated $57billion in 2008 which they converted to their revenue after the Supreme Court of Canada refused to order the government to return the money to contributors (if you claim liberals had no deficit, remember that)
the conservatives in 2008 and 2009 created a legislature which freezes the surplus and makes the premiums foalting as needed to support it
now, comrade, go back to complaining about surpluses :facepalm:

[NorthYorker]

You're just mad that I called you out."No, you're it" is about the expected level of thinking for an ordinary CPC supporter who's not in top 5% earning strata. Intelligence of a preschooler in grownup body.
Remember youRS asking how do I know you are not wealthy? That is easy. Those who can get rich on their own merits are way above the "No, you are it" brain development level.

[Agafaba]

Depends, how far would I be relocating? Will it put me in debt for 10 years to become educated in a field that has openings right now? How little am I settling for, and would it make sense to do so considering the costs associated with the previous two issues?

[Mark77]

This can be completely automated. Those who have crappy vacancies enter them into the system, and computer randomly sends 5 unemployed to them. If you are unemployed and failed to get a McJob after, let's say, 3 interviews, your benefits are automatically halved.

Yeah, but how many companies really have crappy vacancies or are actually hurting to find labour? That's the real problem here -- there's all sorts of huff and puff about a 'labour shortage', but the actual evidence is scant that firms are having trouble finding workers.

My local McDonalds, survived perfectly fine hiring high school students and the occasional grown-up. But they recently replaced nearly all their staff with Phillipinos. They work full time, don't need to be paid benefits, and they live in housing owned by, and rented from the owner of the restaurant. Its really not about a labour shortage, its about the businessmen wanting something (ie: cheap labour) without the downsides (ie: lots of turnover and hiring costs).

[vero95]

I kind of understand what Flaherty is saying, but it just doesn't sound very good. A lot of kids are brainwashed into thinking that just because you get a post-secondary education means you will get a good job in the field you are interested in. Of course this is not always true, but parents and schools all seem to plant these ideals in our head. Less people are willing to do the 'rough and dirty' jobs because of this as well; University means cushy office jobs for all!

I agree. the level of education is pretty low in this country. high school students are allowed to select courses, for example: to skip all science courses. it's so easy to get to the university *logy program even without basic math skills
then they get BSc and expect high paid jobs while being complete imbeciles

[NorthYorker]

Chretien and Martin accumulated $57billion in 2008 which they converted to their revenue:D :D :D
Yeah, but how many companies really have crappy vacancies or are actually hurting to find labour? That's the real problem here -- there's all sorts of huff and puff about a 'labour shortage', but the actual evidence is scant that firms are having trouble finding workers. I agree that there's no shortage of labour, there's shortage of cheap (and, ideally, indentured) labour.
high school students are allowed to select courses, for example: to skip all science courses.Nope they're not. Science is not elective.

[a-tree]

"No, you're it" is about the expected level of thinking for an ordinary CPC supporter who's not in top 5% earning strata. Intelligence of a preschooler in grownup body.
Remember youRS asking how do I know you are not wealthy? That is easy. Those who can get rich on their own merits are way above the "No, you are it" brain development level.

Now you're getting all emotional.

[vero95]

:D :D :D

you are laughing comrade because you are too ignorant to learn history :facepalm:

A significant part of the federal fiscal surplus of the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin years came from the EI system. Premiums were reduced much less than falling expenditures - producing, from 1994 onwards, EI surpluses of several billion dollars per year, which were added to general government revenue.[5] The cumulative EI surplus stood at $57 billion at March 31, 2008,[6] nearly four times the amount needed to cover the extra costs paid during a recession.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

[NorthYorker]

Now you're getting all emotional.:D Yes, stick to one-line comments, it is less damaging to your reputation :D
you are laughing comrade because you are too ignorant to learn historyI've made an effort to make funniest parts of your comment bold, but it was in vain :(

[vero95]

:D Yes, stick to one-line comments, it is less damaging to your reputation :D

funny after seeing your post of :D:D:D
:facepalm:

[spike1128]

"No, you're it" is about the expected level of thinking for an ordinary CPC supporter who's not in top 5% earning strata. Intelligence of a preschooler in grownup body.
Remember youRS asking how do I know you are not wealthy? That is easy. Those who can get rich on their own merits are way above the "No, you are it" brain development level.

I sometimes don't know what a-tree is talking about justifying with name calling. The real situation is not dealing cards, but more like someone pulling a fast one during a poker game.

You can't just tell regular Canadians to go wash the toilet at McDonalds for minimum wage, while the poor kid made it up the ladder and when to university with the hard earned money he made doing part time all his life. Then you yourself feel the same entitlement as the other poor kid, but you didn't go though the hardship. How can someone judge him/her for being entitled, if you yourself is entitled as well.

It's fair game to have people have competition with each other, but you can't cheat and start calling people name after you cheated to win. That is why our economy is going down the hole. They are already picking the winners and losers based on where you are from/who your parents are, but not what you can accomplish.

[NorthYorker]

IYou can't just tell regular Canadians to go wash the toilet at McDonalds for minimum wage.Why? Because their grandparents fought hard to have the social safety net they're so willingly trading for cheap and empty rhetoric?

[sherman51]

I would rather shake the hand of a man who scrubs toilets than a man that can work but collects EI.
Can't support yourself on one job, get 2. I had 3 jobs at one point in my life for 3 years and worked my way into a good position.
Education is free until university and if you study hard enough you can get scholarships and bursuries to pay for university.
Nobody wants to learn a trade, everyone gets a Bach of Arts from U of T and then asks, why can't I get a job?

[a-tree]

I sometimes don't know what a-tree is talking about justifying with name calling. The real situation is not dealing cards, but more like someone pulling a fast one during a poker game.

You can't just tell regular Canadians to go wash the toilet at McDonalds for minimum wage, while the poor kid made it up the ladder and when to university with the hard earned money he made doing part time all his life. Then you yourself feel the same entitlement as the other poor kid, but you didn't go though the hardship. How can someone judge him/her for being entitled, if you yourself is entitled as well.

It's fair game to have people have competition with each other, but you can't cheat and start calling people name after you cheated to win. That is why our economy is going down the hole. They are already picking the winners and losers based on where you are from/who your parents are, but not what you can accomplish.

Exactly how many people get their jobs through their parents that are in the 1%? Do you actually believe this number is significant enough that that is why the 'economy is going down the hole'? Are the children of the 1% who get their jobs through parent connections all incompetent for the jobs they hold?

[spike1128]

Why? Because their grandparents fought hard to have the social safety net they're so willingly trading for cheap and empty rhetoric?

Ha, you aren't quoting me right. If you are poor class Canadian, and you work hard for your education / work hard on your career (same goes for a immigrant). Then it's not right to have a slap in the face that you were born wrong place/time/parents, meanwhile they give the job to Flaherty's son whom might not even qualify. That's what I am saying.

[Mark77]

I would rather shake the hand of a man who scrubs toilets than a man that can work but collects EI.
Can't support yourself on one job, get 2. I had 3 jobs at one point in my life for 3 years and worked my way into a good position.
Education is free until university and if you study hard enough you can get scholarships and bursuries to pay for university.
Nobody wants to learn a trade, everyone gets a Bach of Arts from U of T and then asks, why can't I get a job?

Apprenticeships are abundant and everywhere? Of course not. Even high end workers with high-end skills can't seem to find jobs a lot of the time. The tradespeople might be making decent money right now because housing construction is hot, but man, when that slows down.....

And scholarships/bursaries, by definition, are only going to be available to a small number of people.

[spike1128]

Exactly how many people get their jobs through their parents that are in the 1%? Do you actually believe this number is significant enough that that is why the 'economy is going down the hole'? Are the children of the 1% who get their jobs through parent connections all incompetent for the jobs they hold?

You are quite foolish to think that's not how it works. Your parents/extended family knows somebody, then tells you to send in a resume, and attach it as a referral. Are they incompetent? Are they excellent? You don't know. HR doesn't know. They only take you in for an interview anyways. Much better than the ones who don't know anyone, and have their resumes thrown out before getting a interview.

You are just bitter man. Maybe someone got you a job. You just mad cause you don't want to think you can't get a job on your own. Maybe that's why you so up in arms about this topic. Did daddy buy your a shiny new car as well, like the other RFD kids?

[NorthYorker]

If you are poor class Canadian, and you work hard for your education / work hard on your career (same goes for a immigrant). Then it's not right to have a slap in the face that you were born wrong place/time/parents, meanwhile they give the job to Flaherty's son whom might not even qualify. Same question. Why isn't it? Meritocracy is, by and large, a commie idea, capitalism assumes you use your "capital" fully. And color of your blood (blue versus red) and size of your daddy's bank account are parts of your "capital".

[a-tree]

You are quite foolish to think that's not how it works. Your parents/extended family knows somebody, then tells you to send in a resume, and attach it as a referral. Are they incompetent? Are they excellent? You don't know. HR doesn't know. They only take you in for an interview anyways. Much better than the ones who don't know anyone, and have their resumes thrown out before getting a interview.

You are just bitter man. Maybe someone got you a job. You just mad cause you don't want to think you can't get a job on your own. Maybe that's why you so up in arms about this topic. Did daddy buy your a shiny new car as well, like the other RFD kids?

But that was the whole point about your whining. The economy is going down the hole because companies are hiring people through their friends, and not the ones most qualified. Who the hell are you the make that judgment? Why would an employer hire someone unqualified just because the candidate is the son of a friend? Companies make their own choices as to what's best for them, even if it means hiring someone who may not be the most qualified. Otherwise, why would they make that choice in the first place?

Who the hell are you calling bitter? You're the one whining and crying about how the world is unfair because you think you live in a world where everyone cheats? There's no denying that someone people get their jobs through connections. So what? How often do you actually think this happens? Do all people who have connections get their jobs in this way? Are they all dependent little slaves the way you want to believe they are?

The world, for the most part, is fair. Your weak little slavish mind makes it unfair. Grow out of it already.

[a-tree]

Same question. Why isn't it? Meritocracy is, by and large, a commie idea, capitalism assumes you use your "capital" fully. And color of your blood (blue versus red) and size of your daddy's bank account are parts of your "capital".

Do you even know what a meritocracy is? How the hell is it a commie idea?

[mockingjay404]

searching for a job is a full-time job unto itself.

if i'm a programmer and suddenly out of work, doing 12 hour shifts at McDonald's is NOT going to help me get employed again as a programmer. and it's better for the economy that i try to get back into the I.T. field where i can contribute more, rather than being a McDonald's burger flipper, which any fobby dude with zero programming skills and zero command of the english language can do. there's enough of those guys in toronto as it is, i'd rather leave the McJobs for them!

therefore, it follows that it's more logical to collect EI and focus on getting back into your trained-for profession ASAP rather than wasting your time in a "redshirt" job.

anyways, silly OP thinks EI = Welfare or something. guess he failed to notice the bi-weekly $50 deduction labelled "EI", taken from every paystub... assuming he's ever actually worked a job before

[NorthYorker]

Do all people who have connections get their jobs in this way? They likely do, if they have connection in their professional area.
if i'm a programmer and suddenly out of work, doing 12 hour shifts at McDonald's is NOT going to help me get employed again as a programmer. Nope, but it would help a great deal in pushing you to accept programmer's job for half of your former salary, therefore increasing profits of your employer. This is a part of campaign to lower workforce costs for big Canadian corporations.

[a-tree]

They likely do, if they have connection in their professional area.

It was a rhetorical question the meaning of which you obviously don't understand.

[NorthYorker]

the meaning of which you obviously don't understand.Yes, sure, "yours stupid because I say yours is" is something completely expected from someone like you ;)

[a-tree]

Yes, sure, "yours stupid because I say yours is" is something completely expected from someone like you ;)

I don't remember calling you stupid but if that's the message you got, then that's fine too.

[Rainne]

Salaries are only going to get lower~

Globalization, competition, immigrants, etc.

[Syne]

Same question. Why isn't it? Meritocracy is, by and large, a commie idea, capitalism assumes you use your "capital" fully. And color of your blood (blue versus red) and size of your daddy's bank account are parts of your "capital".


Do you even know what a meritocracy is? How the hell is it a commie idea?

His post was crystal clear. There is nothing ambiguous here that needs further explaining. Either argue the point or don't, but don't sit there and pretend not to understand a succinct argument.

[mjjrules]

I 100% agree with this! It seems a lot of people think some jobs are beneath them. I have more respect for someone working at McDonald's then I do for someone on EI saying there are no jobs. My aunt was laid off from her job, instead of going on EI she is working at McDonald's until she comes across a suitable job for her profession. I know a lot of people who are just to lazy to work and take EI until it runs out. Then 2 of them went on welfare, one of them graduated from University as an archaeologist, and I know of 2 god jobs she was offered in her field, but turned them down. She sits at home collecting welfare, and works a few days a week for cash.

[NorthYorker]

My aunt was laid off from her job, instead of going on EI she is working at McDonald's until she comes across a suitable job for her profession.Please let us know when (and if) she is hired again in her professional capacity. And, by the way, how long did it take to find a new decent job for her laid off colleagues who did use the EI?

[a-tree]

His post was crystal clear. There is nothing ambiguous here that needs further explaining. Either argue the point or don't, but don't sit there and pretend not to understand a succinct argument.

Do you actually believe communism is more meritocratic than capitalism?

[Syne]

It's true Flaherty is well-connected and his children won't have trouble finding jobs. So what? The kids didn't choose Flaherty to be their father. You play with the cards you're dealt. Does anyone complain of how unfair their hand is at a poker table? Does it even matter? You can't control what your given. You just make the best of it. I skimmed through this thread for 30 seconds and surprise surprise, you and Northyorker again are the loudest whiners. Do you two ever learn?

Life in a civilized society is not a poker game. Your analogy is not only ideologically twisted, but doesn't even reflect the country we live in today. The modern, progressive philosophy is a constant struggle toward a more level and merit-based playing field. This is the entire point behind things like student loans, low-income bursaries and scholarships, free primary and secondary education, the Children's Aid Society, grants for starting a small business, employment insurance, etc. These are all tools for people who would not otherwise have opportunity, to seize it.

Ideologically, the goal is to continue this smoothing process, so that merit and accomplishment are the only metrics for success - so it is less of a poker game. So to sum things up as a game of chance? Chance determining access to choices and opportunity is precisely what we (the vast majority of Canadians) are trying to avoid.

Anything else is just wealth protectionism from people who have a stake in maintaining the status quo because it benefits them personally.

[Syne]

Do you actually believe communism is more meritocratic than capitalism?

Do you actually believe that asking stupid and misleading questions furthers a discussion?

[a-tree]

Life in a civilized society is not a poker game. Your analogy is not only ideologically twisted, but doesn't even reflect the country we live in today. The modern, progressive philosophy is a constant struggle toward a more level and merit-based playing field. This is the entire point behind things like student loans, low-income bursaries and scholarships, free primary and secondary education, the Children's Aid Society, grants for starting a small business, employment insurance, etc. These are all tools for people who would not otherwise have opportunity, to seize it.

Ideologically, the goal is to continue this smoothing process, so that merit and accomplishment are the only metrics for success - so it is less of a poker game. So to sum things up as a game of chance? Chance determining access to choices and opportunity is precisely what we (the vast majority of Canadians) are trying to avoid.

Anything else is just wealth protectionism from people who have a stake in maintaining the status quo because it benefits them personally.

You're not understanding reality at all. No matter your non-sense about efforts to create a merit-based playing field, there will always be people whose parents are well-connected and wealthy. This doesn't make the world unfair. It's simply a fact of life. But you view this as grounds to whine and complain about your own failure of a life. "I live in a world where only the rich get rich. I can't get a job because they're all taken by those who have connections. Immigrants are taking my jobs blah blah blah". There will always be those that have more advantage than others, but that doesn't mean you can't be successful in your own right.

[a-tree]

Do you actually believe that asking stupid and misleading questions furthers a discussion?

It's ok if you don't have the answer. I didn't ask the question because I thought you knew the answer anyway. I asked because I knew you didn't and this is exactly the type of answer I expected to garner from you.

[webdoctors]

I would probably do both, take EI, and also relocate for a better job.

The only time I was unemployed was when fresh out of undergrad, and at that time I wasn't eligible for UI.

The biggest barrier to employment is lack of experience, once you have that, UI is a pretty good stop gap till your next job.

Its not fair for some folks to view it as Welfare, as its something you pay for.

[Rainne]

Generation Y don't really want jobs..they want a career that makes a difference.

[CDNPatriot]

You see Dearsummer, the Conservative governments of Canada have ravaged our prospects. For example, when the AVRO program got us major contracts for planes from Europe and the United States, the Conservative government under Defeinbaker killed it! We would have been the world leaders at something. And now we are world leaders at nothing and are busy selling people real estate but are not exporting high value goods.

You have Harper not investing in the future. Why not invest in 3D Printing Technology that will be bringing jobs back to Canada?
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221

You have McGuinty striving at a green energy technology which is at least something.

Then you have Mayor Blob Lardship who is looking at merely dismantling things and not at bringing jobs to the city.


No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/such+thing+Flaherty+tells+picky+unemployed+workers/6620342/story.html




Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

[CDNPatriot]

Generation Y don't really want jobs..they want a career that makes a difference.

Generation X did not have a career either. Most worked at jobs ten years before getting a decent career. Reality is a mean female dog.

[MrKap]

Depends, how far would I be relocating? Will it put me in debt for 10 years to become educated in a field that has openings right now? How little am I settling for, and would it make sense to do so considering the costs associated with the previous two issues?

I will be completely honest with you. I've had one lousy job which wasn't at or below the poverty line. It was the only way I could have paid my way through school. Once I got into the workforce of what I went to school for, I've seen poverty and nothing but ever since. Not like eating out of discarded tin cans, but a really low income.

The only people who built any sort of industry in Canada were the Baby Boomers, they didn't do it through creative means either, they did it because they needed to raise families. That's jmo...


Seeing people who've graduated, the people I went to school with either in High School or Post Secondary, they either have no career, or they have fled the country. With few exceptions. The exceptions being family business types.

In any event, the whole point is, I made more money in a suck job, that I've ever made since, way before school. Plus I've taken suck jobs since then as well. The people working suck jobs make up the bulk majority of the workforce and they get paid the best.

I still remember my professor, they specifically said what I was in school for, I could expect at least 6 career changes through out my life. That's the reality of the new generations coming up.

[a-tree]

You see Dearsummer, the Conservative governments of Canada have ravaged our prospects. For example, when the AVRO program got us major contracts for planes from Europe and the United States, the Conservative government under Defeinbaker killed it! We would have been the world leaders at something. And now we are world leaders at nothing and are busy selling people real estate but are not exporting high value goods.

You have Harper not investing in the future. Why not invest in 3D Printing Technology that will be bringing jobs back to Canada?
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221

You have McGuinty striving at a green energy technology which is at least something.

Then you have Mayor Blob Lardship who is looking at merely dismantling things and not at bringing jobs to the city.

I have a feeling that no matter who the political leaders are in this country at all levels, you'll find some excuse to complain and criticize them.

[ZenOps]

Meh, its not bad in Canada.

45 million people in the US are on food stamps. Technically far enough below the US poverty line that they either have to, or want to recieve food aid benefit from the government.

[MrKap]

Meh, its not bad in Canada.

45 million people in the US are on food stamps. Technically far enough below the US poverty line that they either have to, or want to recieve food aid benefit from the government.

It's actually worse in Canada because we don't have food stamps. I mean I haven't eat out of discarded tin cans, but there isn't a lot of sustainable employment. Looking back, I can name over half of my employers, which have shut down since, or downsized to the point of the job no longer being available. It's over half, easy.

That's just the way it is. It musical chairs out there for everyone. It has to be. I can't be the exception.

[CDNPatriot]

My criticism is in response to the queen of whine herself Dearsummer. I would'nt be event talking about conservatives unless Dearsummer who keeps on insisting that they are amazing yet they are the cause of all of his daily grievances on here.


I have a feeling that no matter who the political leaders are in this country at all levels, you'll find some excuse to complain and criticize them.

[CDNPatriot]

Forgot to point this out to the OP. He keeps insisting that there should be ultra low taxes and no government intervention. US has less government and less taxes but they are worst off than us. Wonder how he justifies this?


Meh, its not bad in Canada.

45 million people in the US are on food stamps. Technically far enough below the US poverty line that they either have to, or want to recieve food aid benefit from the government.

[a-tree]

Forgot to point this out to the OP. He keeps insisting that there should be ultra low taxes and no government intervention. US has less government and less taxes but they are worst off than us. Wonder how he justifies this?

Low tax rates have generated higher government revenue. I won't say this happens all the time, but it is an intuitive result. Zero government intervention essentially relegates decision making to those that are in the best position to make decisions, the businesses themselves.

The US isn't worse off due to less government and low taxes. If problems can be viewed in such simpleton terms with only two variables, we wouldn't have problems in the first place now would we?

[Dilton]

I don't get all the hate against people on EI, aren't people on welfare a much better target? I mean people on EI are just on it for a max of 40-52 weeks depending on where they live, while people can be on welfare their whole lives.

[MrKap]

I don't get all the hate against people on EI, aren't people on welfare a much better target? I mean people on EI are just on it for a max of 40-52 weeks depending on where they live, while people can be on welfare their whole lives.

In this article they mention the seasonal employment loophole. Basically someone who can grab work which is seasonal only, like maybe a summer job, or winter job only, could collect EI till next season. They've mentioned they might target that loophole.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120515/ei-changes-question-period-120515/


Matthew Mendelsohn of the University of Toronto's Centre for Policy Innovation said the government appears to be trying to stop repeat EI users, like seasonal workers who work for part of the year.

However, that's just someone's opinion.

[Mark77]

I don't get all the hate against people on EI, aren't people on welfare a much better target? I mean people on EI are just on it for a max of 40-52 weeks depending on where they live, while people can be on welfare their whole lives.

"welfare" is administered by the provinces, EI is the responsibility of the federal government.

And yes, Flaherty has targetted the federal government's form of 'welfare' by laying off thousands of civil servants. With hopefully more layoffs in the pipeline.

[Dilton]

And yes, Flaherty has targetted the federal government's form of 'welfare' by laying off thousands of civil servants.
Hooooooooo! Wait till RFD's federal employee crowd sees this post, you'll get it then.

[spike1128]

My criticism is in response to the queen of whine herself Dearsummer. I would'nt be event talking about conservatives unless Dearsummer who keeps on insisting that they are amazing yet they are the cause of all of his daily grievances on here.

I hate to hate on Harper & co, especially his immigration minister. After doing that work to change immigration policies which I wanted. At least they doing something useful.

Harper/Flaherty push the 40 years mortgage rule / 5% down, making us go down the house bubble that of the U.S. It's their fault. Not regulating foreigners buying up our real estate (don't so it's not true - look at the bungalow that went 400k above asking price at Finch/Yonge). Australia stop to that, so they wouldn't get smoked down the line.

Harper bails out the banks when they don't need to, I mean not bail out, he gave them access to free capital on a tight capital market. Our banks didn't fall apart like the U.S./Europe because it's highly regulated. Harper than claims himself as the hero that saved the economy, even though he was doing what a conservative usually do (de regulation).

Harper better not screw it up. That's what I am going to say.

Dearsummer is the poster boy for whining businessmen. He only answer to questions he can win, then pretends not to see messages that's right and he is wrong about.

[Mark77]

Hooooooooo! Wait till RFD's federal employee crowd sees this post, you'll get it then.

I'd call it 'workfare', but we all know...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[a-tree]

I hate to hate on Harper & co, especially his immigration minister. After doing that work to change immigration policies which I wanted. At least they doing something useful.

Harper/Flaherty push the 40 years mortgage rule / 5% down, making us go down the house bubble that of the U.S. It's their fault. Not regulating foreigners buying up our real estate (don't so it's not true - look at the bungalow that went 400k above asking price at Finch/Yonge). Australia stop to that, so they wouldn't get smoked down the line.

Harper bails out the banks when they don't need to, I mean not bail out, he gave them access to free capital on a tight capital market. Our banks didn't fall apart like the U.S./Europe because it's highly regulated. Harper than claims himself as the hero that saved the economy, even though he was doing what a conservative usually do (de regulation).

Harper better not screw it up. That's what I am going to say.

Dearsummer is the poster boy for whining businessmen. He only answer to questions he can win, then pretends not to see messages that's right and he is wrong about.

What the hell are you smoking? Pushing down the 40 year amortization guarantee takes people OUT of the market. It has a dampening effect on price. How does it take us down the road of a housing bubble? Do you know why that house sold 400k over listed price? It's called underpricing. One isolated case of a sale for $400k over asking doesn't mean the market is willing to pay $400k above market for all listings. Stop whining.

[CDNPatriot]

This is from the OP who is self employed and never will be eligible for EI. He is also bitter that he has to pay for EI contributions for his employees. We have to look at the source.

I hope this is a valuable lesson to the younger RFD members looking for a career. Do your research! Don't be like Dearsummer and end up in a career you hate. Dearsummer didn't do his research obviously and hates the fact that there is so much government red tape in his field.

Hence his daily anti government tirades on here.


I don't get all the hate against people on EI, aren't people on welfare a much better target? I mean people on EI are just on it for a max of 40-52 weeks depending on where they live, while people can be on welfare their whole lives.

[manmanny]

I have a feeling that no matter who the political leaders are in this country at all levels, you'll find some excuse to complain and criticize them.

lol. But the guy hates Conservatives. So it can't be any party.
Now that PM has won majority they are just pissed and can't do anything.

[SoundMan]

My Views on this Subject; you worked everyday for 25 years to gain that job title and salary.

But now you must take a Tim Horton's job to try and feed your family,or make more sitting getting EI because the government says so:lol:

[MrKap]

My Views on this Subject; you worked everyday for 25 years to gain that job title and salary.

But now you must take a Tim Horton's job to try and feed your family,or make more sitting getting EI because the government says so:lol:

See, I take it more along the lines of there being both a skilled labor shortage, and no available high paying suck jobs. I consider Tim Hortons to be well paying however.

Everybody makes it sound like Tim Hortons jobs are available. Guys, Tim Hortons is packed. Those are actually jobs which sustain people.



In any event, it's probably no co-incidence that school just got out as well. That public service workers were laid off and are continuing to be laid off, and a flood of recent immigrants have landed.



I mean do the math people, 3/4 of a million new jobs added to the system and a higher rate of unemployment. The population of Canada is what? 34 Million, and now they are targeting EI.


Unemployment rates and EI are one and the same are they not? I mean technically, can you be considered "unemployed" if you are not collecting IE? No way... that's a participation rate statistic.


That's why I am sort of wondering, of the 750,000 new jobs added to the system, what are they? All seasonal employment or what?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpu5_3qk4KM


The government wants everybody to get three jobs mon.

[Mark77]

Unemployment rates and EI are one and the same are they not? I mean technically, can you be considered "unemployed" if you are not collecting IE? No way... that's a participation rate statistic.

I'm pretty sure they don't count people not previously employed withhin a certain time interval amongst the unemployed. So, by definition, that excludes recent graduates.

This statistical anomaly is seen in the engineering sector and with the engineering jobs. The official unemployment rate of engineers is low, yet even fairly basic entry-level jobs with little advertising can attract 50-100 applications from qualified individuals.

[stuntman]

Here is a link to a Globe and Mail article about how rates are determined and what they mean:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/unemployment-is-actually-worse-than-numbers-show/article2325252/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/unemployment-is-actually-worse-than-numbers-show/article2325252/)

-If a person is not working but has been actively looking for work during the previous 4 weeks they are counted
-people working p/t are not counted
-people waiting a recall to work are not counted.
-those not on EI are counted (and meet the other criteria).

[Mark77]

Here is a link to a Globe and Mail article about how rates are determined and what they mean:

Yup, the employment participation rate is the big factor. The number of single 'families' is at record highs in Canada, meaning that the scenario of the 'stay at home spouse' is increasingly less common. This would imply that, for 'full' employment, the labour participation rate would be even greater.

The scary thing is that we have such a low participation rate at a time when there's tons of low-end service sector jobs in government and in the real estate sector. What happens when those jobs inevitably go away?

[Syne]

This is from the OP who is self employed and never will be eligible for EI. He is also bitter that he has to pay for EI contributions for his employees. We have to look at the source.

Precisely. It's so clear when people are speaking out of self-interest. No vision. No perspective. No seeing the shoe on the other foot. It's just about what's best for their own situation.

[a-tree]

Precisely. It's so clear when people are speaking out of self-interest. No vision. No perspective. No seeing the shoe on the other foot. It's just about what's best for their own situation.

Aren't you speaking out of your own self-interest when you're asking for the 1% to give some of their wealth to you?

[MrKap]

Aren't you speaking out of your own self-interest when you're asking for the 1% to give some of their wealth to you?

I don't think the one percent live in Canada, do they?

[spike1128]

Precisely. It's so clear when people are speaking out of self-interest. No vision. No perspective. No seeing the shoe on the other foot. It's just about what's best for their own situation.

no worry, a-tree is just being an a$$. if he actually read my post without critizing the wrong points, he know my post have looked at both side of the points sometimes. if the one percent are not so damn greedy, people wouldn't want the government to heavily tax them.

a tree is also a tard, because he can't see how stupid his comments are in regards to housing. just one house being 400k over asking will cause the neighbour to demand a higher price. people do research of previously sold prices. once again he doesn't know why those overheated housing are not good for the economy. 40 years amortization is so stupid that's why Harper removed it after a few years, right around the US housing crash.

[a-tree]

no worry, a-tree is just being an a$$. if he actually read my post without critizing the wrong points, he know my post have looked at both side of the points sometimes. if the one percent are not so damn greedy, people wouldn't want the government to heavily tax them.

a tree is also a tard, because he can't see how stupid his comments are in regards to housing. just one house being 400k over asking will cause the neighbour to demand a higher price. people do research of previously sold prices. once again he doesn't know why those overheated housing are not good for the economy. 40 years amortization is so stupid that's why Harper removed it after a few years, right around the US housing crash.

Just because you demand a million dollars for a can of soda, are you going to get a million dollars? That house sold 400k over asking because there were people willing to bid higher and higher for something they both wanted. Are these sorts of bidders guaranteed now throughout the neighbourhood just because it happened once?

Flaherty didn't reduce the amortization guarantee because it was 'stupid'. He removed it because household debts are going through the roof in this country. Know your facts before lifting another finger on to your keyboard.

[stealth]

I'd retrain/ relocate.
1) I couldn't afford to live on what EI pays
2) EI is a temporary solution....what if you still haven't found work in your field before it runs out? I couldn't take that risk. Better to keep your feet moving. I've known too many ppl that f-Ed around for the first few months of EI, wallowed in self pity, etc, and then it ran out leaving them broke/panicking to find any job pronto.
Sometimes you have to realize the past is the past....no reason to limit yourself to just 1 career in your lifetime.

[samberkun]

race to the bottum.... just like the USA and the republicans... we produce all this oil yet we are broke and people living standards are becoming really poor, take a look at nortic european countries we should be living better than them

[masterhapposai]

race to the bottum.... just like the USA and the republicans... we produce all this oil yet we are broke and people living standards are becoming really poor, take a look at nortic european countries we should be living better than them

and tards will keep voting in Conservatives until this country dies

they have no idea what they're doing.

This is a tactic at a high level to ensure we all get screwed into low wage, then they'll approve more Visas and bring in the slave labour for the higher paid roles and pay them less. Very quickly we could end up with average wages equivalent to India or China.

What these dolts don't get, is that North Americans are THE customers of the industries that they want to hire lower wages for. The absolute incompetent stupid ignorant un-qualified genetic material polluting the human race knows no bounds.

Its a worldwide race to the bottom. The only way out is to revolt like in Iceland, and now France/Greece.

[LostInTruth]

This is a tactic at a high level to ensure we all get screwed into low wage, then they'll approve more Visas and bring in the slave labour for the higher paid roles and pay them less. Very quickly we could end up with average wages equivalent to India or China.

What these dolts don't get, is that North Americans are THE customers of the industries that they want to hire lower wages for. The absolute incompetent stupid ignorant un-qualified genetic material polluting the human race knows no bounds.

Its a worldwide race to the bottom.

I have to agree with this. -1 to Canadians who don't see the big picture.

[a-tree]

and tards will keep voting in Conservatives until this country dies

they have no idea what they're doing.

This is a tactic at a high level to ensure we all get screwed into low wage, then they'll approve more Visas and bring in the slave labour for the higher paid roles and pay them less. Very quickly we could end up with average wages equivalent to India or China.

What these dolts don't get, is that North Americans are THE customers of the industries that they want to hire lower wages for. The absolute incompetent stupid ignorant un-qualified genetic material polluting the human race knows no bounds.

Its a worldwide race to the bottom. The only way out is to revolt like in Iceland, and now France/Greece.

Every time I read a thread on the economy, I'm under the impression that the entirety of this country lives below the poverty line. Then I realize, "oh wait, cry babies gon cry".

[a-tree]

I have to agree with this. -1 to Canadians who don't see the big picture.

No. You don't see the big picture.

[Mark77]

and tards will keep voting in Conservatives until this country dies


Who else is there to vote for? That's the problem. The left wing wackjobs in this country have some very problematic ideas about the economy and about immigration as well.

[LostInTruth]

No. You don't see the big picture.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

[Syne]

No. You don't see the big picture.

Oh snap. Rush him to the burn unit!

[LostInTruth]

Who else is there to vote for? That's the problem. The left wing wackjobs in this country have some very problematic ideas about the economy and about immigration as well.

I actually prefer when we were a minority government. These members of Parliament should be working TOGETHER, like every other working person, to come up with solutions/compromises to better the lives of Canadians. That's the real issue here. It's not Conservatives/Liberals/NDP but a huge disconnect these older buffoons have with reality, and having little respect for the livelihood of the people.

[a-tree]

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

Lost in truth? No. You're just lost and clueless.

[a-tree]

I actually prefer when we were a minority government. These members of Parliament should be working TOGETHER, like every other working person, to come up with solutions/compromises to better the lives of Canadians. That's the real issue here. It's not Conservatives/Liberals/NDP but a huge disconnect these older buffoons have with reality, and having little respect for the livelihood of the people.

So did the parties 'work together' when we had a minority government for god knows how many years? Think for once.

[Mark77]

I actually prefer when we were a minority government.

I didn't. The minority government just enlarged the size of government, to the detriment of all.

What Canada needs is a real "conservative" party. Not the poor excuse of one that it really has.

[LostInTruth]

Lost in truth? No. You're just lost and clueless.

Deep man, deep.


So did the parties 'work together' when we had a minority government for god knows how many years? Think for once.

Thanks for identifying the problem. Now, let's see if you can find the solution. My point is why aren't all parties working together, rather than acting like playground children. How can one party think they know what's best for millions of people. Work together, and better this country for the people that inhabit it, including people like yourself.

[a-tree]

Deep man, deep.



Thanks for identifying the problem. Now, let's see if you can find the solution. My point is why aren't all parties working together, rather than acting like playground children. How can one party think they know what's best for millions of people. Work together, and better this country for the people that inhabit it, including people like yourself.

Who the hell said one party knows what's best for millions of people? That's not what democracy is about. The fact is, the population voted the conservatives, out of choice, because it believed the party best represents their interests.

Minority governments aren't designed to work together. If you were an MP in a minority government, would you, 'work together', or would you work to further your cause to increase your power? Again, use your head. Just once. Just once.

[LostInTruth]

I didn't. The minority government just enlarged the size of government, to the detriment of all.

What Canada needs is a real "conservative" party. Not the poor excuse of one that it really has.

What's a real conservative party? Something closer to what the U.S. has for Republicans? Why people keep identifying themselves by a party is exactly the issue; rather than thinking logically for themselves. Saying if it's Conservatives then it must be right, or if it's Liberal then it must be right, means you cannot think for yourself. What if there were no parties? Would people be able to formulate their own opinions? Who would they hide behind? These parties are going to ruin the nations they are trying to "protect" with their outdated thinking/policies and childish behaviour. Work together and resolve these issues, and stop complicating the damn matters with political agendas.

Maybe the next inhabitant of humans will get it right. :)

[Mykester]

damn entitled young people

[LostInTruth]

Who the hell said one party knows what's best for millions of people? That's not what democracy is about. The fact is, the population voted the conservatives, out of choice, because it believed the party best represents their interests.

Minority governments aren't designed to work together. If you were an MP in a minority government, would you, 'work together', or would you work to further your cause to increase your power? Again, use your head. Just once. Just once.

Your name is very fitting because I feel like I'm talking to a tree.

Conservatives seem to know what's best for everyone, with the way they keep proposing these bills/hiding things from Canadians. I only say Conservatives because they're the ones in power now, and most people blindly accept what they say as truth/fact/reality. Not saying all their point are wrong/invalid though.

Increase my power? What am I a superhero? I would work together to better the people that I serve, that's the purpose of an MP, or it should be. All this power trip is what is hurting our economy, it is a proven fact that when people work together things get done more efficiently.

[CDNPatriot]

Every time I read a thread on the economy, I'm under the impression that the entirety of this country lives below the poverty line. Then I realize, "oh wait, cry babies gon cry".

Wait till you move out of mommy's basement and then let's see.

[CDNPatriot]

I actually prefer when we were a minority government. These members of Parliament should be working TOGETHER, like every other working person, to come up with solutions/compromises to better the lives of Canadians. That's the real issue here. It's not Conservatives/Liberals/NDP but a huge disconnect these older buffoons have with reality, and having little respect for the livelihood of the people.

+2

[CDNPatriot]

At least more engineers were hired Mark.


I didn't. The minority government just enlarged the size of government, to the detriment of all.

What Canada needs is a real "conservative" party. Not the poor excuse of one that it really has.

[neutral]

and tards will keep voting in Conservatives until this country dies

they have no idea what they're doing.

This is a tactic at a high level to ensure we all get screwed into low wage, then they'll approve more Visas and bring in the slave labour for the higher paid roles and pay them less. Very quickly we could end up with average wages equivalent to India or China.

What these dolts don't get, is that North Americans are THE customers of the industries that they want to hire lower wages for. The absolute incompetent stupid ignorant un-qualified genetic material polluting the human race knows no bounds.

Its a worldwide race to the bottom. The only way out is to revolt like in Iceland, and now France/Greece.

The customers for now. These transient locusts will just find somewhere else to ravage. In the end, I can't be too angry at them. We as a collective, will have deserved our fate.

[vero95]

I actually prefer when we were a minority government. These members of Parliament should be working TOGETHER, like every other working person, to come up with solutions/compromises to better the lives of Canadians. That's the real issue here. It's not Conservatives/Liberals/NDP but a huge disconnect these older buffoons have with reality, and having little respect for the livelihood of the people.

how about just one party?
how about just one communist party?

[vero95]

and tards will keep voting in Conservatives until this country dies

they have no idea what they're doing.

This is a tactic at a high level to ensure we all get screwed into low wage, then they'll approve more Visas and bring in the slave labour for the higher paid roles and pay them less. Very quickly we could end up with average wages equivalent to India or China.

What these dolts don't get, is that North Americans are THE customers of the industries that they want to hire lower wages for. The absolute incompetent stupid ignorant un-qualified genetic material polluting the human race knows no bounds.

Its a worldwide race to the bottom. The only way out is to revolt like in Iceland, and now France/Greece.

and whatever you complain about started in October 2008 when conservatives won the minority government :facepalm:

[flashy_mcflash]

how about just one party?
how about just one communist party?

We all know the boner you have for a single-party system, since you've stated that democracy doesn't work on many occasions. Perhaps you'd be better off in nice, sunny, Pyongyang.

[vero95]

We all know the boner you have for a single-party system, since you've stated that democracy doesn't work on many occasions. Perhaps you'd be better off in nice, sunny, Pyongyang.

do not put words in my mouth, flashy
show me where I said that democracy does not work or shut up

[vero95]

Your name is very fitting because I feel like I'm talking to a tree.

Conservatives seem to know what's best for everyone, with the way they keep proposing these bills/hiding things from Canadians. I only say Conservatives because they're the ones in power now, and most people blindly accept what they say as truth/fact/reality. Not saying all their point are wrong/invalid though.

Increase my power? What am I a superhero? I would work together to better the people that I serve, that's the purpose of an MP, or it should be. All this power trip is what is hurting our economy, it is a proven fact that when people work together things get done more efficiently.

the system where people worked together and everyone was equal failed

[vero95]

so what's the discussion about? do you want to have your premiums increased to finance those who do not want to get any job?
the premiums are set up to avoid surpluses of $57billion which the previous governement (read liberals) used to show the balanced budget. those premiums will have to go up if more people start getting EI
there are two options: ask them to get a job or pay for them. which one do you prefer?

[flashy_mcflash]

do not put words in my mouth, flashy
show me where I said that democracy does not work or shut up

You mean here (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/frances-flashy-fiery-nicolas-sarkozy-ousted-unassuming-socialist-1173503/#post14701464)?

[gilboman]

so what's the discussion about? do you want to have your premiums increased to finance those who do not want to get any job?
the premiums are set up to avoid surpluses of $57billion which the previous governement (read liberals) used to show the balanced budget. those premiums will have to go up if more people start getting EI
there are two options: ask them to get a job or pay for them. which one do you prefer?

EI has been running huge surpluses year after year, why would premiums need to be increased?

the cons have been using the EI surplus as well..what do you think they've been doing with it:facepalm: Oh sorry...gotcha..you mean the cons have been using it to run huge deficits because they've been too busy buying billion dollar gazebos, staying at 5 star hotels and using military equipment as a taxi service.

[spike1128]

Just because you demand a million dollars for a can of soda, are you going to get a million dollars? That house sold 400k over asking because there were people willing to bid higher and higher for something they both wanted. Are these sorts of bidders guaranteed now throughout the neighbourhood just because it happened once?

Flaherty didn't reduce the amortization guarantee because it was 'stupid'. He removed it because household debts are going through the roof in this country. Know your facts before lifting another finger on to your keyboard.

I say marginally, the price will be influence upwards more than it's suppose to (one super offer will not bring everything up by 30%). Start talking when you move out of mommy's house.

Flaherty should have known this was going to happen. He did it anyways (what is he finance minister? does he even qualify?). You are a dumb as a-tree. :)

Majority of us think your comments don't make sense. You are fighting us on all fronts now. Time to go back to school and get an education.

[spike1128]

I actually prefer when we were a minority government. These members of Parliament should be working TOGETHER, like every other working person, to come up with solutions/compromises to better the lives of Canadians. That's the real issue here. It's not Conservatives/Liberals/NDP but a huge disconnect these older buffoons have with reality, and having little respect for the livelihood of the people.

That's our problem. The baby boomers..

Liberals die because of the old mindset. The liberals under Chretein had it too good. They became very delusional. Then the power struggle with Martin. Then they were in denial. Then the PC finished them off on the last election. The moderate/lefties ended up voting the NDP in..

[WildWolf]

What a thread, a thread about nothing, with a few logical comments. No body has a crystal ball, some of you think you have your financial future laid out, just perfectly. You will never need E.I and you will never need Welfare, so why not dismantle it, you are an engineer, I am an engineer, everyone is an engineer. Living on E.I or Welfare is not glorious, as many think. When you see someone who you assume, has a nice phone and you assume they are on welfare, that is none of you business, it really isn't. Occasionally I hear people on the radio, or what have you, mention they can't afford to live, they release some parts of information that should make anyone question, why can't they if they are making close to double digit salaries, and brag they are an "engineer" to boot. I bet these are the same people who are bashing those on E.I and Welfare when they see them with gadgets, yet can't get their own financial affairs in order and are complaining that McGuinity is ruining there life. The fact is, even if the government handed these same people an extra two hundred a month, it wouldn't help them. The point being like those who are not good with money on E.I and Welfare, there are the same number of people who are working making a good income who fall into the same category, and most of them are under forty. The young are saving for nothing, the younger feel why should they save, they don't know what is going to happen in there life.

There was one comment about GenerationY, that rang quite true. GenerationY doesn't want Jobs they want careers. The reason why GenerationY has become a focus lately in the media, is not because they are the most amazing generation. It is because they are the least amazing and are following blindly what they're parents tell them to do, you can argue against it but it's the truth. Most of the career threads fall heavily on working for the government. That is exactly what GenY parents did, if that is not following the coat tails of there parents, then please, tell me what it is, are they going a unique route never before done, have they embarked on a career route that is new and exciting !

The changes to E.I will not help no one. They will only help Corporations, period. Making people having to relocate to find "Jobs" will cause chaos. That is exactly what the Right Wing are extremely good at creating "chaos". As someone mentioned in this thread, who will pay for the rent, and moving expenses for these people ? The Government, I highly doubt it. Instead of trying to create Jobs the Conservatives have figured out another escape route. Tell the people to relocate where there is work in Canada, the truth is governments do not create Jobs. I don't think the Conservatives should collect E.I when they are removed from office, yet again they probably are packing away a good portion of your money so when they leave the mess for all of us, they can go on living comfortably. There is a paradigm going on globally, both the left and the right are going down the same route the left is going down the route at 60 Mph while the Right is going down the same route at 120 Mph, alot quicker and alot more scarier because they are going down the route faster.

The Conservatives of Canada are following the route of the US, do you know that the US has sold out so much of their country to the Chinese that the Chinese are buying up acres of land and rebuilding "old china" in major cities within the US and the US politicians are allowing it. More immigration is not the answer, it is making the scar larger, and larger. Employers are increasingly altering their hiring strategy to make it harder for external workers to get hired. Forty-Four percent is the number used by Employers to hire people from other employee referrals, and that is the problem, employee referrals, then you can factor in race, age etc and the list goes on and on.

[vero95]

You mean here (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/frances-flashy-fiery-nicolas-sarkozy-ousted-unassuming-socialist-1173503/#post14701464)?

again, where did I say the democracy does not work? capitalism will also not work if not regulated
there are many democracies in the past that failed. you do not know about that because you were not taught history at school so I guess it's not your fault but google "ancient greek democracy failure" and you will learn about waht I was talking about
btw, neutral just does me a favour by quoting me constantly. from one side he reminds people that democracy is a fragile system and from the other he lets everyone know how dumb he is by thinking he is ridiculing me

[vero95]

EI has been running huge surpluses year after year, why would premiums need to be increased?

the cons have been using the EI surplus as well..what do you think they've been doing with it:facepalm: Oh sorry...gotcha..you mean the cons have been using it to run huge deficits because they've been too busy buying billion dollar gazebos, staying at 5 star hotels and using military equipment as a taxi service.

those surpluses were wiped out with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling
http://www.canada.com/need+refund+surplus+court/1061964/story.html
we are having $2billion reserve now and the rates will be appliead not to create such surpluses in the future
not sure what you want from cons if it was liberals who created the surplus and used that to balance their books

[NorthYorker]

Low tax rates have generated higher government revenue. I won't say this happens all the time, but it is an intuitive result. What do experts (as opposed to a-tree) say about it? Let's see: Where does the Laffer curve bend? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html)
a top federal income tax rate of 69% (when taking into account the extra tax rates created by Medicare payroll taxes, state income tax rates, and sales taxes) much higher than the current 35% or 39.6% currently discussed

[LostInTruth]

the system where people worked together and everyone was equal failed

I never said anything about everyone being equal, but the elected officials need to learn to work together better. I'll admit as "bad" as Canada may seem, I'll still take it over most places in the world, such as the U.S. At least there is somewhat level-headed thinking here.

[LostInTruth]

That's our problem. The baby boomers..

Liberals die because of the old mindset. The liberals under Chretein had it too good. They became very delusional. Then the power struggle with Martin. Then they were in denial. Then the PC finished them off on the last election. The moderate/lefties ended up voting the NDP in..

I agree. When you see all this debating there is such an old way school of thinking - I.E. anything to do with homosexuality. Nobody is forward thinking, and so much prejudice has been ingrained into their minds that they're unwilling to change; which is sad because the majority (including themselves) of us suffer.

[vero95]

I never said anything about everyone being equal, but the elected officials need to learn to work together better. I'll admit as "bad" as Canada may seem, I'll still take it over most places in the world, such as the U.S. At least there is somewhat level-headed thinking here.

OK fair enough
it's still an utopian thinking that everyone should work together. it reminds me of my neighbour who is in the construction business but not very successful and on top of that he likes to drink. at each party he wants other people to get into a business with him but no one is really interested
I agree that Canada is still a great country but remember that Ontario is a "has not" province thanks to liberals. if the whole Canada were "has not", it would not be as great

[Le Loon]

Market and self-regulation are only good as long as they drive wages down, any upward wage move immediately causes implementation of indentured labour.

I like the way you think.

What exactly is wrong with driving down wages or indentured servitude?

The working classes have all the gadgets and gizmos and TV channels they need for a meaningful (at least to them) life.
All these things are much more affordable than ever before.

[a-tree]

Your name is very fitting because I feel like I'm talking to a tree.

Conservatives seem to know what's best for everyone, with the way they keep proposing these bills/hiding things from Canadians. I only say Conservatives because they're the ones in power now, and most people blindly accept what they say as truth/fact/reality. Not saying all their point are wrong/invalid though.

Increase my power? What am I a superhero? I would work together to better the people that I serve, that's the purpose of an MP, or it should be. All this power trip is what is hurting our economy, it is a proven fact that when people work together things get done more efficiently.

You're missing the point. Minority governments don't work. Trust me. You won't be working together to better blah blah blah.


Wait till you move out of mommy's basement and then let's see.

Unions don't prevent plane crashes. Come back to me when you can be worthy of my time.

[stealth]

race to the bottum.... just like the USA and the republicans... we produce all this oil yet we are broke and people living standards are becoming really poor, take a look at nortic european countries we should be living better than them

You cant "race to the top" by simply spending more/paying more/giving more.
That all comes AFTER you have a solid foundation of a positive flow economy.

In a micro example, if you go shopping before you get paid and spend more than you can count on earning, in no time you end up in debt at a place like CashMoney, with a never ending cycle of expensive debt interest that you will never dig yourself out of, short of a miracle (See: GM, Chrysler, Greece).

[a-tree]

I say marginally, the price will be influence upwards more than it's suppose to (one super offer will not bring everything up by 30%). Start talking when you move out of mommy's house.

Flaherty should have known this was going to happen. He did it anyways (what is he finance minister? does he even qualify?). You are a dumb as a-tree. :)

Majority of us think your comments don't make sense. You are fighting us on all fronts now. Time to go back to school and get an education.

Is a marginal increase in the price of houses the same thing as a bubble? Do you know what a bubble is? Do you know who you are? What you are?


What do experts (as opposed to a-tree) say about it? Let's see: Where does the Laffer curve bend? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html)

You forgot to mention the fact that the responses varied from as low as 15%. Why did you leave out that information contained in the same article? Now, I do specifically mention that low rates don't mean higher revenue all the time. Exactly what the hell are you trying to prove? Stop humiliating yourself with these worthless responses. I know I hurt your feelings real bad in the past by spitting on and destroying your infantile arguments, but this isn't the way to redeem yourself.

[manmanny]

You cant "race to the top" by simply spending more/paying more/giving more.
That all comes AFTER you have a solid foundation of a positive flow economy.

In a micro example, if you go shopping before you get paid and spend more than you can count on earning, in no time you end up in debt at a place like CashMoney, with a never ending cycle of expensive debt interest that you will never dig yourself out of, short of a miracle (See: GM, Chrysler, Greece).

Correct and correct.


You're missing the point. Minority governments don't work. Trust me. You won't be working together to better blah blah blah.



Unions don't prevent plane crashes. Come back to me when you can be worthy of my time.


Wait till you move out of mommy's basement and then let's see.

These 2-3 nuts are just engaging in personal attacks. He should have said Wait till I move out of mommy's basement and then let's see.


race to the bottum.... just like the USA and the republicans... we produce all this oil yet we are broke and people living standards are becoming really poor, take a look at nortic european countries we should be living better than them

"just like the USA and the republicans." and the argument goes down the drain.

[NorthYorker]

You forgot to mention the fact that the responses varied from as low as 15%. Sorry, I did not consider "a talk-show host" to be a designation for an expert. As you've seen, author specifically grouped answers into groups like "experts", "left-wingers" and "right-wingers", and I've pretty much ignored two latter groups.
I do specifically mention that low rates don't mean higher revenue all the time.Actually, if you buy the argument that Laffer curve bend past 50%, all current talks that lowering taxes from 30% to 20%[ generates more revenue become just ignorant rants.
I know I hurt your feelings real bad in the past by spitting on and destroying your infantile arguments.Dude, the only thing you've destroyed in the past is your reputation as someone who knows anything at all about matters you are trying to discuss. However, I do admire your ability to say "I destroyed you by saying that 8 > 20" with a straight face.

[a-tree]

Sorry, I did not consider "a talk-show host" to be a designation for an expert. As you've seen, author specifically grouped answers into groups like "experts", "left-wingers" and "right-wingers", and I've pretty much ignored two latter groups.Actually, if you buy the argument that Laffer curve bend past 50%, all current talks that lowering taxes from 30% to 20%[ generates more revenue become just ignorant rants.Dude, the only thing you've destroyed in the past is your reputation as someone who knows anything at all about matters you are trying to discuss. However, I do admire your ability to say "I destroyed you by saying that 8 > 20" with a straight face.

It's funny how the author of this article presents as two 'expert' opinions that are same. Do you think all experts are united in this issue? Do you not see the bias in this article? Even amongst 'experts' there are disagreements on pretty much any issue. What do you think that says about the credibility and bias of this article? If one expert says one thing, does that make it unconditionally right? Remember how Sowell destroyed your Nobel laureate friend Krugman? What about the time you said 11=18? What about your nonsense about viruses being a prey to mankind? Vikings? Herds? You're nothing more than a worthless wretch.

[becoh]

Just something that has been bothering me about this.

When did Flaherty drive a cab? He went to a rich Private High school, then to Princeton and then onto Law School.

Since when do Princeton/Law Grads have to drive cabs?

[NorthYorker]

It's funny how the author of this article presents as two 'expert' opinions that are same. Yes, this is not an academic study but a liberal opinion piece. However, "two academic" is still two more than fat round ZERO scientific support you've provided for your "intuitive" claims.
Do you think all experts are united in this issue?Nope, but it is still interesting that even right-wingers with more serious background (like in "professional economists") reluctantly admitted that Laffer curve likely bend past 50%
If one expert says one thing, does that make it unconditionally right?Nope, for sure, it is weird you've asked it. Or just indicative of your intelligence.
Remember how Sowell destroyed your Nobel laureate friend Krugman?I would be honoured to have a friend like Krugman, but it is not the case. Speaking about "destruction", he just destroyed his reputation of "academic" by a false claim that 8% reduction in household size is significant enough to negate doubling of GDP per capita. Of course, I do not expect you to understand that 8% is not equal 100%, if Sowell says it is. So in eyes of those as bright as you are, Sowell did destroy Krugman.
What about the time you said 11=18?You mean "time of a-tree's dream"? I've never told it, your ignorance in matters you dare to discuss drove your ind into conclusion I did.

You're nothing more than a worthless wretch.Would it be so, you would not need to repeat it ad nauseam, it would be obvious without you peddling this idea on the same breath as another bright product of your cranium, "Sowell destroyed Krugman" :)

[NorthYorker]

When did Flaherty drive a cab?He claimed, if I remember correctly, that his parents only paid tuition, lodging, books, bills. He had to earn money for partying by cab driving.

[a-tree]

Yes, this is not an academic study but a liberal opinion piece. However, "two academic" is still two more than fat round ZERO scientific support you've provided for your "intuitive" claims. Nope, but it is still interesting that even right-wingers with more serious background (like in "professional economists") reluctantly admitted that Laffer curve likely bend past 50% Nope, for sure, it is weird you've asked it. Or just indicative of your intelligence.I would be honoured to have a friend like Krugman, but it is not the case. Speaking about "destruction", he just destroyed his reputation of "academic" by a false claim that 8% reduction in household size is significant enough to negate doubling of GDP per capita. Of course, I do not expect you to understand that 8% is not equal 100%, if Sowell says it is. So in eyes of those as bright as you are, Sowell did destroy Krugman. You mean "time of a-tree's dream"? I've never told it, your ignorance in matters you dare to discuss drove your ind into conclusion I did.
Would it be so, you would not need to repeat it ad nauseam, it would be obvious without you peddling this idea on the same breath as another bright product of your cranium, "Sowell destroyed Krugman" :)

You're too focused on proving me wrong and not focused enough on the truth; I specifically qualified my statement by saying that it doesn't happen all the time. Yet your only focus is in finding 'proof' that I'm wrong. Focus on what's important, not on satisfying your wretch of an ego. The truth is that tax revenue can't be maximized by increase in rates. And there have been cases where decrease in rates actually increased tax revenue (esp. regarding capital gains). I don't need to provide you with 'scientific support', because frankly, I'm not interested in proving anything to you. I know I'm right. If you're really interested in data though, you can google that stuff yourself.

The thing is, you replied to my post because you thought you finally, finally could win an argument. But the very fact that your little proof is deeply biased basically means your arguments mean jack squat. If you're going to provide the opinions of the experts, the author should have shown those that differed against each other. Don't ever provide me with nonsense like this again and act as if you know what the hell you're talking about. Oh by the way, what happened to those other posts on which I asked you to provide source/proof? Do that first.

[Le Loon]

Just something that has been bothering me about this.

When did Flaherty drive a cab? He went to a rich Private High school, then to Princeton and then onto Law School.

Since when do Princeton/Law Grads have to drive cabs?

Maybe he drove an upper class car like a limo?

[NorthYorker]

I know I'm right....
Don't ever provide me with nonsense like this again...
Oh by the way, what happened to those other posts on which I asked you to provide source/proof? Do that first.I'm sure you don't get the incredible stupidity of those statements in a single comment from a single person :)

[a-tree]

I'm sure you don't get the incredible stupidity of those statements in a single comment from a single person :)

Now your ego's all shrivelled up. Know yourself before starting up another argument again. Know that you're always wrong.

[NorthYorker]

Know that you're always wrong.Your sourgraping is mildly amusing, although totally expected. Keep repeating 1000000 more times that grapes are sour, you would look very convincing. While doing it, you can also hit yourself in chest with your heel :)

[spike1128]

Is a marginal increase in the price of houses the same thing as a bubble? Do you know what a bubble is? Do you know who you are? What you are?


Did I say that one person paying 400k over asking cause a bubble? No. I said that if there is a decent percentage of buyers that's overpaying, it will cause the price to go up faster. Let's say it's not one person in one neighbourhood, but 10 people in a neighbourhood that's overpaying like over 20k per house. They pay 20k more because they are going to flip it. They didn't pay 20k more to keep the house, so they can lose money on it. Then other wave would buy it at inflated prices, and so on and so forth. That's what's causing a bubble.

I am so glad there are stupid people like you out there. So the rest of us can profit the heck out of the system before it collapse. You know what, I wouldn't care what happens to you. As long as I am ok. :D

[a-tree]

Did I say that one person paying 400k over asking cause a bubble? No. I said that if there is a decent percentage of buyers that's overpaying, it will cause the price to go up faster. Let's say it's not one person in one neighbourhood, but 10 people in a neighbourhood that's overpaying like over 20k per house. They pay 20k more because they are going to flip it. They didn't pay 20k more to keep the house, so they can lose money on it. Then other wave would buy it at inflated prices, and so on and so forth. That's what's causing a bubble.

I am so glad there are stupid people like you out there. So the rest of us can profit the heck out of the system before it collapse. You know what, I wouldn't care what happens to you. As long as I am ok. :D

Yes. Your whole proof about a bubble building up in Canada was that one instance of a house that sold 400k over asking because 'everyone in the neighborhood will now ask for more'. And my response to your idiotic theory was, 'does supply at a particular price ensure that demand will be at that price as well?'. It was a one off event.

It's funny. There's an article today in the Globe about the 'swoon' in the real estate market in Vancouver. So much for your theory about a bubble building up huh?

[a-tree]

Your sourgraping is mildly amusing, although totally expected. Keep repeating 1000000 more times that grapes are sour, you would look very convincing. While doing it, you can also hit yourself in chest with your heel :)

Still waiting for proof from your other garbage posts.

[NorthYorker]

Still waiting for proof from your other garbage posts.Are you hooked on my garbage, man? I mean, you're running all over RFD, telling me how much you ignore my posts :D

[angryconsumer]

do you want to have your premiums increased to finance those who do not want to get any job?...those premiums will have to go up if more people start getting EI
there are two options: ask them to get a job or pay for them. which one do you prefer?

There are more than two options.

For example, they could allow people to opt-out of ever making any EI payments, on the condition that those who opt-out will never be eligible to receive EI.

Or, they could scrap the EI system altogether (no further payments made into it or out of it), which they might as well do, if as Flaherty's comments imply, they are going to deny EI to anyone who does not take a minimum wage job.

Flaherty's comments are cracked, and so is the capitalist system that has duped many people into believing that they should be ecstatic for the "opportunity" to become a slave in exchange for minimum wage. :facepalm:

[a-tree]

Are you hooked on my garbage, man? I mean, you're running all over RFD, telling me how much you ignore my posts :D

So you are admitting that your posts are garbage. Cool.

[NorthYorker]

So you are admitting that your posts are garbage. Nope, I just pointed how desperate you are to get more of something you call garbage. You see, this is where your anger beats last pieces of common sense out of your cranium: if you think I post garbage, why are you so relentlessly asking me to provide more of it?

[a-tree]

Nope, I just pointed how desperate you are to get more of something you call garbage. You see, this is where your anger beats last pieces of common sense out of your cranium: if you think I post garbage, why are you so relentlessly asking me to provide more of it?

Because you're the one that keeps responding to me. I already know your posts are worthless garbage. I wanted to see your proof so that I can show you how garbage your posts are. But you seem to be aware of it already. So it's ok.

[danfromwaterloo]

Because you're the one that keeps responding to me. I already know your posts are worthless garbage. I wanted to see your proof so that I can show you how garbage your posts are. But you seem to be aware of it already. So it's ok.

You're funny.

You battle so hard to be right, but in the end, almost regardless of your position, you end up alone on your views.

If you were as right as you think you are, more people would agree with you.

[a-tree]

You're funny.

You battle so hard to be right, but in the end, almost regardless of your position, you end up alone on your views.

If you were as right as you think you are, more people would agree with you.

Everyone in the ancient world believed the world was flat. Was it true? I can't believe that someone with a major in game theory would come up with such infantile logic. Rightness isn't defined by the number of people that agree with you.

I've always wanted to ask you. Is there really a major called 'Game Theory' offered by the department of philosophy at Waterloo? Game theory as I understand it is more mathematics than philosophy. Don't BS me.

[danfromwaterloo]

Everyone in the ancient world believed the world was flat. Was it true? I can't believe that someone with a major in game theory would come up with such infantile logic. Rightness isn't defined by the number of people that agree with you.

I've always wanted to ask you. Is there really a major called 'Game Theory' offered by the department of philosophy at Waterloo? Game theory as I understand it is more mathematics than philosophy. Don't BS me.

Correct answers are popular. Popular answers are not always correct.

The degree is BA (Philosophy) with an area of focus in Decision Theory and a minor in Economics. You can choose to believe that or not. And, it's also considered polite to state your own credentials before trying to sling mud on someone else's. Especially since every post I've ever made in the last 9 years of membership and 9000+ posts has been precisely consistent with this fact.

[a-tree]

Correct answers are popular. Popular answers are not always correct.

The degree is BA (Philosophy) with an area of focus in Decision Theory and a minor in Economics. You can choose to believe that or not. And, it's also considered polite to state your own credentials before trying to sling mud on someone else's. Especially since every post I've ever made in the last 8 years of membership and 9000+ posts has been precisely consistent with this fact.

Correct answers are popular? Was Galileo popular? Was the first person that postulated that the earth was round popular? I would like to believe that you studied decision theory but when you say something so patently untrue it's difficult for me to take you seriously.

The thing is, you didn't major in game theory. Sure, taking a few math courses and probability courses may allow you to say that you specialized in Decision Theory, but that's vastly different from saying you majored in game theory. And that's my beef. You exaggerated your credentials. And for what? I'm not slinging mud at you. I raised a reasonable doubt and I was right. There's no such thing as a major in game theory. The mud slinging was done by yourself, to yourself. As for my own education I will never talk about that online. I've got nothing to proof to you. My rightness is determined by facts and logic, not what I studied in school. And that was plainly exemplified by yourself.

[WontonTiger]

Everyone in the ancient world believed the world was flat. Was it true? I can't believe that someone with a major in game theory would come up with such infantile logic. Rightness isn't defined by the number of people that agree with you.

I've always wanted to ask you. Is there really a major called 'Game Theory' offered by the department of philosophy at Waterloo? Game theory as I understand it is more mathematics than philosophy. Don't BS me.

Flaherty has been drinking too much of his own urine. Try not to drink too much of your own...

Game Theory would be into mathematician and political scientist territory.

[a-tree]

Flaherty has been drinking too much of his own urine. Try not to drink too much of your own...

Game Theory would be into mathematician and political scientist territory.

What?

[danfromwaterloo]

Correct answers are popular? Was Galileo popular? Was the first person that postulated that the earth was round popular? I would like to believe that you studied decision theory but when you say something so patently untrue it's difficult for me to take you seriously.

You wouldn't take anything I say seriously because I disagree with much of what you say. You're a contrarian, so I'm not surprised.



The thing is, you didn't major in game theory. Sure, taking a few math courses and probability courses may allow you to say that you specialized in Decision Theory, but that's vastly different from saying you majored in game theory. And that's my beef. You exaggerated your credentials. And for what? I'm not slinging mud at you. I raised a reasonable doubt and I was right. There's no such thing as a major in game theory. The mud slinging was done by yourself, to yourself. As for my own education I will never talk about that online. I've got nothing to proof to you. My rightness is determined by facts and logic, not what I studied in school. And that was plainly exemplified by yourself.

You have no idea of what I've accomplished in my life, so how in the world can you possibly sit back and sling mud. In my program, a major was your area of focus. You want to sit back and debate that, fine, be my guest. I exaggerated my credentials? For you? You wholly overestimate your worth. My transcripts and my resume all say the exact same thing. I've passed three separate background checks to the same effect. You want more proof? Tough. You're not worth it. Even if I scanned in my transcripts, you'd say I forged them, or something.

Oh, so big of you! You refuse to talk about your own education but doubt mine. Fine. Be my guest. But, really, what can a person who refuses to provide context really provide about education. You've probably just got your HS (or maybe not even that) and you want to feel big and mysterious. Hey, if you never state your credentials, how can anybody laugh at your lack thereof.

[danfromwaterloo]

Game Theory would be into mathematician and political scientist territory.

Game theory is at the intersection of mathematics, philosophy and economics with a side dish of politics. It depends largely on what elements of game theory you want to study. My area that always interested me was the effect of reputation on repeated games, and the varying strategies based on reputation. ***** -for-tat versus cheat versus minmax or maxmin. Computer simulations always showed that ***** -for-tat did the best over the course of time. That to me was interesting.

[CDNPatriot]

I actually remember watching that on TV. Funny skit.


See, I take it more along the lines of there being both a skilled labor shortage, and no available high paying suck jobs. I consider Tim Hortons to be well paying however.

Everybody makes it sound like Tim Hortons jobs are available. Guys, Tim Hortons is packed. Those are actually jobs which sustain people.



In any event, it's probably no co-incidence that school just got out as well. That public service workers were laid off and are continuing to be laid off, and a flood of recent immigrants have landed.



I mean do the math people, 3/4 of a million new jobs added to the system and a higher rate of unemployment. The population of Canada is what? 34 Million, and now they are targeting EI.


Unemployment rates and EI are one and the same are they not? I mean technically, can you be considered "unemployed" if you are not collecting IE? No way... that's a participation rate statistic.


That's why I am sort of wondering, of the 750,000 new jobs added to the system, what are they? All seasonal employment or what?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpu5_3qk4KM


The government wants everybody to get three jobs mon.

[NorthYorker]

You're a contrarian, so I'm not surprised.IMHO there's nothing wrong with being a contrarian, if one is able to defend one's views with arguments, not insults.

[CDNPatriot]

Amen WildWolf. It will be also interesting to see when all the baby boomers reach retirement whether they will still vote conservative. Me thinks many will vote NDP.

Right wingers always dismantle. NDP bring in medicare and right wingers have been trying to dismantle it since day one!

Canada is not the leader of anything. Look at how we could be leaders and find out that right wingers dismantled it. AVRO anyone?


What a thread, a thread about nothing, with a few logical comments. No body has a crystal ball, some of you think you have your financial future laid out, just perfectly. You will never need E.I and you will never need Welfare, so why not dismantle it, you are an engineer, I am an engineer, everyone is an engineer. Living on E.I or Welfare is not glorious, as many think. When you see someone who you assume, has a nice phone and you assume they are on welfare, that is none of you business, it really isn't. Occasionally I hear people on the radio, or what have you, mention they can't afford to live, they release some parts of information that should make anyone question, why can't they if they are making close to double digit salaries, and brag they are an "engineer" to boot. I bet these are the same people who are bashing those on E.I and Welfare when they see them with gadgets, yet can't get their own financial affairs in order and are complaining that McGuinity is ruining there life. The fact is, even if the government handed these same people an extra two hundred a month, it wouldn't help them. The point being like those who are not good with money on E.I and Welfare, there are the same number of people who are working making a good income who fall into the same category, and most of them are under forty. The young are saving for nothing, the younger feel why should they save, they don't know what is going to happen in there life.

[CDNPatriot]

Really random atree. Do you get comments like that in real life too? If so you should check your problem.






Unions don't prevent plane crashes. Come back to me when you can be worthy of my time.

[CDNPatriot]

Atree you are the last person to be criticizing someone for "proof". You are the king of "No Proof".


Yes. Your whole proof about a bubble building up in Canada was that one instance of a house that sold 400k over asking because 'everyone in the neighborhood will now ask for more'. And my response to your idiotic theory was, 'does supply at a particular price ensure that demand will be at that price as well?'. It was a one off event.

It's funny. There's an article today in the Globe about the 'swoon' in the real estate market in Vancouver. So much for your theory about a bubble building up huh?

[CDNPatriot]

Atree was asking about Roofing as a career and whether employers pay for safety harnesses. He has since amended that post so it doesn't turn up on any advance searches.

Mom and Dad must be proud of a tree. I'm sure atree also presents well with the in laws.


Correct answers are popular. Popular answers are not always correct.

The degree is BA (Philosophy) with an area of focus in Decision Theory and a minor in Economics. You can choose to believe that or not. And, it's also considered polite to state your own credentials before trying to sling mud on someone else's. Especially since every post I've ever made in the last 9 years of membership and 9000+ posts has been precisely consistent with this fact.

[CDNPatriot]

Correct answers are popular? Was Galileo popular? Was the first person that postulated that the earth was round popular? I would like to believe that you studied decision theory but when you say something so patently untrue it's difficult for me to take you seriously.


Atree I see you watched the Bugs Bunny episode on world history.

[a-tree]

You wouldn't take anything I say seriously because I disagree with much of what you say. You're a contrarian, so I'm not surprised.



You have no idea of what I've accomplished in my life, so how in the world can you possibly sit back and sling mud. In my program, a major was your area of focus. You want to sit back and debate that, fine, be my guest. I exaggerated my credentials? For you? You wholly overestimate your worth. My transcripts and my resume all say the exact same thing. I've passed three separate background checks to the same effect. You want more proof? Tough. You're not worth it. Even if I scanned in my transcripts, you'd say I forged them, or something.

Oh, so big of you! You refuse to talk about your own education but doubt mine. Fine. Be my guest. But, really, what can a person who refuses to provide context really provide about education. You've probably just got your HS (or maybe not even that) and you want to feel big and mysterious. Hey, if you never state your credentials, how can anybody laugh at your lack thereof.

It's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not. That's not why I can't take you seriously. It's because you spew worthless crap like, "Correct answers are popular", "value is self-determined". And from whom? This is the logic of someone who studied game theory? Please.

You've got to be kidding me. A major is a categorical word. If your focus was metaphysics, you don't say you majored in metaphysics. You majored in philosophy. If your focus was on ethics, you don't say you majored in ethics. You majored in philosophy. Now explain me something. Why is there only one course offered in Decision Making here? http://www.ucalendar.uwaterloo.ca/1213/COURSE/course-PHIL.html. Exactly what am I missing? There are only two other math related courses offered by the phil department. Is that what you call a focus area? Does taking 3 classes in a field allows you to say you majored in that field? Even to say you have a minor in something you need to have taken at least 10 courses in that discipline.

[a-tree]

Atree you are the last person to be criticizing someone for "proof". You are the king of "No Proof".

I think I've drilled this down your head before. Someone who thinks unions can prevent plane crashes don't even deserve to spat on. They need to be taken care of, nursed, and nurtured.

[Supercooled]

yes unemployed abled bides should get nothing.

[CDNPatriot]

Proof is in the pudding atree... in this case looks like the pudding you call brains has been eaten by the birds.


I think I've drilled this down your head before. Someone who thinks unions can prevent plane crashes don't even deserve to spat on. They need to be taken care of, nursed, and nurtured.

[a-tree]

Proof is in the pudding atree... in this case looks like the pudding you call brains has been eaten by the birds.

How come you deleted the "unions prevent plane crashes" from your sig?

[CDNPatriot]

How come you deleted the "unions prevent plane crashes" from your sig?

Reading comprehension alert! A tree I never had "unions prevent plane crashes" in my signature. I did have a link to the Buffalo Continental crash and how low pilots were paid and how they had to work more than one jobs to make ends meet and how they have to travel from Seatle to Newark to work one hour.

Never what you are saying though. I think you need to retire from these boards and find a new hobby. Too much time is wasted on spoon feeding you simple little concepts.

[a-tree]

Reading comprehension alert! A tree I never had "unions prevent plane crashes" in my signature. I did have a link to the Buffalo Continental crash and how low pilots were paid and how they had to work more than one jobs to make ends meet and how they have to travel from Seatle to Newark to work one hour.

Never what you are saying though. I think you need to retire from these boards and find a new hobby. Too much time is wasted on spoon feeding you simple little concepts.

Of course what you were implying was that if these pilots were in a union and thus their wages artificially higher, there wouldn't have been a plane crash, which is akin to saying, unions prevent plane crashes. Why did you delete it?

[CDNPatriot]

Atree flying union vs non union is a discussion older than Adam and Eve.

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=2840

People change their signatures all the time atree. Is that a good enough reason? What's your conspiracy theory behind my signature change?

What a strange fellow you are. I might as well change it again.


Of course what you were implying was that if these pilots were in a union and thus their wages artificially higher, there wouldn't have been a plane crash, which is akin to saying, unions prevent plane crashes. Why did you delete it?

[a-tree]

Atree flying union vs non union is a discussion older than Adam and Eve.

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=2840

People change their signatures all the time atree. Is that a good enough reason? What's your conspiracy theory behind my signature change?

What a strange fellow you are. I might as well change it again.

The general consensus from your link seems to be that unionization doesn't affect safety. You did a very good job of proving my point. Thanks.

[CDNPatriot]

The general consensus from your link seems to be that unionization doesn't affect safety. You did a very good job of proving my point. Thanks.

There you go. I'll stick to posting the drunk Rob Ford video.

[a-tree]

There you go. I'll stick to posting the drunk Rob Ford video.

Good boy.

But if you really wanted to get rid of Ford it's probably better to talk to your councillor about it instead of having some garbage nonsense on your sig of an anonymous forum.

[CDNPatriot]

My Councillor is Holyday. Holydays crooked teeth and bad breathe makes me avoid him like the plague. Bumped into him at a town hall meeting a while ago and man someone needs to buy this guy some mouthwash. No wonder he is so bitter about employees having great dental benefits. Look at his teeth!

http://i.thestar.com/images/03/6a/ebe57d74424d896841e3373a6bee.jpeg

Atree if you really want to bash people you should grow a pair and try it in real life. Let me guess, someone knocked your teeth out last time you tried.:razz:


Good boy.

But if you really wanted to get rid of Ford it's probably better to talk to your councillor about it instead of having some garbage nonsense on your sig of an anonymous forum.

[a-tree]

My Councillor is Holyday.

Atree if you really want to bash people you should grow a pair and try it in real life. Let me guess, someone knocked your teeth out last time you tried.:razz:

I'm bashing people? I'm sitting here minding my own business. While you're the one sitting behind a computer talking crap about Ford being drunk. Take it to city hall right now and confront Ford about it. Right now. Do it. Oh wait, let me guess. You called them already and they told you to leave a message. Worthless little coward.

[CDNPatriot]

I'm bashing people? I'm sitting here minding my own business. While you're the one sitting behind a computer talking crap about McGuinty and anyone taking offense at Flaherty. Take it to Queen's Park right now and confront McGuinty about it. Right now. Do it. Oh wait, let me guess. You called them already and they told you to leave a message. Worthless little coward.

[Syne]

If you're in the public eye, absolutely you should have good dental hygiene.

[CDNPatriot]

If you're in the public eye, absolutely you should have good dental hygiene.

Agreed. The problem is that Doug Holyday like most extreme right wingers cut dental expenses out of his home budget. The problem now is that he has gum disease which in turn causes heart disease and will cause a premature death. Simpleton budgeting at work here and this is just an analogy on what government simpleton cutting does to people.

[a-tree]

I'm bashing people? I'm sitting here minding my own business. While you're the one sitting behind a computer talking crap about McGuinty and anyone taking offense at Flaherty. Take it to Queen's Park right now and confront McGuinty about it. Right now. Do it. Oh wait, let me guess. You called them already and they told you to leave a message. Worthless little coward.

I don't remember launching personal attacks on McGuinty the way you are with Ford. If I ever wrote anything about the liberals or any political party, it would be for their policy. Now go be a good boy and bring up the post where I attack McGuinty for his transgressions.

[CDNPatriot]

I don't remember launching personal attacks on Harper the way you are with McGuinty. If I ever wrote anything about the cons or any political party, it would be for their policy. Now go be a good boy and bring up the post where I attack Harper for his transgressions.

[Syne]

Bad oral hygiene has been linked to premature death. I'm not sure how that's bashing anyone. More of an observation really.

[a-tree]

Bad oral hygiene has been linked to premature death. I'm not sure how that's bashing anyone. More of an observation really.

Predicting someone's death, whether an observation or not, becomes a bash when expressed. Especially when it arises from some personal hatred.

[CDNPatriot]

I learnt to bash from your hero Doug Ford. Check the two minute mark of the video where he calls everyone "monkeys".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SykS3xrdS8&feature=related


Predicting someone's death, whether an observation or not, becomes a bash when expressed. Especially when it arises from some personal hatred.

[a-tree]

I learnt to bash from your hero Doug Ford. Check the two minute mark of the video where he calls everyone "monkeys".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SykS3xrdS8&feature=related

Do you think that justifies anything? You're a grown man. But not really.

[DearSummer]

EI urgently needs reform — but is reform what we’re going to get?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/andrew-coyne-ei-urgently-needs-reform-but-is-reform-what-were-going-to-get/


There are parts of this country where it is common for people to draw EI every single year. Yet not only do these workers and their employers pay the same premiums as those with less frequent incidence of unemployment: compared with workers in other parts of the country, they are eligible for longer payout periods, in return for fewer weeks’ work.

So no, the federal government is not wrong, in principle, to want to reform this system. It is crying out for reform, and has been for decades. When Atlantic Canadian premiers (for yes, that is one of the parts of the country we are talking about) protest that employment insurance is essential to maintain workers in seasonal industries — when the premier of P.E.I. notes that “in January in Prince Edward Island we are not growing potatoes and we’re not catching lobsters” — they are only confirming the program’s malign effects.

Yes, potatoes and lobsters are “two of P.E.I.’s largest industries,” as the premier points out. But they would not employ as many people as they do now were it not for EI. As important, other industries in the province, with more stable employment records — industries that do hire people in January — would employ more. The system subsidizes jobs in seasonal industries, that is, at the expense of jobs in other industries.

[Toukolou]

I'm bashing people? I'm sitting here minding my own business. While you're the one sitting behind a computer talking crap about Ford being drunk. Take it to city hall right now and confront Ford about it. Right now. Do it. Oh wait, let me guess. You called them already and they told you to leave a message. Worthless little coward.


I'm bashing people? I'm sitting here minding my own business. While you're the one sitting behind a computer talking crap about McGuinty and anyone taking offense at Flaherty. Take it to Queen's Park right now and confront McGuinty about it. Right now. Do it. Oh wait, let me guess. You called them already and they told you to leave a message. Worthless little coward.


I don't remember launching personal attacks on McGuinty the way you are with Ford. If I ever wrote anything about the liberals or any political party, it would be for their policy. Now go be a good boy and bring up the post where I attack McGuinty for his transgressions.


I don't remember launching personal attacks on Harper the way you are with McGuinty. If I ever wrote anything about the cons or any political party, it would be for their policy. Now go be a good boy and bring up the post where I attack Harper for his transgressions.

This reminds me of that children's game where one kid repeats what the other kid is saying just to get under their skin.

This is what passes for intelligent discourse?

[CDNPatriot]

Dearsummer some facts for you:

Only 20 percent of the people that become unemployed are eligible for EI.

Even when unemployment exceeded 10 percent.

Where do these people go? They burn their RRSPs, they take out a line of credit on their homes, they rack up their credit cards and on and on.

Yet, you are on here trying to convince the many that are suffering that they should become even more stringent.

It's quite clear that Harper is trying to slowly dismantle this program.

CD Howe report says so:

Mending Canada’s Employment Insurance Quilt: The Case for Restoring Equity, C. D, Howe Institute.


EI urgently needs reform — but is reform what we’re going to get?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/andrew-coyne-ei-urgently-needs-reform-but-is-reform-what-were-going-to-get/

[masterhapposai]

This thread makes this strategy seem valid:
-Switch to voting conservative continuously
-Don't have kids (remove your intelligent genetic material from the gene pool)
-Let Earth rot
-Mock the fall of the humans from your grave, till they self exterminate

[masterhapposai]

The Conservatives of Canada are following the route of the US, do you know that the US has sold out so much of their country to the Chinese that the Chinese are buying up acres of land and rebuilding "old china" in major cities within the US and the US politicians are allowing it. More immigration is not the answer, it is making the scar larger, and larger. Employers are increasingly altering their hiring strategy to make it harder for external workers to get hired. Forty-Four percent is the number used by Employers to hire people from other employee referrals, and that is the problem, employee referrals, then you can factor in race, age etc and the list goes on and on.

correct. cons are pump and dump, and they ride on religious nuts, fear, war to hold or gain power.

they pump up the greatness behind say, cutting E.I, etc., saying they will save you $, you the hard working individual. in reality, all these decisions come down to increasing $ for themselves and screwing the entire country. when they leave, they will be in another country, and create ties with China, etc, through their corporations.

They take the $ saved and redirect it into their corps. This is how the Iraq war that people foolishly supported worked. People in the U.S got raped in terms of benefits, thrown into massive debt, and that $ went into the warmachine which went into contractors, Haliburton, etc. funding corps tied directly to Republicans. Not to mention after that, they gave $ to the same financial corps that were taking advantage of people and handing out mortgages like candy.

This is all coming to a Canada near you.

At this pace, in about 50 years it will be a class based society where only top corporate executives live like free humans.

[divx]

seems the best choice is to take EI then get another job. you could probably use a long vacation after all that work

[Mark77]

Dearsummer some facts for you:

Only 20 percent of the people that become unemployed are eligible for EI.

Even when unemployment exceeded 10 percent.

Where do these people go? They burn their RRSPs, they take out a line of credit on their homes, they rack up their credit cards and on and on.

Yet, you are on here trying to convince the many that are suffering that they should become even more stringent.

It's quite clear that Harper is trying to slowly dismantle this program.

CD Howe report says so:

Mending Canada’s Employment Insurance Quilt: The Case for Restoring Equity, C. D, Howe Institute.

+1, excellent post. EI is basically a tax on higher income professionals in Canada as well because they have to repay most of the EI amounts. Worse, the hassle of dealing with EI, and the incompetents that actually run it, is destructive to someone trying to find a new job.

[vero95]

There are more than two options.

For example, they could allow people to opt-out of ever making any EI payments, on the condition that those who opt-out will never be eligible to receive EI.

Or, they could scrap the EI system altogether (no further payments made into it or out of it), which they might as well do, if as Flaherty's comments imply, they are going to deny EI to anyone who does not take a minimum wage job.

Flaherty's comments are cracked, and so is the capitalist system that has duped many people into believing that they should be ecstatic for the "opportunity" to become a slave in exchange for minimum wage. :facepalm:

opt-out will not work. it would be like allowing people to drive without auto insurance. while it used to be like that and probably there is no mandatory insurance in some states or countries, it's not the way to go. you do not want some greedy people save few bucks on insurance to have their lives turn upside down because of an accident. it just causes more harm to all of us
I do not think I will ever depend on the EI system but I am not against it. I would rather support those who are looking for work or are not eager to work than see them protest against poverty. there was a time when there was no EI. I guess then you would need to take any job to survive. I worked 3 jobs when I was younger (2 pizza stores and paper delivery at night) to pay for my rent and food and even continued them after I graduated and could not find a job. EI was never my concern but collecting EI was also never my target
having said all that I prefer EI premiums be more transparent to avoid surpluses turned into revenues which was what the liberals were doing. I also would not like EI to be used as a schema for an annual income support program for seasonal workers. therefore I am not unhappy with what cons are proposing

[NorthYorker]

EI urgently needs reform — but is reform what we’re going to get?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/andrew-coyne-ei-urgently-needs-reform-but-is-reform-what-were-going-to-get/There's a lot in this article I can agree with (Coyne seem to be less partisan than typical NP blogger; I predict serious troubles for him in the future exactly because of lack of blind loyalty expected from a Conservative talking head), but he seem to completely ignore two giants elephants in the room:
1. Elimination of "seasonal subsidy" would mean depopulation of Maritimes. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, but you can't combine farmhand wages, length of growing season and semi-decent lifestyle for farmhand. It is just mathematically impossible. So Maritimes would turn into land sparsely populated by farmers, government workers (to serve them) and littered with barracks for seasonal Mexican workforce. Is this the price we're willing to pay? I have no answer but I can repeat that I don't see it as something absolutely vicious. Population migrations happen all the time.
2. Any Conservative attempt to massively change a social program is (and must be) viewed with their distaste for the very principle of social programs in mind. Harper spent 20 years telling folks how much he hates the very idea of government meddling into society's affairs, and EI is an example of such a meddling.
you could probably use a long vacation after all that workGuys, anyone who consider EI "a vacation" is either delusional or does not have family. Period.
opt-out will not work. it would be like allowing people to drive without auto insurance.Invalid comparison. Main part of mandatory auto insurance is "3rd party". You are forced to buy coverage of losses to other peoples caused by your decision (driving into transit stop full with people, for example). EI is covering your personal losses.
I do not think I will ever depend on the EI systemIn all fairness, I can not imagine a scenario when a person is eligible for the EI but isn't likely to use it under any circumstances. If you're self-employed, you aren't eligible, and if you're an employee, your company can just go belly-up for reasons absolutely unrelated to your (supposedly flawless) performance, throwing you right into the EI arms.

[divx]

There's a lot in this article I can agree with (Coyne seem to be less partisan than typical NP blogger; I predict serious troubles for him in the future exactly because of lack of blind loyalty expected from a Conservative talking head), but he seem to completely ignore two giants elephants in the room:
1. Elimination of "seasonal subsidy" would mean depopulation of Maritimes. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, but you can't combine farmhand wages, length of growing season and semi-decent lifestyle for farmhand. It is just mathematically impossible. So Maritimes would turn into land sparsely populated by farmers, government workers (to serve them) and littered with barracks for seasonal Mexican workforce. Is this the price we're willing to pay? I have no answer but I can repeat that I don't see it as something absolutely vicious. Population migrations happen all the time.
2. Any Conservative attempt to massively change a social program is (and must be) viewed with their distaste for the very principle of social programs in mind. Harper spent 20 years telling folks how much he hates the very idea of government meddling into society's affairs, and EI is an example of such a meddling. Guys, anyone who consider EI "a vacation" is either delusional or does not have family. Period.Invalid comparison. Main part of mandatory auto insurance is "3rd party". You are forced to buy coverage of losses to other peoples caused by your decision (driving into transit stop full with people, for example). EI is covering your personal losses.In all fairness, I can not imagine a scenario when a person is eligible for the EI but isn't likely to use it under any circumstances. If you're self-employed, you aren't eligible, and if you're an employee, your company can just go belly-up for reasons absolutely unrelated to your (supposedly flawless) performance, throwing you right into the EI arms.

people who aren't eligible for EI should not have to contribute into it, and the purpose of EI is to help you when you are looking for another job, so if you don't want to take a "vacation", then all the better.

[vero95]

There's a lot in this article I can agree with (Coyne seem to be less partisan than typical NP blogger; I predict serious troubles for him in the future exactly because of lack of blind loyalty expected from a Conservative talking head), but he seem to completely ignore two giants elephants in the room:
1. Elimination of "seasonal subsidy" would mean depopulation of Maritimes. Not that there's something inherently wrong with that, but you can't combine farmhand wages, length of growing season and semi-decent lifestyle for farmhand. It is just mathematically impossible. So Maritimes would turn into land sparsely populated by farmers, government workers (to serve them) and littered with barracks for seasonal Mexican workforce. Is this the price we're willing to pay? I have no answer but I can repeat that I don't see it as something absolutely vicious. Population migrations happen all the time.
2. Any Conservative attempt to massively change a social program is (and must be) viewed with their distaste for the very principle of social programs in mind. Harper spent 20 years telling folks how much he hates the very idea of government meddling into society's affairs, and EI is an example of such a meddling. Guys, anyone who consider EI "a vacation" is either delusional or does not have family. Period.

since when making EI transparent is meddling into sociaty's affairs :facepalm: EI is not a subsidy for seasonal workers. EI premiums should not be hidden taxes which was how the liberals treated them



Invalid comparison. Main part of mandatory auto insurance is "3rd party". You are forced to buy coverage of losses to other peoples caused by your decision (driving into transit stop full with people, for example). EI is covering your personal losses.

it's irrelevant if it's third party or not. the comparison was used to show that it works if we all participate in it. we do not want to let people not participate and then fight for financial support because our sociaty is forgiving
you do not like it, use health tax. will you let people skip the health tax and then pay for the operation?



In all fairness, I can not imagine a scenario when a person is eligible for the EI but isn't likely to use it under any circumstances. If you're self-employed, you aren't eligible, and if you're an employee, your company can just go belly-up for reasons absolutely unrelated to your (supposedly flawless) performance, throwing you right into the EI arms.
I said I would not depend on it. it does not mean I wouldn't use it if I really had to. I paid for it so why not. I would not use it to work min time required, collect unemployment, work min time required, collect unemployement, etc


btw, how many people use your account?

[damnos]

I said I would not depend on it. it does not mean I wouldn't use it if I really had to. I paid for it so why not. I would not use it to work min time required, collect unemployment, work min time required, collect unemployement, etc


This is the biggest issue with the welfare state in Canada, EI and other government subsidies.
People have found ways to CHOOSE to collect welfare / EI rather than collecting it because they need to.

There are people who CHOOSE to be net burden to the society, and the system let them to.

Sure, so people do need help and we should help them to get back to their feet and return to being a productive member of society. But people who simply choose to be a burden? we really should get rid of them (or stop the leaks)

[divx]

This is the biggest issue with the welfare state in Canada, EI and other government subsidies.
People have found ways to CHOOSE to collect welfare / EI rather than collecting it because they need to.

There are people who CHOOSE to be net burden to the society, and the system let them to.

Sure, so people do need help and we should help them to get back to their feet and return to being a productive member of society. But people who simply choose to be a burden? we really should get rid of them (or stop the leaks)

you can't lump welfare and EI together, collecting EI is legit since you pay into it directly out of your pay cheque, it's an insurance and you should not feel ashamed for collecting, welfare on the other hand...

[danfromwaterloo]

you can't lump welfare and EI together, collecting EI is legit since you pay into it directly out of your pay cheque, it's an insurance and you should not feel ashamed for collecting, welfare on the other hand...

Both are social safety nets, and should be used without shame for those in need. But I think welfare should have a time limit just like EI.

[DearSummer]

you can't lump welfare and EI together, collecting EI is legit since you pay into it directly out of your pay cheque, it's an insurance and you should not feel ashamed for collecting, welfare on the other hand...

Is it legit if I work in fisheries for a few months every year and then go on an "EI vacation" the rest of the year...every single year?

What type of insurance product offers higher payouts and charges less premium for higher risk?

[NorthYorker]

Is it legit if I work in fisheries for a few months every year and then go on an "EI vacation" the rest of the year...every single year?Look, you're trying to solve a complex problem by looking at a single aspect of it and claiming it illegit. It is a bit similar to trying to drive a manual car by operating clutch pedal only :) Yes, fishery workers are regularly drawing more than they're contributing. But it is just a single facet. Subsidizing fishermen's earnings allows us to have reasonably-priced Canadian fish/lobster products. Kill this "fishermen EI", and you either drive Canadian fishery into extinction (they would need to increase hourly wages to non-competitive levels) or condemn fishermen to life of abject poverty. There's another possible solution, bring Mexicans for several months a year to work Canadian fishing boats. Make your pick. Just keep in mind that there're preciously few employers in Canada for seasonal winter employment (winter is when fishermen are collecting EI).

[squagles]

Is it legit if I work in fisheries for a few months every year and then go on an "EI vacation" the rest of the year...every single year?

What type of insurance product offers higher payouts and charges less premium for higher risk?

I bet the earth feels terrible that it isn't being efficient enough for you. How dare it not be capable of sustaining fisheries employment in a fashion that meets your aesthetic standards.

[damnos]

you can't lump welfare and EI together, collecting EI is legit since you pay into it directly out of your pay cheque, it's an insurance and you should not feel ashamed for collecting, welfare on the other hand...

Make sense, thanks for the fix.
I was wondering, is it possible to end up taking more out of EI than you put in? If it is, then that sort of become an issue to because that means people will be able to choose to be subsidized by others because they feel a job is beneath them.

[Agafaba]

Make sense, thanks for the fix.
I was wondering, is it possible to end up taking more out of EI than you put in? If it is, then that sort of become an issue to because that means people will be able to choose to be subsidized by others because they feel a job is beneath them.

Like most insurance plans its possible for any one individual to recieve more money than they invest, however its also true that a lot of individuals will never see a payout.

[a-tree]

Look, you're trying to solve a complex problem by looking at a single aspect of it and claiming it illegit. It is a bit similar to trying to drive a manual car by operating clutch pedal only :) Yes, fishery workers are regularly drawing more than they're contributing. But it is just a single facet. Subsidizing fishermen's earnings allows us to have reasonably-priced Canadian fish/lobster products. Kill this "fishermen EI", and you either drive Canadian fishery into extinction (they would need to increase hourly wages to non-competitive levels) or condemn fishermen to life of abject poverty. There's another possible solution, bring Mexicans for several months a year to work Canadian fishing boats. Make your pick. Just keep in mind that there're preciously few employers in Canada for seasonal winter employment (winter is when fishermen are collecting EI).

It's a question of fairness. Is it fair to take out more than what you put in? Of course not. Does everyone else need to pay some premium to the fisheries to ensure that seafood prices stay lower? It's basic economics. Subsidies create inefficiencies. It's much better to kill the entire fishery industry and bringing someone who can run it better without relying on EI subsidies.

[vero95]

Look, you're trying to solve a complex problem by looking at a single aspect of it and claiming it illegit. It is a bit similar to trying to drive a manual car by operating clutch pedal only :) Yes, fishery workers are regularly drawing more than they're contributing. But it is just a single facet. Subsidizing fishermen's earnings allows us to have reasonably-priced Canadian fish/lobster products. Kill this "fishermen EI", and you either drive Canadian fishery into extinction (they would need to increase hourly wages to non-competitive levels) or condemn fishermen to life of abject poverty. There's another possible solution, bring Mexicans for several months a year to work Canadian fishing boats. Make your pick. Just keep in mind that there're preciously few employers in Canada for seasonal winter employment (winter is when fishermen are collecting EI).

as others said EI is not a subsidy. it's an insurance policy for those who lost jobs
if fishermen need subsidy, it should be transparent and not hidden under EI
if liberals want to increase taxes to balance the budget, they should increase them and not steal from our fund

[NorthYorker]

Does everyone else need to pay some premium to the fisheriesThis is how agriculture works in modern world. Farmers are subsidized by government in some shape or form. Government subsidies account for eye-popping 62% (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/for-us-farmers-subsidies-the-best-cash-crop/article1813425/)of agricultural earnings in oh-so-market USA of G.W. Bush. If you consider it abomination, there's always Somalia. They don't pay subsidies to their farmers and fishermen, you can bet on it.

[a-tree]

This is how agriculture works in modern world. Farmers are subsidized by government in some shape or form. Government subsidies account for eye-popping 62% (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/for-us-farmers-subsidies-the-best-cash-crop/article1813425/)of agricultural earnings in oh-so-market USA of G.W. Bush. If you consider it abomination, there's always Somalia. They don't pay subsidies to their farmers and fishermen, you can bet on it.

The only reason agriculture is still subsidized is simply because well, they've always been subsidized. No politician would dare abolish subsidies to farmers. Does that mean subsidies are efficient? Hell no. Do you actually think North America will turn into a Somalia if subsidies were removed?

[NorthYorker]

The only reason agriculture is still subsidized is simply because well, they've always been subsidized. Nope, this is relatively recent (last 80 years) development. Anyway, I'm not in the mood to discuss history of agricultural subsidies and am glad we agree on a simple fact that "everyone does it".
Do you actually think North America will turn into a Somalia if subsidies were removed?I've never said that farm subsidies is the reason of NA not turning into Somalia, I just said that subsidies are fact of life in developed countries.

[a-tree]

Nope, this is relatively recent (last 80 years) development. Anyway, I'm not in the mood to discuss history of agricultural subsidies and am glad we agree on a simple fact that "everyone does it". I've never said that farm subsidies is the reason of NA not turning into Somalia, I just said that subsidies are fact of life in developed countries.

You're missing the point. Because subsidies for agriculture has been around for as long as it has, it's difficult to remove it politically. If a big chunk of your salary was spoon-fed to you by the government throughout your entire life, would you fight to death to keep that subsidy if all of a sudden the government threatened to pull the plug? That's why I said no politician would dare to abolish subsidies. Try to understand the main contention of my point before nitpicking on the definition of the word, 'always'.

You're certainly making the connection of no-subsidy with a poor country, thus implying that subsidy somehow has something to do with wealth. Make your points clear next time.

[Agafaba]

You're missing the point. Because subsidies for agriculture has been around for as long as it has, it's difficult to remove it politically. If a big chunk of your salary was spoon-fed to you by the government throughout your entire life, would you fight to death to keep that subsidy if all of a sudden the government threatened to pull the plug? That's why I said no politician would dare to abolish subsidies. Try to understand the main contention of my point before nitpicking on the definition of the word, 'always'.

You're certainly making the connection of no-subsidy with a poor country, thus implying that subsidy somehow has something to do with wealth. Make your points clear next time.

Do you really believe that the poor could handle a 62% increase in food costs?

[MrKap]

The only reason agriculture is still subsidized is simply because well, they've always been subsidized. No politician would dare abolish subsidies to farmers. Does that mean subsidies are efficient? Hell no. Do you actually think North America will turn into a Somalia if subsidies were removed?

You've seen the tax rules for local farmers right? They pay a land tax, but the catch is, they have to be canadian, and they have to produce more than 7,000.00 worth of produce.

It's almost like a tax designed to promote foreign investment yet, tax profitable business just enough to ensure it stays within a profit margin to remain a small farmer.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/policy/ftaxbac.htm

I don't know what the tax was before, I am not a farmer. At the very least it's 75% cheaper than other land taxes. Should hope the subsidies, whatever those are supposed to be make up for it I guess.

Either that, or big business was getting way ahead, and crushing the smaller farmer. Who knows?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agriculture/subsidies.html


It seems that it is mostly the smaller farms that are dropping out of the industry, although these farms still comprise two-thirds of all farms in Canada. Almost half of farms with less than $25,000 in total revenue counted in the last census had left farming by 2001.


Who knows.... but I guess $7,000+ profit a year, minus whatever, makes you big business.




In any event, Flaherty has no idea what he talking about. There are plenty of jobs out there which are not worth taking, and those are specifically the ones that don't pay money. The guy is calling an all out on slave labor.

[CDNPatriot]

Do you really believe that the poor could handle a 62% increase in food costs?

Atree would not be able to afford it. And then you'd have him on here whining that civil servants, teachers and Air Canada employees make too much money compared to him.

[MrKap]

Atree would not be able to afford it. And then you'd have him on here whining that civil servants, teachers and Air Canada employees make too much money compared to him.

They do. The rest of us have been scraping the bottom of the barrel like we live in a third world country. If it weren't for our families we'd be absolutely homeless.


Civil Service = Canadian Trophy Job = Free ride.

There is like no benchmark when it comes to the public service. They just get paid, nobody would know if they were doing thier job in a million years.

Meanwhile, everybody that does have to strive to meet some sort of benchmark continually get the short end of the stick.


That's the way Canada works. Taxes In => Safety Net => Money back into the economy

It's not a magic recipe.

[NorthYorker]

You're certainly making the connection of no-subsidy with a poor country, thus implying that subsidy somehow has something to do with wealth. I do make a connection and I'm implying that subsidy has something to do with wealth, but you got cause/effect thingy wrong. It is not that subsidy breeds wealth, it is that wealth causes subsidy in explicit or implicit form in order to both be able to feed the population and ensure semi-decent living conditions for farming population in wealthy country.

[a-tree]

I do make a connection and I'm implying that subsidy has something to do with wealth, but you got cause/effect thingy wrong. It is not that subsidy breeds wealth, it is that wealth causes subsidy in explicit or implicit form in order to both be able to feed the population and ensure semi-decent living conditions for farming population in wealthy country.

That 'semi-decent' condition is at the additional expense for everyone else, just like unions. And the population can be fed better without subsidies. Didn't they teach you anything in intro to econ?

[NorthYorker]

That 'semi-decent' condition is at the additional expense for everyone else, just like unions. Everything above bowl of rice per labourer is "additional expense", if one applies your definition uniformly, profit included first and foremost. But you do seriously cherrypick what expenses to rally against.
the population can be fed better without subsidies. Yes, but there's one small detail. Food have to be produced by another (poorer) population, meaning either import of indentured temporary labour. Anyway, examples of a country with decent living conditions and without farming subsidies (besides NZ)?

[a-tree]

Everything above bowl of rice per labourer is "additional expense", if one applies your definition uniformly, profit included first and foremost. But you do seriously cherrypick what expenses to rally against.Yes, but there's one small detail. Food have to be produced by another (poorer) population, meaning either import of indentured temporary labour. Anyway, examples of a country with decent living conditions and without farming subsidies (besides NZ)?

Additional expense is anything above the natural price, which is the fair price.

Food doesn't have to be provided by a poorer nation. Farmers can reduce their standards of living. Simple.

[divx]

The only reason agriculture is still subsidized is simply because well, they've always been subsidized. No politician would dare abolish subsidies to farmers. Does that mean subsidies are efficient? Hell no. Do you actually think North America will turn into a Somalia if subsidies were removed?

food prices were low pre 2008, now with today's prices, they shouldn't need anymore subsidies

[divx]

Do you really believe that the poor could handle a 62% increase in food costs?

they are now aren't they? food prices went up almost 300% since 2007

[divx]

Atree would not be able to afford it. And then you'd have him on here whining that civil servants, teachers and Air Canada employees make too much money compared to him.

atree is still alive and posting after the 300% food price raise since 2007.

[divx]

Additional expense is anything above the natural price, which is the fair price.

Food doesn't have to be provided by a poorer nation. Farmers can reduce their standards of living. Simple.

it's a free market, they can raise their prices to the level people are willing to buy, seems to be working well, i have to pay 3x for the same food I buy years ago.

[Agafaba]

they are now aren't they? food prices went up almost 300% since 2007

Not everything went up by that much, there are still plenty of cheap food sources that have had a much more gradual increase in cost. Also it would be on top of that 300%, not instead of it, so you would be looking at something around 475%.

Where did you get this 300% figure anyway? Either its very specific foods or your misunderstanding it because most of the stuff I eat hasnt gone up 3 times in price over the last 5 years... I actually have trouble thinking of very many things that jumped that much.

[divx]

Not everything went up by that much, there are still plenty of cheap food sources that have had a much more gradual increase in cost. Also it would be on top of that 300%, not instead of it, so you would be looking at something around 475%.

Where did you get this 300% figure anyway? Either its very specific foods or your misunderstanding it because most of the stuff I eat hasnt gone up 3 times in price over the last 5 years... I actually have trouble thinking of very many things that jumped that much.

very basic loaf of bread, used to be 70 cents a bag, now it's like $2 a bag, meat prices used to be $4/lb now it's $12/lb, milk price went up from $4 to $6, etc. anyway, the point is poor people can afford 60% raise in food prices, since food prices went beyond that I didn't hear about mass starvation in Canada.

[NorthYorker]

very basic loaf of bread, used to be 70 cents a bag, now it's like $2 a bag, meat prices used to be $4/lb now it's $12/lbThat's 200%, even if it is true.

[divx]

That's 200%, even if it is true.

so poor people can still eat?

[WontonTiger]

so poor people can still eat?

Poor people could still eat if prices were 2000X more than at current.

Keep in mind that they would be crawling over dead bodies to get to the food, but hey, it's all good right.




Don't we all just LOVE OVERSIMPLIFICATION...

[anyasok]

I wonder if Flaherty would collect EI or mop floors if he is thrown from his current position.

On the topic: sure, its awesome to work below your dignity just to make ends meet. That just proves how disastrously stupid this whole pyramid scheme is.


What's a real conservative party? Something closer to what the U.S. has for Republicans? Why people keep identifying themselves by a party is exactly the issue; rather than thinking logically for themselves. Saying if it's Conservatives then it must be right, or if it's Liberal then it must be right, means you cannot think for yourself. What if there were no parties? Would people be able to formulate their own opinions? Who would they hide behind? These parties are going to ruin the nations they are trying to "protect" with their outdated thinking/policies and childish behaviour. Work together and resolve these issues, and stop complicating the damn matters with political agendas.

Maybe the next inhabitant of humans will get it right. :)
+1

[a-tree]

I wonder if Flaherty would collect EI or mop floors if he is thrown from his current position.

On the topic: sure, its awesome to work below your dignity just to make ends meet. That just proves how disastrously stupid this whole pyramid scheme is.

Why would Flaherty mop floors? He has connections. Can you explain why this country is a pyramid scheme?

[anyasok]

Why would Flaherty mop floors? He has connections. Can you explain why this country is a pyramid scheme?
This is an example a-tree, are you familiar with the concept? A finance minister can't suggest forcing people to work at any job if they're demoted from a position (or at all) if he himself would be unwilling to work there if he finds himself in similar circumstances.

Besides, having connections is good in your book in this scenario? Sure, then Flaherty should include connections with his EI dole outs to all people then.

And I wasn't talking about this "country". You should be familar with the general theme of my posts by now and should know that when I say "pyramid scheme" I refer to the capitalistic system in place in the world today. Why is it a disgusting fraud? Because it allows for comments like these to ring out.

It is inhumane to force people to do work just for the sake of it and makes the whole idea of employment laughable. Ever since the division of labour occured, the government has been trying to create jobs out of thin air just to reduce their unemploymnet rate and look good on a global scale.

Human beings weren't born to be slaves to anyone or to do boring/repetitive/stupid work just so that politicians can include them in their skewed graphs. That's what you capitalistic pigs don't understand.

Government should pour all of their money into replacing all occupations with robots and they will no longer need to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, ANY jobs and slowly but surely the reliance on money will be reduced to zero and human beings will finally be free to explore their potential and engage in truly meaningful tasks in the world instead of spending the majority of their lives doing stupid crap that they hate and that is meaningless/useless in the grand scheme of things and then corking out at the end of life having lost so much experience from the spectrum of possibilities on being mindless, robotic machines of the government that attempted to pigeonhole them into yet another boring job that would leave them starved and mind-numbed.

Besides, you are not born on Earth to be a slave and do anything you can to survive. There is no point in life or reason to be born at all if the whole system is so catastrophically misaligned for these values to reign supreme.

But I don't think the message will ever get through that thick skull of yours: you're too indoctrinated in your own selfish ways to truly see the state of the world.

[a-tree]

This is an example a-tree, are you familiar with the concept? A finance minister can't suggest forcing people to work at any job if they're demoted from a position (or at all) if he himself would be unwilling to work there if he finds himself in similar circumstances.

Besides, having connectinos is good in your book in this scenario? Sure, then Flaherty should include connections with his EI dole outs to all people then.

And I wasn't talking about this "country". You should be familar with the general theme of my posts by now and should know that when I say "pyramid scheme" I refere to the capitalistic system in place in the world today. Why is it a disgusting fraud? Because it allows for comments like these to ring out.

It is inhumane to force people to do work just for the sake of it and makes the whole idea of employment laughable. Ever since the division of labour occured, the government has been trying to create jobs out of thin air just to reduce their unemploymnet rate and look good on a global scale.

Human beings weren't born to be slaves to anyone or to do boring/repetitive/stupid work just so that politicians can include them in their skewed graphs. That's what you capitalistic pigs don't understand.

Government should pour all of their money into replacing all occupations with robots and they will no longer need to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, ANY jobs and slowly but surely the reliance of money will be reduced to zero and human beings will finally be free to explore their potential and engage in truly meaningful tasks in the world instead of spending the majority of their lives doing stupid **** that they hate and that is meaningless/useless in the grand scheme of things and then corking out at the end of life having lost so much experience from the spectrum of possibilities on being mindless, robotic machines of the government that attempted to pigeonhole them into yet another boring job that would leave them starved and mind-numbed.

It's not that Flaherty is unwilling to. I'm sure he'll mop floors if he HAS to. But he doesn't have to because he's got the education level and connections, both of which you need to work on.

You sound like a cult follower. Keep it up.

[DearSummer]

very basic loaf of bread, used to be 70 cents a bag, now it's like $2 a bag, meat prices used to be $4/lb now it's $12/lb, milk price went up from $4 to $6, etc. anyway, the point is poor people can afford 60% raise in food prices, since food prices went beyond that I didn't hear about mass starvation in Canada.

Why do you think milk prices went up? Milk would be much, much cheaper here if not for government intervention. There are huge trade barriers for food in Canada which is the main reason it's so expensive.

[anyasok]

It's not that Flaherty is unwilling to. I'm sure he'll mop floors if he HAS to. But he doesn't have to because he's got the education level and connections, both of which you need to work on.

You sound like a cult follower. Keep it up.
You know that you are just like the people who align themselves with various parties. Can't think for yourself at all. Whenever someone disagrees with you or seems to agree with a particular set of ideas that just happens to finally "get it", you put them into a category of "cult" or whatever else. Categorical thinking is a major logical fallacy and you keep falling into the same trap again and again and again.

[anyasok]

Why do you think milk prices went up? Milk would be much, much cheaper here if not for government intervention. There are huge trade barriers for food in Canada which is the main reason it's so expensive.
Milk would be free if not for capitalistic intervention. You are barking the wrong tree.

[divx]

Why would Flaherty mop floors? He has connections. Can you explain why this country is a pyramid scheme?

doesn't matter if this county is a pyramid scheme, it's better than anyone else and that's all it matters.

[anyasok]

doesn't matter if this county is a pyramid scheme, it's better than anyone else and that's all it matters.
Sure, its a friggin utopia :facepalm:

[a-tree]

You know that you are just like the people who align themselves with various parties. Can't think for yourself at all. Whenever someone disagrees with you or seems to agree with a particular set of ideas that just happens to finally "get it", you put them into a category of "cult" or whatever else. Categorical thinking is a major logical fallacy and you keep falling into the same trap again and again and again.

Venus project = cult. Zeitgeist movement = cult. You = dolt.


Milk would be free if not for capitalistic intervention. You are barking the wrong tree.

lol. FREE MILK FOR EVERYONE!! FREE MILK FOR EVERYONE!! FREE MILK FOR EVERYONE!!

[divx]

This is an example a-tree, are you familiar with the concept? A finance minister can't suggest forcing people to work at any job if they're demoted from a position (or at all) if he himself would be unwilling to work there if he finds himself in similar circumstances.

Besides, having connections is good in your book in this scenario? Sure, then Flaherty should include connections with his EI dole outs to all people then.

And I wasn't talking about this "country". You should be familar with the general theme of my posts by now and should know that when I say "pyramid scheme" I refer to the capitalistic system in place in the world today. Why is it a disgusting fraud? Because it allows for comments like these to ring out.

It is inhumane to force people to do work just for the sake of it and makes the whole idea of employment laughable. Ever since the division of labour occured, the government has been trying to create jobs out of thin air just to reduce their unemploymnet rate and look good on a global scale.

Human beings weren't born to be slaves to anyone or to do boring/repetitive/stupid work just so that politicians can include them in their skewed graphs. That's what you capitalistic pigs don't understand.

Government should pour all of their money into replacing all occupations with robots and they will no longer need to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, ANY jobs and slowly but surely the reliance on money will be reduced to zero and human beings will finally be free to explore their potential and engage in truly meaningful tasks in the world instead of spending the majority of their lives doing stupid crap that they hate and that is meaningless/useless in the grand scheme of things and then corking out at the end of life having lost so much experience from the spectrum of possibilities on being mindless, robotic machines of the government that attempted to pigeonhole them into yet another boring job that would leave them starved and mind-numbed.

Besides, you are not born on Earth to be a slave and do anything you can to survive. There is no point in life or reason to be born at all if the whole system is so catastrophically misaligned for these values to reign supreme.

But I don't think the message will ever get through that thick skull of yours: you're too indoctrinated in your own selfish ways to truly see the state of the world.

you hold yourself to such ridiculously outrages standard of life that you see rest of us living in an unworthy life style, if you don't believe such life style is worth living, then go ahead and jump in front of the ttc train. your posts are so extreme that makes syne and mark77 look like a modest.

[anyasok]

you hold yourself to such ridiculously outrages standard of life that you see rest of us living in an unworthy life style, if you don't believe such life style is worth living, then go ahead and jump in front of the ttc train. your posts are so extreme that makes syne and mark77 look like a modest.
I am not sure you are getting it. I am arguing for a great lifestyle for ALL human beings, including yourself, syne, mark77, DearSummer, a-tree or anyone else (despite them not seeing it this way). It is far from being an egotistical pursuit and nor do I see anyone as being unworthy.

They do what they have to do to survive and it shouldn't be like that. Humans aren't supposed to ever struggle to make ends meet or live below-average or average lifestyles. Everyone should always have all their needs met and live a happy and enjoyable existence.

Yes I am more extreme than everyone else here, but that's because in order to truly change things, you have to be extreme in the views because otherwise the system will just remain the same and wallow in it's own filth.

[divx]

Why do you think milk prices went up? Milk would be much, much cheaper here if not for government intervention. There are huge trade barriers for food in Canada which is the main reason it's so expensive.
it's worth noting that for once I agree with you, cause that's usually pretty rare

Milk would be free if not for capitalistic intervention. You are barking the wrong tree.
i'm only aware of one form of government in which you get free food without having to work for it, that was communist china, you are free to move there to escape our capitalistic interventions.

[divx]

Sure, its a friggin utopia :facepalm:

actually it is, why the hell do you think i moved here? no freaking chance would i be working for pennies in some chinese factory that people tend to jump off their buildings.

[divx]

I am not sure you are getting it. I am arguing for a great lifestyle for ALL human beings, including yourself, syne, mark77, DearSummer, a-tree or anyone else (despite them not seeing it this way). It is far from being an egotistical pursuit and nor do I see anyone as being unworthy.

They do what they have to do to survive and it shouldn't be like that. Humans aren't supposed to ever struggle to make ends meet or live below-average or average lifestyles. Everyone should always have all their needs met and live a happy and enjoyable existence.

Yes I am more extreme than everyone else here, but that's because in order to truly change things, you have to be extreme in the views because otherwise the system will just remain the same and wallow in it's own filth.

that's what communism tried to achieve, equality for all whether you are competent or not, are you mao's reincarnate?

[Agafaba]

very basic loaf of bread, used to be 70 cents a bag, now it's like $2 a bag, meat prices used to be $4/lb now it's $12/lb, milk price went up from $4 to $6, etc. anyway, the point is poor people can afford 60% raise in food prices, since food prices went beyond that I didn't hear about mass starvation in Canada.

Oh so you came up with that number on your own?

[divx]

Oh so you came up with that number on your own?

i buy food every week, these are real prices :facepalm:

[JK400]

Time to take anyasok away to the looney bin. Guess the moderation on the careers forum was too strict and you had to find some new forum to vent your rage on?

Update: Looks like he's been playing one too many RPG video games and they've finally melted his brain. I hope this is a lesson to all parents out there

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/torchlight-2-beta-weekend-fri-may-18th-11-00am-pdt-tues-may-22nd-11-00am-pdt-1171785/#post14676342

[a-tree]

Time to take anyasok away to the looney bin. Guess the moderation on the careers forum was too strict and you had to find some new forum to vent your rage on?

Update: Looks like he's been playing one too many RPG video games and they've finally melted his brain. I hope this is a lesson to all parents out there

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/torchlight-2-beta-weekend-fri-may-18th-11-00am-pdt-tues-may-22nd-11-00am-pdt-1171785/#post14676342

I don't know much about games but isn't that sort of the game where you need to allocate resources? As in, nothing comes for free?

[dealseeker2011]

I agree with him. There is no such thing as a bad job. we are the one who's giving life to our jobs. You could have the highest position in a company but still consider it as bad a job. You could have the lowest paying job but consider it the job of your life. We are the one who's giving these description to a job that we have. We are in control of it. ;)

[Agafaba]

i buy food every week, these are real prices :facepalm:

So, you came up with that number on your own?


Anyway here are some links that make my post infinitely more productive.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-world-food-price-index-by-food-type-over-the-past-five-years/article1975585/

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/


It does seem that food prices have risen, although nowhere near the 300% you claimed. I suppose those who really need food are given several ways (things like food banks) to find it so they can survive. I would also like to point out that minimum wage did not remain static over the last 5 years either, it was 7.75 Feb 2006 and now its $10.25.

[transitguy1]

The thing is if you're going from +25$ to 10$, you cannot support your existing quality of life. You lose your home, and possibly the family.

The jobs market is becoming more and more unstable. Real estate will crash and burn, but of course that's what some people want.

The problem is, that everyone keeps talking about the real estate will crash, but it has not happened.

I just want it to happen so everyone can stop talking about "its gonna happen". for Gods's sake happen already and get it over with

I wonder how many people will be forced to move into rental buildings, lol.......

[Mark77]

I am not sure you are getting it. I am arguing for a great lifestyle for ALL human beings, including yourself, syne, mark77, DearSummer, a-tree or anyone else (despite them not seeing it this way). It is far from being an egotistical pursuit and nor do I see anyone as being unworthy.


Ironically what I argue for, and that is, better economic conditions for engineers and engineering in general, so that our talent can work and be prosperous, tends to also raise the standard of living for everyone at the same time, ultimately getting us closer to fulfilling that utopian view you express.

Engineers create stuff, make things more efficient, and make things cheaper/more affordable/easier/less labour intensive. People like to have stuff.

The way some people here talk, it is as if engineers should be darn lucky, kissing the ground that they might have a 1 in 3 chance at a job (ie: 2/3rds of Canada's engineers are unemployed). Rather than the other way around -- the consuming public, who are utterly reliant on engineered goods, services, and energy supplies, should be kissing the ground that engineers exist, and more importantly, that engineers are generally willing to share the surplus of their efforts with others.

[MrKap]

Ironically what I argue for, and that is, better economic conditions for engineers and engineering in general, so that our talent can work and be prosperous, tends to also raise the standard of living for everyone at the same time, ultimately getting us closer to fulfilling that utopian view you express.

Engineers create stuff, make things more efficient, and make things cheaper/more affordable/easier/less labour intensive. People like to have stuff.

The way some people here talk, it is as if engineers should be darn lucky, kissing the ground that they might have a 1 in 3 chance at a job (ie: 2/3rds of Canada's engineers are unemployed). Rather than the other way around -- the consuming public, who are utterly reliant on engineered goods, services, and energy supplies, should be kissing the ground that engineers exist, and more importantly, that engineers are generally willing to share the surplus of their efforts with others.

You can't win, if it's art, it's worthless, if it's some sort of high tech, it's worthless.

I mean everyone would agree that the Mona Lisa has value, but for the most part it is absolutely free and of no real interest to the majority.

The only way engineers are perceived as valuable, to the majority, is when they fix stuff. Jmo... Even then it's usually recognized as price gouging, rather than appreciation.

I am just humoring you.

[Agafaba]

Ironically what I argue for, and that is, better economic conditions for engineers and engineering in general, so that our talent can work and be prosperous, tends to also raise the standard of living for everyone at the same time, ultimately getting us closer to fulfilling that utopian view you express.

Engineers create stuff, make things more efficient, and make things cheaper/more affordable/easier/less labour intensive. People like to have stuff.

The way some people here talk, it is as if engineers should be darn lucky, kissing the ground that they might have a 1 in 3 chance at a job (ie: 2/3rds of Canada's engineers are unemployed). Rather than the other way around -- the consuming public, who are utterly reliant on engineered goods, services, and energy supplies, should be kissing the ground that engineers exist, and more importantly, that engineers are generally willing to share the surplus of their efforts with others.

What?

[damnos]

Ironically what I argue for, and that is, better economic conditions for engineers and engineering in general, so that our talent can work and be prosperous, tends to also raise the standard of living for everyone at the same time, ultimately getting us closer to fulfilling that utopian view you express.

Engineers create stuff, make things more efficient, and make things cheaper/more affordable/easier/less labour intensive. People like to have stuff.

The way some people here talk, it is as if engineers should be darn lucky, kissing the ground that they might have a 1 in 3 chance at a job (ie: 2/3rds of Canada's engineers are unemployed). Rather than the other way around -- the consuming public, who are utterly reliant on engineered goods, services, and energy supplies, should be kissing the ground that engineers exist, and more importantly, that engineers are generally willing to share the surplus of their efforts with others.

So engineers have no need for economics / financial / accounting people to manage money, generate investment, etc
and engineers don't need agricultural to put food on their plates
and engineers don't need arts / music / etc that gives them entertainment, release them from stress and make them work better,
and engineers don't need doctors to make medical advancement and keep their health
etc etc

You and your engineer superiority complex.

In reality, if you have the slightest bit of brain, you'll realize that there's no one job that's superior than others, every field need other fields, every sector in one way or another, direct or indirect, supporting and need one another.

[DearSummer]

Is the EI system making it more attractive to not work?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/18/is-the-ei-system-making-it-more-attractive-to-not-work/


Fish processing plants in Prince Edward Island are bringing in Russian workers because they can’t find locals to do the work, despite a local unemployment rate of 11% reported in April. Farmers in Saskatchewan are offering $25 an hour for unskilled farm labour, but rely on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program because they can’t find workers at home.


“Many Canadians — not all, but many Canadians — do believe that they are above a whole bunch of different occupations,” said Mr. Kelly. “And yet, these same Canadians depend desperately on people to take these jobs to better their own quality of life. These same Canadians that are looking down their noses at the so-called ‘bad jobs’ out there, who’s taking care of their parents at the personal care home? Who’s washing their dishes in the restaurant? Who’s cleaning the toilets at the shopping centre that they go to?”


A CFIB survey published in September, 2009, found 22% of small businesses owners had trouble hiring people who are on EI, as workers said they would rather continue collecting benefits than work in the more hands-on jobs. Another 16% said that in the past year, they had had an employee ask to be laid off so he or she could collect EI benefits (these rates were higher in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island).

[flight878]

Bonjour. Do I smell entitlement here too? The Canadian Worker is generally more entitled than his American or Mexican counterpart. All this obsession with "fair" benefits, pensions, advantageous government intrusion, unions gone astray, while we are less productive than the Germans, Americans or Mexicans. For instance, if the CAW doesn't wake up, those manufacturing jobs in Ontario will eventually leave this country. If Flaherty wishes to implement his crazy schemes, there are creative ways to do it. After all, we just love it when the Big Canadian Nanny State takes gentle care of us. We have a new economic reality. The economic prosperity of this country is now oriented towards resource extraction, and Alberta is like the center of the universe.

Forced removal to job shortage areas is a great idea for starters. The government can use monies raised from EI premiums to force-relocate workers. When the government of South Africa passed the Group Areas Act, forced removals were common--look at what happened to District Six. Workers in certain cities were force-relocated to homelands with easy transport to the gold and diamond mines; these were what made that country prosperous during most of the 20th century. All of that cost money. Cheap camps can be built in Alberta, ready to house worker bees needed at the oil patch. Other democratic countries do things like this. Israelis have forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes (and at times, demolished them) in East Jerusalem to make way for new neighborhoods--that costs money. The private sector can also get involved too, and are generally nicer at doing this. Lots of slum-dwellers are paid to leave their homes to make way for new, modern, clean and affluent businesses as part of gentrification schemes like what happened in south Chicago in the early 2000s.

Also, while these workers are there, EI eligibility is to be suspended and rights to EI claims revoked. There should be additional taxation to cover any additional expenses of forced removal and camp maintenance. This might inflate the bureaucracy a little, creating a few jobs for some lucky entitled B.A. grads needing EI, but whose puny arms and big bellies make them unable to lift anvils onto the wheelbarrows at the quarry. It's time the Canadian government give some tough love to its citizens, that way they can get out of their slouch-postures, walk with their heads high and become productive again to compete globally. There is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job.

[JK400]

Bonjour. Do I smell entitlement here too? The Canadian Worker is generally more entitled than his American or Mexican counterpart. All this obsession with "fair" benefits, pensions, advantageous government intrusion, unions gone astray, while we are less productive than the Germans, Americans or Mexicans. For instance, if the CAW doesn't wake up, those manufacturing jobs in Ontario will eventually leave this country. If Flaherty wishes to implement his crazy schemes, there are creative ways to do it. After all, we just love it when the Big Canadian Nanny State takes gentle care of us. We have a new economic reality. The economic prosperity of this country is now oriented towards resource extraction, and Alberta is like the center of the universe.

Forced removal to job shortage areas is a great idea for starters. The government can use monies raised from EI premiums to force-relocate workers. When the government of South Africa passed the Group Areas Act, forced removals were common--look at what happened to District Six. Workers in certain cities were force-relocated to homelands with easy transport to the gold and diamond mines; these were what made that country prosperous during most of the 20th century. All of that cost money. Cheap camps can be built in Alberta, ready to house worker bees needed at the oil patch. Other democratic countries do things like this. Israelis have forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes (and at times, demolished them) in East Jerusalem to make way for new neighborhoods--that costs money. The private sector can also get involved too, and are generally nicer at doing this. Lots of slum-dwellers are paid to leave their homes to make way for new, modern, clean and affluent businesses as part of gentrification schemes like what happened in south Chicago in the early 2000s.

Also, while these workers are there, EI eligibility is to be suspended and rights to EI claims revoked. There should be additional taxation to cover any additional expenses of forced removal and camp maintenance. This might inflate the bureaucracy a little, creating a few jobs for some lucky entitled B.A. grads needing EI, but whose puny arms and big bellies make them unable to lift anvils onto the wheelbarrows at the quarry. It's time the Canadian government give some tough love to its citizens, that way they can get out of their slouch-postures, walk with their heads high and become productive again to compete globally. There is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job.

Sounds like an entitlement problem. Like Anyasok over there, thinks he's entitled to massive amounts of RPG gaming (and by the sounds of his posts a lot of dope smoking too) while being able to rag on the system that lets him enjoy his upper middle class carefree lifestyle.

[transitguy1]

Bonjour. Do I smell entitlement here too? The Canadian Worker is generally more entitled than his American or Mexican counterpart. All this obsession with "fair" benefits, pensions, advantageous government intrusion, unions gone astray, while we are less productive than the Germans, Americans or Mexicans. For instance, if the CAW doesn't wake up, those manufacturing jobs in Ontario will eventually leave this country. If Flaherty wishes to implement his crazy schemes, there are creative ways to do it. After all, we just love it when the Big Canadian Nanny State takes gentle care of us. We have a new economic reality. The economic prosperity of this country is now oriented towards resource extraction, and Alberta is like the center of the universe.

Forced removal to job shortage areas is a great idea for starters. The government can use monies raised from EI premiums to force-relocate workers. When the government of South Africa passed the Group Areas Act, forced removals were common--look at what happened to District Six. Workers in certain cities were force-relocated to homelands with easy transport to the gold and diamond mines; these were what made that country prosperous during most of the 20th century. All of that cost money. Cheap camps can be built in Alberta, ready to house worker bees needed at the oil patch. Other democratic countries do things like this. Israelis have forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes (and at times, demolished them) in East Jerusalem to make way for new neighborhoods--that costs money. The private sector can also get involved too, and are generally nicer at doing this. Lots of slum-dwellers are paid to leave their homes to make way for new, modern, clean and affluent businesses as part of gentrification schemes like what happened in south Chicago in the early 2000s.

Also, while these workers are there, EI eligibility is to be suspended and rights to EI claims revoked. There should be additional taxation to cover any additional expenses of forced removal and camp maintenance. This might inflate the bureaucracy a little, creating a few jobs for some lucky entitled B.A. grads needing EI, but whose puny arms and big bellies make them unable to lift anvils onto the wheelbarrows at the quarry. It's time the Canadian government give some tough love to its citizens, that way they can get out of their slouch-postures, walk with their heads high and become productive again to compete globally. There is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job.


Please do not compare or put Germans and America/Mexico in the same line.
The German living standards and facilities are way more advanced than any of the other countries. Their salaries and benefits surpass whatever meagre benefits Canadians will ever get.

From the geographic locations of these workers taking on EI, it seems they all live in other provinces where there isn't much going on. So you want to force workers?
You have an uphill task, good luck enforcing it, in a country where police can't even enforce speeding laws properly. Manpower issues and too many courts giving freebies to everyone

[divx]

The problem is, that everyone keeps talking about the real estate will crash, but it has not happened.

I just want it to happen so everyone can stop talking about "its gonna happen". for Gods's sake happen already and get it over with

I wonder how many people will be forced to move into rental buildings, lol.......

when did that happen?

[robster77]

No such thing as a bad job Jim Flaherty tells picky unemployed workers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/such+thing+Flaherty+tells+picky+unemployed+workers/6620342/story.html




Would you take a job that is not in your field, relocate, or retrain rather than collecting EI?

Actually, no I wouldn't. Once again, Jim Flaherty proves he's clueless. I have two undergrad degrees, an MBA and an accounting designation. I've worked in the field of finance for going on two decades now., Let's say tomorrow I lose my job and have to go on EI, which I max out in payments to every year that I have worked. According to Mr. Flaherty, I'm supposed to start driving a cab, rather than use the time unemployed to devote my search full time to a job in which I am qualified and experienced? The entire intent of the EI program was and is to provide temporary assistance to people (who pay into the program mind you) who are temporarily in between jobs. Bottom line. It's not about relocating them to Fort MacMurray to work at Tim Hortons. If it is, then please give me my EI money back. I'll fend for myself, thanks.

[squagles]

Forced removal to job shortage areas is a great idea for starters. The government can use monies raised from EI premiums to force-relocate workers. When the government of South Africa passed the Group Areas Act, forced removals were common--look at what happened to District Six. Workers in certain cities were force-relocated to homelands with easy transport to the gold and diamond mines; these were what made that country prosperous during most of the 20th century. All of that cost money. Cheap camps can be built in Alberta, ready to house worker bees needed at the oil patch. Other democratic countries do things like this. Israelis have forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes (and at times, demolished them) in East Jerusalem to make way for new neighborhoods--that costs money. The private sector can also get involved too, and are generally nicer at doing this. Lots of slum-dwellers are paid to leave their homes to make way for new, modern, clean and affluent businesses as part of gentrification schemes like what happened in south Chicago in the early 2000s.


Fascist spotted.

[CDNPatriot]

Flaherty is just trying to promote the hourglass phenomena. In the end people will still be pushed out of the labour market.

Just means that the highly skilled will take the bottom entry level low paying jobs. And the low skilled won't have a chance and will be out of the labour market altogether. Wonder which Tim Horton's Mark will be working at.

http://www.theconstellation.ca/img_upload/08acc0993e95b9dd86af3df3ef8e7c51/EconomyOOShape.pdf


Actually, no I wouldn't. Once again, Jim Flaherty proves he's clueless. I have two undergrad degrees, an MBA and an accounting designation. I've worked in the field of finance for going on two decades now., Let's say tomorrow I lose my job and have to go on EI, which I max out in payments to every year that I have worked. According to Mr. Flaherty, I'm supposed to start driving a cab, rather than use the time unemployed to devote my search full time to a job in which I am qualified and experienced? The entire intent of the EI program was and is to provide temporary assistance to people (who pay into the program mind you) who are temporarily in between jobs. Bottom line. It's not about relocating them to Fort MacMurray to work at Tim Hortons. If it is, then please give me my EI money back. I'll fend for myself, thanks.

[CDNPatriot]

atree is still alive and posting after the 300% food price raise since 2007.

Didn't say he would not be alive... I said he would be whining at a greater rate than he is now.

[CDNPatriot]

Why do you think milk prices went up? Milk would be much, much cheaper here if not for government intervention. There are huge trade barriers for food in Canada which is the main reason it's so expensive.

What abour our lumber vs US lumber?

Have you tried American milk Dearsummer? Tastes like crap. Apparently they even begun selling made in China milk. They ship the powdered milk to the US and then they add water and put it in a jug for you.

Don't you dare import that crap to us.

[a-tree]

What abour our lumber vs US lumber?

Have you tried American milk Dearsummer? Tastes like crap. Apparently they even begun selling made in China milk. They ship the powdered milk to the US and then they add water and put it in a jug for you.

Don't you dare import that crap to us.

Are you saying American milk tastes like crap because there's no subsidies given?

[CRAZYBUBBA]

I can't believe that someone actually recommended the apartheid policies of south Africa and Israel in this thread. *Facepalm*

[CDNPatriot]

Are you saying American milk tastes like crap because there's no subsidies given?

No, your reading comprehension is still an issue. I suggest you take some English classes or take some assessment tests to get to the bottom of it rather than spending hours on RFD.

[robster77]

Flaherty is just trying to promote the hourglass phenomena. In the end people will still be pushed out of the labour market.

Just means that the highly skilled will take the bottom entry level low paying jobs. And the low skilled won't have a chance and will be out of the labour market altogether. Wonder which Tim Horton's Mark will be working at.

http://www.theconstellation.ca/img_upload/08acc0993e95b9dd86af3df3ef8e7c51/EconomyOOShape.pdf

Great paper. Thanks.

[DearSummer]

What abour our lumber vs US lumber?

Have you tried American milk Dearsummer? Tastes like crap. Apparently they even begun selling made in China milk. They ship the powdered milk to the US and then they add water and put it in a jug for you.

Don't you dare import that crap to us.

If the consumer likes "Canadian" milk more than American or Chinese milk, they are free to buy it and pay the price premium. The great thing about capitalism and free trade is that the consumer has all the power to decide what products they buy.

[CDNPatriot]

The problem Dearsummer is that they don't always freely advertise where the milk is coming from. I trust Canadian milk. I don't trust other milk.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-05/17/content_15314388.htm

The problem is that the United States dairy board is much larger than the Canadian one.

With your logic we should allow foreign banks in here so that they can just gobble up the Canadian ones.

You have to think strategically. The "invisible hand" of the market does not regulate everything well. Otherwise there would be no poverty and the rich would not be seeing a 400 percent increase in their incomes.

Milton achieved little for a reason:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650


If the consumer likes "Canadian" milk more than American or Chinese milk, they are free to buy it and pay the price premium. The great thing about capitalism and free trade is that the consumer has all the power to decide what products they buy.

[a-tree]

No, your reading comprehension is still an issue. I suggest you take some English classes or take some assessment tests to get to the bottom of it rather than spending hours on RFD.

Enlighten me then. What the hell were you saying then?

[CDNPatriot]

Enlighten me then. What the hell were you saying then?

I wrote in English and what I wrote is very clear. I think that it would be best for the RFD community that you take an assessment as you clutter and derail threads as a result of your lack of reading comprehension. Good luck with that.

http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/learningdisabilitybasics/p/rdgcomprhnsn.htm

[a-tree]

I wrote in English and what I wrote is very clear. I think that it would be best for the RFD community that you take an assessment as you clutter and derail threads as a result of your lack of reading comprehension. Good luck with that.

http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/learningdisabilitybasics/p/rdgcomprhnsn.htm

Dearsummer gave an explanation as to why milk is so expensive in Canada. Then you talked about how American milk tastes like crap. You put the two together, and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that exchange is that you think milk tastes like crap in the US because there are no subsidies.

[CDNPatriot]

Dearsummer gave an explanation as to why milk is so expensive in Canada. Then you talked about how American milk tastes like crap. You put the two together, and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that exchange is that you think milk tastes like crap in the US because there are no subsidies.

That's not what I said and that's not the content of the links I posted. Again, your reading comprehension issues is letting you down and cluttering up the boards and discouraging any meaningful debate.

[a-tree]

That's not what I said and that's not the content of the links I posted. Again, your reading comprehension issues is letting you down and cluttering up the boards and discouraging any meaningful debate.

Why do you think American milk tastes like crap then?

[Syne]

This is the biggest issue with the welfare state in Canada, EI and other government subsidies.
People have found ways to CHOOSE to collect welfare / EI rather than collecting it because they need to.

There are people who CHOOSE to be net burden to the society, and the system let them to.

Sure, so people do need help and we should help them to get back to their feet and return to being a productive member of society. But people who simply choose to be a burden? we really should get rid of them (or stop the leaks)

What do you mean by "get rid of them"? There is an argument to be made that vagrancy causes harm to society too, which is why I found the auto insurance argument to be somewhat relevant. We not only insure the individual, but we insure the possible victims of an individual's bad decisions. In the case of auto insurance, it could be speeding or drunk driving, in the case of employment, it could be stealing to survive or becoming a public nuisance.

Each of these mandatory insurance programs serve a purpose, and while I don't relish the idea of society being held hostage to the notion of people's bad behaviour, it's not like we can send everyone we don't like to the gas chamber or to jail either.

[CDNPatriot]

Why do you think American milk tastes like crap then?

Reread post 318 for your answer.

[a-tree]

Reread post 318 for your answer.

Taste of anything is subjective. Using taste as a basis to promote regulation/deregulation is just silliness.

[DearSummer]

Taste of anything is subjective. Using taste as a basis to promote regulation/deregulation is just silliness.

CDNPatriot's and other protectionists like him think that they know what is best for everybody else. As a consumer of milk, I am perfectly capable of making my own chocie of what milk I buy. Protectionism is taking the choice away from the consumer and putting it into the hands of the government. If you want to be told what to eat, drink, and buy...over-regulation and protectionism is what you want. If you want the freedom to choose, free trade and minimal regulation is the answer.

It's pretty simple. Individuals should be free to choose what products/services they like. In a capitalistic society, the producers of those products/services will be rewarded since they create something that society values. In a protectionist society, producers of goods/services are awarded simply because the governemnt forces everybody to buy their product (i.e. milk), even if it isn't the best available.

Maybe Canadian milk is the best in the world. I have no clue if it is or isn't. However, if it is, it will have no problem outcompeting all the other milks. If it isn't, why should we be forced to buy an inferior product?

[CDNPatriot]

"CDNPatriot's and other protectionists like him think that they know what is best for everybody else. As a consumer of milk, I am perfectly capable of making my own chocie of what milk I buy. "

The problem Dearsummer is that retailers will stock milk that has the highest margins. The made in China milk shipped to the US in powder form and then water is added before placing it in their jugs has much lower margins. So guess what? The healthier tastier Canadian milk gets squeezed.

Same with the banks. Open the floodgates and let the European banks open up shop here and guess what? No more Canadian banks because just like milk producers they can't compete with the big boys.

Watch this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw



"Protectionism is taking the choice away from the consumer and putting it into the hands of the government. If you want to be told what to eat, drink, and buy...over-regulation and protectionism is what you want. If you want the freedom to choose, free trade and minimal regulation is the answer.

It's pretty simple. Individuals should be free to choose what products/services they like. In a capitalistic society, the producers of those products/services will be rewarded since they create something that society values. In a protectionist society, producers of goods/services are awarded simply because the governemnt forces everybody to buy their product (i.e. milk), even if it isn't the best available.

Maybe Canadian milk is the best in the world. I have no clue if it is or isn't. However, if it is, it will have no problem outcompeting all the other milks. If it isn't, why should we be forced to buy an inferior product?"

Dearsummer, you need to accept that you can't just pillage all Canadian salaries. Opening up the door will lead to the death of the Canadian industry and more unemployed people. I understand that as an importer your livelihood depends on free trade. But you seem to live a rich life as you feverishly spend a lot of time on here protecting the top one percent and boasting how you own a company that has a large number of employees. Clearily there is a lot of fat and gravy in your sector. I think we need to train more unemployed people to become importers like you.

[Syne]

CDNPatriot's and other protectionists like him think that they know what is best for everybody else. As a consumer of milk, I am perfectly capable of making my own chocie of what milk I buy. Protectionism is taking the choice away from the consumer and putting it into the hands of the government. If you want to be told what to eat, drink, and buy...over-regulation and protectionism is what you want. If you want the freedom to choose, free trade and minimal regulation is the answer.

I'm perfectly happy with the government controlling the quality of the nourishment I put into my body. As a consumer, I have an expectation that the things I buy will be safe to a reasonable standard. The government does their job to ensure this and for that I am grateful. I shouldn't have to sue a company to make sure they aren't slowly poisoning me to death.

[DearSummer]

I'm perfectly happy with the government controlling the quality of the nourishment I put into my body. As a consumer, I have an expectation that the things I buy will be safe to a reasonable standard. The government does their job to ensure this and for that I am grateful. I shouldn't have to sue a company to make sure they aren't slowly poisoning me to death.

What does this have to do with protectioism or regulation? Whether food comes from Canada, the U.S., or China, it should be subject to the same regulation.

How does that of that relate to Canada's government-created milk monopoly?

[CDNPatriot]

What does this have to do with protectioism or regulation? Whether food comes from Canada, the U.S., or China, it should be subject to the same regulation.

How does that of that relate to Canada's government-created milk monopoly?

Simple, I just posted to links and sources proving that there are major issues with US and milk from China. Why in good green gracious would you bring that in knowing that? US plays hardball and if we get poisoned slowly by their milk Canada won't get any retribution. Did Milton Friedman's invisible hand protect all of those poor saps that bought the milk in question? And there are a lot of drinkers affected by it.

Sorry you have faith in the "invisible hand" of market forces protecting you.

[a-tree]

CDNPatriot's and other protectionists like him think that they know what is best for everybody else. As a consumer of milk, I am perfectly capable of making my own chocie of what milk I buy. Protectionism is taking the choice away from the consumer and putting it into the hands of the government. If you want to be told what to eat, drink, and buy...over-regulation and protectionism is what you want. If you want the freedom to choose, free trade and minimal regulation is the answer.

It's pretty simple. Individuals should be free to choose what products/services they like. In a capitalistic society, the producers of those products/services will be rewarded since they create something that society values. In a protectionist society, producers of goods/services are awarded simply because the governemnt forces everybody to buy their product (i.e. milk), even if it isn't the best available.

Maybe Canadian milk is the best in the world. I have no clue if it is or isn't. However, if it is, it will have no problem outcompeting all the other milks. If it isn't, why should we be forced to buy an inferior product?

I remember reading a few months ago about Harper considering removing subsidies and trade barriers for an FTA. Then and only then will patriot and his little friend realize they'd been wrong all along.

[CDNPatriot]

What does this have to do with protectioism or regulation? Whether food comes from Canada, the U.S., or China, it should be subject to the same regulation.

How does that of that relate to Canada's government-created milk monopoly?

http://www.foodsafetyfirst.ca/2011/06/14/our-inspectors-cant-stop-dangerous-food-imports/

Our inspectors can’t stop dangerous food imports

By Bob Kingston, Ottawa Citizen

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency might be trying hard to protect Canadian consumers from unsafe imported food. But, the simple fact is the agency is too broke to keep such products from store shelves.

Canada’s import food inspection is a patchwork that ignores some products, while others are examined, with little apparent logic to explain why. For Canadians watching daily reports about Germans falling ill and dying from food contaminated with a new variation of the E. coli bacteria, this knowledge will be cold comfort.

Proactive testing and inspection, other than trend monitoring or project work, is beyond the scope of CFIA’s current front line inspection resources. In fact, the inspection of food imports in Canada is one of the weakest components of the CFIA’s work.

There are only a handful of inspectors assigned to imports for food safety purposes. CFIA can afford to only temporarily assign inspectors to monitor imported food products. While one-off projects such as the Food Import Surveillance Team (FIST) are welcome, FIST has a small complement of inspectors and funding is temporary – for one year only.

The only inspectors dedicated to food imports are wholly funded by industry and their purpose is purely commercial, to determine the quality and grade of imported products, and therefore their market value – not to identify threats to public health and safety.

CFIA inspectors are responsible for the inspection of both import and export food products. But inspectors have no latitude when it comes to export products. Where certification is required, a CFIA certificate for food exports is 100-percent mandatory.

When it comes to inspection of food imports, however, the CFIA has wide discretion to allow items onto grocery store shelves uninspected. This creates an impossible balancing act for inspectors and the CFIA who are subject to heavy pressure from the Canadian food industry to certify their shipments for export.

Everyone knows the unofficial priority is export certification.

In the present resource-starved circumstances, CFIA and its inspectors are too often faced with a situation in which the inspection of imported products always takes a back seat to export certifications.

Stopping unsafe food from reaching grocery shelves is not the purpose of import inspection and less than two per cent of food imported into Canada is inspected. And the vast majority of import inspections are conducted to protect plant and animal health, not to protect human health.

Inspections of products intended for human consumption are conducted primarily to monitor trends and not to prevent dangerous goods from reaching store shelves. For example, in the unlikely event that the CFIA inspects a shipment of fresh produce that is observed to be contaminated by an insecticide or fungicide (because it is covered with a coat of white powder, for example), results from laboratory tests would not be available until long after that product had reached the dining room table.

Inspectors and consumers have no way of knowing what treatments have been applied to imported raw products such as fruits and veggies. Importers of raw fruits and vegetables must declare only those treatments required by Canadian import regulations; any other chemical treatments not required to gain access to Canadian consumers do not have to be declared.

Knowing this, CFIA inspectors take appropriate precautions, such as wearing protective clothing and/ or breathing apparatus, when inspecting these kinds of imports because they have no way of knowing what poisonous or dangerous chemicals have been applied to the products they are handling. Unfortunately, downstream food handlers and consumers are unaware that such precautions may be necessary.

CFIA is not able to ensure equivalency with Canadian standards in the food safety systems of countries that export food to Canada. Since 2007, for example, CFIA has not been able to conduct an audit to ensure that food safety systems in China measure up to Canadian standards. To our knowledge, the only foreign country equivalency assessments conducted in 2010 took place in the United States.

But, it’s not just food imports where the CFIA is not able to meet its mandate to safeguard Canadians. Every CFIA program, apart from processed meat inspection, is under tremendous resource pressure. For example, vacant positions in all programs except meat hygiene are not being filled.

Against this backdrop, the government plans to invest with one hand and cut with the other.

In the next two years, the federal government plans to invest an additional $18 million in food safety inspection. At the same time, the controversial program spending review that Ottawa is conducting could end up cutting more than $70 million from the CFIA’s budget.

The CFIA plans to regulate food imports. This is a good idea in principle, but who will enforce the regulations?

So, regulating and licensing food importers may improve appearances only. Meanwhile, our food safety regulator will continue to lack the resources to inspect imported foods, leaving Canadian consumers exposed to potentially dangerous products.

[DearSummer]

Simple, I just posted to links and sources proving that there are major issues with US and milk from China. Why in good green gracious would you bring that in knowing that? US plays hardball and if we get poisoned slowly by their milk Canada won't get any retribution. Did Milton Friedman's invisible hand protect all of those poor saps that bought the milk in question? And there are a lot of drinkers affected by it.

Sorry you have faith in the "invisible hand" of market forces protecting you.

You are comparing capitalism to some non-existent system where nothing bad happens to anybody. Does regulation guarantee our food will be safe? Maple Leaf and countless others have proved that theory wrong. If dairy farmers in Canada provided tainted milk that got people sick, would Canada get any "retribution"?

Would you be willing to pay $20 for a bag of milk if it was guaranteed to be safe? Or would you rather pay $4 for a bag of milk that is safe 99.999% of the time? Why not leave it up to the consumer to decide which they want?

[CDNPatriot]

You are comparing capitalism to some non-existent system where nothing bad happens to anybody. Does regulation guarantee our food will be safe? Maple Leaf and countless others have proved that theory wrong. If dairy farmers in Canada provided tainted milk that got people sick, would Canada get any "retribution"?

Would you be willing to pay $20 for a bag of milk if it was guaranteed to be safe? Or would you rather pay $4 for a bag of milk that is safe 99.999% of the time? Why not leave it up to the consumer to decide which they want?

Please provide a source that by opening up the regulations and allowing US and Chinese milk into Canada that it would be safe 99.9999% of the time?

You didn't even watch the video about the US obviously.

My article discredits the ability to ensure that imports are safe.

Your Maple Leaf example is flawed. If it happens in Canada measures will be taken otherwise come voting time the voters will remind our leaders. A company in China or the US will cut corners and ship the bad stuff to us since there are little implications on them for doing so unless they sold it to their own people. Canada won't get a dime of retribution from either the US or China in case of a bad batch of milk gets people sick.

Look at how cows are raised in the US. You really want to drink their milk?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkhdGG5pVW8

[squagles]

Would you be willing to pay $20 for a bag of milk if it was guaranteed to be safe? Or would you rather pay $4 for a bag of milk that is safe 99.999% of the time? Why not leave it up to the consumer to decide which they want?

How is the safety information transmitted to the consumer?

[NorthYorker]

There is no such thing as a bad job.Would you be willing to force your wife (if you have one) into prostitution? After all, sex trade is a job. Do you consider prostitution a good job for you? There're no bad jobs, right?
Time to take anyasok away to the looney bin. S/he's not the only one, there are much worthier pottymouth candidates.
Is the EI system making it more attractive to not work?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/18/is-the-ei-system-making-it-more-attractive-to-not-work/Should we all be excited with Mr. Harper making Canadian wages competitive with Indian and Moldavian? I have to admit I'm not :(
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives push ahead with their mandate to make Canada a formidable competitor with the world’s emerging marketsBy the way, please keep in mind that CFIB has vested interest in legislated supply of cheap labour, so all their comments should be viewed as lobbying.
Would I toil in a hard labour job for $10 an hour or not go to work for roughly the same amount of cash?I wonder did somebody tell Mrs. Boesveld that EI pays "roughly same" only in la-la world our Conservatives seem to inhabit. In Canada, EI pays 55% of wages before princely $40K/year, big fat ZERO after that.
A 2006 Fraser Institute report, Long-Term Effects of Generous Unemployment Insurance: Historical Study of New Brunswick and Maine, 1940-1990, found that much greater percentages of workers in N.B. claimed jobless benefits than in neighbouring Maine — an area with virtually the same seasonally specific labour market of fisheries and tourism.LMAO!!! When Fraser resorts to meaningless babbling about "much greater percentages", in plain English that means "we did all the massaging we could and came up with nothing". This is special partisan math :)

[NorthYorker]

Does regulation guarantee our food will be safe? Maple Leaf and countless others have proved that theory wrong.Regulation does not guarantee safety, but it increases safety a great deal. Food business is the most competitive one around the world, and not once in human history it managed to produce food safety system without government regulation.

[a-tree]

Regulation does not guarantee safety, but it increases safety a great deal. Food business is the most competitive one around the world, and not once in human history it managed to produce food safety system without government regulation.

Competition increases safety as well.

[NorthYorker]

Competition increases safety as well.And the example is...

[Syne]

I think a-tree is just saying that killing people is bad for business, which is obvious.

Food safety isn't about assuming that businesses would go around killing their customers given the chance, it's about setting standards so that even the tiniest impurities and long-term consequences are considered when putting food out on supermarket shelves.

To suggest that trial and error is the best way to separate the good suppliers from the bad is not only stupid but inhumane.

[divx]

Would you be willing to force your wife (if you have one) into prostitution? After all, sex trade is a job. Do you consider prostitution a good job for you? There're no bad jobs, right?S/he's not the only one, there are much worthier pottymouth candidates. Should we all be excited with Mr. Harper making Canadian wages competitive with Indian and Moldavian? I have to admit I'm not :( By the way, please keep in mind that CFIB has vested interest in legislated supply of cheap labour, so all their comments should be viewed as lobbying. I wonder did somebody tell Mrs. Boesveld that EI pays "roughly same" only in la-la world our Conservatives seem to inhabit. In Canada, EI pays 55% of wages before princely $40K/year, big fat ZERO after that.LMAO!!! When Fraser resorts to meaningless babbling about "much greater percentages", in plain English that means "we did all the massaging we could and came up with nothing". This is special partisan math :)

we are talking about real jobs here, sex trade is not a legit job, that's like saying pimping and drug dealing is a job, all the legit jobs are valid means of survival.

[divx]

Competition increases safety as well.

actually it's the opposite, all it does is to lower prices at the expense of everything else.

[a-tree]

I think a-tree is just saying that killing people is bad for business, which is obvious.

Food safety isn't about assuming that businesses would go around killing their customers given the chance, it's about setting standards so that even the tiniest impurities and long-term consequences are considered when putting food out on supermarket shelves.

To suggest that trial and error is the best way to separate the good suppliers from the bad is not only stupid but inhumane.

Remember when some sick psycho started lacing Tylenol bottles with cyanide? The company recalled all their products and introduced tamper-proof bottles not out of any regulation but voluntarily. That's the power of competition and 'greed'. And the world is a better place as a result. But to those that have never taken an introduction course to economics this must sound all magical so I understand if you're confused by the idea of competition.

[NorthYorker]

we are talking about real jobs here, sex trade is not a legit jobSex trade is a legit job, especially here in ON with recent legalization of bawdy houses. So, assuming that Mr. Flaherty's ideas are implemented, nothing in our laws would prevent a bawdy house operator to go to HRDC and apply for some workforce at discounted price. Are you comfortable with government supplying workforce to brothels

[NorthYorker]

Remember when some sick psycho started lacing Tylenol bottles with cyanide? The company recalled all their products and introduced tamper-proof bottles not out of any regulation but voluntarily. Subsequent wave of legislation aimed at preventing this type of event from happening in the future clearly shows that even market-crazy Reaganites did not believe in "self-regulation of markets" enough to trust "natural forces" on drug safety.

[divx]

Sex trade is a legit job, especially here in ON with recent legalization of bawdy houses. So, assuming that Mr. Flaherty's ideas are implemented, nothing in our laws would prevent a bawdy house operator to go to HRDC and apply for some workforce at discounted price. Are you comfortable with government supplying workforce to brothels

that's certainly news to me...i don't have an opinion on this at this point in time.

[divx]

Subsequent wave of legislation aimed at preventing this type of event from happening in the future clearly shows that even market-crazy Reaganites did not believe in "self-regulation of markets" enough to trust "natural forces" on drug safety.

i agree with you on this point

[a-tree]

Subsequent wave of legislation aimed at preventing this type of event from happening in the future clearly shows that even market-crazy Reaganites did not believe in "self-regulation of markets" enough to trust "natural forces" on drug safety.

Lol. Do you actually think if it weren't for legislation other companies wouldn't have adopted tamper-proof bottles? The politicians at the time may not have believed in self-regulation, but remember that it was competition that spurred Tylenol into action in the first place. Get that in your head.

[NorthYorker]

Lol. Do you actually think if it weren't for legislation other companies wouldn't have adopted tamper-proof bottles?Would grandma have testicles, she would have been called grandpa. Seriously, you entertain me with your habit of countering reality with imaginary assumptions, and following hints that anyone who observes reality and not products of your cranium is wrong.
You might seriously believe that yours smarter than 300 mln Americans who rewarded Reagan and his teammates with landslide victory 2 years after the Tylenol scare. Some folks believe in flat Earth.

[a-tree]

Would grandma have testicles, she would have been called grandpa. Seriously, you entertain me with your habit of countering reality with imaginary assumptions, and following hints that anyone who observes reality and not products of your cranium is wrong.
You might seriously believe that yours smarter than 300 mln Americans who rewarded Reagan and his teammates with landslide victory 2 years after the Tylenol scare. Some folks believe in flat Earth.

Answer the question, if you can. If it weren't for legislation, do you actually think other companies would not have introduced tamper-proof bottles themselves? Answer it, then go read a book on economics.

[Syne]

Remember when some sick psycho started lacing Tylenol bottles with cyanide? The company recalled all their products and introduced tamper-proof bottles not out of any regulation but voluntarily. That's the power of competition and 'greed'. And the world is a better place as a result. But to those that have never taken an introduction course to economics this must sound all magical so I understand if you're confused by the idea of competition.

Legislation might call for checks and balances that would have prevented those cyanide-laced bottles from reaching the shelves in the first place. Legislation also covers things like public transparency, so companies like J&J can't cover up incidents like this, which the free market would demand they do if possible, to reduce bad PR (which equals loss of money).

In a world without government legislation, you would have cartels protected by thugs, bought and paid for news organizations and all manner of private scandal. It doesn't take a course in economic theory to figure that out. Just look at Mexico.

[NorthYorker]

Answer the question, if you can. It had been answered times and again. The area in Toronto where restaurant competition is absolutely fiercest (Spadina Chinatown) had been an absolute champion in food safety violations. However, I do understand that reality does not intersect with your thoughts.

[a-tree]

Legislation might call for checks and balances that would have prevented those cyanide-laced bottles from reaching the shelves in the first place. Legislation also covers things like public transparency, so companies like J&J can't cover up incidents like this, which the free market would demand they do if possible, to reduce bad PR (which equals loss of money).

In a world without government legislation, you would have cartels protected by thugs, bought and paid for news organizations and all manner of private scandal. It doesn't take a course in economic theory to figure that out. Just look at Mexico.

Hindsight is always 20/20 huh? What do you think would have prompted such a legislation in the first place? Precedents! Do you actually think anyone could have imagined that a psycho would lace drug bottles before this? Get real and wake up. Competition in that case actually ensured that the case was resolved before any regulation could have.

Even with out legislation J&J couldn't cover up anything. This was nation-wide, world-wide news. What's your point?


It had been answered times and again. The area in Toronto where restaurant competition is absolutely fiercest (Spadina Chinatown) had been an absolute champion in food safety violations. However, I do understand that reality does not intersect with your thoughts.

Absolute champion in safety violations? Of the hundreds of restaurants in Chinatown, how many actually violated safety standards? Do you know? Here's the point. Even without safety regulations, if patrons were consistently getting sick and food poisoned at a particular restaurant, rules of competition would ensure that that establishment either goes out of business, or changes their ways. Now. Answer my question properly. Do you think if it weren't for legislation other drug companies wouldn't have adopted tamper-proof bottles?

[flashy_mcflash]

Absolute champion in safety violations? Of the hundreds of restaurants in Chinatown, how many actually violated safety standards? Do you know?

Oooh! Oooh! I do!

http://www.thegridto.com/life/food-drink/toronto-food-safety/

Pretty clear concentration here.

[a-tree]

Oooh! Oooh! I do!

http://www.thegridto.com/life/food-drink/toronto-food-safety/

Pretty clear concentration here.

How many people actually experienced sickness after eating at these establishments? Do you know?

How come you ran off with your tail between your legs in this post without responding to me by the way?

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/misleading-robocalls-traced-conservative-party-elections-canada-1172870/3/#post14708164

[flashy_mcflash]

How many people actually experienced sickness after eating at these establishments? Do you know?

How come you ran off with your tail between your legs in this post without responding to me by the way?

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/misleading-robocalls-traced-conservative-party-elections-canada-1172870/3/#post14708164

I don't know if they track incidences of sickness but typically, when a restaurant is filthy enough to be shut down, it's going to make some people sick. That's how the guidelines are usually formulated, not plucked out of the air like your wacky opinions.

I must have forgotten that other response, as your posts are about as memorable as they are factually accurate and I have things to attend to that rank higher than satiating some unemployable neckbeard's requests to do their homework for them. It looks like you were adequately corrected later in the thread though.

[a-tree]

I don't know if they track incidences of sickness but typically, when a restaurant is filthy enough to be shut down, it's going to make some people sick. That's how the guidelines are usually formulated, not plucked out of the air like your wacky opinions.

I must have forgotten that other response, as your posts are about as memorable as they are factually accurate and I have things to attend to that rank higher than satiating some unemployable neckbeard's requests to do their homework for them. It looks like you were adequately corrected later in the thread though.

If they were filthy enough to get people sick, they would have been shut down by competition. That's the point.

Haha good excuse, though I know you're lying. I wish I were there to see the expression on your face when you realized the source you brought up actually proved me instead. You were so confident too! Adequately corrected? How? An assertion that someone said something without source is hearsay, which is to say, garbage.

[squagles]

if patrons were consistently getting sick and food poisoned at a particular restaurant, rules of competition would ensure that that establishment either goes out of business, or changes their ways.

A) How do people know with certainty what restaurant served them them the bad food?
B) Assuming we can ignore A, how would they combine the information with other customers?
C) Assuming we can ignore the problems in B, why would consumers trust a group of people claiming that a restaurant is serving sickening food? It could just as easily be a hoax by a competitor. Alternatively, how could you ever trust a company to honestly advertise it's health benefits. Tobacco companies used to have endorsements from doctors in their ads.

Please explain the actual process by which competition would regulate. Don't just wave your magic competition wand. I want details.

[a-tree]

A) How do people know with certainty what restaurant served them them the bad food?
B) Assuming we can ignore A, how would they combine the information with other customers?
C) Assuming we can ignore the problems in B, why would consumers trust a group of people claiming that a restaurant is serving sickening food? It could just as easily be a hoax by a competitor. Alternatively, how could you ever trust a company to honestly advertise it's health benefits. Tobacco companies used to have endorsements from doctors in their ads.

Please explain the actual process by which competition would regulate. Don't just wave your magic competition wand. I want details.

Word of mouth, personal experience, forums, news reports. Simple answers which you could have gotten for yourself if you used your head for two seconds.

[Syne]

If they were filthy enough to get people sick, they would have been shut down by competition. That's the point.

No, that's your point. Everyone else seems to understand that legislating food quality before it makes people sick is a more mature and rational way to go about things than your trial & error approach.

[Syne]

Word of mouth, personal experience, forums, news reports. Simple answers which you could have gotten for yourself if you used your head for two seconds.

You have zero credibility.

[squagles]

Word of mouth, personal experience, forums, news reports. Simple answers which you could have gotten for yourself if you used your head for two seconds.

Haha, so the least scientific way possible?

[squagles]

Hold on a second guys, I'm going to Seattle and I gotta check the message boards to see if the food will kill me.

[a-tree]

Haha, so the least scientific way possible?

You go eat at a restaurant and get sick. Do you need a probe up your butt analyze where you got your food? Word of mouth is the most common way to discern quality in any product. Why do you need a 'scientific method' to do that? Did you buy your computer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which company has the best quality? Did you buy your beer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which beer has the best taste? Do you hire scientists to check for safety before going to restaurants? Once again, use your head.

[a-tree]

You have zero credibility.

You're just hurt that I hack and slash you every time.

[Syne]

Science comes up with the data to make the safety guidelines and the government enforces them. I'm sure if you asked an inspector to justify why they shut a restaurant down, there is a body of scientific data to back up every reason.

Food poisoning generally takes about 24hrs for onset. It's often quite difficult for a person to pinpoint the exact thing that got them, which is why getting so much as a gift card from an offending restaurant is next to impossible, even if they are responsible for making you ill.

[a-tree]

Science comes up with the data to make the safety guidelines and the government enforces them. I'm sure if you asked an inspector to justify why they shut a restaurant down, there is a body of scientific data to back up every reason.

Food poisoning generally takes about 24hrs for onset. It's often quite difficult for a person to pinpoint the exact thing that got them, which is why getting so much as a gift card from an offending restaurant is next to impossible, even if they are responsible for making you ill.

How many people eat all three meals at restaurants? What about measures like asking those who had the same meal as you? It's generally easy to pinpoint where you got your illness. Common methods of deduction really, but it seems you're probably unfamiliar with that term.

[squagles]

You go eat at a restaurant and get sick. Do you need a probe up your butt analyze where you got your food? Word of mouth is the most common way to discern quality in any product. Why do you need a 'scientific method' to do that? Did you buy your computer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which company has the best quality? Did you buy your beer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which beer has the best taste? Do you hire scientists to check for safety before going to restaurants? Once again, use your head.

How do you determine which restaurant made you sick? Determine. Not hypothesize or guess.

[Syne]

How many people eat all three meals at restaurants? What about measures like asking those who had the same meal as you? It's generally easy to pinpoint where you got your illness. Common methods of deduction really, but it seems you're probably unfamiliar with that term.

Do you really have to end every post with a lame insult? Yes, we get it, we have a limited vocabulary combined with a poor understanding of economics. Now that we have that out of the way, how about discussing things like an adult?

[squagles]

It's generally easy to pinpoint where you got your illness.

It's easy to feel certain you've guessed correctly. It's improbable that you actually know for sure.

[a-tree]

It's easy to feel certain you've guessed correctly. It's improbable that you actually know for sure.

You have some oysters at a restaurant with your family. The next day, everyone is sick. That's good enough to trash talk that restaurant for me. Is it for you? How come you didn't answer my questions from before?

[squagles]

You have some oysters at a restaurant with your family. The next day, everyone is sick. That's good enough to trash talk that restaurant for me. Is it for you?

No. Too many assumption. First assumption is that the illness is food borne. It could've been an illness one of the family members picked up from somewhere else. The second assumption is that the you know the source of the food borne illness. Maybe the mother didn't check the expiration date of the mayonnaise she used in every body's lunch.

This is also a case where it's almost obvious. What about the case where only one person in the family was poisoned by the restaurant. Does the restaurant get a pass because the other people who ate there didn't get sick?


How come you didn't answer my questions from before?

Refresh my memory. And ask clear questions.

[a-tree]

No. Too many assumption. First assumption is that the illness is food borne. It could've been an illness one of the family members picked up from somewhere else. The second assumption is that the you know the source of the food borne illness. Maybe the mother didn't check the expiration date of the mayonnaise she used in every body's lunch.

This is also a case where it's almost obvious. What about the case where only one person in the family was poisoned by the restaurant. Does the restaurant get a pass because the other people who ate there didn't get sick?



Refresh my memory. And ask clear questions.

This is an exercise in deduction. Is it 100%? No. But it does its job. Now, how come you didn't answer my questions from before?

[squagles]

This is an exercise in deduction. Is it 100%? No. But it does its job. Now, how come you didn't answer my questions from before?

It was rambling and I didn't really feel like it. But if you insist.

"You go eat at a restaurant and get sick. Do you need a probe up your butt analyze where you got your food?"

Yes. It could be anything. I wouldn't presume that I could guess what particular thing I did or ate caused the illness. I don't think anyone has this ability.

"Word of mouth is the most common way to discern quality in any product. Why do you need a 'scientific method' to do that?"

I'm not debating what is the most common way, I'm debating what is the most effective way. I wouldn't trust someone who claimed that they got food poisoning at place A unless they went to a doctor.

"Did you buy your computer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which company has the best quality? Did you buy your beer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which beer has the best taste? Do you hire scientists to check for safety before going to restaurants?"

These analogies are silly. Computers don't make me sick. Taste is subjective, botchulism isn't. I don't hire scientists, but the government has and they mandate food be handled in a certain way to lower the risk of food borne illness.

[a-tree]

It was rambling and I didn't really feel like it. But if you insist.

"You go eat at a restaurant and get sick. Do you need a probe up your butt analyze where you got your food?"

Yes. It could be anything. I wouldn't presume that I could guess what particular thing I did or ate caused the illness. I don't think anyone has this ability.

"Word of mouth is the most common way to discern quality in any product. Why do you need a 'scientific method' to do that?"

I'm not debating what is the most common way, I'm debating what is the most effective way. I wouldn't trust someone who claimed that they got food poisoning at place A unless they went to a doctor.

"Did you buy your computer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which company has the best quality? Did you buy your beer after a 'scientific analysis' as to which beer has the best taste? Do you hire scientists to check for safety before going to restaurants?"

These analogies are silly. Computers don't make me sick. Taste is subjective, botchulism isn't. I don't hire scientists, but the government has and they mandate food be handled in a certain way to lower the risk of food borne illness.

But 'scientific analysis' was the term YOU used. As in, you need definite 100% evidence backed facts. Computers don't make you sick but we're here talking about quality of anything really. That's why this analogy is relevant. So how come you don't perform a scientific analysis when you buy beer or computers?

Word of mouth is the most effective way save for testing out the restaurant yourself and getting sick. Don't lie to me about probing yourself up the butt. You're a wretched little liar.

[squagles]

Don't lie to me about probing yourself up the butt. You're a wretched little liar.

I'm going to go home and stick something up my butt just so you won't think less of me.

[squagles]

So how come you don't perform a scientific analysis when you buy beer or computers?

For subjective things, like quality, I have for no requirement for rigorous scientific examination.

For objective things, like whether food has a certain bacteria, I expect those risks to minimized in a scientific fashion.

[a-tree]

I'm going to go home and stick something up my butt just so you won't think less of me.

Try not to enjoy yourself too much, although I know it will be difficult for you.



For subjective things, like quality, I have for no requirement for rigorous scientific examination.

For objective things, like whether food has a certain bacteria, I expect those risks to minimized in a scientific fashion.

What's the difference? If one person has food poisoning you're not gonna go to that restaurant are you? That's finding out through non-scientific means.

[squagles]

What's the difference? If one person has food poisoning you're not gonna go to that restaurant are you? That's finding out through non-scientific means.

They're both scientific.

One experiment requires human guinea pigs and ambiguity, the other viciously oppresses cooks by making them wash their hands and robs innocent consumers of the right to eat tainted food.

Feel free to have the last word.

[anyasok]

Time to take anyasok away to the looney bin. Guess the moderation on the careers forum was too strict and you had to find some new forum to vent your rage on?

Update: Looks like he's been playing one too many RPG video games and they've finally melted his brain. I hope this is a lesson to all parents out there

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/torchlight-2-beta-weekend-fri-may-18th-11-00am-pdt-tues-may-22nd-11-00am-pdt-1171785/#post14676342
:facepalm:


I don't know much about games but isn't that sort of the game where you need to allocate resources? As in, nothing comes for free?
:facepalm:


I agree with him. There is no such thing as a bad job. we are the one who's giving life to our jobs. You could have the highest position in a company but still consider it as bad a job. You could have the lowest paying job but consider it the job of your life. We are the one who's giving these description to a job that we have. We are in control of it. ;)
And on that note, you can go back to your Deepak Chopra new-age teachings and indulge in them deeper...

[a-tree]

:facepalm:


:facepalm:


And on that note, you can go back to your Deepak Chopra new-age teachings and indulge in them deeper...

Was I wrong?

[anyasok]

Was I wrong?
How can you compare a game like Torchlight or Neverwinter (the ones that were bought up here) with the allocation of resources there with real life allocation. Please a-tree, research about the games, explain to me how they are similar and i'll address then how wrong you are.

[a-tree]

How can you compare a game like Torchlight or Neverwinter (the ones that were bought up here) with the allocation of resources there with real life allocation. Please a-tree, research about the games, explain to me how they are similar and i'll address then how wrong you are.

I'm talking about the idea of allocation. Scarce resources. Limited goods.

[CDNPatriot]

How can you compare a game like Torchlight or Neverwinter (the ones that were bought up here) with the allocation of resources there with real life allocation. Please a-tree, research about the games, explain to me how they are similar and i'll address then how wrong you are.

Don't hold your breathe. He is not hear to debate he is here to chat and to get some attention he obviously lacks in real life.

[a-tree]

Don't hold your breathe. He is not hear to debate he is here to chat and to get some attention he obviously lacks in real life.

I didn't realize incessantly talking about an inebriated Ford and someone's bad teeth was included in the art of debating.

[NorthYorker]

Back to topic: Human Resources Minister Diane Finley discusses EI changes (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/05/24/pol-employment-insurance-ei-finley.html)
And now we can't independently verify claims of Conservative reformers, thanks to their order to cut off the flow of some key employment data to the public (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/23/employment-insurance-data.html)

[manmanny]

I didn't realize incessantly talking about an inebriated Ford and someone's bad teeth was included in the art of debating.

But they have balls to tell others this

"He is not hear to debate he is here to chat and to get some attention he obviously lacks in real life."

[anyasok]

I'm talking about the idea of allocation. Scarce resources. Limited goods.
And yet you once again dodge my question.
The resources in these games are UNLIMITED. Your INVENTORY is limited so you always end up DISPOSING of them to clear up space. So instead of SCARCITY you have ABUDANCE. So you could compare those games to having lots and lots of money and then using up all the resources endlessly and wanting more and more and clearing out debris to get more and more novel items. We are discussing rich and ultra-rich people then, aren't we?

The games then describe a society we COULD have (minus the endless disposal) which would confirm MY point instead of YOURS.

Now please comment on that.

And thank you for proving my point :)

[a-tree]

And yet you once again dodge my question.
The resources in these games are UNLIMITED. Your INVENTORY is limited so you always end up DISPOSING of them to clear up space. So instead of SCARCITY you have ABUDANCE. So you could compare those games to having lots and lots of money and then using up all the resources endlessly and wanting more and more and clearing out debris to get more and more novel items. We are discussing rich and ultra-rich people then, aren't we?

The games then describe a society we COULD have (minus the endless disposal) which would confirm MY point instead of YOURS.

Now please comment on that.

And thank you for proving my point :)

Ah, so it's a game with abundant resources, which is contrary to what we have in real life, scarcity. You should focus more on life and less on games.

[NorthYorker]

Ah, so it's a game with abundant resources, which is contrary to what we have in real life, scarcity. Weren't you saying that we live in age on abundance? Now it's scarcity. OK, this is as consistent as your other theories.

[a-tree]

Weren't you saying that we live in age on abundance? Now it's scarcity. OK, this is as consistent as your other theories.

When? Where? I'm sure you're just taking it out of context due to your lack of reading skills. But do bring up the post where I say that.

[Syne]

Ah, so it's a game with abundant resources, which is contrary to what we have in real life, scarcity. You should focus more on life and less on games.

How do we have scarcity? Explain.

Having a finite supply or something is not the same as scarcity. Scarcity implies not enough of something. What don't we have enough of?

[NorthYorker]

When? Where? I'm sure you're just taking it out of context due to your lack of reading skills. But do bring up the post where I say that.Are you seriously expecting me to search through RFD archives for you? OK, if you did not say "market economy is not producing abundance" or something to the effect, I'm sorry for my mistake. It is just that unending shilling for market economy don't look too logical from a person who claims that markets produce scarcity, as you do now :)

[anyasok]

How do we have scarcity? Explain.

Having a finite supply or something is not the same as scarcity. Scarcity implies not enough of something. What don't we have enough of?
Precisely
It seems to me a-tree means "limited access[" to resources but we all know what the causes for that are.

[a-tree]

How do we have scarcity? Explain.

Having a finite supply or something is not the same as scarcity. Scarcity implies not enough of something. What don't we have enough of?

Finite supply implies scarcity. Scarcity doesn't imply anything. When will you stop whining by the way?


Are you seriously expecting me to search through RFD archives for you? OK, if you did not say "market economy is not producing abundance" or something to the effect, I'm sorry for my mistake. It is just that unending shilling for market economy don't look too logical from a person who claims that markets produce scarcity, as you do now :)

When did I say markets produce scarcity?. I said markets produce wealth and improved wealth compared to in the past. Does that change the fact that we still face finite resources that need to be allocated efficiently? No. Try not to twist my words around and stay in context. Do you still believe viruses are prey to mankind?

[geokilla]

EI Reform: Unemployed Canadians face crackdown under federal changes (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1183424--ei-reform-unemployed-canadians-face-crackdown-under-federal-changes?bn=1)

While it's a good idea, I don't think this is the correct move. Too much can go wrong and screw people from collecting a well-deserved EI. Plus the fact that you only get 80% of your pay for 6 weeks is mind boggling. You can't make a living on minimum wage already...

[Syne]

Finite supply implies scarcity. Scarcity doesn't imply anything. When will you stop whining by the way?

I guess that's what I get for trying to start a conversation with a ****ing idiot.

Y'know what a-tard. Nevermind.

[a-tree]

I guess that's what I get for trying to start a conversation with a ****ing idiot.

Y'know what a-tard. Nevermind.

Aw, now your feelings are all hurt. What made you think that the likes of you can possibly have anything to converse with me? Go read a book first.

[anyasok]

Aw, now your feelings are all hurt. What made you think that the likes of you can possibly have anything to converse with me? Go read a book first.
You're reading the wrong kind of literature. Capitalaholism is not something we're interested in hearing more about. It's all over the news demonstrating its ugly roots.

[a-tree]

You're reading the wrong kind of literature. Capitalaholism is not something we're interested in hearing more about. It's all over the news demonstrating its ugly roots.

Stop living in video games. Video games aren't reality.

[anyasok]

Stop living in video games. Video games aren't reality.
Every argument you can't win you resort to ad-hominem attacks. This just goes to show how very mature you are. Go hug a tree or something.

[danfromwaterloo]

Loving this. a-tree vs. anayasok

http://decabo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/homer-eating-popcorn.jpg

[a-tree]

Loving this. a-tree vs. anayasok

http://decabo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/homer-eating-popcorn.jpg

What's funny is when a philosophy major talks about majoring in game theory when such a thing doesn't exist in his school.

[Agafaba]

Loving this. a-tree vs. anayasok

http://decabo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/homer-eating-popcorn.jpg

a-tree vs anybody usually end up being hilarious.

[danfromwaterloo]

What's funny is when a philosophy major talks about majoring in game theory when such a thing doesn't exist in his school.

Oh snap! Burned me there! Oh, wait...nope.

[danfromwaterloo]

a-tree vs anybody usually end up being hilarious.

It's like old school King of the Ring, and a-tree is Kamala.

[MrKap]

So what does Flaherty think is a good job?

This is obviously the problem. There are too many good jobs in the economy, and once those are eliminated, whatever the bad ones are, will start to look good.

[anyasok]

So what does Flaherty think is a good job?

This is obviously the problem. There are too many good jobs in the economy, and once those are eliminated, whatever the bad ones are, will start to look good.
Flaherty thinks any job that gets people off EI and leave more money for the government in the coffers (even though its taxpayers money of course and people must continue to pay into it) is a good job.