Ignatieff pushing risky EI reforms: economists

See Lemmy, on politics I think we are closer than you realised. I don't think Harper is an idiot though. I think he has made some bad moves politically but he's no idiot.
Really, both Iggy and Harper are close politically too.

I expected more out of Iggy than he's delivered and I expected better out of Harper after the last election and he's failed to deliver too. But where are the alternatives?

What we have now is a informal 'coalition' in all but name.

The Dion-Layton-Duceppe joke has been replaced with an Iggy-Harper hybrid which decided on no-confidence fodder such as the 'stimulus' and 'EI reform'.
The next election will be interesting as the right-wing of the Liberals looks very much like the pink-Tories of the CPC.

But the problem during recession is alot of people are 'forced' into temporary jobs that are here today and gone tomorrow and now they don't qualify for EI because they didn't work long enough. In the last recession, over 80% of the unemployed population qualified for EI, now its only in the 40% range. On top of that, you have workers who took parental leave withing the last year before unexpectedly losing their job and are told they don't qualify because they haven't accrued enough time back at work. What are those excluded people supposed to do, not feed their kids until the economy turns around?

Second, EI only pays a max of 55% or $474 dollars a week - whichever is higher and with tax deducted from every cheque. Nobody is "lounging" or "enjoying the summer off" on that kind of money, they are cashing in their retirement funds at massive loss, moving in with their elderly parents and dodging bill collectors and doing whatever they can to keep their heads above water as their credit rating and everything they've worked hard to build up for themselves is destroyed for years to come.

When the economy is shedding jobs, its obvious that the unemployed are not just a bunch of people who suddenly became lazy. I say lower the waiting period, increase the benefits to 75% of insurable income or $600 a week for a single peroson in Toronto and tie the duration to local job market conditions so that when there are jobs equal to that benefit amount in a certain supply, the recipient must take one. That person still loses because they're back at 75% pay but the hope is that as the economy strengthens they will work their way back to their former role in short order.

The economic conditions of 1970's were as much to blame for what happened than anything going on at the policy level. We had the onset of stagflation, the birth of the financier-owned economy where banks, private investors and pension plans took over productive companies and demanded constant high rates of return for themselves right off the top regardless of business conditions, we had oil prices through the roof and the end of the Gold Standard of exchange.

Complaining that people were abusing the system in the 70's and ignoring the melting economy of the day is like complaining that the neighbours are in your swimming pool and ignoring that they jumped into it off the roof of a buring house.

Don't let Iggy fool you, he's not a populist reformer, he's from the "status-quo" establishment wing of Liberal party that consorts old money and big business. He's just going to tinker with some benefits to try and capture the left-of-centre vote, but he wont change much.