The Cost of Poverty
Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 19 Next
Bruce_the_vii @ Mon May 09, 2011 5:20 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Ummm... My wife and I made sacrifices, worked hard and made wise investments. We're making more than just a 'living'.
This is partly what the right wing vote is made up of - people that think nothing can happen to their job. The rest of the world is more mindful of what can happen.
You're talking out of your ass because career changes and moving were some of the sacrifices and hard decisions we made. If I didn't like my job, I went back to school. If I couldn't get a job where I wanted to live, I moved.
I chose to serve in the miliary before going to university, so I could afford to go without loans. I spent four years working in Somalia with an NGO, while in university. I've worked as part of a mine clearing operation in some other nasty places. I've had my co workers killed and maimed in that line of work, I've taught school in northern fly in reservations....yeah I'm a real hard core right winger with real cushy jobs.
I think my world view is a tad more realistic than the one you've developed, watching the local news.Interesting personal story. Myself I've trained three times to no effect, and the aces on this board say all you have to do is train again.
Gunnair @ Mon May 09, 2011 6:46 am
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:
This is partly what the right wing vote is made up of - people that think nothing can happen to their job. The rest of the world is more mindful of what can happen.
You're talking out of your ass because career changes and moving were some of the sacrifices and hard decisions we made. If I didn't like my job, I went back to school. If I couldn't get a job where I wanted to live, I moved.
I chose to serve in the miliary before going to university, so I could afford to go without loans. I spent four years working in Somalia with an NGO, while in university. I've worked as part of a mine clearing operation in some other nasty places. I've had my co workers killed and maimed in that line of work, I've taught school in northern fly in reservations....yeah I'm a real hard core right winger with real cushy jobs.
I think my world view is a tad more realistic than the one you've developed, watching the local news.Interesting personal story. Myself I've trained three times to no effect, and the aces on this board say all you have to do is train again.
Whereas what... failure means you get sit back and enjoy a state sponsored living?
Bruce_the_vii @ Mon May 09, 2011 8:09 am
That ah boy, you'll go far.
cougar @ Mon May 09, 2011 8:53 am
$1:
Whereas what... failure means you get sit back and enjoy a state sponsored living?
There are people who will not want to work, others who would do anything and another group that would do just certain jobs.
If one belongs to one of the latter two groups he/she will be unhappy to be sitting around even when paid for that. It is not hard to realize you cannot make any progress on EI or welfare. It's only helping you to live up to the next day.
EyeBrock @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:00 am
What do you mean Bruce?
$1:
Myself I've trained three times to no effect
andyt @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:08 am
cougar cougar:
$1:
Whereas what... failure means you get sit back and enjoy a state sponsored living?
There are people who will not want to work, others who would do anything and another group that would do just certain jobs.
If one belongs to one of the latter two groups he/she will be unhappy to be sitting around even when paid for that. It is not hard to realize you cannot make any progress on EI or welfare. It's only helping you to live up to the next day.
EI doesn't last forever. Living on welfare, I don't know how people do it.
My focus is much more on the working poor, to make sure that if you put in an honest 40 hours a week, you get a paycheck that's at least reasonable in covering your costs. EI is for transitions between jobs, can doubtlessly be improved. As for welfare, my understanding is that Switzerland, say, have very generous welfare provisions, but you have to work to get them, so it's really a govt make work scheme there. I would like us to have the same thing here - don't just hand out money for free for people to sit around and get bored and up to no good on. Don't know what we'd do for all the emotional and physical cripples our society produces - it would cost us more to employ them in sheltered workshops than they produce, but I think that would still be worth it.
Again, the argument goes to "they don't deserve it" instead of addressing the argument of this post, which is that poverty costs us all money. Again, it seems people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, than actually save themselves some tax money and create a better functioning society. It's so simple minded.
OnTheIce @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:13 am
andyt andyt:
As for welfare, my understanding is that Switzerland, say, have very generous welfare provisions, but you have to work to get them, so it's really a govt make work scheme there. I would like us to have the same thing here - don't just hand out money for free for people to sit around and get bored and up to no good on. Don't know what we'd do for all the emotional and physical cripples our society produces - it would cost us more to employ them in sheltered workshops than they produce, but I think that would still be worth it.
We have such a system here in Ontario
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/ow/
OnTheIce @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:15 am
andyt andyt:
Again, the argument goes to "they don't deserve it" instead of addressing the argument of this post, which is that poverty costs us all money. Again, it seems people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, than actually save themselves some tax money and create a better functioning society. It's so simple minded.
Regardless of what scheme you decide to use, it'll cost taxpayers.
andyt @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:19 am
That's more a job search program. I think we have something like that in BC, but from what I understand it's pretty cursory. I agree with the philosophy, but the help provided finding work needs to be adequate to really help people who may have a lot of employment barriers. That also takes money and the state has to be willing to pony it up. I think for a lot of long term welfarers, some sort of sheltered workshop where they are trained how to have a job would be the way to go.
Those that won't participate, provide them with some basic housing and food, Not money they can blow on drugs, but actual housing and food. If that was adequately supplied, I would make sleeping on the street illegal. Go to the provided housing, or go to jail.
andyt @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:23 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
andyt andyt:
Again, the argument goes to "they don't deserve it" instead of addressing the argument of this post, which is that poverty costs us all money. Again, it seems people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, than actually save themselves some tax money and create a better functioning society. It's so simple minded.
Regardless of what scheme you decide to use, it'll cost taxpayers.
An adequate minimum wage will cost mostly the employers, and everybody might pay a little bit more for their Tims.
Read the part in the article where the Calgary businessmen figured out it's way cheaper to provide assisted housing for the homeless than paying the health and justice costs the homeless otherwise represent. There are solid business cases to be made for ameliorating poverty. It will cost us either way, but you can keep paying as much as you are now, or pay less with a more enlightened approach. Even in a total brutal Victorian approach of fuck the poor, they still had to pay for jails and the costs of burying all those paupers etc. It will always cost you something. And do you really want to go back to Dickensian times? Nobody in the 1s world does that anymore.
Proculation @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:28 am
andyt andyt:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
andyt andyt:
Again, the argument goes to "they don't deserve it" instead of addressing the argument of this post, which is that poverty costs us all money. Again, it seems people would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, than actually save themselves some tax money and create a better functioning society. It's so simple minded.
Regardless of what scheme you decide to use, it'll cost taxpayers.
An adequate minimum wage will cost mostly the employers, and everybody might pay a little bit more for their Tims.
Read the part in the article where the Calgary businessmen figured out it's way cheaper to provide assisted housing for the homeless than paying the health and justice costs the homeless otherwise represent. There are solid business cases to be made for ameliorating poverty. It will cost us either way, but you can keep paying as much as you are now, or pay less with a more enlightened approach. Even in a total brutal Victorian approach of fuck the poor, they still had to pay for jails and the costs of burying all those paupers etc. It will always cost you something. And do you really want to go back to Dickensian times? Nobody in the 1s world does that anymore.
That's the problem. It plays with the market is thus is bad for economy. Something much better would be for the government to "guarantee" the minimum wages with credits. If you earn 8$/h and the minimum guaranteed is 10$/h, the government program would provide the 2$/h.
EyeBrock @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:32 am
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Lemmy @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:35 am
andyt andyt:
An adequate minimum wage will cost mostly the employers, and everybody might pay a little bit more for their Tims.
Ahhh, the Dorothy and Toto theory of economics: keep repeating it and it'll be true. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."
andyt @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:40 am
Proculation Proculation:
That's the problem. It plays with the market is thus is bad for economy. Something much better would be for the government to "guarantee" the minimum wages with credits. If you earn 8$/h and the minimum guaranteed is 10$/h, the government program would provide the 2$/h.
That shifts the burden to all taxpayers instead of just business. I prefer the latter approach. Under your scheme, business could pay 1 cent an hour and govt just merrily pays the rest. That also distorts the market. Bringing in a flood of immigrants every year also distorts the market. We just had a case in Vancouver where a guy on a temp permit is suing Denny's. He was working as a supervisor. You telling me that with the unemployment we have, if Denny's is paying a decent wage they can't find a Canadian to be a supervisor, but a Filipino is qualified?
Business would love your scheme I'm sure. Pretty well everything the govt does distorts the market in some way. Paying welfare instead of letting people sleep on the street pays the income for slumlords. Etc. The question needs to be, what's the distortion that's best for the people of Canada overall.
andyt @ Mon May 09, 2011 9:44 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
andyt andyt:
An adequate minimum wage will cost mostly the employers, and everybody might pay a little bit more for their Tims.
Ahhh, the Dorothy and Toto theory of economics: keep repeating it and it'll be true. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."
Your theory is for the govt to just shovel out money to poor people, a mincome scheme. Is that really better?
Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 19 Next