Previous  1  2

It's not as satisfying and ego boosting tho.

How is Edmonton affording that? Vancouver is doing it's best eliminate homelessness, but we certainly don't have the tax base to buy all the necessary housing, we rely on the province and feds to help with that, and they're not too keen. We obviously have a bigger problem than Edmonton, but can Edmonton really come up with the funds to do it on it's own?


That $35,000 cost includes all sorts of supportive care, including health care, it's not just a housing cost. I mean you can get a basement suite for say $800 and up in Vancouver = $9600 a year if all you want to do is supply housing. It's just way cheaper to do it in a residential setting than have the homeless housed in hospital beds or jails.

   

I guess you ignored my point that this was a neo-con program. I added it back into your quote of me, as it originally appeared except bolded.

I agree with your principle that effective anti-poverty programs can reduce overall government spending by reducing the public's need for government services. I doubt that anti-poverty programs are typically that effective; if they were, there would be less poverty today and the phenomenon of second- and third-generation welfare recipients would not exist. If this housing program meets that standard of effectiveness, which is claimed to be likely by the article but not actually demonstrated, it's a rarity precisely for that reason.

As ideological labels go, socialism seeks to reduce social ills on tautological moral principle (ie, "government should reduce social ills because that's what government is for"); costs and means are insignificant concerns to that ideology so long as the ills are reduced. In contrast, conservatism's goal is to reduce the costs of social ills to government and society via tried-and-tested means; government shouldn't try anything that only might work, or that is too costly for it's results. Liberalism is more willing to try experimental or costly programs, as it balances curing society with government expense. Harper's housing experiment was a liberal program in that it wasn't tried-and-proven when he tried it (ie, not conservative), but it may become a conservative program if the experiments demonstrate cuts in costs (as they are expected to). The neo-con ideology, as exemplified by Tony Blair and George W. Bush, is liberal on social issues and likes expensive military adventurism in that right-wing style that is so big on national interest and patriotism. The phrase "liberal on social issues" fits Harper's housing program, which means it is more neo-con than conservative. (That's lowercase-c conservative, as description of ideology; obviously it comes from the capital-C Conservative Party, and ideology does not directly affect the party's name.)

If that makes you want to say tl;dr, here's a summary: it's a neo-con or liberal housing program, not a socialist one or conservative one (yet).

Agreed.

   

Why?

Welfare programs that just keep people on enough money to survive will still save money to govt as opposed giving those people nothing and the attendant health and legal costs that would come from that. But a really effective social program ensures upward mobility of people, not just stuck on welfare. At least those who can work. As for the disabled, just how stingy do you want to be with them?

   

So, what's your solution here, Andy?

   

You can't be serious. All I get is attacks on how I keep posting about this stuff.

I just posted articles about kids coming to school hungry with no proper clothes. We need to spend more, not less on education, and that should include breakfast and lunch programs. Also we should not be relying on parents to contribute for "extras" since many parents don't have the money. Or, allow parents to contribute, but have a fund that does it for parents who can't afford to. Kids need more than the 3 r's, they need enrichment opportunities.

For the parents, we need work that pays a decent amount so they're not trying to do 3 jobs each and are never home for the kids. We need affordable housing strategies. And we need a much better adult educational system for getting and upgrading skills.

We're always going to have people at the bottom of the pile - there's no way around that. But look at the Scandinavian countries - being at the bottom there you have a much better chance of getting up from there, and since everybody can't do that, being on the bottom isn't the same misery it is here.

   

I am, though I'm asking for your opinion here, not whatever link or online anecdote you can find.



Agreed. Where does the money come from? Taxes go up or what do you propose gets cut?



Alright. What are the extras to be included and who identifies them? Who will manage the fund and what makes you think people will give money to it if extras are already being provided at tax payers expense?



Okay. What's a decent minimum wage for Vancouver?

What do you propose for affordbale housing in say, Vancouver?

What do you propose would be a better system for adult education in Vancouver?

   

I've posted my opinion before as well - don't know why all of a sudden you're interested.



Likely both. A brutal examination of all govt spending to cut out the crap. (Unfortunately your crap is somebody's good idea, and the govt still has to get elected - ie bribe people with their own money. Look at how fierce OTI gets about his sports tax exemption for something he would do anyway.) But I think there's also less crap than people like to think - the big expenses are healthcare and education, where we need more funding, not less (while still cutting out waste.)



Same people who do that now - ie the school system. The fund would be a govt fund - ie any kid's parents can apply based on need. Or, if the enrichment activities of the school are a good idea, fund them for every kid - like a trip to the aquarium. If they're not deemed important, don't use any school resources for them, let kids do them on their own time and parent's dime.





As I've said, LICO for single person is a good min wage, and it's indexed to inflation. But, as I've also said, quit importing so many people, and lower wages will rise as you have less desperate people competing for them. Or, you want to have a big argument about that, go with Khar's system of the tax system supplementing people's incomes. The latter sounds problematic to me, like we're shifting the cost from business to the general population, but if it truly is the better way, I don't care how it's done, just that it's done.

I'm not a housing expert. But at one time we had the feds involved in housing. We are the only western country without a federal housing policy. Talk to Brenda about how they do it in Holland, say. But this is a place where slowing immigration would help - less demand from all the people flooding in here. Possibly we need controls of foreign investment in housing.

Education is BC wide. (Should be country wide, but that's another matter) We need to make it more accessible for people already in the workforce. When I was young, you could get hired on as an apprentice in construction, earn a decent wage, then in winter you'd go to school and UIC would support you during that time. I almost went that route until I decided to go back to school instead. So more income support for people who want to train, more training and re-training spots available. As for uni - in my day it was very affordable. Much more expensive now. Student loans won't cut it, just leaves people with huge debts when they get out. So more bursaries based on need I guess. The difficulty is not funding people just partying thru uni without getting a useful education. OTOH, I don't suscribe to this idea of uni as strictly a job training place either. Although I studied science in undergrad, I see the value of a good arts education. I think it could be improved, bring in a more holistic approach that focuses on development of the individual to create more creative citizens who don't necessarily use the info the learned on their jobs, but do use the thinking and "being" skills they were taught in their jobs and the rest of their lives.

   

Does it really matter?







As you say, there ain't much crap to cut. So esentially you're saying a tax increase. What about wiser spending? Does a new school need to be designed by an award winning architect and worth tens of millions or will something much more simpler do - something a fraction of the cost minus the bells and whistles?



353 million for three new schools and some land (plus some school renos) AM I content for my child to learn in an Atco trailer? Not really though he does now and I did when I was a child (kids will turn out fine I'm sure) but I'm sure better equipment and maybe even more teachers could be found if the capital side of the equation was simplified to provide the bare essentials of what's needed ( heated classrooms, library, gym, and cafeteria) so that more money can be spent on the other side of the house.







I can agree with this.







Sounds like you're wanting someone to be paid based on their location as opposed to skills required of the job. I.e. a guy in Grand Forks serving coffee getting $10.25 in May vice a guy in Vancouver getting $15.00? Is that how I read your suggestion?



To go with that you'll need a massive attitude change on what jobs your average joe will do. There's a reason why there's not many WASP 19yr olds scrubbing toilets or driving taxis, Andy.



I get you think business is under taxed, but you will be relying on business to provide the jobs so that you can tax the poeple to pay for your desires here. Biting the proverbial hand that feeds you won't so much to further your agenda.



Well, that in no way answers the question. Irrespective of a federal housing policy, and I'm not sure I would want the federal government crawling deeper into the provincial ass with respect to laying out how we need to run our province, I would think this should be dealt with at the provincial level. Secondly, I would like to see some low cost and creative solutions - one of them being refurbished shipping containers. Relatively inexpensive, mobile, and a recycled product. Recycled hotels is another one that's being done in Victoria, but in the end, whatever the strategy is, it needs to modest and inexpensive and provide not much more than the basics.


I afforded my university on hard work and no loans and I'm not convinced that that could be done today. That being said, if you want a philosophy degree, you need to pay for it. Maybe the government needs to fund degrees to deserving people in every field in exchange for contractual labour that allows a portion of that degree to be paid off. I.e. - you want a psych degree, or fine arts degree, or MBA and you can't afford it, then apply for government funding and a follow on job that you'll be held to for so many years and ensure you have the marks to compete with everyone else - otherwise, pay for it. If you want a BA in philosophy or political science and you graduated highschool with a C+ average - better get a job or rethink your post secondary education plans.

Frankly, if the best and brightest are having a hard time, I'm all for helping them. If the idiots are having a hard time, I don't really care.= and I'm not willing to fund them either.

   

Like you I funded my uni by working in the summer. While logging is hard work, I didn't find the whole experience particularly arduous. I also don't think it's nearly as easy to do today.

I can't make out what you're advocating in the middle of your para with the follow in job business. I'm sure many people would be delighted to take a govt job in return for uni training.

As for the idiots - that was my point - uni could and should transform idiots into contributing citizens. But many of our most creative people in all fields were deemed idiots by the establishment. That's one of the benefits of a universal education system, you cast your seed far and wide and harvest a lot of duds but also some gold. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor). And the duds are also improved by the experience. I've always thought uni should demand far more from it's students, in the way of service, but also give them far more in the way of a complete education, nut just intellectual. So combine national service with uni - I'd be all for that. Just don't make them go out and kill/be killed for their country unless they want to - ie military would be only one option.

   

Agreed, thought hat being said, I wonder how many people are working their holes off to avoid massive post education debt?



My thought is that government determine the need for entry level people in any given field and pay for their education as long as they are willing to take contractual work after - anywhere. Open it to merit based competition.



It's more likely that a period of service in the military would would straighten out the thuds far better than four years in university, Andy. That being said, where you and I part ways here is that you seem to suggest everyone get a university education irrespective on potential. I disagree. That's a lot of money to spend on some dummy with no plans in the hope the experience will bring him around. I met a lot of dummies in university - be they pot heads living on mom and dad, professional protesters and long term students who were essentially in hiding. I would not want my tax dollars paying for these idiots to take poli sci 101 and a litany of philosophy courses.

   

Perhaps you should know what your talking about and look at the poverty rates in this Country, specifically during Harper's time in office.

   

What does contractual work mean? Again, I think many people leaving uni would be more than happy to take any work in their field and would love your scheme, whatever it is.





The military would be just one option tho - as I said national service along with education, just not necessarily military service.

And you're reading me wrong - I think we need way more people to go into skilled or technical trades rather than uni. But I still have the dream we used to have of an educated citizenry. So we have plumbers that still have some background in arts and sciences. And more than that, we teach all young people life skills. Relaxation, body awareness, financial literacy, emotional intelligence, etc. We live in a far more complex society, but one that far more fractured. So the need is greater at the same time that the transmission of this stuff by culture is less. This should start in elementary school, but continue to adulthood. That's a dream, I know. As a start I'll settle for equal educational opportunities for all K - 12 students and more access for skills training for adults.

   

Yelling rarely helps anyone, whereas "helping" does. That seems pretty self-evident.

This basically says "If government spending is reduced here, it must necessarily be increased there." This is not true. Most obviously (and most morally reprehensibly), there is the pure Machiavellian, "let 'em all die" approach in which the poor cost government nothing because neither welfare or emergency assistance is provided to them. At the other end of the scale, it's completely possible to increase funding to well-intentioned but horribly executed social programs without having any positive effect on the social ills addressed. That direct relationship you portray is somewhat of an illusion.

To demonstrate that, consider how a government program to prevent some rare but horrific disease in the entire populous may end up costing government many times more than paying for expensive treatment in those rare few who actually get it; 100 times the individual cost in 1/100,000th as many cases equals 1/1000th the societal cost. Prevention is usually more cost-effective in individual cases, but that doesn't mean prevention is always the cheaper government policy.

Combining that principle with the obvious truth that government programs are far easier to create than to eliminate results in a strong defense of the conservative perspective: we should not create social programs unless that specific program design has proven itself both effective and cost-effective, perhaps in theory but necessarily in practice.

That's a good definition of effectiveness. Demonstrate that and cost-effectiveness, and I'll probably support it.

Counter-rhetoric says "Just how much do you want to spend on them?" Quantitative argument is quantitative.

The communist mainstay "from each according to their ability" demands that the disabled do what they can when they can. Even a blind quadriplegic can learn to translate spoken language, a very marketable skill. I've known mentally disabled janitors, fast food cooks, and grocery baggers (typically while doing those same jobs alongside them). "Those who cannot work" seem like an absurdly rare minority to me, populated largely by the comatose and people in persistent vegetative states. In those cases, let family, friends, and charities decide medical and financial issues, not government.

Capitalism is actually less demanding of the disabled: they are not morally obligated to work at the uppermost limits of their capability at all times, as under communism, but rather are proportionally rewarded for what work they do. If their conditions make them inescapably underemployed, they have family, friends, and charities to fall back on (same as all underemployed).

Most self-described capitalists aren't so dedicated to ideologically purity that they categorically oppose government disability programs, especially for debilitating injuries suffered on the job, especially for soldiers. Perhaps the biggest problem with current disability programs is the "if you work, you're not disabled" attitude portrayed by the qualification policies that can only reduce productivity; I'd like overall income to increase and charitable dollars to decrease as employment hours increase, so they're never financially punished for being less dependent. In any case, the set of people saying "Screw the disabled" is about as populous as the set of people who cannot possibly work at all. Neither group is politically significant except as a novelty.

Define "enrichment opportunities." Also, describe how paying for students' lunches and "extras" creates them. Also, the program needs to avoid self-perpetuation, so how are these "enrichment opportunities" going to teach marketable skills so these kids don't grow up trying to do 3 jobs, never home for their own kids?

I'm all for education reform, but I think you're being extremely vague except on the "more money" point.

This seems to me to be the core principle of liberalism (the ideology, not the party). It says "Things need fixing, but I don't know or care how that can be accomplished."

I'm not 19, but I think driving a taxi sounds like a lot of fun.

I generally agree, except this: WTF is "body awareness"?

I also think an hour or three of basic HTML syntax should be taught; the modern world runs on the interweb, and the web runs on HTML. It's basic societal literacy, and pretty dang simple. There are probably 10,000 simple things like that which would be beneficial to anyone to know. I'd love to know how to fix a running toilet or replace a light fixture, for example.

   

Previous  1  2