Renegade

I don't think it is enough. Government make specfic decisions on how much to pay out, whether to increase or decrease payments. Frequently those decisions are based upon political factors rather than whether it achievies the aims of the program. Investing in more case workers my be worth the additional cost, or it may not. I understand that it is an opinion but do you have any evidence to back up that this woudl be a worthwhile investment?

Generally MH, I agree with you, however how do we establish the minimium amount to pay which still quells the level of instability? If the report is correct and the level of welfare payments have goine down, has it resulted in more unstability in society? I don't see much evidence of it. In addition perhaps the welfare funds distribution should be better targeted to minimize social instability.

Hey Drea, you forgot to quote another relevant part of the article: While the union isn't the only cause of the failure, they certainly share the blame. The difference between the $54 quoted and the $71/hour total labour rate is mostly attributed to retiree benefits. Guess who negotiated those? Yes, the UAW. Just as much to blame are the auto executives who agreed to them. I noticed you didn't address your proposal to pay auto workers $35/year. Hmm, what a surprise..

It is hard to believe but even assuming it is true, so what? Perhaps Toyota pays such high wages for unskilled workers because for the most part it primarily competes with the Big Three who pays even higher wages. Perhaps once there is significant pressure to reduce cost, even those manufacturing jobs will be gone. I'm not sure that is true, but even if it is, isn't the fate of the auto workers tied to the fate and decisions of management and vice versa? The workers implicitly agree with the managment decisions when they choose to work and stay working at the company. If they disagree with the direction they are free to move to a company who's direction they agree with. Clearly, the premium paid on wages was sufficient compensation for them to overlook any management decisions they did not agree with. The fact that many wall street firms fail is not an excuse to let the auto industry off the hook. Ultimately as taxpayers we should be angry at both the financial industry and the auto industry for coming to us for bailouts.

duplicate

You're kidding right? By your figures above GM's CEO earned $9.3 million. GM has 266,000 workers. That works out to $35 per YEAR per EMPLOYEE. Please tell me how you can cover "all the benefits and wages of all the workers" for $35 per employee? Are you suggesting that that $35 should be their yearly pay (including benefits)?

Topaz, I watched the UAW union rep on CNN. It was a completely self-serving argument. Arguing that the UAW shouldn't take any pay cuts because Toyota workers make more money is a ludcrious argument. The UAW has always argued that when the Big-Three were doing well, the workers should share the wealth. Doesn't that imply that when the Big-Three are in crisis, the union should also share the pain? Even assuming it were true that the Toyota workers make more money, that would indicate that Toyota is sharing its success with its workers, success that the Big-three cannot similarly claim. BTW, the deal the UAW refused to accept was one to get their wages at par with Toyota, Nissan and others. If Toyota workers really did make more, they should have no objection to that clause. In any failiure of the Big Three, the workers (and union) along with the shareholders, the bondholders, and suppliers will be the big losers. It would seem that the UAW would prefer to resort to brinkmanship to try and get the taxpayer to bail them out, and then resort to selling their flimsy argument to eaisly duped viewers on CNN. They, and workers who agree with them, get no sympathy from me. If I were an autoworker who depended upon my job, I would much prefer a pay cut than the uncertainty the UAW has caused.

No you're right. I missed that part of the post. However your post isn't clear if you think that a test would be an alternative to citizenship or as an added requirement.

That's like saying the rapist isn't completly to blame because the victim looked so damn good. Do you actually think that lenders benefit when consumers can't pay the bills and default? Lenders suffer if they extend too much credit and cannot recover the money they hae lent. Consumers suffer if they take on debt they cannot repay. To some extent their interests are aligned. There however is a margin where a cconsumer will suffer where the lender will not. (For example when a consumer loses his house to foreclosure, and the lender can sell the house to completely cover the amount owing. The consumer loses his equity, the lender suffers no losses). In those cases it is because has accurately guaged how much it can lend but the consumer has misjudged how much he can borrow.

Yes, I can blame it completely on the consumer. Unless you are contending that the lender misrepresented the product, the lender can only try and convince the consumer that their product is worthwhile. Ultimately it is up to the consumer to decide. I wouldn't call that an "intimidation tactic" Doesn't stupidity deserve its consequences?

Ask the homeowners themselves. They wern't forced into variable mortgages. They presumably chose those variable mortgages because they felt they could withstand the flucations in interest rates. Again, consumers CHOOSE to use this credit instrument. They are also free to refuse to borrow on the credit terms the banks offer for credit cards.

How are you assured that citizenship confers the ability to make an informed vote? Perhaps a more viable test of suitability to vote is not citizenship, but a test of the level of ability to make an informed vote. Even a non-citizen resident can be informed enough in a short period of time if they are motivated. Even a long-time citizen can be ill-informed.

C'mon guys. If you want to take this to a argument about farm incomes, please take it to another thread and stop this thread hijack.

IMV, this is the primary purpose and benefit of welfare for the population at large. Most people will never qualify for, or collect welfare thus the only benefit they see is the stability of welfare. Maybe the right way to measure the success of welfare is the stability of society. It also bring up the possibility of differentitated payment rates to differnt segments, but rather than being based upon need, it would be based upon propensity to cause instability. For example, a young teen who fits the profile of someone likely to join a gang is likely to have a higher risk of causing insurrection than say a wheelbound grandma, so perhaps their is greater incentive for society to give them higher payment.

Drea, you as well seem to belive that welfare is insurance and support it as a safety net which you would use if the circumstance arose again. What about those who see no value in a safety net. Perhaps their circmstance is that their likelyhood of using such a system is very remote. Should they be allowed to "opt out" (ie not pay through their taxes for welfare, and not be eligible to collect)?

If it is indeed a stop-gap measure, should we then enforce a time limit on how long someone can collect welfare? A saftey net implys that it is some kind of "insurance", however your description of it being a a system "for those incapable of taking care of themselves and have no one who can take care of them" seems to rather state that instead of being insurance, it is more like a charity.

If this is it's primary use then perhaps the way we measure if it is successful should change. For example should we instead measure the number of people who are malnourished, unclothed, or die due to lack of shelter. If this is the criteria, I would say that welfare payment levels are higher than they need to be.

A new report has been released on the state of welfare in Canada: WELFARE INCOMES, 2006 AND 2007 An exerpt from the Toronto Star Artcle: Hardship of welfare getting harder There seem to be underlying premis on the role of the welfare system which I'm not sure I agree with. Is welfare: A temporary form of income support? A way to ensure people's basic needs are met (ie food, clothing, shelter)? A system to eliminate poverty? A system to appease those who lack so that they don't cause social unrest? Something else?

It was "bad" based upon what criteria. Is your only criteria was a redistribution of income from rich to poor? In the end if more people are buying $1 million houses because the barrier has been lowered is that a positive due to the jobs which have been created? The interesting thing about the house-building industry is that much of the cost is labour, and it is labour which by necessity must be locally employed.

Huh? Isn't a GST cut a stmulus to the economy? So how does the cut erase some much needed stimulus? It would seem that Harper got ahead of the curve in stimulating the economy.

Perhaps the problem is that GM doesn't sell cars people want at a price that allows it to make a profit on each vehicle. It spurs sales by using incentives and cashback. GM loses over $1000 on each vehicle it sells. Unless it becomes more cost-competitive or finds products people are willing to pay premium prices for, selling more vehicles only drives GM closer to bankrupcy. GM Leads in Loss per Vehicle in North America

This seems to be ludicrous justfication for a bailout. Should all those taxpayers who aren't grain farmers, fishermen, pig farmers or in the auto industry, also expect bailouts too because they to pay taxes?

No. It should not be handed over at all. It adds yet another incompetent cook in the kitchen. I'd like to see that math. It is more politics than math which dictates state intervention. The "math" also includes some guesses about the future. For example the government already has given the auto industry incentives to create jobs under the assumption that those jobs would be around and generate tax revenue "forever". That clearly was wrong. The auto industry now needs another intervention to save jobs. But for how long? Until the next bailout is required.

I don't really see that the government, as taxpayer's representaive are much better manager than those at the US auto makers. The government itself would have gone bankrupt if not for its power to forcibly take in tax revenues. In any case why buy equity in a company which has been proven a failure?

Are you actually defending that the pyramid scheme of social beneifts is a sound way to structure such programs? If you are not, why use it a rationale for population growth? Part of the issue is the criteria by which we accept immigrants doesn't focus on our needs. For example if we are focused on growing our workforce, we would recruit dual-income familes with specific skills mapped to our labour needs. Family class immigrants such as aged parents do not beneift us and should not be accepted. Population growth doesn't reduce the increased health care costs. Those aging people will still be there consuming medical services. All you get to do is hoist the burden on more people until the country weans itself from this scheme. How do we esablish the opitmium level for population? How do we know we are not already at or past that level? Clearly much of the determination are subjective, but it shows that a "need" for population growth cannot be pointed to as a justitication for immigration.