fryingpan

Because they want the kids out of their hair? Or to maybe have them learn very valuable life skills that go beyond any dollar value. Personally I saved for post-secondary out of self-dignity, and the fact that I valued work more than school, not because I had to. My siblings will be paid for by the parents because they chose a different path to get to where they want to be at. When I got my first job, my parents didn't make me. I wanted to work. I wanted to pay for my own post-secondary. It wasn't even about money, I could have nearly anything I wanted without working. It's an attitude that exists in many people, and not in others. Thats why we have employed and unemployed people. Work is more than just money, its dignity and self-respect. What if the kid really wants to work and is willing to contribute to the family? Shouldn't the parent allow them to work if the kid contributes his/her fair share back to the family? This way, the kid could learn valuable life skills like you said, but the parent wouldn't have to worry about losing money.

Out here the wages are great, really high for unskilled labour. Alberta has less than 4% unemployment (below the natural rate), and the higest participation rate in Canada. There is no one left here to hire. What about all the teenagers? It seems like there is always someone turning 16. They'll do those kinds of jobs. Ya, sadly they are all employed too. We wouldn't have burger king paying $9.25/hr to start PT if we had a huge supply of 16 year olds. 14 year olds can work in Alberta too. We need people up at the oil sands and things like that in labour, not really the type of jobs people can do while going to school. How much do the people at the oilsands make? It also makes sense when you consider all the university students that have to go back to McDonalds/Tim Hortons because they can't find a job in their field. Why go to University and spend all that time and money when you wind up in the same place anyway?

Out here the wages are great, really high for unskilled labour. Alberta has less than 4% unemployment (below the natural rate), and the higest participation rate in Canada. There is no one left here to hire. What about all the teenagers? It seems like there is always someone turning 16. They'll do those kinds of jobs.

It's ethical, its a parental choice, and you've got to respect those choices. Does it make sense? Mostly yes, the tax credits are worth more than the kids $100 paycheques from their few shifts at the Dairy Queen. If the parent is 'profiting' from this all the better. Do you not understand that parents don't make profits for themselves, but in the best interest of their family. It's like in the kids best interest not to work and let the parents take the credits. Until your 18 you have no rights, remember that. At 18, your parents then have the right to give ya the boot. So why do some parents actually make their kids go out and get jobs? Almost all teenagers I know that have jobs are not expected to contribute to bills or lost tax deductions or save for post-secondary education. They are free to spend their money on whatever they want (which usually only benefits themselves).

True! Oddly enough, despite the high or rather rapidly rising labour costs, Alberta still has a relatively low cost of living , cheapish real estate. It makes me wonder if we are not due for some very sharp increases in inflation...... Your definitely right, inflation is coming soon, if we can't fill these jobs. We need to legislate the movement of unemployed people from elsewhere in Canada, to Alberta. How about the entire northern half of Ontario? And if McGuinty doesn't stop raising the minimum wage, maybe the southern half too. I would suggest targeting people who just graduated from University and have discovered there are literally no jobs where they live.

Do you mean that "cool" kids come from rich families? Is that it? Money? (If a high school student has known a teacher for a long time, do you mean that kids newly arrived are at a disadvantage compared to kids who have gone to the same school all the time?)Sorry if my questions seem naive. Anyone else is invited to explain this to me. "cool" kids where I live can either be rich or have parents who are friends with the teacher. The city where I live is pretty small, so a fair number of students entering/returning to school have parents who are friends with the teacher. Your questions aren't naive at all, I don't think this is a problem in bigger cities where people aren't as close, and there is more diversity.

Yup, I agree 100%. There is no point in trying to help someone who doesn't want your help and doesn't seem to care. But the ones who do work and have the right attitude deserve recognition and motivation. They are the ones who will be the successful doctors, lawyers, and engineers, which this country is going to need when the baby boomers retire.

Is it legal/ethical to force your kid not to work in order for you to claim them as a tax deduction? Does it make any sense? Assuming you are not a neglectful parent, wouldn't the food and utilities they use outweight the deduction you get for them? Are there any cases where the parent might actually make a profit from this? Wouldn't it be better if the kid went out and got a job (especially if they really wanted one) and helped pay bills instead?

This training wage is a far less discriminatory example. But it does discourage older people that need to be working, from entering the workforce for the first time. Thats true. But it also prevents employers from not hiring them simply because they have to be paid more. I'm sure these people would prefer the training wage to the student wage, because in order to be on welfare, you actually have to be looking for a job. Any job. Otherwise they kick you off.

I am not really sure if it is that high, but assuming you're right.... First off who says the international students are largely unable to do the job? I know many international students or at least have known them, and most have been very motivated/capable individuals. All i have met are unable to work off campus for residency/citizenship reasons, and many are in dire need of money, not a good predicament! It is worth noting here that they too contribute to our economy through touition, and living expenses...wheather or not they contribute enough to recoupe their costs i'll leave for another argument. Now that being said....I am not a beliver in 'affirmative action', I believe in the best man/woman for the job bar none! There should be no limit or target % for international students, I suspect even without this target in place there would still be a dispraportionatly high % of international students working on campus for the reasons i mentioned. So in short I agree that there shouldn't be a target % of emplyment set aside for international students, but my reasons for believing so are different from yours. Our tax dollars going to them doesn't offend me so long as they are the best candidates for the jobs, especially considering they can't work off campus. Ultimately I would have to imageine that any subsidization that does go to int'l. students education in this manner eventually (on average) makes it's way back to some level of the Can. gov't, through taxes garnerned after full time emplyment is attained if staying in the country, and or if relatives come here to live/work etc. Infact I will go further and say that it would take only a small percentage of the int'l. students to stay behind and live in canada to recoup such a minimal expense. I wouldn't mind either if they were the best person for the job. I think they should interview everyone who is interested and hire the best, regardless of where they are from. But if they're sending away qualified applications who also need the money, then it is kind of unfair. I also think it depends on the university, some may have more positions reserved than others. Plus, some universities have higher standards than others, so the international students attending high-standard universities are probably very capable. I know some international students who are probably better candidates for any job, and wouldn't need affirmative action to get it. I'm just getting tired of all this affirmative action and "quotas". I wish people would just hire whoever is best.

Why is it that more than half of on-campus jobs at universities are reserved for international students? With so many people on OSAP or receiving bank loans who need a way to pay them back, why are universities simply giving the jobs to international students? And let's not forget the students who are not poor enough for OSAP or any other student loan program, yet require jobs to help pay for University. The part that makes me mad is that these jobs are subsidized with taxpayers' dollars. As taxpayers, wouldn't people rather see their kids get jobs to help pay for education instead of just giving the money to international students? It seems rather unfair to Canadians to get shut out of jobs that were created by their own tax dollars, especially when the international kids are unable to actually do the job. With a provincial unemployment rate at around 6.5% (from statcan.ca) and an even higher teenage unemployment rate, I'm sure we can find some Ontarians who can do these jobs.

No offence but quit your bitching m8t, it sucks and I am a lazy person so I can understand why what you are being given is no fun that being said I am looking at my transcripts right now..... If you are wondering "particapated in these programs" amounts to 100 hours of volounteer work expirence...trust me 30 hours will not kill you, yes it sucks but it is not the end of the world. The only real question I have is how the province plans to implement this. Volunteer hours are not hard to do since there are always places looking for student volunteers, but the other 3 options start to get harder. I'm not sure what the average number of kids in a BC high school is, but finding work placements/paid student employment for all of them could be difficult. Most students would prefer paid employment or relevant work placements, so they would probably go for that option. Telling them no, we can't find one, go do some volunteer hours kind of defeats the purpose of giving them options. I agree that the portfolio assignment will look good on a resume, but if every single kid has one, the only way you can get ahead is to do more volunteer work/work placements. The written response part is kind of pointless. If students are forced into this program, it's pretty obvious what the response will be, regardless of what the students actually write. If the student has the hours, that should explain itself. The idea itself is good, if they can get it to work properly.

Well, I've been out of school too long. This certainly never happened in my day. However, I have to say I have noticed an oddity among the young (20ish) people I know, and that is in several cases young people who really had no idea what to do with themselves, had no particular ambition for any particular career, and no great drive to succeed, "settling" for teaching as something they figured they could get hired for, which paid well, and had a lot of holidays. They had no great ambition (nor obvious talent) for teaching, but school was all they knew, and perhaps they feared the greater world outside. If this is any indication of the kinds of people who have been becoming teachers lately I can accept the possiblity that some of them are as you describe. Yep, that sounds like everyone at my university who wants to become a teacher. Not only that, but these kids also fell under the category of "schoolyard bully" when they were younger. So not only are they just doing it for the relatively nice pay and all those holidays, but today's children are going to be at their mercy. Thank god I'm out of high school and elementary school. Unfortunately, teachers are in high demand due to all the retiring baby boomers. The only way they're going to find replacements is if they lower their standards... Remember the old days when you got picked on by the kid who sat next to you? Now that kid is going to be teaching/abusing your kids. Not a good thing.

What about the people that are in there 40s and back when they went to school not even getting there high diploma was really necessary. bcause there was tones of jobs then, that didt require post secondary education. What about those people, they r getting layed off and have nothing to bounce back too. Except for mimium wage jobs. or jsut have a mimium wage job intill they get the proper education. So those burger flipping kids will take those mimium wage jobs away from those ppl, cause they can work for less. So the ppl that r in there 40s or older r screwed after putting some many years at there former job, to be screwed of their pensions(in some cases) and just to be over thrown by student wage. People that have had reasonable pensions are typically those that can be industrious enough to find work outside of minimum wage burger joints. We all agree with you here it seems on the ridiculousness of student wages. I take it a step further and say that any minimum wage is ridiculous. They could always move to Alberta . At worst, they can go down to that Burger King and get paid 9.75/hour. Maybe instead of a student wage they can have a training wage like in BC (because there is no way the Liberal provincial government is going to get rid of a minimum wage, even if it's necessary). This training wage would apply to everyone so that everyone gets a chance to get a job. After they have some work experience, they can go find a better job. I suggest we set the number of hours for the training wage at 2000. By this time, most people have moved out of minimum wage anyway, so they don't have to worry about being canned and replaced when their hours run out. Working 20 hours a week, you'd have to work for close to 2 years in order to complete 2000 hours. Even Mr. Acne at McDonalds can find something better.

Maybe there should be schools that combine both training and education seeing as how both are important. Colleges/trade schools tend to provide training while universities tend to provide education. But in this day and age it seems you need both. Unless, of course, you have connections, in which case you can sit on your butt and let others go get the jobs for you. Maybe we can call it collegersity?

Hmm tough call. I wouldn't generalise teachers like that. You've obviously had very bad luck with teachers, most are above that type of behaviour. Back in high school I had some amazing teachers that I still talk to today and I have an amazing amount of respect for. I also had teachers that were complete idiots. If you think its bad in high school, just wait for university. Profs have nothing holding them back from making fun of students, and they do constantly. The difference here is that you can make fun back without too much fear of reprisal. Plus they don't actually give a shit about any of their students. The bottom line is that the teacher is in charge and you've got to respect their authority. However if a teacher is seriously harrassing students, I'd be sure to report that to the administration quickly. No need for stuff like that. What do people think about bonuses for teachers that have excellent class marks on standardized tests? I don't know about this myself, but I was thinking about it as a solution for those 'lazy' teachers you speak of. At my university the profs don't bother making fun of their students. They don't even bother learning their names. They just stand at the front of the room and teach directly out of the textbook. Ah well, at least they're treating their students equally. Plus I actually learn something. I would prefer the bonus method instead of teachers running to the Union everytime they want more money. This would encourage them to work instead of complaining and going on strike.

Intriguing post.What do you mean by "cool" kids and "losers"? "cool" kids = kids who live in well-off families who have known the teacher for a long time "loser" kids = kids who don't fit the above description

Why is it that teachers are starting to become more and more like their students? Instead of actually teaching something, they engage in shallow popularity contests with the "cool" kids, and completely ignore the "losers". I have seen teachers actually pick on/hit their students the way a schoolyard bully might, just to generate laughter from these "cool" kids. They complain about how lazy and unmotivated their students are, but the fact is, most of these lazy students also happen to be "cool". What do teachers expect from their students when they encourage them to behave like they do? What really makes me mad is how teachers claim to be hard working and "care about all their students". I have yet to meet a teacher who fits either description. Does anyone else notice this?

I wonder how many Natives that have been sold these liscenses are actually staying within their quota. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that a lot of them are going way above it. I think the government was very foolish about spending all that money without even thinking about the outcomes for the taxpayers (the ones who finance their little expeditions). I think that affirmative action needs to stop right now. There are very few benefits that result from punishing the descendants of people who may or may not have discriminated. They work hard to get where they are only to find that someone less qualified than them gets the job. Their ancestors actions weren't their fault, why do they have to suffer? Institutions such as universities often use affirmative action to hire teaching staff. This is rather unfortunate for the students who have to pay thousands of dollars to go to university. They must now have to deal with staff that do not speak or write in English. Not only that, but most of these teaching assistants don't even know the subject matter that they are supposed to be teaching. As a result, the students do not get the service that they paid for. And those student loans have to be paid back, regardless of what you do or do not learn.

I don't think spanking is harmful to children. Almost everyone over the age of 40 has been spanked at least a few times (and some more than a few times), yet it is only in the 90s that kids are getting really bad. If spanking were as harmful as everyone says it is, wouldn't we have killed ourselves off by now? I think maybe there are other factors involved... In the old days, parents spanked their kids, but they were also there for their kids. They made sure they were fed and actually paid attention to them. Parents nowadays don't seem to care at all about their kids. "I'm too busy to spend time with you," says the average parent as they plop themselves in front of the tv/computer, or head out the door to go play poker with their buddies. Not only to they never pay attention to their kids, but they never discipline them either. As a result, children are left to their own devices. Since the parents never pay attention to them, they can hang out with friends who expose them to things like drugs/violence/sex etc... I believe this is where children today are learning how to be so bad. Not from their parents spanking them, but from their friends or older kids on the schoolyard. Maybe parents should start acting like parents did in the 50s...Pay attention to your kids and spank them when it's necessary.

I agree. Someone has to do these types of jobs, so why not the kids who don't seem to care very much for studying and academics? I've seen people in the academic/university strands in high school who don't seem to care about school at all. I've also seen people in these streams who will never find a career in these fields due to lack of ability, yet they still keep taking the course over and over when they fail. Instead of wasting these kids' and the teachers' time, why not enroll these kids in trade schools? They can do something they like, and get paid quite well (since trades are in high demand right now).

Universities should also have more real-life training along with the academic part (Co-op, labs, case studies, etc...). This will give students practical experience that relates directly to the jobs that they hope to get when they graduate. The textbooks are informative enough and have lots of pretty pictures to hold the attention spans of those with 65% averages, but it isn't enough in this day and age.

found one, in Alberta, http://www.jobbank.gc.ca/ShowJob_en.asp?Or...urce=JobPosting It's a resturant job, you get tips on top of that. Either way, you'd be hard pressed to hire anyone in Alberta right now at minimum wage. They can't even fill $12/h positions at Superstore because theres no one to work them. We're actually flying in newfies to fill the jobs, entry level jobs that used to go to 14 year old kids. Wow, we should all pack and move to Alberta . Here in northern Ontario, all entry level positions (cashier, fast food, etc...) are all minimum wage and there are always more applicants than jobs. You should. Just saw at Burger King a sign saying they are paying $9.25 to part-time starters... minimum wage in Alberta is $7.00 (just up from $5.90 last year). Minimum wage is irrelevant until it imposes limits on business hiring. Too high a minimum wage and then businesses must pay it as labour is over-priced. This also limits their ability to hire! I agree 100%. Businesses over here are starting to downsize their staff and are getting really picky about who they hire. It's going to get even worse when McGuinty raises the wages again next year (from 7.75 to 8.00 for adults). I wish someone would send him to an introductory economics course so he would realize how stupid he is.

Why not move to Ontario? Over here, we have a student wage that lets employers pay younger people less than adults. Employers actually prefer hiring younger students just so they can pay them this lower wage. I know a popular franchise (won't mention any names, Tim Hortons) who gives priority to those eligible for the student wage. If you are lucky enough to live in an economy where there are more jobs than people, there is nothing wrong with letting a 12 year old work. So long as they are properly trained, and reasonably competent, there is no reason why they should suffer injuries. An education is important, but work experience is even more important. Unless the child is working 30 hours a week, there won't be an impact on grades. In fact, grades might actually improve since children are able to get out and interact with others. For those parents who refuse your children the opportunity to work just so you can write them off as tax deductions, there is a special place in hell just for you.

I think part of the problem with University grads not being able to find jobs is the fact that Universities themselves are getting easier and easier to get into (some will accept people with averages as low as 65%). Not only that, but there is a lot of grade inflation. Some people are getting As in some universities that would get them a D in another. In order to get a good job in this day and age, you can't just have good grades, you need to have the proper skills and experience. People averaging 65% in their high school courses most likely don't have these skills (not to mention a work ethic). Maybe if universities raised their entrance standards as well as their grading standards, students might be able to find jobs (since they would need more skills and a better work ethic to keep up).