Machjo
-
Posts
4,271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Machjo
-
-
9 hours ago, paulagnes1745 said:
And this is coming from a.....?
Coming from a...? I don't follow.
-
1 hour ago, paulagnes1745 said:
YES or NO....... simple answer to a simple question.....
I know Canada and the rest of the world cannot destroy America because that would spell doom for the rest of the world and let's be honest..... America is not destroying itself..... otherwise Google wouldn't be in America. So, if Canada and the rest of the world could destroy America and Americans with it, with minimal casualties, would it?
Yes.... or no......
Why would anyone want to destroy the USA? To destroy the USA would be to destroy Canada's most important trading partner? Only a fool would want to shoot himself in the foot like that.
-
33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
With regard to Canada's productivity challenge, a big problem for us is keeping our start-ups and scaling them up. We also need to do some deregulation. The Brookings Institute suggests deregulating finance and telecommunications. I think we should deregulate the latter for sure. We should be very careful about deregulating finance, however, because that can lead to bigger problems.
I agree with the latter. As for telecommunications, we should definitely eliminate foreign-ownership rules. As for finance, likewise. As for any other deregulation in finance, I'd still maintain strict borrowing limits on how much of a financial institution's assets can be put into debt investments like loans.
None of that changes the fact that however skilled half of Canada's working-age adult population may be, the other half is functionally illiterate at least in an official language. That plays an important role too. Again, I'm not talking about basic literacy or functional literacy in a foreign language but rather functional literacy in an official language.
-
Sorry, I just found it. The same link mentions further below that it is limiting itself to literacy in at least one official language. That doesn't mean that your stat is wrong, just that they're not addressing the same things.
-
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/education/adlt-lowlit.aspx
'Forty-eight per cent of Canadian adults have inadequate literacy skills—a significant increase from a decade ago.'
Bear in mind that the above refers to functional literacy which is a higher standard than basic literacy. Also, though that site doesn't say it, I seem to remember reading somewhere that that half-literacy rate refers to literacy in an official language, meaning that some of the 'functional illiterates' might be quite functionally literate but just not in an official language. Given how language laws determine access to Canada's economic resources though, functional literacy in an official language is what counts.
-
19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
Canada has one of the world’s most highly skilled and highly educated workforces. If Canada only had to compete based on the productivity of its manufacturing, we would do exceedingly well. Our auto plants are among the most productive in North America. The way that countries like Mexico and to some extent the US are getting around this is through low wages. Basically race to the bottom and compete on low wages instead of providing more value add in production. Because the US technocrats know they can’t compete on wages with the likes of Mexico and China, they’re trying tariffs. It’s backfiring because of the counter-tariffs. In the final analysis, the world suffers because the cost of living rises and productivity suffers. It’s as retrograde as Trump’s stance on the Paris Climate Ageement, which like the addition of tariffs, other countries will copy. America and the world have regressed.
According to the Conference Board of Canada, around 1/2 of working-age Canadians is functionally literate in neither official language (and no, that 'n' in front or 'either' is not a typo).
With that in mind, when we talk of Canadians being among the most educated in the world, we're clearly talking about the other 50%. Firstly, if around half of our population if among the most skilled in the world while the other 50% if functionally literate in neither official language, that's inevitably going to contribute to a major wage gap between them. While the educated 50% would be unaffected by a rise in the minimum-wage since they're already earning well above it, that minimum-wage will price the other 50% out of the labour market. After all, why would an employer pay more for a functional illiterate except as a last resort?
Even if the functional illiterate half of the population unionized, how effective could it be? Notice how the labour unions with negotiating power usually represent a skilled workforce like pilots for example. How often do cashiers unionize and go on strike? They don't since they know their skills are a dime a dozen and customers could just as easily shop at the shop or the restaurant next door. In that sense, even labour unions can effectively represent only skilled workers (i.e. the 50% that represent the most skilled workers in the world). The other 50% might not even possess the skills to organize a labour union effectively. Worse yet, this also means that skilled workers could push the price of their products and services up to make it more difficult for the poor to afford them and so further expand the wage gap since labour unions benefit primarily skilled workers and not unskilled ones.
That's why I say that if you want to help the poor, the state should invest more on literacy, trades, and profession education for them. Until then, the minimum wage will just price them out of the market, they might not even possess the skills to unionize effectively, and even if they could do that, their skills aren't unique enough to give them enough clout with their employer. Even if they did go on strike, how much money could a labour union collect from minimum-wage workers and how long could they sustain a protracted strike before they run out of money? A big difference exists between a union of tradesmen and professionals and a union of unskilled workers. A union is useless for the latter group in practical terms. They need literacy, trades, and professional education, not gimmicks.
-
On 9/25/2018 at 3:17 PM, Zeitgeist said:
There is truth to what you're saying, but there is a very real risk that we may lose organized labour, which on the whole leads to further shrinkage of the middle class.
Labour unionization, minimum-wage laws, and other such gimmicks to nothing to raise real wages over the long run due to inflation. Only nominal wages increase.
To increase real wages more sustainably requires raising worker' skills. Statistically, around half of Canadians is functionally literate in neither official language. No gimmick will help that person. You want to help that person? The government should send him back to school to raise his skill set so that an employer will want to raise his real wages. That's real help for the poor. Enough with the gimmicks already.
-
23 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
I hope your not saying that the liberals MP's are genius, because we already know Justin is not the brains of the outfit....or should I say the brains of people kind because we want to be more inclusive.....
I wasn't referring to any party in particular. I was addressing a general principle. But yes, we can always find a fool in any party.
-
1 hour ago, taxme said:
I thought we were talking about an MP resigning and not backbenchers?
An MP who resigns from his party caucus, unless he resigns from Parliament too, still keeps his vote, and even the Prime Minister himself has only one vote that is worth no more and no less than that of the backbencher.
-
2 minutes ago, taxme said:
My personal feelings are that there are not enough Canadian politicians who are competent enough or have any character to run Canada. I think that the government of Canada is totally dysfunctional. They all pretty much appear to be politically correct puppet on a string politicians who seem to be only to willing to take their marching orders from the globalist/corporate elite banksters and special interest minority groups. My opinion of course.
A lot of good it will do an MP to resign from his party and go independent. Independents really never go anywhere. They just end up being a lone wolf in the vast wilderness.
Even a backbencher gets his one vote in the House.
-
1 hour ago, taxme said:
There will be no doubt that the other party will have an idiot or three also in that other party. So, what's your point?
If the party leader is a genius but his colleagues are all fools, you'll have a dysfunctional party in the House. If the party leader is an idiot but his party members in the House are wise and competent people of character, they can still share valuable ideas in the House. Remember, an MP can always resign from his caucus and vote independently of his party in the House. He can also try to talk some sense to his leader or even vote to change leader That's why I vote for the best candidate, since the party will be only as good as its caucus members.
-
29 minutes ago, taxme said:
I think that is silly and ridiculous for wanting to support another candidate from another party just because you liked what he or she says or stands for. That does not help your party from maybe winning an election. Every vote counts for a political party at election time. If that person and their party you voted for loses the election well then what has that done for you now? Their stand on whatever you liked will go nowhere. They lost the election.
So I should vote for an idiot just because of his party affiliation?
-
50 minutes ago, turningrite said:
For all those who believe Bernier's party will automatically lead to a Trudeau majority next year, this week's election in New Brunswick suggests that strong third-party support could well ensure a minority government. I don't believe Scheer's CPC can get a majority, so a minority government, whether led by the Libs or CPC, is probably the best outcome we can hope for. Current polling without Bernier's party in the mix suggests a Lib majority. The NB math suggests that as long as third parties can scoop about 30 percent of the vote a majority is unlikely. I believe that because Bernier's proposed party has registered roughly 13 to 17 percent in straw polling and the NDP can likely muster at least 15 percent of the vote, our best hope to avoid another Trudeau majority is a strong showing by Bernier's group.
I think another determining factor will be the local candidate. I like some of Bernier's ideas, but that will not automatically translate to me voting for his local candidate in my riding just because he's link to the same Party as Bernier. I hope his party will have a strong vetting process in place to ensure quality candidates in each riding. I've voted for a candidate in the past even if I preferred another party leader just because I thought that candidate was the best candidate for the job.
-
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Rationalize it anyway you wish....Canada is no stranger to fascism going back 100 years.
Canadians accept fascism more readily because of "peace, order, and good government".
I'm not denying that fascism probably exists in Canada. That said, don't confuse fascism with semi-democratic ideals. I myself could probably be described as semi=-democratic, meaning that though I believe in a democratic system, I do support reasonable limits to that system.
-
4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
It erodes workers’ rights by putting pressure on them not to join a union. Without unions our labor conditions and wages would be far worse. Be careful what you wish for.
How does a law that guarantees a worker the freedom to choose put pressure on him? Should conditions worsen, you'd think he'd then change his mind and join the union, no? Am I missing something here?
-
17 hours ago, Argus said:
Well-earning does not equate to degreed. A degree without high communication skills in English has little value.
You'd be surprised. In Richmond BC and Scarborough ON, a well-educated Chinese speaker can easily tap a local Chinese-speaking clientele that prefers to be served in Chinese.
Remember too that we now live in the age of the internet. This means that a tech-savvy entrepreneur can produce software that he can sell around the world online.
I've met successful entrepreneurs in Scarborough who barely speak English at all.
That said, yes, they are essentially limited to the Richmond and Scarborough markets.
-
13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
WHAT? "Right to work" legislation has nothing to do with the UN's Declaration. It's a specific form of legislation in some U.S. states that prevents workers from having to join a union if the majority of workers vote to have a union. It's primarily about wage and benefit suppression in the name of an idea that doing so will attract more companies to do business. It has had some success for businesses looking to cut labour costs and workers willing to work for lower wages. I think you need to delete this thread.
Right-to-work legislation does nothing to prevent a union from forming. It just protects a person from being denied employment for choosing to not join said union. And yes, the UN Declaration does guarantee a person's right to work and freedom of association, something labour unions deny by trying to impose closed-shop rules on employers. Right-to-work legislation forces unionized workplaces to remain open-shop to reduce discrimination against non-members.
-
6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
"Freeland pulled a 180 and argued our negotiation planks would focus on feminism and environmentalism."
Liberals’ seriousness at NAFTA in doubt
Published:September 12, 2018It is their clearly stated intention to use NAFTA to promote their brand of feminism. This stance, and the fact they dropped the ball and gave it to Mexico, believing that Mexico would likewise "stand in solidarity" with Canada shows how utterly naive they are. On top of this, it doesn't help that Freeland attends and speaks at anti-Trump events.
Their amateur antics have put Canada's negotiating position in jeopardy.I don't entirely blame Mexico. Yes, a united front could have given better results, but only if Canada's demands were reasonable. Canada broke its pact with Mexico by playing these games. Mexico probably wanted to stick with Canada but once it saw Canadians playing these games, realized it needed to focus on itself until Canada smartens up.
-
6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
NAFTA is not the place for Trudeau/Freeland's "feminist agenda"...it was rejected by Asian nations and should be rejected by Mexico and the United States.
Take that crap back to Canada.
Why? We should launch it out of the solar system.
-
6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Freeland sure spends a lot of time in the United States...says the Americans should keep bearing the majority of the "post WW2" burden.
She brings all of that baggage plus Trudeau's "feminist agenda" to NAFTA negotiations.
If Liberal Canada wants all that so bad....then Canada should pay for it.
Trump should play the same game. The separate-school provisions of the Constitution Act 1982 violate a few articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If Trump said he'd consider Trudeau's feminist ideas on the condition that Canada scrap the separate-school system on human-rights grounds, given Canada's Catholic voting base that supports it, Trudeau would have fit.
-
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
How does this square with a Canada that has hosed its own consumers for decades as a matter of tax revenue and protectionist policies (international and provincial) ?
I just don't see such attitudes changing, regardless of "free trade".
That is unfortunate. Canada is just as bad as its neighbours if not worse in some respects. If Trump shoots America in the foot, Trudeau is sure to shoot Canada in the foot with an even higher-caliber rifle when the correct response would be to recoil from such foolishness and follow a different path.
Unfortunately, Sheer and Singh will probably not be much better.
-
I suppose Canada could try to pressure the US to improve its universal compulsory education or to provide more trades and professional education for its unemployed, under-employed, and underpaid; but that's not the same as pressuring the US to abrogate a person's right to work and freedom of association.
-
Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which Canada is a signatory Member State) states:
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General AssemblyThe International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in Part III, Article 6:
(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
(2) The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations General AssemblyHow can the Government of Canada try to pressure the US to abrogate its right-to-work laws when Canada itself is a signatory Member State of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? Not only does Canada fail to live up to its international obligations by lacking right-to-work laws of its own, but it then actively encourages another state to ignore its international obligations on the matter too. Should any trade deal not be founded on the basic international human-rights documents that Canada itself has signed?
-
1
-
-
Freeland is complicating things way too much. She needs to promote unilateral free trade and recognize that any tariff the US or the EU imposes on Canada is to their own respective consumers' own detriment. Just because the US and the EU want to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't mean Canada has to do the same.
Should Incest be a crime?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
Given the potential harms, it should be illegal, though I'd probably limit the penalty to a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence, with the fine for a first offence well above a thousand dollars.