Role of Welfare

[Topaz]

Back in the '70's and '80's, there were people in Ontario, that took advantage of welfare. Girls who were 15-19 yrs and didn't want to go to school and didn't like living at home got pregnant over and over to get welfare.Today, I think it still happens but not a bad as back then. I think changing the rules are going to school until you're 18 is good and even if the girl is pregnant she has to go to school. Welfare should be there for people who really do need like going through EI and not being able to find a job and I think a person has to go out and be looking for a job to stay on welfare.

[Yorkness]

Of course there would have to exist a "grey" scale which would apply to varying degrees of "limited" ability persons. This would provide a compromise between the black and white terms "expected to work" and "not expected to work" which denote working ability. Persons with "poor skills" could qualify for welfare on a preliminary basis under the aformentioned grey scale which to give it a more politcally correct term, lets call it welfare for persons of "irregular" ability, or even "non-conformist" ability. These persons would already have access to already existing government skills training programs.

[KeyStone]

Back in the '70's and '80's, there were people in Ontario, that took advantage of welfare. Girls who were 15-19 yrs and didn't want to go to school and didn't like living at home got pregnant over and over to get welfare. Today, I think it still happens but not a bad as back then. I think changing the rules are going to school until you're 18 is good and even if the girl is pregnant she has to go to school.

Do you think that's common? Do you think lots of teenage girls dream about getting pregnant and staying home to look after kids while getting the 'free ride' of $800/month for themselves and their child?

There are always scammers, and you cut down on them as much as you can, but ultimately, I would rather see one person cheat the system and get a 'free ride' then see one person in need of legitimate help get denied.

I lived in Alberta for a brief period of time in the 90's. I met 17 year old boys who had no job and nowhere to live.

They couldn't get welfare. They couldn't get jobs. Instead, they tried to hide in the malls so that they would have a place to sleep, and would sit in coffee shops without buying anything until someone kicked them out. Klein's great idea then was to give them bus tickets to BC. It's sort of like raking the leaves off of your lawn and dumping them on your neighbours.

That's not really a solution, and not a Canada that I can be proud of.

Welfare should be there for people who really do need like going through EI and not being able to find a job and I think a person has to go out and be looking for a job to stay on welfare.

Well, there are different types of unemployable people. There are people that have mental illnesses of different sorts. There are people with addiction to drugs or alcohol. There are people with no living skills, and no hygiene.

But more, there are people that are just discouraged. They have failed to find work, or they have found work only to get fired within a short time.

So what do you do with them? Just throw them out on the street and tell them to find a job or starve?

Or do you let the compassionate shoulder a much greater proportion of the burden than they already do?

[KeyStone]

Of course there would have to exist a "grey" scale which would apply to varying degrees of "limited" ability persons. This would provide a compromise between the black and white terms "expected to work" and "not expected to work" which denote working ability. Persons with "poor skills" could qualify for welfare on a preliminary basis under the aformentioned grey scale which to give it a more politcally correct term, lets call it welfare for persons of "irregular" ability, or even "non-conformist" ability. These persons would already have access to already existing government skills training programs.

Well, setting up a scale of how employable someone is, is one way.

Another is just to accept that there will always be people who can't work for one way or another.

Ensure that they have the very basics - food and shelter - regardless.

Whatever their problem is, I don't envy someone getting $550/month to live on, even if it's a 'free ride'.

Then, creative incentives for people, such that they can earn up to an additional $200 per month if they:

- Apply to a certain number of jobs

- Attend training courses

- Attend lifeskills workshops etc.

In other words, you get them to jump through some hoops so that they can enable themselves to get back on track.

If a person hasn't had a job for a couple of years, they need a lot of help, to get back on track.

You can't just write them a cheque, and expect things to turn around.

[madmax]

Teaching is a difficult job. Most teachers do have to work more hours than listed due to prep time and be on their toes at all times. It's a demanding job that requires you to be thinking and active almost the entire time. You also have to deal with a lot of crap from both teens and little kids.

More hours then "who". The majority of employees do not receive all the stat holidays, bargained holidays, paid sick days etc. The majority of employees do not have two months off, a few weeks at christmas, a march break, etc.

It is easier to find a teacher working straight days, then shift rotations, straight nights or straight afternoons.

Teaching is a job that has difficult elements, but it is not rocket science. As I have many family members that are teachers, I recognize the good life and lifestyles they lead. Sabbaticals, trips, and social clubs take up alot of time.

Many teachers are able to do their curriculum in their sleep. Like any position it does seem like alot of work at first.

The fact is, we can find teachers in the US who work just as hard as teachers here and work for $20,000.

Teachers do not have a monopoly on hard work or a difficult job. It is because their are more difficult jobs in the private sector that the do not wish to partake that directs them to the cushy life of a public school teacher.

All employees bitch and complain and mention how difficult their jobs are or how unpaid they are. But the majority of teachers would not be able to earn a living paying as much money for so few hours in the private sector.

Infact, many teachers would be unemployable with their current skillset regardless of their university education.

There is an abundance of graduates from teachers college who cannot find work in their field and are employed through temp agencies working for $9 an hour.

[Michael Hardner]

Teachers do not have a monopoly on hard work or a difficult job. It is because their are more difficult jobs in the private sector that the do not wish to partake that directs them to the cushy life of a public school teacher.

All employees bitch and complain and mention how difficult their jobs are or how unpaid they are. But the majority of teachers would not be able to earn a living paying as much money for so few hours in the private sector.

MadM,

There's some truth in what you write, however the term 'difficult' is completely values laden. Managing a classroom may be more difficult to some than others.

I'm curious, too, from you post - does anyone know what a training person (an educator, say somebody who does email training) earns in the private sector ?

[madmax]

I'm curious, too, from you post - does anyone know what a training person (an educator, say somebody who does email training) earns in the private sector ?

The range is all over the map. For a classroom of 15 ..... an instructor can be make $9.75 an hour for a 4 hour day, instruction on Outlook (all versions and on all back to 98). Included in the instructions is hotmail and gmail.

This is gravy

[madmax]

I'm curious, too, from you post - does anyone know what a training person (an educator, say somebody who does email training) earns in the private sector ?

With regards to other sectors, a physio therapy and sports medicine facility that pays their University and college degree/diploma staff between $10.35 and $14.80.

While there is a high turnover rate, they are never short of qualified staff.

Edited January 13, 2009 by madmax

[veggiedawg]

The fact is some people truly need Welfare, a helping hand to make it through the dark times. Others take advantage of it. It should be the responsibility of our government to develop a better and more organized program. If anyone in this thread think that those on Welfare take advantage of us tax payers.. then start thinking about the fact that the ones responsible for creating, implementing and operating this program are raping us. Our government and politicians are the ones taking advantage of us, and those on Welfare.

We don't only pay to help those in need, or even those lazy few... we help to pay for fancy suits, limo rides, and top rate living for these politicians that do what... give us reason to go after one anothers throats on message boards because they're happy with the way Canadians lives are. lol.

We pay a government that take far more advantage than anyone on Welfare.

[theimp]

Welfare is intended to be temp. not a perm. source of income. It's intended to not be enough and to get citizens off their backside and get to work.

And yet there are continual complaints about the homeless! Currently in Quebec, regular welfare is NOT enough for food AND rent if you are single.

Are you going to hire them all? 100% employability is a fantasy - our economy runs on having enough unemployed to keep wages down.

Why blame the poor for this?!?!

Bad luck can happen to anyone! Not all of us are the lucky ones! Even with an education, shit can happen.

[theimp]

MadM,

There's some truth in what you write, however the term 'difficult' is completely values laden. Managing a classroom may be more difficult to some than others.

I'm curious, too, from you post - does anyone know what a training person (an educator, say somebody who does email training) earns in the private sector ?

I received < $13/h with an MSc. for teaching ESL in the private sector. (I would go to different businesses and run ESL classes.as a subcontractor for a language school). At the Universtiy level, I would receive just over $14/h if I were working as an instructor with an MSc.

Teaching high school was, by far, the most difficult job I've ever had. I worked around 12 hours per day and tried to take Saturday mornings for myself. I often had too much work to do that, though. As a science teacher, not only did I have the regular prep and marking of the regular teacher, I had to verify and set up the labs myself as well as mark lab reports. While teaching grade 9 science, I could physically feel my energy draining as the hour passed.

I was obliged to teach subjects I've never studied (eg meteorology) so some time had to be spent on my own studies.

Finally, all those summer holidays people envy had to be spent on finding and preparing resources and general lessons as well as catching up on recent science discoveries.

Edited January 15, 2009 by theimp

[M.Dancer]

And yet there are continual complaints about the homeless! Currently in Quebec, regular welfare is NOT enough for food AND rent if you are single.

Welfare is around $570 a month, you can find a bachelor for around $350 in montreal....it's enough to live...

Edited January 15, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Michael Hardner]

With regards to other sectors, a physio therapy and sports medicine facility that pays their University and college degree/diploma staff between $10.35 and $14.80.

While there is a high turnover rate, they are never short of qualified staff.

MadM,

That's not the type of training I was referring to.

I mean email training, technical training - the type of 'teaching' that occurs in the private sector.

[Michael Hardner]

Theimp,

I received < $13/h with an MSc. for teaching ESL in the private sector. (I would go to different businesses and run ESL classes.as a subcontractor for a language school). At the Universtiy level, I would receive just over $14/h if I were working as an instructor with an MSc.

Teaching high school was, by far, the most difficult job I've ever had. I worked around 12 hours per day and tried to take Saturday mornings for myself. I often had too much work to do that, though. As a science teacher, not only did I have the regular prep and marking of the regular teacher, I had to verify and set up the labs myself as well as mark lab reports. While teaching grade 9 science, I could physically feel my energy draining as the hour passed.

I was obliged to teach subjects I've never studied (eg meteorology) so some time had to be spent on my own studies.

Finally, all those summer holidays people envy had to be spent on finding and preparing resources and general lessons as well as catching up on recent science discoveries.

Interesting.

Worked out per hour, it's still a higher pay rate for HS teachers.

[Renegade]

Are you going to hire them all? 100% employability is a fantasy - our economy runs on having enough unemployed to keep wages down.

Why should he or anyone else be responsible for hiring them? Each person is an entrepreneur with a product to sell: his labour. It is up to him to make his labour valuable enough so that someone willingly buys it.

Why blame the poor for this?!?!

Even the best run businesses will have high and low times. Businesses as well as individuals need to plan for this and manages their financies accordingly. People going on welfare is the equivalent of a company going bankrupt. It may not always been under their control but it is undeniablly a sign of failure.

Bad luck can happen to anyone! Not all of us are the lucky ones! Even with an education, shit can happen.

Of course. That is why if welfare was run as an "insurance" scheme for "bad luch" it would be much fairer to everyone. People should pay for welfare through "insurance premiums" in good times and in an amount proportional to their risk of consuming welfare. People shold be able to opt out of welfare premiums and thus not be eligible for welfare payments.

[madmax]

MadM,

That's not the type of training I was referring to.

I mean email training, technical training - the type of 'teaching' that occurs in the private sector.

It's in the post previous to the one you are referencing.

[madmax]

Theimp,

Interesting.

Worked out per hour, it's still a higher pay rate for HS teachers.

Nonsense

[madmax]

People should pay for welfare through "insurance premiums" in good times and in an amount proportional to their risk of consuming welfare. People shold be able to opt out of welfare premiums and thus not be eligible for welfare payments.

Then it wouldn't be welfare, but a glorified EI program and insurance program like Comp.

No thanks.....

[Renegade]

Then it wouldn't be welfare, but a glorified EI program and insurance program like Comp.

I suppose it woudl be something like EI if the only "bad luck" you want to mitigate against was lack of employment. Even EI isn't insurance. There is no element of evalation of employment risk, nor is the premium tied to risk.

BTW, in some countries EI and Welfare is the same program. So if the reason is to mitigate financial misfortune there is some sense to combine programs.

No thanks.....

The ablity to say "No thanks....." is exactly what I'd like to see. Currently nobody has a provision to opt out of either Welfare nor EI. In short, while you would like to say "no thanks" to a modified insurance-like sheme for Welfare, I would also like the option to say "no thanks" to that or any other welfare scheme including the current one.

[tango]

Nonsense

Well, if it is then it should be.

People who think teaching is a 'cushy' job have never tried it, and would not last one hour in a room with 30 teenagers, let alone teach them anything!

(Ask Mike Harris!)

I truly think there should be job exchanges between the private sector and public to educate both.

And those who whine about people on welfare should have to try that too ... or should be required to hire them if they think they are so employable! But first, of course, you should be required to go through their childhood and see how intact you are then!

Be thankful for what you have. Not everyone is able to achieve what some can.

Edited January 16, 2009 by tango

[madmax]

Well, if it is then it should be.

People who think teaching is a 'cushy' job have never tried it, and would not last one hour in a room with 30 teenagers, let alone teach them anything!

Teaching is a cushy job and don't kid yourself that it isn't. Going into a workforce outside of teaching is a rare occurence. Leaving the workforce to go into teaching is not a rare occurence. There is good reason for that.

Excellent pay, benefits, pension and job security. Few hours, many holidays, paid sickdays and benefits.

I have walked into a classroom and taught for one period, as you suggested, I didn't have 30 teenages, I had 24. It was a piece of cake, and a very enjoyable experience. I did this last September. And Economics isn't the most exciting topic to cover.

I would love to join my relatives who teach for a living. And while each class varies and some can get under their skin, or some students, they wouldn't trade it for anything.

They enjoy the good life and know it.

I truly think there should be job exchanges between the private sector and public to educate both.

I am in full agreement

And those who whine about people on welfare should have to try that too ... or should be required to hire them if they think they are so employable! But first, of course, you should be required to go through their childhood and see how intact you are then!

Actually many people are going to do just that, who have never seen Welfare before, let alone EI. However, since many people 30% of the workforce never qualify for EI, they are the first to go on Welfare in a downturn of the economy.

Those on Welfare in Ontario are forced to work and then have their cheques clawed back. My problem is the contracts the Government have with the Temp Agencies who receive $18.75 to $20.15 to send a Welfare recipeint to a workplace where they receive minimum wage. The Temp Agencies have no incentive to have the targeted individual on welfare get hired, and usually yank out the employee prior to the companies ability to hire. This is standard fare for many contracts, and keeps the person out of fulltime employment.

Unfortuneately many agencies now control up to 70% of the labour market and it is difficult to impossible to receive employment directly.

So, the Agencies that get on "the list" to provide employment to welfare recipients actually make more money then the employee and are a large benefactor of Welfare.

Many University grads go on welfare during their first few years in the labour market.

Be thankful for what you have. Not everyone is able to achieve what some can.

And that is my point with teachers.....

[Smallc]

I have walked into a classroom and taught for one period,

Yes, its always fun...at first.

[KeyStone]

Of course. That is why if welfare was run as an "insurance" scheme for "bad luch" it would be much fairer to everyone. People should pay for welfare through "insurance premiums" in good times and in an amount proportional to their risk of consuming welfare. People shold be able to opt out of welfare premiums and thus not be eligible for welfare payments.

Well, first of all, the suggestion that welfare is 'bad luck', is only true if you include:

- Whether you have one parent or two

- How much money your parents have

- How much focus your parents put on education

- How smart you are

Now, Renegade, your idea that welfare should be treated like insurance basically describes EI.

EI, has its own problems - but it is essentially insurance for those with 'bad luck'.

Welfare is different. There are people who from birth have a very high chance of going on welfare.

No insurance company is going to cover them. Likewise, there are people who have no chance of going on welfare, because they are well-educated and have a wealthy family. Even if they take a couple years to 'find themselves' - they can still rely on mommy and daddy to pay their way.

Welfare is intended to make Canada a civilized society, so that those who can not find work have an existence without having to resort to crime, prostitution etc. With all the money that Canada wastes, quit crying because someone gets a 'free ride' of $550/month. I sure as hell wouldn't want to trade places with them - and for me I feel sorry for them. I don't feel jealous because they get a 'free ride'.

[madmax]

Yes, its always fun...at first.

Certainly, but I was replying to a poster who suggested that someone who has never taught, would not last 1 hour.

I find it interesting that in a forum about welfare, I am hear teachers complain about their jobs.

[Renegade]

Well, first of all, the suggestion that welfare is 'bad luck', is only true if you include:

- Whether you have one parent or two

- How much money your parents have

- How much focus your parents put on education

- How smart you are

It was theimp who suggested that welfare was to mitigate "bad luck".

Let's assume that "bad luck" encompasses the scenarios you have described. Why should society bear the onus of mitigating your "bad luck"? If example if you are not very smart isn't that your problem, not societies?

Now, Renegade, your idea that welfare should be treated like insurance basically describes EI.

EI, has its own problems - but it is essentially insurance for those with 'bad luck'.

Er, Keystone it was YOU who described welfare as insurance in post 96:

Think of welfare as a form of insurance.

You may need it, you may not. But everyone pays the premiums, and they payout to those who need it.

Post #96

In any case EI is only partially like insurance. It not only covers "bad luck" to the extent the luck impacts your abilty to stay employed.

Welfare is different. There are people who from birth have a very high chance of going on welfare.

No insurance company is going to cover them. Likewise, there are people who have no chance of going on welfare, because they are well-educated and have a wealthy family. Even if they take a couple years to 'find themselves' - they can still rely on mommy and daddy to pay their way.

Welfare is intended to make Canada a civilized society, so that those who can not find work have an existence without having to resort to crime, prostitution etc.

From your description it seems that welfare is a blend of charity and a payoff to those who may otherwise turn to crime. If it is a charity, should charitable giving not be left to individuals to voluntary contribute to the extent their conscience dictates? To the extent that it is a payoff to keep crime low, how do we know that it is the most effective way to spend the funds? For example it may make more sense to decrease welfare rates and spend the funds on police costs or maybe the reverse is true. If it is a payoff, it may make sense to pay higher amounts to those more likely to commit crime (ie young males) rather than women or the elderly.

With all the money that Canada wastes, quit crying because someone gets a 'free ride' of $550/month.

How are the two related. We should fight waste when it occurs. We also need to examine every program including welfare to determine if it is living up to its intended objective.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to trade places with them - and for me I feel sorry for them. I don't feel jealous because they get a 'free ride'.

I feel sorry for them as well, nor would I want to trade places with them, but emotion shouldn't cloud rational decisions about what programs are effective and exempt them from being scrutinized.