Is it fair for seasonal wokers to get EI benefit repeatedly?

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed...employment is the state of trading labor for pay and/or benefits, and is not a requirement for efficient production or services. Competition forces the issue.

But the net economic advantage is presumed to be spread around, and if that doesn't happen, then it will happen by force, i.e. government will make it happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

But the net economic advantage is presumed to be spread around, and if that doesn't happen, then it will happen by force, i.e. government will make it happen.

Not necessarily, as your presumption of such a spreading assumes that a competitive advantage can be had by all, when this is not the case. Government helps to create the conditions for both sides of the equation.

It is apparent that EI retains both support and stigma ("dole") at the federal and provincial level. This OP expresses such a frustration.

[Michael Hardner]

Not necessarily, as your presumption of such a spreading assumes that a competitive advantage can be had by all, when this is not the case.

More clearly - that SOME competitive advantage can be had by each party to the trade agreement. If not, then why would the government engage in such an agreement ?

[bush_cheney2004]

More clearly - that SOME competitive advantage can be had by each party to the trade agreement. If not, then why would the government engage in such an agreement ?

For access to a much larger market. That is one reason Canada and Mexico signed NAFTA.

[Michael Hardner]

For access to a much larger market. That is one reason Canada and Mexico signed NAFTA.

But that doesn't answer the question. If there's no advantage with that market, then Canada wouldn't make any inroads there.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's say there's a country - called Tradia - that Canada is considering as a trading partner. After investigating, we find that they have more resources, and cheaper labour than us across the board.

It's a theoretical problem, but still - why would we enter in a trade agreement with them ?

That would be like you taking me with you to meet girls. There's no advantage there for you, as they swarm around me. See ?

[bush_cheney2004]

But that doesn't answer the question. If there's no advantage with that market, then Canada wouldn't make any inroads there.

But there is/was.....Canada could schlepp more softwood lumber, paper pulp products, Abitibi siding, etc. in the USA, which had a booming housing market. Canada's natural resource advantage (and low stumpage fees) made for a competitive advantage, so much so, American lumber interests cried foul.

[Michael Hardner]

But there is/was.....Canada could schlepp more softwood lumber, paper pulp products, Abitibi siding, etc. in the USA, which had a booming housing market. Canada's natural resource advantage (and low stumpage fees) made for a competitive advantage, so much so, American lumber interests cried foul.

I'm thinking that maybe I misinterpreted this:

assumes that a competitive advantage can be had by all, when this is not the case.

I assumed "all" meant "all countries in the trade pact" not "all people in the country".

[bush_cheney2004]

....I assumed "all" meant "all countries in the trade pact" not "all people in the country".

Sorry, I was still focused on the individual and EI payments.

[Shwa]

Nope, but apparently it is very important to complain about the shoe being on the other foot. EI is just a symptom of this reality. Please continue blaming the Indians, Chinese, and Mexicans.

Oh, I have your permission then? Excellent. Thanks!

[Shwa]

The theory is that the jobs are "replaced" with time.

With 'free' time? Some people think EI, social assistance and other unfortunates have too much of that already.

[Michael Hardner]

With 'free' time? Some people think EI, social assistance and other unfortunates have too much of that already.

Replaced... as time goes on...

[eyeball]

I think every industry that requires a specialty trained workforce with known, but unpredictable periods of inactivity, pretty much, yes, I think most of them have some sort of sweetheart deal with EI.

There are all sorts of little circle jerks involving regulators, trainers and certifiers out there. Driving commercial boats, felling trees and diving are just a few examples I can think of where I live and work.

It seems for every new regulation there is new course of instruction and a hefty fee to get the certificate you need to either keep on doing what you've been doing all your life or move up the ladder. My next rung looks like it's going to cost me something like $13,000.

I should have stayed in school?

[dre]

More clearly - that SOME competitive advantage can be had by each party to the trade agreement. If not, then why would the government engage in such an agreement ?

Free trade was driven by a whole bunch of different factors. You had industrialists wanting to maximize profits by firing their western workers and moving their operations to countries with no environmental of labor regulations. This was one of the biggest driving forces. You also have "altruists" that support free trade out of a sense of fairness and a belief that the best way to help people in the developing world is by trading with them. Then you have thrifty shoppers that just want the lowest price and couldnt care less if the glue that holds their DVD player together was made by grinding up human children in some third world hellhole.

Its mainly business driven though. It benefits a small number of really powerfull people.

[Shwa]

I should have stayed in school?

That is an interesting question. In Ontario there is a program - originally designed to transition workers out of the traditional manufacturing sectors - called Second Career. Unfortunately the province really bungled the handling of the program by making the qualifications too wide in order to get people to access it. They mistook the time it took for word of the program to seep into the population for a lack of interest. So they opened it up for practically anyone. And practically 'anyone' took advantage of it.

$13,000? Second Career would have fully paid for your upgrade, paid living allowances, transportation costs, books and course materials, etc.

Hopefully BC has something similar to offer to you without the money pit Second Career has become in Ontario.

[eyeball]

That is an interesting question. In Ontario there is a program - originally designed to transition workers out of the traditional manufacturing sectors - called Second Career. Unfortunately the province really bungled the handling of the program by making the qualifications too wide in order to get people to access it. They mistook the time it took for word of the program to seep into the population for a lack of interest. So they opened it up for practically anyone. And practically 'anyone' took advantage of it.

$13,000? Second Career would have fully paid for your upgrade, paid living allowances, transportation costs, books and course materials, etc.

Hopefully BC has something similar to offer to you without the money pit Second Career has become in Ontario.

There's been a whole industry built up around this in BC.

Second Career? I'm thinking Third or Fourth and I'm pretty sure I can see another one dawning on the horizon.

Perhaps a life of crime...ever wonder about the paths not taken? I wonder what sort of certificate you need to regulate train and certify people? That seems like a pretty good racket.

[Shwa]

There's been a whole industry built up around this in BC.

Second Career? I'm thinking Third or Fourth and I'm pretty sure I can see another one dawning on the horizon.

Well there is the sentiment that one will have a few careers in their lives, so you might on track.

Perhaps a life of crime...ever wonder about the paths not taken? I wonder what sort of certificate you need to regulate train and certify people? That seems like a pretty good racket.

If you don't succeed at crime, at least you won't be homeless.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Shwa