OECD: Canada's richest get richer...

[cybercoma]

M.Dancer, eyeball has a point. You painted a picture that shows how people in Barbados are able to provide for themselves if they are poor. It's vastly more difficult to survive in metropolitan Toronto (as an example) by hunting, fishing and gathering or by setting up a table on a street corner trying to sell things (pet rocks maybe?) without a permit. It is nearly impossible for people in Canada to sustain themselves in the manner that you described people in Barbados doing. While there may be better academic and employment opportunities in Canada, there are very little opportunities for the poor to do things for themselves like in Barbados. Instead, Canadians are forced into a bureaucratic jungle and left to fend for themselves with their arms and legs tied together.

Edited July 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

In Alberta they had a call-in number for people to report their neighbours etc. who were wasting their welfare money on ridiculous things or defrauding the system. It was very popular lol.

The results of that same program in Ontario, during Mike Harris's time at the helm, was very interesting for researchers. Do you know what they found out? In the majority of cases the people being ratted out were not on welfare.

[bloodyminded]

bloody, eyeball has a point. You painted a picture that shows how people in Barbados are able to provide for themselves if they are poor. It's vastly more difficult to survive in metropolitan Toronto (as an example) by hunting, fishing and gathering or by setting up a table on a street corner trying to sell things (pet rocks maybe?) without a permit. It is nearly impossible for people in Canada to sustain themselves in the manner that you described people in Barbados doing. While there may be better academic and employment opportunities in Canada, there are very little opportunities for the poor to do things for themselves like in Barbados. Instead, Canadians are forced into a bureaucratic jungle and left to fend for themselves with their arms and legs tied together.

I think you've mistaken me for another poster.

I agree with eyeball.

My point is that the comparison itself is moot, because I don't believe that the poor of Barbados are pluckily flitting about surviving off of fruit they pick from trees. I think it's a caricature based on 19th century colonial adventure books for boys.

Further, I think the poor of Barbados are equally as lazy as the poor of Canada...which is to say, not especially lazy.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

The results of that same program in Ontario, during Mike Harris's time at the helm, was very interesting for researchers. Do you know what they found out? In the majority of cases the people being ratted out were not on welfare.

My wife takes routed calls for the SPCA during off-hours. I'm not overstating when I say that the majority of calls turn out to be fraudulent or at least wildly exaggerated, based on animosity between neighbours rather than on abuse of pets. (Though there is more abuse of pets than most people think, just by the way.)

[cybercoma]

Sorry, bloody. I think I my comments were supposed to be directed to M. Dancer.

[bloodyminded]

Sorry, bloody. I think I my comments were supposed to be directed to M. Dancer.

Bloodyminded mistaken for M. Dancer. A historical first, is my guess.

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer, eyeball has a point. You painted a picture that shows how people in Barbados are able to provide for themselves if they are poor. It's vastly more difficult to survive in metropolitan Toronto (as an example) by hunting, fishing and gathering or by setting up a table on a street corner trying to sell things (pet rocks maybe?) without a permit.

You are of course correct. It is hard to survive in Toronto by fishing. Which is why people don't.

Instead they sit at home, watch TV and collect a nice cheque.

You and Ball miss the point.

While there may be better academic and employment opportunities in Canada, there are very little opportunities for the poor to do things for themselves like in Barbados. Instead, Canadians are forced into a bureaucratic jungle and left to fend for themselves with their arms and legs tied together

Yes here, when someone is poor, and motivated. They get jobs. They go to night school. The unmotivated consider a day at the welfare office to be work enough. The Bajan understood this. The poor in barbados are not lazy like the poor here. They get off their asses, they work....

[bloodyminded]

Yes here, when someone is poor, and motivated. They get jobs. They go to night school. The unmotivated consider a day at the welfare office to be work enough. The Bajan understood this. The poor in barbados are not lazy like the poor here. They get off their asses, they work....

....and sing calypso, and genuflect to Milton Friedman....

[jacee]

It never ceases to amaze/disgust me that when you expose the greed of the wealthiest, the attacks on the poorest begin, so I did some research.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy provides this information:

- transfers (of our tax money) to private corporations are about $20b per year.

From wiki:

- social transfers for postsecondary education, social assistance and social services are about ... $20b per year.

Yup, that's right folks! On average, each one of us pays about $1,500 per year to subsidize private corporations, more than we say for social services.

Now tell me again how the social welfare system gives no incentive to people to work, because apparently the corporate welfare system works the same and costs us more.

Can the poor-bashers please stop now please?

Some other things you may not know about people on social assistance - why you likely wouldn't hire them:

- 5% of Canadians have invisible learning disabilities. You can't tell by looking at them, but they are illiterate and unemployable. They don't qualify for disability, just welfare.

- 3% of Canadians have physical disabilities again often invisible such as brain injuries. Mostly unemployable.

- 2% have serious mental illness, often invisible to casual observers and unemployable.

- 80% of people on welfare are single moms with preschool children, and the average time spent on assistance is 3 years - until the kids go to school and Mom to work. (Assistance is cheaper than day care costs.)

Anecdotes about poor people you see on the street are very unreliable indicators of their employability.

Corporations on social assistance, however, put profits in the pockets of the wealthy that are actually tax dollars paid by you and me. Unlike social services, however, they seldom have to account for where the money went.

[cybercoma]

Yes here, when someone is poor, and motivated. They get jobs. They go to night school. The unmotivated consider a day at the welfare office to be work enough. The Bajan understood this. The poor in barbados are not lazy like the poor here. They get off their asses, they work....

The vast majority of people that go on welfare do so reluctantly. I'm sorry that you can't see that sometimes people find themselves unable to find work through no fault of their own. You seem to think that it's because people are unmotivated or what have you. You blame them for not going to night school, for example. This is why I said people get caught in a bureaucratic jungle. People have no money, but they're supposed to find the money to go to night school or back to college to upgrade; however, you criticize them as unmotivated for going on welfare. Of course, you haven't considered the barriers to leaving welfare either: health and disability, abusive relationships, childcare, housing, hunger, transportation, drug and alcohol addiction, discrimination and racism, education or any combination of these.

Someone that was employed fulltime, lost their job due to restructuring, could be legitimately on welfare after their EI runs out because they're trying to upgrade their education; however, they're also trying to raise a child and can't afford sitters or daycare, have a nagging injury that makes it difficult to do certain kinds of work and have a heavy accent that employers find unappealing.

You call this person lazy and unmotivated, suggesting that they just need to get off their ass to go get work. Yet, all they want to do is put a roof over the head and clothes on the back of their child and get food on the table. Work is exactly what they want to do, but they can't because they actually don't have the same unique opportunity as those in Barbados. Don't believe me? Go to a high-traffic tourist area and try to sell some of the trinkets you would find on the beach in Barbados. The cops would arrest you for soliciting and the municipality would probably fine you for not having a permit if you kept it up.

The poor in Barbados get off their ass and work because they have the opportunity to sell things on the beach without a permit and they can find food in the waters around Barbados or from the earth. What happens when the economy tanks? Self-employment rises. So it seems the same thing happens here, but with more bureaucratic red-tape.

[Moonbox]

Guys the whole Barbados thing is a giant red herring. It was a cute little anecdote and has absolutely no bearing on the topic at all really.

Props to M.Dancer for getting you guys to bite so hard on it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Moonbox

[M.Dancer]

The vast majority of people that go on welfare do so reluctantly. I'm sorry that you can't see that sometimes people find themselves unable to find work through no fault of their own.

Sure...some would rather just have the money.

You seem to think that it's because people are unmotivated or what have you. You blame them for not going to night school, for example. This is why I said people get caught in a bureaucratic jungle. People have no money, but they're supposed to find the money to go to night school or back to college to upgrade; however, you criticize them as unmotivated for going on welfare.

I criticize for going on welfare and staying on welfare and expecting welfare to go on and on and on...

Of course, you haven't considered the barriers to leaving welfare either: health and disability, abusive relationships, childcare, housing, hunger, transportation, drug and alcohol addiction, discrimination and racism, education or any combination of these.

Give me a break. People are on welfare because of racism? People are on welfare because they are drunks?....so should enable their additions?

Someone that was employed fulltime, lost their job due to restructuring, could be legitimately on welfare after their EI runs out because they're trying to upgrade their education; however, they're also trying to raise a child and can't afford sitters or daycare, have a nagging injury that makes it difficult to do certain kinds of work and have a heavy accent that employers find unappealing.

Yes....because the motivated need 10 month to find a job....

You call this person lazy and unmotivated, suggesting that they just need to get off their ass to go get work.

add stupid...

Yet, all they want to do is put a roof over the head and clothes on the back of their child and get food on the table. Work is exactly what they want to do, but they can't because they actually don't have the same unique opportunity as those in Barbados.

Immigrate?

Don't believe me? Go to a high-traffic tourist area and try to sell some of the trinkets you would find on the beach in Barbados. The cops would arrest you for soliciting and the municipality would probably fine you for not having a permit if you kept it up.

Been there, done it, never got a ticket...

The poor in Barbados get off their ass and work because they have the opportunity to sell things on the beach without a permit and they can find food in the waters around Barbados or from the earth. What happens when the economy tanks? Self-employment rises. So it seems the same thing happens here, but with more bureaucratic red-tape.

Cue the self perpetuating myth music...

[cybercoma]

Guys the whole Barbados thing is a giant red herring. It was a cute little anecdote and has absolutely no bearing on the topic at all really.

Props to M.Dancer for getting you guys to bite so hard on it.

[jacee]

Instead they sit at home, watch TV and collect a nice cheque.

What's a "nice" cheque in your mind, Dancer? I doubt you have any idea of the reality of their lives.

The unmotivated consider a day at the welfare office to be work enough.

Prove it.

Unsubstantiated poor-bashing proves only ignorance and contempt.

[bloodyminded]

What's a "nice" cheque in your mind, Dancer? I doubt you have any idea of the reality of their lives.

Prove it.

Unsubstantiated poor-bashing proves only ignorance and contempt.

Yes, but elitists can't hear anyone telling them they're mistaken.

[bloodyminded]

Guys the whole Barbados thing is a giant red herring. It was a cute little anecdote and has absolutely no bearing on the topic at all really.

Actually, it was almost certainly fictional.

[Jack Weber]

You answers make it clear that you don't have a clue what productivity is from the perspective of a company.

What you are talking about is 'labour productivity' which is useful when optimizing a process but does not allow one to compare different processes.

If an operation with 5000 people that produces the same ship for half the price of an operation with 100 people then the economic output per unit of economic input (i.e. productivity) of the first operation is higher.

You complaints about quality are immaterial if the people buying the ships do not put much economic value on higher quality.

It's wonderful how you can be so clinical about exploitation...

If 5000 men can produce a ship for half the price of 100 men then one would have to think those 5000 men are probably working for rotten potatoes as wages...

Frankly,this only underscores the dispicable nature unfettered free marketeering you seem to advocate...

[TimG]

It's wonderful how you can be so clinical about exploitation.

What do you think that those 5000 workers be doing if they were not building ships? Do you really think they would be better off?

Frankly,this only underscores the dispicable nature unfettered free marketeering you seem to advocate.

I am talking about facts. These facts do not change because you think they are 'dispicable'. I don't happen to like these facts much myself but I am at least willing to acknowledge them and think about what needs to be done in response.

The conclusion I have come to is that wage expectations in rich world are going to have to come down. This would increase the productivity advantage and keep the jobs in rich countries instead of shipping them overseas and leaving masses of unemployed. We also need to push public sector wages down in order to reduce the tax burden on a private sector that is making less income.

Edited July 22, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What do you think that those 5000 workers be doing if they were not building ships? Do you really think they would be better off?

What would slaves be doing without slave-owners providing them with food, clothing and shelter. They had it so good. The abolition of slavery was a horrible thing.

[TimG]

What would slaves be doing without slave-owners providing them with food, clothing and shelter. They had it so good. The abolition of slavery was a horrible thing.

There is no comparison and you know it since the workers are free to quit their job (and face the consequences). Why don't you explain exactly what you think those 5000 workers would be doing if they were not building ships. Subsistence farming? Begging in the street? You can't seriously argue that there are better options available. Edited July 22, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

There is no comparison and you know it since the workers are free to quit their job (and face the consequences). Why don't you explain exactly what you think those 5000 workers would be doing if they were not building ships. Subsistence farming? Begging in the street? You can't seriously argue that there are better options available.

Are they free to quit their job? Let me quote something that will help you answer that question for yourself, "explain exactly what you think those 5000 workers would be doing if they were not building ships."

[TimG]

Are they free to quit their job? Let me quote something that will help you answer that question for yourself, "explain exactly what you think those 5000 workers would be doing if they were not building ships."

That is my point. They are building ships because it is better than the alternatives.

What is the problem with that?

You seem to think that if they didn't build ships then their lives would be all rainbows and unicorns.

Edited July 22, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

That is my point. They are building ships because it is better than the alternatives.

What is the problem with that?

You seem to think that if they didn't build ships then their lives would be all rainbows and unicorns.

You're missing cybercoma's point, not to mention denying the very fabric of a political economy that created a thing we call "the middle class," and has also been a key component in the relative political stability of the Western nations. That is, labour rights and a social safety net.

(Did you know--probably you did not--that labour unrest and uprisings were a crucial aspect of the Egyptian uprisings in general?)

At any rate, these workers to which you're referring are what some of us term "human beings."

A controversial opinion, I know, but I tend to adhere to such radical notions.

Yes, technically the workers, if unhappy, can simply leave their crappy, two dollar/hr job, and, as you say, "face the consequences." The consequences for most are either unemployment or finding another two dollar/hr job.

That's a "choice" only in the most fatuous sense.

So instead of a wage on which people can survive at a roughly bare-bones level...they should all be working a job that cannot sustain them.

It's true--I agree with the point--that a minimum wage has problems.

That is to say, like every single policy, economic or otherwise, that has ever been tried or ever been theorized, without a single bloody exception, ever...it has problems.

But under this other scenario, we could have an unemployment rate significantly lower. In fact, I believe it would be significantly lower.

So, right after we get rid of such useless niceties as welfare and Employment Insurance (no longer needed, right?), we can have a much better employment rate. Problem solved.

Except, of course, for the vast numbers of people who work forty hours a week (or seventy, since it's an attack on "freedom" to tell employers they can't make people work as much as the employers please), but who cannot afford their socialist entitlements like food and rent.

Well, there's a solution to that; we used to do it regularly, and some of the factories that produce our $20 DVD's and $6 t-shirts still do it; you set up living barracks, with four families to a room; and open a Company Store. That way, everything's on credit, and the entire paycheque goes to the company to pay off the continual debt.

Fortunately, with that extra tax burden lifted from the real people, they can afford the iron gates and private security forces they'll need to keep out the irrationally angry peasants. (Except, of course, for the nannies and cleaners and yardworkers, allowed in for their two dollars/hr jobs.)

Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

The security forces aren't used to keep the "peasants" out of the employers' communities. The security is used to keep the "peasants" locked up in their own communities.

Sugar plantations in the Caribbean still use the truck system you describe too.

[TimG]

Yes, technically the workers, if unhappy, can simply leave their crappy, two dollar/hr job, and, as you say, "face the consequences." The consequences for most are either unemployment or finding another two dollar/hr job.

Which is the same choice that many people living in Canada face. The only differences is the pay scales and cost of living is higher.

The higher cost of living is actually a bigger issue. Software programmers in India and China have relatively good working conditions yet they are paid less than minimum wage in Canada. This gives them an ok living in those countries but there is absolutely no way programmers in Canada can compete as long as our cost of living remains high.

So instead of a wage on which people can survive at a roughly bare-bones level...they should all be working a job that cannot sustain them.

And I suppose you think the magical job fairy will give it to them. Life is not like that. The Chinese middle class will emerge in due course but there is nothing we can do to speed up the process.

So, right after we get rid of such useless niceties as welfare and Employment Insurance (no longer needed, right?), we can have a much better employment rate. Problem solved.

You are assuming there is a choice to be made here. There is not. Canada and all rich countries will find that income disparity will need to increase in order for them to complete.

The US is already doing this with their masses of illegal workers which are outside the system. Canada will need to create similar two tier system for social benefits. We have avoided it so far because we are splitting revenue from resources among a relatively small number of people. Unfortunately, most Canadians seem hell bent on rapidly increasing the population which will dilute the resource revenue and ensure our current social programs will need to cut back drastically over the next 20-30 years.

I certainly do not like this future but I see no way to avoid it at this point.

Edited July 22, 2011 by TimG