Occupy Toronto Protestors

[Boges]

Apparently too, the Occupiers had about $10,000 left over in their account and donated it to restore the park....

Not that I doubt that, but have a link to support this?

Seems like everyone is getting together to make the Park look better than before.

If anything, this whole Occupy thing was positive for that alone.

[dre]

Great point, just look at how well detroit has done with the union-induced failure of corporations there.

How much is it for a house there now? $10k?

Unions didnt force car manufacturers to make gigantic gas guzzlers while the price of gas war rapidly increasing and the demand for fuel efficient cars was skyrocketing.

The NA auto industry screwed ITSELF by making shitty cars for way too long, and by zigging when the rest of the world was zagging.

[Shwa]

The NA auto industry screwed ITSELF by making shitty cars for way too long, and by zigging when the rest of the world was zagging.

These were all management decisions. Likely by grossly underpaid CEOs.

[dre]

These were all management decisions. Likely by grossly underpaid CEOs.

Yup, and the reality the NA auto industry had already been losing market share in every single year since 1981.

Having said that... Collective bargaining is supposed to be WAR. Both sides need to bargain hard. When profits were high and times were good in the 90's these companies signed CBA's that they probably should not have signed. They were not sustainable in the long term, and unions knew this as well as the employers and they made a pile of concessions.

And bad contracts were not just signed with unions. These companies also signed a number of other unsustainable contracts with parts makers and suppliers. Add to that the fact that these companies started focusing on other things besides building cars... financial services, stock trading, investment etc.

[CPCFTW]

Unions didnt force car manufacturers to make gigantic gas guzzlers while the price of gas war rapidly increasing and the demand for fuel efficient cars was skyrocketing.

The NA auto industry screwed ITSELF by making shitty cars for way too long, and by zigging when the rest of the world was zagging.

The point is bailing out individuals is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the corporations employing those individuals (contrary to what middleclasscommunist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

I would argue that it is worse to bail out individuals since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing workers to develop their own knowledge and skills through employment.

Furthermore, I would argue that a corporation is far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of profits and of the corporation's employees' incomes, then a welfare recipient is to find a high-paying job and pay off all the welfare handouts he/she received.

Edited December 8, 2011 by CPCFTW

[dre]

The point is bailing out individuals is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the corporations employing those individuals (contrary to what middleclasscommunist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

I would argue that it is worse to bail out individuals since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing workers to develop their own knowledge and skills through employment.

Furthermore, I would argue that a corporation is far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of profits and of the corporation's employees' incomes, then a welfare recipient is to find a high-paying job and pay off all the welfare handouts he/she received.

Almost all welfare recipients use the system temporarily and re-enter the workforce before long. Not sure what youre ranting about here... seems like youve backed off the silliness that is blaming workers for the fate of domestic car makers though so thats a start I guess.

[CPCFTW]

Almost all welfare recipients use the system temporarily and re-enter the workforce before long. Not sure what youre ranting about here... seems like youve backed off the silliness that is blaming workers for the fate of domestic car makers though so thats a start I guess.

I'm not ranting about anything.. I'm responding to mcc's rant that bailing out corporations benefits no one but shareholders.

Also I never backed off laying some of the blame on unions.. I never blamed the workers themselves.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Letting a corporation fail would simply mean that another corporation would grow by buying it up or increasing it's market share. It is a business entity that when ceasing to exist has little real impact on anything except for the people who knowingly made a risk investing in the company. Corporations aren't people, jobs shift but the world goes on. Saving a corporation that has mismanaged billions, has limited liability keeps the bad corporate policies that lead it there alive.

The point is bailing out individuals is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the corporations employing those individuals (contrary to what middleclasscommunist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

....

I'm not ranting about anything.. I'm responding to mcc's rant that bailing out corporations benefits no one but shareholders.

I think it's cute that when I argue free market principles, CPCFTW calls me a communist.

Edited December 8, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Furthermore, I would argue that a corporation is far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of profits and of the corporation's employees' incomes, then a welfare recipient is to find a high-paying job and pay off all the welfare handouts he/she received.

You need to review the concept of paying back.

It's not like I can pull the same trick at my bank and reduce my mortgage because they are making money off of me. Because it's not actually paying back. Ideologues like yourself use it as an excuse to give corporate kickbacks.

[cybercoma]

The point is bailing out individuals is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the corporations employing those individuals (contrary to what middleclasscommunist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

I would argue that it is worse to bail out individuals since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing workers to develop their own knowledge and skills through employment.

Furthermore, I would argue that a corporation is far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of profits and of the corporation's employees' incomes, then a welfare recipient is to find a high-paying job and pay off all the welfare handouts he/she received.

The point is bailing out corporations is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the individuals working for those corporationss (contrary to what middleclasscapitalist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

I would argue that it is worse to bail out corporationss since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing companies to develop their own knowledge and skills through competition.

Furthermore, I would argue that a individuals are far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of purchases and of the corporations' increased incomes, then a corporate welfare recipient is to find high-paying individuals and increasing their revenues and paying off all the welfare handouts it received.

[Shwa]

The point is bailing out corporations is no more altruistic or helpful to society than bailing out the individuals working for those corporationss (contrary to what middleclasscapitalist, oops i mean "centrist" was arguing).

I would argue that it is worse to bail out corporationss since it causes a dependence on government handouts rather than allowing companies to develop their own knowledge and skills through competition.

Furthermore, I would argue that a individuals are far more likely to pay back handouts through the taxation of purchases and of the corporations' increased incomes, then a corporate welfare recipient is to find high-paying individuals and increasing their revenues and paying off all the welfare handouts it received.

I always wondered if we got our money back on Dome Petroleum. They got a 1 billion dollar bailout in 1982, a hefty sum.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I disagree. What's more important than the hard cap is finding out why long-term welfare recipients are on it for so long and getting them the training and education they need to be employable; or helping them relocate if that's necessary.

I disagree with this as well, since community service and volunteer services are often aimed at aiding welfare recipients themselves. Taking up their time by forcing them to do community service, as if they're criminals, just limits the amount of time that they're out looking for jobs or waiting by the phone for calls from potential employers. Their primary focus should be on finding a job or getting the necessary training/education needed for getting another job, not volunteering their time to other endeavours.

I see your point of view but, I believe that is what EI is for. The transition between jobs.

1. thousands of students work through their education every year. I worked 20 hours a week + 6 hours voluntering with a full course load.
   
2. Student loans are available for people who are retraining, they dont need to go on welfare.
   
3. Almost all welfare recipients have the skills necessary to be 'cart boy' or 'night shift restocker'. The only reason someone would stay on welfare (other than being disabled) for a long period of time is because they aren't willing to do those jobs. They'd rather get something for nothing than work at that level. These long term people are the people who should be actively giving something back by working "for free" for charities.
   
4. Welfare recipients likely don't even need to be retrained. They are aiming for customer service/retail or any other low level jobs with 'no significant skill' requirement. This is the typical end goal. A low level job where a self-respecting person can become self-sufficient.
   

I can't imagine ever burning all of my bridges and putting myself in a scenario where I would have be be on welfare. I'd grab a retail job, probably at a home improvement store or something at least somewhat close to my interest.

When I think of potential long term welfare recipient, I think of my father-in-law. He burns bridges all the time. He has no where left to go. He burned the bridge with my wife and I the last time we took him in. His last stop is welfare if his current relationship fails and he... burns that bridge too. He refuses to get a job to supplement his income, even at a home improvement store (he likes to build things). He refuses to complete orders to sell the wooden products he makes because he wants to do work on his own time. He's technically retired... early(62) but doesn't have enough fixed income alone to support himself. He hates working underneath anyone who tells him what to do, called in sick repeatedly at his old job in his final years before retirment, took extended sick leave knowing that his pension was based on his last few years(And now why he doesn't have enough to support himself)... That, is what I think of when I think of someone who is on welfare long-term. Someone who is perfectly able to help themselves but, refuses to do so.

A regular person who is willing to help themselves won't be on welfare for long.

Where I'm coming from is, if you make it too comfortable for a welfare recipient, there is no incentive to get off their butt to make themselves self-sufficient.

I still believe in a strong welfare program. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a long term welfare recipient start working "for free" with a charity to keep the cheques coming. I'd settle for that over a hard cap of 3 years for physically able individuals.

Edited December 10, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Archanfel]

I see your point of view but, I believe that is what EI is for. The transition between jobs.

1. thousands of students work through their education every year. I worked 20 hours a week + 6 hours voluntering with a full course load.
   
2. Student loans are available for people who are retraining, they dont need to go on welfare.
   
3. Almost all welfare recipients have the skills necessary to be 'cart boy' or 'night shift restocker'. The only reason someone would stay on welfare (other than being disabled) for a long period of time is because they aren't willing to do those jobs. They'd rather get something for nothing than work at that level. These long term people are the people who should be actively giving something back by working "for free" for charities.
   
4. Welfare recipients likely don't even need to be retrained. They are aiming for customer service/retail or any other low level jobs with 'no significant skill' requirement. This is the typical end goal. A low level job where a self-respecting person can become self-sufficient.
   

I can't imagine ever burning all of my bridges and putting myself in a scenario where I would have be be on welfare. I'd grab a retail job, probably at a home improvement store or something at least somewhat close to my interest.

When I think of potential long term welfare recipient, I think of my father-in-law. He burns bridges all the time. He has no where left to go. He burned the bridge with my wife and I the last time we took him in. His last stop is welfare if his current relationship fails and he... burns that bridge too. He refuses to get a job to supplement his income, even at a home improvement store (he likes to build things). He refuses to complete orders to sell the wooden products he makes because he wants to do work on his own time. He's technically retired... early(62) but doesn't have enough fixed income alone to support himself. He hates working underneath anyone who tells him what to do, called in sick repeatedly at his old job in his final years before retirment, took extended sick leave knowing that his pension was based on his last few years(And now why he doesn't have enough to support himself)... That, is what I think of when I think of someone who is on welfare long-term. Someone who is perfectly able to help themselves but, refuses to do so.

A regular person who is willing to help themselves won't be on welfare for long.

Where I'm coming from is, if you make it too comfortable for a welfare recipient, there is no incentive to get off their butt to make themselves self-sufficient.

I still believe in a strong welfare program. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a long term welfare recipient start working "for free" with a charity to keep the cheques coming. I'd settle for that over a hard cap of 3 years for physically able individuals.

The problem is there will be no incentive to work hard since the cheques would not grow or shrink either way. Another problem is that it will be a government sponsored job grab from ordinary citizens. If the sole purpose of social welfare is to help people in tough spots then it should be a short term loan (just like the student loans) rather than a handout. I also would expect people to pay back these loans plus the corresponding interests based on the default rate. The default rate can be kept low by only issuing loans to people who with proven skills, will to invest in themselves and good work ethics. The system does not have to turn a profit, but it needs to be self-funding to prove that welfare does help people out of poverty.

Disabled people should not be on welfare, there should be a separate long term disability insurance system that cater to their specific needs.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Archanfel

[cybercoma]

I'm not altogether certain that everyone is up to date on the differences between EI and Social Assistance.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm not altogether certain that everyone is up to date on the differences between EI and Social Assistance.

I was expecting the explanation to follow.

I took the time to look myself and found that I was indeed out of date.

Ontario Works

Employment Insurance

I was not up to date with Ontario Works program.

[jacee]

The problem is there will be no incentive to work hard since the cheques would not grow or shrink either way. Another problem is that it will be a government sponsored job grab from ordinary citizens. If the sole purpose of social welfare is to help people in tough spots then it should be a short term loan (just like the student loans) rather than a handout. I also would expect people to pay back these loans plus the corresponding interests based on the default rate. The default rate can be kept low by only issuing loans to people who with proven skills, will to invest in themselves and good work ethics. The system does not have to turn a profit, but it needs to be self-funding to prove that welfare does help people out of poverty.

Disabled people should not be on welfare, there should be a separate long term disability insurance system that cater to their specific needs.

They are on Ontario Disability Support Program, not OW.

[cybercoma]

I was expecting the explanation to follow.

I took the time to look myself and found that I was indeed out of date.

Ontario Works

Employment Insurance

I was not up to date with Ontario Works program.

Makes the whole "lazy welfare bums" bit misleading (and by that I mean absolutely wrong).