Walkom: "These high-income docs want the rich to pay"

[Guest Derek L]

It's not relevant to the issue. You're talking about the rich leaving en masse...and not just from Canada, but from countries like the US as well, which also has a strong social safety net.

As we have said over and over--and as you have freely admitted--one of the reasons for the fabulous rise of the wealthy class (in the US as well, certainly)--is that there is a social safety net.

But the cause of the shortage? Clearly it is relevant, since it demonstrated a negative impact on Canadian society, caused by the desire of healthcare professional to achieve further economic freedoms.

[Argus]

Yeah, but look at the social welfare system that has built up since then. Rich people without a safety net have absolutely no security. Disease, crime, poor education, when these things run through the population, the "rich" are certainly affected.

Well, disease affects them. I'll give you that they have an interest in keeping down the spread of communicable diseases which might affect them. Crime, poverty and poor education don't affect them, though. They can live behind tall walls, in splendid estates with private guards. Why should they care if people drop dead outside as long as profits continue?

Moreover, a growing income gap creates distrust among the public and you begin having more clashes between labour and business. A hundred years ago, as you say, was a time when some of the most violent clashes occurred between businesses and the labour force

That's because the rich grew soft and gentle. Prior to the industrial revolution the poor were entirely uneducated, and didn't dare even THINK of so much as answering back else they'd be whipped or worse. They were servile whenever amongst their betters, or else. And while crime and poverty were rampant, God help the footpad that dared attack an important person, or even dared enter the sorts of neighborhoods and streets where such people were found.

e. The social safety net takes the heat off industry, by encouraging people to look to their government to fix the problem,

Yes, but the only way the government can do that is through taxation, and as you know, despite rumours to the contrary, governments derive an enormous amount of money from the rich. So if you were rich, you might make a cold calculation as to whether that money in your pocket would enable you to cope quite easily with social upheaval, especially if "your" police, bashed in heads whenever anyone protested.

Believe me when I say this, the social safety net is as much, if not more, to the benefit of the upperclass, as it gives them a healthy and educated labour force, while putting a buffer (the government) between them and the "unwashed masses" when the economy begins tanking. This costs money. They may as well look at it as a "security fee."

Not saying you're wrong. But I don't know that you're right, either. Consider the aristocracy in North Korea. Oh, they call themselves communists, but they're more of an oddball theocratic monarchy with worship of the monarch being the state religion. Everyone else lives in poverty while they're awash in wealth, yet there is no social upheaval because they're so bloody ruthless that everyone is too scared shitless to dare protest.

So the rich don't really need to help the downtrodden. They just need to be utterly ruthless in controlling them.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not relevant to the issue. You're talking about the rich leaving en masse...and not just from Canada, but from countries like the US as well, which also has a strong social safety net.

It is very much relevant, and the pain threshold would be felt long before all of the rich leaving. The flight of capital would be/is manifested in many different ways. Rich people didn't get that way by being stupid.

[bleeding heart]

But the cause of the shortage? Clearly it is relevant, since it demonstrated a negative impact on Canadian society, caused by the desire of healthcare professional to achieve further economic freedoms.

Sure...but you're talking about someone searching for "greater economic freedoms" in a neighbouring country with a similarly robust social safety net.

So the whole point about it still stands. Whether they choose one wealthy welfare state over another wealthy welfare state is of zero consequence to every point I've made. By definition.

[Guest Derek L]

Sure...but you're talking about someone searching for "greater economic freedoms" in a neighbouring country with a similarly robust social safety net.

So the whole point about it still stands. Whether they choose one wealthy welfare state over another wealthy welfare state is of zero consequence to every point I've made. By definition.

It’s not though, if one welfare state places a greater amount of the burden upon the professionals, they’ll bugger off to the lesser “evil“, as demonstrated with the Canadian brain drain to the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So the whole point about it still stands. Whether they choose one wealthy welfare state over another wealthy welfare state is of zero consequence to every point I've made. By definition.

Correct...they flew away to a better farm!

[Guest Derek L]

Correct...they flew away to a better farm!

That has great golf courses and laxer gun laws than Texas

[bleeding heart]

It’s not though, if one welfare state places a greater amount of the burden upon the professionals, they’ll bugger off to the lesser “evil“, as demonstrated with the Canadian brain drain to the United States.

It's not about some imaginary "burden," it's simply about making more money.

When I choose a higher-paying job over a lower-paying one--which of course I"ve done--it has nothing whatsoever to do with a "burden" placed upon me by the initial employer.

[Guest Derek L]

It's not about some imaginary "burden," it's simply about making more money.

When I choose a higher-paying job over a lower-paying one--which of course I"ve done--it has nothing whatsoever to do with a "burden" placed upon me by the initial employer.

Making more money is the same difference as losing more money on the backend......

[bleeding heart]

Correct...they flew away to a better farm!

Your video was about the U.S., internally, not about Canadians moving to the US.

[cybercoma]

Not saying you're wrong. But I don't know that you're right, either. Consider the aristocracy in North Korea. Oh, they call themselves communists, but they're more of an oddball theocratic monarchy with worship of the monarch being the state religion. Everyone else lives in poverty while they're awash in wealth, yet there is no social upheaval because they're so bloody ruthless that everyone is too scared shitless to dare protest.

So the rich don't really need to help the downtrodden. They just need to be utterly ruthless in controlling them.

That's all very true and not exactly the kind of society I would want to live in, nor any of the "wealthy" people I know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your video was about the U.S., internally, not about Canadians moving to the US.

So...you mean...like...nothing in all the American content and comparisons made here ever applies to Canada?

Then why do so many members make such comparisons?

[bleeding heart]

Making more money is the same difference as losing more money on the backend......

But you used the word "burden," which of course is incorrect.

And even as it stands--even if I"m to take your argument seriously as you alter it to mean Canada only, rather than the US too (as, a little ironically given this new tenor of the discussion, the video we just watched was about the United States), looking at the doctor "brain drain" is too narrow.

According to the OECD, upward mobility generally is now lower in the US than in several other countries...including Canada.

[bleeding heart]

So...you mean...like...nothing in all the American content and comparisons made here ever applies to Canada?

No doubt they do, at least analogously. But rising in economic station is no longer easier in the US than in many other places, so the argument doesn't hold water except in few narrow circumstances.

Then why do so many members make such comparisons?

Some heady mix of inferiority/superiority complex, in my opinion. It's a Canadian malady.

Edited March 25, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

....According to the OECD, upward mobility generally is now lower in the US than in several other countries...including Canada.

So what? The rest of the world is just now catching up.

[Guest Derek L]

But you used the word "burden," which of course is incorrect.

And even as it stands--even if I"m to take your argument seriously as you alter it to mean Canada only, rather than the US too (as, a little ironically given this new tenor of the discussion, the video we just watched was about the United States), looking at the doctor "brain drain" is too narrow.

According to the OECD, upward mobility generally is now lower in the US than in several other countries...including Canada.

I’m not necessarily looking for upward mobility (I’ll be 50 next year) but more of horizontal mobility, in that I want to keep what I already have……

[bleeding heart]

So what? The rest of the world is just now catching up.

Sure, why not? I wasn't insulting America. Merely destroying a (constantly shifting) argument which first implicitly denounces the American social safety net (while I defended it)...and then pretends there isn't one.

[bleeding heart]

I’m not necessarily looking for upward mobility (I’ll be 50 next year) but more of horizontal mobility, in that I want to keep what I already have……

Then America isn't--or not unequivocally--your best bet.

Maybe it will be, again. Very possible. Not at the moment.

[Guest Derek L]

Sure, why not? I wasn't insulting America. Merely destroying a (constantly shifting) argument which first implicitly denounces the American social safety net (while I defended it)...and then pretends there isn't one.

Shifting argument? None the least, you’re clearly a late comer to this thread……..I’ve said from the beginning, I don’t want to pay more, and if possible, I’d prefer everyone, from all economic classes, to pay even less.

If the burden was equally shared, I wonder how many would question the utility of said social services?

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, why not? I wasn't insulting America. Merely destroying a (constantly shifting) argument which first implicitly denounces the American social safety net (while I defended it)...and then pretends there isn't one.

Nobody here said it doesn't exist, or pretends it doesn't exist. But the cost burden to "the rich" is different, and they get to keep more of their golden eggs. Rich people are inherently mobile, and their flight is one of the first things we see in stressed "third world" nations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then America isn't--or not unequivocally--your best bet.

Maybe it will be, again. Very possible. Not at the moment.

Quite to the contrary, many Canadians are taking advantage of excellent real estate opportunities in America. At the moment.

[Guest Derek L]

Quite to the contrary, many Canadians are taking advantage of excellent real estate opportunities in America. At the moment.

Indeed, the vexing part (unless you have the banked capital) is selling Canadian real estate in the current market without taking a bath to fund said American purchase……….

[bleeding heart]

Quite to the contrary, many Canadians are taking advantage of excellent real estate opportunities in America. At the moment.

Yes, good point. At any rate, since clarification is usually good, I take the OECD reports with a little dollop of nice salt. I'm not really questioning their veracity, but rather their significance when discussing something as complex as a gigantic economy. For example, I feel pretty confident that my life in America would be perfectly comparable to the one I have here; I don't think I'd be suffering in food lines and cursing the US economy. "Rumours of its death are greatly exaggerated," to paraphrase someone else on another subject.