Ford's welfare rollbacks

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

First, that's anecdotal, as you well know. Second, most of the people on your team are Canadians, I'm sure. Third, Corporate IT is ripe for more automation in the coming years, anyway. 
 

 Individual liberties have been eroded, populations have become more bitterly divided over social issues, corruption has proliferated, etc. The sooner the political status quo that permits all this to continue is shattered, the better. 

You are right about the anecdotal but these are mostly new Canadians.

The second part sounds really Marxist.

[taxme]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes they are going up fine in corporate IT.

Still refuse to answer my question, eh? Why do you keep picking and choosing as to which question asked of you will you answer too? You are staring to make me look good and yourself look bad. I am still waiting.  Just saying.  

[Michael Hardner]

What question?  I answered your question on the other thread

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Apparently there was not enough "shock and anger" before to motivate "welfare queens" toward gainful employment.   They were happy to just stay in the free ride plan for three years.

[capricorn]

31 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Apparently there was not enough "shock and anger" before to motivate "welfare queens" toward gainful employment.   They were happy to just stay in the free ride plan for three years.

This morning, in a call-in radio show one woman on the cancelled pilot project called to complain she didn't know how she would be able to pay her mortgage. The poor dear.

[bush_cheney2004]

This story gives keen insight into the life and death of an entitlement program no matter how small...as well as the mindset and expectations of pogey champions.

In one fell swoop, the premier of Ontario just ruined their welfare dream lottery ticket. 

[Bonam]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The second part sounds really Marxist.

Not really, I didn't mention anything about the means of production, the proletariat, the clash between classes, etc. Just being dissatisfied with status quo, poor governance, corruption, etc, has nothing to do with Marxism. 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

As for centrist parties, by which I assume you mean Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP. You're right. Conventional political parties have largely failed Western countries over the last decade or so. Individual liberties have been eroded, populations have become more bitterly divided over social issues, corruption has proliferated, etc. The sooner the political status quo that permits all this to continue is shattered, the better. 

How would that shattering be accomplished?

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Opposition to the status quo usually is led by the NDP, and it looks like they would only have to come out against immigrants to grab some voters from here.

That's called being chased to the bottom.

You know my story, I finally hit bottom when my costs for leasing fishing quota hit $3.85 a lb and all I got paid was $4. I can thank good old-fashioned homegrown greed, lobbying and some really fucked up fisheries policy for what happened there. Power to the TFW's that have moved into my old industry, the ones I've met are a helluva a bunch of nice friendly guys actually. From Fiji.  The local First Nations have basically adopted them by all accounts hereabouts.

Oh well, I should make it to retirement before someone comes up with an IT boat that can ferry tourists around.  I really like my job so freedom 67 maybe 69 (fingers crossed).  Old skippers never die they just get a little dinghy.

It seems to be going gangbusters at the moment but I've never seen an industry hereabouts that hasn't gone FUBAR at some point. I suspect what'll likely sink tourism as we know it will be the collapse of labour elsewhere.  After that I guess its back to being a quaint little drinking village with a fishing problem.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Slick said:

Any comment on this actual topic?  

What do we do about the fact that computers and machines are very quickly replacing unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. For example, the entire transportation industry is about to be disrupted by autonomous trucks. For the most part, the men and women who drive can't easily be retrained to fill our skill gaps.

It's a fascinating topic, speaking for myself. I've been saying for years that the real challenge to the end of most labour will be the moral imperative, especially for anyone that's unemployed, to be responsible for carrying their own weight in our increasingly sociopathic economy.   If people thought our society was divided over social issues now...we haven't seen anything anything yet.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Bonam said:

Not really, I didn't mention anything about the means of production, the proletariat, the clash between classes, etc. Just being dissatisfied with status quo, poor governance, corruption, etc, has nothing to do with Marxism. 

Hmmm, that certainly hasn't been my experience. If anything the opposite is true.

[betsy]

On 8/1/2018 at 10:47 AM, turningrite said:

As predictably as the weather gets cold in winter (well, in most of Canada at least), the Ford government announced yesterday that it's rolling back welfare reform in Ontario. In particular, it's chopping the "basic income" experiment even though I believe that prior to the election the Conservatives said they'd continue it. And measures announced yesterday will eliminate many other reforms as well as re-emphasize fraud reduction. Some of the changes are probably warranted as there's a concern that welfare and other unearned subsidies may be contributing to the entrenchment of an urban underclass. Also, it's difficult to justify a basic or guaranteed income to compensate for jobs that will theoretically be lost to automation when Canada's bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year to meet presumed labor market 'shortages', and about half of the newcomers end up living in Ontario. These policies, which are premised on conflicting logic, can't be rationally justified at the same time.

So, what is the role of welfare at this point? Is it time we end it for employable people and simply set up a system of short-term repayable loans rather than encourage dependency? Maybe rolling back recent reforms isn't enough. Maybe we should begin to look at the whole system through a broader and more realistic lens.

 

 

I didn't even know about that "basic income" experiment exists.

Edited August 5, 2018 by betsy

[turningrite]

On 8/3/2018 at 3:34 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Opposition to the status quo usually is led by the NDP, and it looks like they would only have to come out against immigrants to grab some voters from here.

The NDP is hopeless. It would have to come out against the subsidy system and the interests of an entrenched subsidy class in order to become relevant. It won't happen, which is why they have no hope of obtaining power. Instead, they're doubling down. Singh reportedly wants to get rid of the mainly universal pension system, which millions of taxpayers have funded throughout their working lives, and transform it into a 'super-GAINS' means-tested welfare-style program benefiting mainly the poorest seniors. That silly bird won't fly as most of us are sensible enough to realize that ordinary people, including taxpayers, eventually get old too and in many/most cases are counting on a program we've long paid for.

Where you cast apparent aspersions relating to others who use this site, you should be aware that a lot of taxpaying voters are becoming increasingly fed up with subsidizing programs that perpetually benefit particular subsets of the population. According to polling released late last week, almost 60 percent of Canadians believe that the benefits provided the 'irregular'/illegal migrant who've recently entered Canada are too generous. I think most Canadians perceive the 'safety net' that was built in the post-WWII era to reflect a social contract model where all of us achieve a degree of security in return for paying taxes to support the system. That rationale no longer applies in Canada. And why should Canadians pay high taxes to support others when they realize that in many cases they would likely be left to fall between the cracks were they in actual need? The system is broken. Get rid of it.

Edited August 5, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/5/2018 at 1:55 PM, turningrite said:

 1. Where you cast apparent aspersions relating to others who use this site,

 2. you should be aware that a lot of taxpaying voters are becoming increasingly fed up ...

3. with subsidizing programs that perpetually benefit particular subsets of the population. According to polling released late last week, almost 60 percent of Canadians believe that the benefits provided the 'irregular'/illegal migrant who've recently entered Canada are too generous.

4. I think most Canadians perceive the 'safety net' that was built in the post-WWII era to reflect a social contract model where all of us achieve a degree of security in return for paying taxes to support the system. That rationale no longer applies in Canada. And why should Canadians pay high taxes to support others when they realize that in many cases they would likely be left to fall between the cracks were they in actual need? The system is broken. Get rid of it.

1. How is it casting aspersions to point out that anti-globalism as practiced by newly-born-conservatives now is an NDP site ?  Dirty dirty NDP ! 

2. Becoming ?  Since when ?  I have been hearing this since the 1970s.

3. Trade is a more important issue than migrants.  The latter issue is political fun and games for a certain breed of populist that's all.

4. These are just bland and meaningless tokens for actual policy.  "The system is broken get rid of it" Okaaaaaay... and then what ?  I see a lot of middle-aged and old stock Canadians with a lot of value in their homes, resentful of taxes yes but unwilling to give up entitlements.  The kind of politician that could actually fix things would be an economist/academic type that no populist would touch.

[turningrite]

On 8/6/2018 at 8:34 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. How is it casting aspersions to point out that anti-globalism as practiced by newly-born-conservatives now is an NDP site ?  Dirty dirty NDP ! 

2. Becoming ?  Since when ?  I have been hearing this since the 1970s.

3. Trade is a more important issue than migrants.  The latter issue is political fun and games for a certain breed of populist that's all.

4. These are just bland and meaningless tokens for actual policy.  "The system is broken get rid of it" Okaaaaaay... and then what ?  I see a lot of middle-aged and old stock Canadians with a lot of value in their homes, resentful of taxes yes but unwilling to give up entitlements.  The kind of politician that could actually fix things would be an economist/academic type that no populist would touch.

Those who disagree with your positions aren't, as you often appear to believe, morally deficient or intolerant. The fact that more people are fed up with the status quo is reflected in many polls, studies and other measurements, if you care to look. The reality that our political system doesn't reflect such discontent suggests to me that the oligarchy that controls Canadian politics doesn't adequately accommodate the concerns of the electorate and blocks out voices it doesn't want heard. The feckless Trudeau more or less admitted this when he stopped electoral reform at least in part on grounds that it would allow "fringe" groups a platform. Oh my, such a democrat is our Justin, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth!

Migration is probably the premier issue in modern-day Western societies as workers are told, essentially, that they must compete against the world both on their own turf and as a result of wage-targeted globalization. I don't know if the situation in other Western countries is as bad as here but I suspect governments in most of them can't get away with this kind of thing to nearly the same extent.

As for getting rid of the social safety net, it's long past time to acknowledge that it no longer exists. It's been transformed into a targeted subsidy system that as time goes on affords fewer and smaller benefits to taxpayers who fund it. What entitlements, by the way, do most Canadians get in return for their taxes? Public health care, such as it is (and, based on my own experiences, it's quite inferior) and a minimal old age pension, which even the NDP leader wants to scrap. We self-fund the CPP/QPP program through designated contributions so it's not technically funded out of general tax revenues. I think we should move to this model for all publicly funded programs, with benefits related to contributions. It would be much more equitable than the current system.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. Those who disagree with your positions aren't, as you often appear to believe, morally deficient or intolerant.

2. The fact that more people are fed up with the status quo is reflected in many polls, studies and other measurements, if you care to look.

3. The reality that our political system doesn't reflect such discontent suggests to me that the oligarchy that controls Canadian politics doesn't adequately accommodate the concerns of the electorate and blocks out voices it doesn't want heard.

4.  The feckless Trudeau more or less admitted this when he stopped electoral reform at least in part on grounds that it would allow "fringe" groups a platform. Oh my, such a democrat is our Justin, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth!

5.  Migration is probably the premier issue in modern-day Western societies as workers are told, essentially, that they must compete against the world both on their own turf and as a result of wage-targeted globalization. I don't know if the situation in other Western countries is as bad as here but I suspect governments in most of them can't get away with this kind of thing to nearly the same extent.

6.  As for getting rid of the social safety net, it's long past time to acknowledge that it no longer exists. It's been transformed into a targeted subsidy system that as time goes on affords fewer and smaller benefits to taxpayers who fund it.

7.I think we should move to this model for all publicly funded programs, with benefits related to contributions. It would be much more equitable than the current system.

 

1.  Well sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.  In this case I said they were aligning with the NDP which is neither morally deficient nor intolerant.

2.  When did I ever say it wasn't ?

3.  I didn't say anything that contradicts this either, however 'discontent' is an emotion not a well-considered set of ideas.

4.  Again - electoral reform was largely an NDP concern, so you continue to reinforce my point.

5.  Yes, and this has been happening for many decades, as initiated by right-wing governments and initially by the governments of Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney.  Those people with fewer marketable skills in Canada, at least, have the luxury of transition programs such as EI and such.  I find it strange, though, that the parties that brought these reviled neoliberal policies are being turned to by the populists as the ones to fix the problem.

6.  Hyperbole.  EI, Healthcare, Workfare and so on of course still exist.

7.  More generous social programs is a long-held NDP plank.

So let's recap:

1) I state that the populists all appear to agree with some long-held NDP policies, minus the anti-immigration part.

2) You accuse me of calling people 'morally deficient' or 'intolerant'.

3)  You then post a bunch of opinions, several of which agree with NDP positions.

I think you may be an unwitting NDP supporter my friend.

 

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.  In this case I said they were aligning with the NDP which is neither morally deficient nor intolerant.

2.  When did I ever say it wasn't ?

3.  I didn't say anything that contradicts this either, however 'discontent' is an emotion not a well-considered set of ideas.

4.  Again - electoral reform was largely an NDP concern, so you continue to reinforce my point.

5.  Yes, and this has been happening for many decades, as initiated by right-wing governments and initially by the governments of Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney.  Those people with fewer marketable skills in Canada, at least, have the luxury of transition programs such as EI and such.  I find it strange, though, that the parties that brought these reviled neoliberal policies are being turned to by the populists as the ones to fix the problem.

6.  Hyperbole.  EI, Healthcare, Workfare and so on of course still exist.

7.  More generous social programs is a long-held NDP plank.

So let's recap:

1) I state that the populists all appear to agree with some long-held NDP policies, minus the anti-immigration part.

2) You accuse me of calling people 'morally deficient' or 'intolerant'.

3)  You then post a bunch of opinions, several of which agree with NDP positions.

I think you may be an unwitting NDP supporter my friend.

 

I used to believe in the the welfare state, and even at times voted for NDP candidates, until I realized that the welfare state model has in this country been transformed into a dependency sustaining monolith rather than the social safety net originally intended. If you're not in the dependency class you're left to fall so far and so fast in the event of personal and/or financial crisis that your head will spin in disbelief. Meanwhile, the dependency class largely avoids this disadvantage, notching up access to an ever-growing panoply of subsidies and handouts. As a friend of mine who got a subsidized housing unit years ago due to illness, when social housing was more readily available to the disabled than is now the case, told me, there was/is no point in moving toward self-sufficiency as one risks giving up benefits that have become increasingly difficult for anyone else to access. And the subsidy class and its champions merely lobby for ever more support, largely for the same beneficiaries. These demands, however, eventually run up against the interests of working taxpayers who understand that eventually governments, as Thatcher might have put it, run out of taxpayer's money to spend.

Personally, I think you agree with my analysis based on your statement in a previous post in this string that "IT got killed by off shoring in the late 1990s and the people you were describing were unable to adapt from the sounds of it." So, you too seem to believe in the survival of the fittest model I now favor. There is no equity in our system. Access is not based on objective need but too often on self-selection and habit. If we are to build a rational support system we'll need to substantially alter the subsidy-focused model that's currently in place and build a completely new system premised on objective eligibility criteria and personal responsibility. I think the contributory model, which is rooted in social contract philosophy, is the one that could best serve us. Ordinary working people in this country are for the most part on their own. They're paying for services many won't be able to access if and when they really need them. They have a right to expect that if and when in real need they might get something in return for their own money.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

I used to believe in the the welfare state, and even at times voted for NDP candidates, until I realized that the welfare state model has in this country been transformed into a dependency sustaining monolith rather than the social safety net originally intended. If you're not in the dependency class you're left to fall so far and so fast in the event of personal and/or financial crisis that your head will spin in disbelief. Meanwhile, the dependency class largely avoids this disadvantage, notching up access to an ever-growing panoply of subsidies and handouts. As a friend of mine who got a subsidized housing unit years ago due to illness, when social housing was more readily available to the disabled than is now the case, told me, there was/is no point in moving toward self-sufficiency as one risks giving up benefits that have become increasingly difficult for anyone else to access. And the subsidy class and its champions merely lobby for ever more support, largely for the same beneficiaries. These demands, however, eventually run up against the interests of working taxpayers who understand that eventually governments, as Thatcher might have put it, run out of taxpayer's money to spend.

Personally, I think you agree with my analysis based on your statement in a previous post in this string that "IT got killed by off shoring in the late 1990s and the people you were describing were unable to adapt from the sounds of it." So, you too seem to believe in the survival of the fittest model I now favor. There is no equity in our system. Access is not based on objective need but too often on self-selection and habit. If we are to build a rational support system we'll need to substantially alter the subsidy-focused model that's currently in place and build a completely new system premised on objective eligibility criteria and personal responsibility. I think the contributory model, which is rooted in social contract philosophy, is the one that could best serve us. Ordinary working people in this country are for the most part on their own. They're paying for services many won't be able to access if and when they really need them. They have a right to expect that if and when in real need they might get something in return for their own money.

If a Canadian cannot work because of a real disability then I have no problem with the government, me, helping that person out. But too many people are just sucking off the welfare rolls who are quite capable of working. The government assistance programs is big business for many people that rely on it from the people who work for and for those who rely on it for money. Canada has become a welfare socialist country many years ago and this is why we see so many people today who would rather stay on the welfare rolls rather than have to go out to work. And as if that is not enough we now have thousands of foreign criminal invaders receiving welfare benefits all at the taxpayer's expense. We all live in a country that appears to want to put more people on welfare than have them go out there and get a bloody job or else they can just starve. The settlers from Britain and Europe did it hundreds of years ago and the now descendants of those settlers can do the same. Work or starve, it is up to them. I have had enough already of all this free money being handed out to lazy Canadians and foreigners. 

[Centerpiece]

The problem is that we haven't defined what poverty really means. It means not having a roof over your head,, no clothing or no food. No Canadian who seeks to avoid these things should ever have to endure them. Instead of working from the bottom up - looking after the most vulnerable in our country - we have allowed "welfare" to morph into a form of income normalization - at the expense of those same "most vulnerable". Not having a full cable package is not poverty. Not having a car is not poverty. Not having a second phone is not poverty. Having to work a second job is not poverty. Is it any wonder the term "poverty industry" is gaining acceptance?

Edited August 9, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. I used to believe in the the welfare state, and even at times voted for NDP candidates, until I realized that the welfare state model has in this country been transformed into a dependency sustaining monolith rather than the social safety net originally intended.

2. Personally, I think you agree with my analysis based on your statement in a previous post in this string that "IT got killed by off shoring in the late 1990s and the people you were describing were unable to adapt from the sounds of it." So, you too seem to believe in the survival of the fittest model I now favor.

3.  Ordinary working people in this country are for the most part on their own. They're paying for services many won't be able to access if and when they really need them. 

1.  I'm a left of centre guy and yet I agree with you.  Workfare is a better way IMO.

2.  I believe in competition with a strong safety net.  I was screwed over but I had EI and some chances to retrain when I needed it.  It wasn't much but it helped.

3.  I absolutely disagree.  CPP, OAP, EI and healthcare are there and are used by a wide spectrum of people in Canada.

I agree that we need reform but talks of tearing down the system are just feeble-minded laziness, not that you are suggesting that.

 

[turningrite]

14 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

The problem is that we haven't defined what poverty really means. It means not having a roof over your head,, no clothing or no food. No Canadian who seeks to avoid these things should ever have to endure them. Instead of working from the bottom up - looking after the most vulnerable in our country - we have allowed "welfare" to morph into a form of income normalization - at the expense of those same "most vulnerable". Not having a full cable package is not poverty. Not having a car is not poverty. Not having a second phone is not poverty. Having to work a second job is not poverty. Is it any wonder the term "poverty industry" is gaining acceptance?

I agree.

[taxme]

On 8/8/2018 at 4:36 PM, Centerpiece said:

The problem is that we haven't defined what poverty really means. It means not having a roof over your head,, no clothing or no food. No Canadian who seeks to avoid these things should ever have to endure them. Instead of working from the bottom up - looking after the most vulnerable in our country - we have allowed "welfare" to morph into a form of income normalization - at the expense of those same "most vulnerable". Not having a full cable package is not poverty. Not having a car is not poverty. Not having a second phone is not poverty. Having to work a second job is not poverty. Is it any wonder the term "poverty industry" is gaining acceptance?

There is one simple solution to help Canada get out of all it's unemployment and to get away from high taxes and other problems. Downsize the government big time and all of it's intrusive politically correct nonsense liberal and socialist programs and agendas and throw out many of the tens of thousands of rules and regulations that stifle business growth, not help to increase business growth. It's so bloody simple that most people can't understand such a concept. Many feel that what Canada needs is more government intrusion in their lives in order to live and survive and more legal and illegal immigration to help solve our problems of unemployment which today is not working at all but appears to be making things worse. In a country like Canada there should be no poverty at all. Just less government which should will help clean and straighten the bloody mess up. But hey, eh. 

[ironstone]

I have many doubts about the Liberal basic income program,the biggest being that it would certainly encourage able bodied people to not work for themselves and encourage lifelong dependency.Here's a perfect example of what would have happened with large numbers of people in Ontario had this program continued.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-taxpayers-shouldnt-be-paying-for-free-rides

I do get that those with physical or mental issues do need help and should get some kind of assistance,but I draw the line for those who don't want to contribute and just freeload off the system.

[taxme]

23 hours ago, ironstone said:

I have many doubts about the Liberal basic income program,the biggest being that it would certainly encourage able bodied people to not work for themselves and encourage lifelong dependency.Here's a perfect example of what would have happened with large numbers of people in Ontario had this program continued.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-taxpayers-shouldnt-be-paying-for-free-rides

I do get that those with physical or mental issues do need help and should get some kind of assistance,but I draw the line for those who don't want to contribute and just freeload off the system.

Liberalism and socialism? Isn't it just a wonderful concept where the middle class hard working people who truly do work for their buck work and who are paying the taxes are the ones who will be forced to pay people who do not want to work. The liberals in Ottawa are no different. They are trying to knock off the middle class by taxing them do death and giving it all away to criminal foreigners who enter Canada illegally. So far close to three hundred million of your tax dollars have been blown on these criminal illegals in the past year alone with more money to be spent on them and the many more that are now on their way to Canada to get their grubby little hands on your tax dollars and to be able to take advantage of your Canadian medical and social services for free. Sadly there are not enough politicians in Canada who will ever have the ba-ls to do what Ford is about to do. Will Scheer be any better if elected the PM of Canada? I don't know but the only way to find out is to vote for him and see what happens. I mean really can he be any worse than this present prime mistake of yours? 

[cannuck]

Typically, we are discussing one tiny aspect of a much, much larger problem that never seems to be understood.

EVERY country has some degree of social policy and programmes.  So, let's start by realizing that they are a necessary part of a humane society.  The question is: how much social programme spending can any particular country afford?  THAT depends upon just how wealthy and wealth creating the economy of any country in question might be.  

Canada is a VERY resource rich country, but, outside of the automobile industry, it is pretty much a wasteland when it comes to adding value to those resources.  Let me give you a fundamental rule I have derived that SHOULD be axiomatic: the only ways one can create wealth is by adding value to a resource or delivering a service necessary in doing so.  You might say that we just need to sell resources to create wealth - but that wealth was already created by forming a country and economy that already owns those resources, so producing them is creating no wealth, just re-distributing it from our descendant's "resource" account to our current "cash" account.  If we look at countries that add value, we can see how less important having resources is compared with adding value to them.  Germany, the USA, Japan, S Korea and most recently China - none of which outside of the US really having much of a resource base all became economic powerhouses because they add a LOT of value by their productive business activity.  China is by far the best example, as they have been able to come from a completely failed state to what I believe is already the world's #1 economy in less than 30 years - dragging fully 1/4 of the world's entire population up the incline with them.  All with next to no resources (except for a fair bit of coal).  The lesson here is that it is not the coal in China that made it incredibly wealthy, it was what they DID by using that coal to add a great deal of value to resources they bought from everyone else - selling back the manufactured goods.  We simply don't do nearly enough of that to afford the lifestyle to which we think we are entitled.

Now, let's consider how many people ARE involved in a productive endeavour - since it is they and ONLY they who create any wealth.  It is not just the "welfare bums" who consume without creating, it is almost the entire world of finance (the part that participates in speculative activity), those who provide services we really don't need (includes a large part of government).  IMHO, the idea of having a "service economy" is economic suicide.  See paragraph above.

Try some very rough numbers.  Of our nearly 37 million people, about 8mm are too young to work, and 8mm are too old.  ( https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501 ).  Take away a few million who are infirm, incapable, etc. and we would be well under 20mm "workers".   This correlates well with our workforce of some 17.5mm ( https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410001801 ).  So, fewer than half of the  people are even employed.  Now, take away those who work in jobs that don't actually produce anything - and I can only estimate (from being in business for a half century) that this is AT LEAST half of the workforce.   So, at the very best, one in four people must create the wealth that has to pay for the redistribution by the other 3 or more.  AND,  I am being generous with that estimate (see previous paragraph and think about that).  Here is a simple example - remember that I excepted the auto trade?  Something like 70% of our trade is under the auto pact, and it takes an estimated 500,000 people to do that ( https://www.cvma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Website-WP-Important-Facts-Pdf-March-23-2017.pdf ).  Take ALL of ag and food production/distribution and let's give that another million ( https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-402-x/2011000/chap/ag/ag-eng.htm ).  Then give another 500k (same as automotive industry accounting for 70% of all of our trade) and you have only 2mm plus some other businesses that could be included.   Notice I allowed zero for resource workers, but that is not completely true as we do process SOME of our resources a little bit (but seldom to finished goods - same story in ag and food).   So you can see my one in four is not far off, and probably quite optimistic (I have in some cases calculated one in five - and others one in six).

Bottom line is: we simply can NOT afford the level of government waste, massive debt and cost of being some kind of dumping station for the displaced of the world.  We need to get our house in order and start not just "working", but working productively - something few seem to understand.   We can not just keep frittering away our children's future by squandering natural resources.  The social safety net in this country is at a level that would be considered in many places as living very high on the hog.  Heck, with our fairly good sick care system, even the #2 economy in the world has probably less than half of its population that can afford to get anything even close to what we get in medical benefits (worth mentioning that most of the rest of the old G7 are at least as well off as we are for sick care).   I think Ford is being very astute in backing out of the grand social experiment.  When we have no more federal and provincial debt, THEN we might be able to consider such folly (as then it would not necessarily BE folly).