Why is Canada such a mess in so many ways?

[CdnFox]

On 5/30/2025 at 10:44 AM, eyeball said:

The trouble is you need to get everyone to agree to whatever shenanigan and corruption mean. They can be spun, conflated and made to mean anything, especially if it's been years between their occurence and an election.

Nonsense. Even you know what corruption is, but you are a classic example of someone who's prepared to lie their ass off in order to make excuses for a party that they like.

All it takes is for people to stop doing that. All it takes is for people to have the kind of integrity and honesty that you refuse, and to hold their government to account as well as their party. Conservatives have done it any times. the NDP has done it provincially and one might argue they just did it now federally.

The biggest problem we have is liberal voters, they will do anything to keep their party in power no matter how corrupt. If we could find a way to teach people like you put Canada and Canadians first instead of your own petty tribalism we would have a fantastic government structure.

Quote

And what do you mean by political affiliation? An affiliation is an official connection to something, like a political party. It's not the direction the wind is blowing through the public's mind.

No, affiliation does not only mean an 'official' connection, it very commonly means that which the person associates themselves with, even if they aren't an official member.  think of it as a preferred political pronoun   

af·fil·i·a·tion

[əˌfilēˈāSHən]

noun

1. the state or process of affiliating or being affiliated:

   "his political affiliations" · "he had no particular affiliation, no close associates"

    

   intransitive verb

   : to connect or associate oneself : combine

   refused to affiliate with any political party

    

If you could learn what words mean before you criticize them, that would be great  

Quote

The best way to punish bad actors in Parliament's highest echelon is with back benchers. These can be immediate and a lot more effective than a silly x every four - five years.

Why would they do that? If the back bench is revolved then they lose their standing within the party, they don't get put on committees, they get punished. It's even possible that they're nomination papers may not be signed in the next election.

The only way to motivate them to do anything is the fear that in the next election they will lose their jobs and be: Because the voters will turn on them. That is what motivates them to take action today knowing that the voters are angry and if they don't do something they will lose the vote in the next election.

I know you think elections are useless and silly as you mentioned above, but they are the primary motivating factor her individual politicians and political parties.

[Barquentine]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

As long as there is no stealing, then what is wrong with CEOs and shareholders incomes going up.   They eat the same amount as anyone else.

As long as there is no stealing, then what is wrong with worker's incomes going up?

3 parts of a company: shareholders, management, and the workers. If the first 2 see their share go up 1000% why not the third?

Why does Amazon go to such lengths to keep unions out? Why do right wing politicians enact "Freedom to Work" laws"($7.25 minimum wage laws - no wonder people can't afford to buy houses?)

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The CEOs eat the same amount.

The workers eat the same amount.

 

“Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Barquentine said:

As long as there is no stealing, then what is wrong with worker's incomes going up?

3 parts of a company: shareholders, management, and the workers. If the first 2 see their share go up 1000% why not the third?

Management are workers. Management is really actually work. There are really only two levels, there is ownership and there are employees, and management are employees the same as anyone else. Of course it is possible for someone to be an owner and an employee but those are the two classes.

Employees wages are based on the market value of their output. If they want hire compensation then they must demonstrate that their output is of higher value to justify it. You have a company pays more than the market value of the output or wealth being created by the work done then the company is unlikely to survive long and the employees will be out of work and the owners will be out of money.

For the owners their success or failure is based on the same thing but it automatically adjusts itself on the fly. If they sell more goods or are more productive or generate more output as a company then they automatically make more, and if they don't they automatically make less. In fact unlike an employee there may be years when they actually lose money. Can you imagine if employees were exposed to the same risk where someone might come to them and say no paycheck this month, sales were down.

The owners take the risk and therefore get the reward. Or don't if the company fails. The employees are selling their efforts based on the value of what those efforts are worth.

Two completely different things

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The biggest problem we have is liberal voters

Yeah well go take it up with them.

 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, affiliation does not only mean an 'official' connection, it very commonly means that which the person associates themselves with, even if they aren't an official member.  think of it as a preferred political pronoun

The issue is you forever associating anyone that doesn't vote for your guy with the enemy. It's what you do.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yeah well go take it up with them.

I just did   Do better next time. 

 

 

Quote

The issue is you forever associating anyone that doesn't vote for your guy with the enemy. It's what you do.

I literally just pointed out NDP voters do the right thing. 

The issue is you forever lying about what you and other people have said or done.  It's what  you do. 

 

[Legato]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

“Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

If "man exploits man" is reversed you get 'man exploits man", was Karl Marx a woman?

[Barquentine]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Management are workers.

Ok - lets differentiate between management workers and production workers, and if you don't think there's a difference then you've never had a job. Management can fire or sanction production workers but production workers can't fire management. And generally, if there's a union, management workers aren't part of it. They both work but there is definitely a separation.

What I'm talking about is upper management and shareholders. When shareholders get greedy and take a much bigger ROI that often does come at the expense of workers.

The whole point is fairness. After all, who is the economic structure for? Just a few at the top, or every one?

Now I know some of the troglodyte right wingers on here will call me a Commie leftard libbie. They have no imagination.

And give me an example where someone on here has suggested Canada should be a Communist state. I haven't seen it.

41 minutes ago, Legato said:

If "man exploits man" is reversed you get 'man exploits man", was Karl Marx a woman?

WTF????

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Barquentine said:

Ok - lets differentiate between management workers and production workers, and if you don't think there's a difference then you've never had a job.

Well that's just about the stupidest proposition you've tried to make and that was up against some pretty stiff competition. But lets unpack your stupid just for fun  

Quote

Management can fire or sanction production workers but production workers can't fire management.

Workers past their probationary period cannot just be "fired' without cause unless compensated. And any worker INCLUDING management can be fired.  So thats a big strike out for you.

As far as sectioning goes any worker ABSOLUTELY can report an employer to the labour relations board and in fact that happens many times every single day in this country. And that's if they DON'T have a union, where they can file a grievance. 

Then there's human rights boards and frequently industrial colleges. 

Strike two. You're doing pretty badly. 

8 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

What I'm talking about is upper management and shareholders. When shareholders get greedy and take a much bigger ROI that often does come at the expense of workers.

Upper management is just management. They're employees. 

Shareholders are 100 percent entitled to their profits, there's no 'greed' involved. THey are not shareholders to be nice.  If they take too much their company will suffer and eventually shrink and they'll make less and so will the workers. 

And no, profit does NOT come at the expense of the workers. Workers have zero right whatsoever to a portion of the return on investment. They are not investors.  Will the workers return their pay if the company takes a loss this year? No? Hmmm. 

Workers have the right to be compensated for the services they've provided at market value and THAT IS IT.  Period full stop. 

IF the workers want to also be investors they can start their own company (or buy all the shares in the existing one). Then they are workers AND investors, and that in fact is a model some pursue. 

otherwise, if you're putting led into pencils, you are entitled to the market value of someone putting lead into a pencil.. That's it.  That's true if the company makes 1 dollar or a trillion dollars. 

13 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

The whole point is fairness.

No, it isn't..  The point is compensation for service and risk.  The employees get compensated for a service and take no risk.  End of story,  done.  If an employee wants more money they have to either find another employer willing to pay more for the same services or improve their skills to be able to offer more valuable services. 

What you're talking about is fairly extreme socialism. The idea that everyone owns everything and everybody does what they can and we all share the results. That's a bad system. Now if you like that system fine, make your argument, but that is NOT the system we operate under. 

15 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Now I know some of the troglodyte right wingers on here will call me a Commie leftard libbie.

Because what you're talking about actually is socialism bordering on one of the communist models.   But I note that you try to dismiss the truth with childish insults.  "I know that stupid people are going to claim gravity is a thing because they're stupid!!! DERP!!"  no, they're going to claim it because its true and you're angry it's true and want to pretend it isn't. 

17 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

And give me an example where someone on here has suggested Canada should be a Communist state. I haven't seen it.

You, 30 seconds ago. Well, socialism anyway.

Most people however agree with the idea that there is ownership of a business and there is employment with a business, and that the two are completely independent.  An employee is compensated for their efforts, an owner takes the risk of profit and loss, invests assets and time in the hopes of a return which is by no means guaranteed. 

Sorry kiddo. You can't call for socialism and then get mad that people point and say 'that's socialism'. 

 

[herbie]

18 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Management are workers.

Obvious someone's never worked for a major business.

Decades ago a fellow worker asked me how I felt about starting my new job at the phone company. I told him I was so happy not to work at some Mickey Mouse family owned business anymore.

Mickey Mouse? Welcome to Walt Disney Inc. buddy!

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

As long as there is no stealing, then what is wrong with worker's incomes going up?

I never said anything against worker's incomes going up.  Why do you assume I oppose that?

Many have the chance to get ahead by education, hard work, etc.  There is less chance of that in authoritarian Socialist countries.

Some workers have very powerful unions and are able to earn very high wages and benefits.  Others not so powerful but many still earn a reasonable income.  Many non-unions workers do not earn much money.  There are ways they can improve their situation.  It takes hard work, saving and possibly further education and getting into the right fields. 

However, all that is not something government should be interfering with except to ensure essential services are not stopped.  The government does that to some extent.  We will see what happens with the postal dispute.  Certain occupations should not be permitted to go on strike such as things that affect public safety.

We live in a free enterprise system which is complex.

 

 

Edited Monday at 02:45 AM by blackbird

[herbie]

On 6/1/2025 at 10:27 AM, Barquentine said:

Why does Amazon go to such lengths to keep unions out? Why do right wing politicians enact "Freedom to Work" laws"($7.25 minimum wage laws - no wonder people can't afford to buy houses?)

Offshoot perversion of Protestant Work Ethic?
Right to demean yourself seen as a virtue? Disguised as Right to Work Laws.
Right to get Union wages and benefits without paying Union dies, all the while remaining opposed to Public Health because someone else may benefit from 'your' taxes.
An abysmal federal minimum wage that looks good compared to States that have none.

The entire world laughs at shit like this and it gets worse

Few compulsory Stat Holidays. No mandatory vacation days, shorter ones if they are offered. No maternity leave. Really crappy Unemployment benefits. No guarantee of medical benefits.

And they wonder why the immigrants are coming from 3rd world countries....

[I am Groot]

On 5/28/2025 at 9:25 PM, TreeBeard said:

Housing and policing are both provincial jurisdictions.  
 

People blaming the Feds feels like more “Trudeau’s fault” nonsense. 

Are you retarded? Housing is being heavily impacted by federal immigration policies. Policing is affected by their soft-on-crime laws and racist sentencing guidelines. 

On 5/29/2025 at 7:47 AM, Barquentine said:

He just pointed out the truth that the income gap is growing.

My life has mirrored yours almost exactly, but I believe 2 things can be true at the same time. Everyone should do all they can to support and advance themselves AND our society is rich enough to give help to those that need it.

But we don't seem capable of differentiating between those who 'need' it and those who simply want it because they're lazy. 

[I am Groot]

On 5/29/2025 at 10:55 AM, MDP said:

Yes. Millions of labourers will lost their jobs by AI and automation. Unfortunately, a large portion of government revenue comes from income tax. The government need to sovle this problem too.

It seems to be trying to 'solve' it by depressing wages through importing hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers from some of the world's most misogynistic, bigoted, racist, violent and corrupt societies.

Gee, I wonder what all those young men will do when their low-skilled jobs are taken over by an AI.

[I am Groot]

On 5/29/2025 at 4:09 PM, Barquentine said:

That's what I'm talkin' bout.

A basic safety net is a welfare apartment that someone without income can be placed in. It will be very small, spartan, but safe and warm. Food will be provided in a cafeteria. The basic necessities of life will be met, and nothing more. No money for drugs, cigarettes, junk food, video games, cell phones, internet, etc.

[MDP]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It seems to be trying to 'solve' it by depressing wages through importing hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers from some of the world's most misogynistic, bigoted, racist, violent and corrupt societies.

Gee, I wonder what all those young men will do when their low-skilled jobs are taken over by an AI.

I'm not really sure what to do. AI factory manufacture products and sell them to people, but how can people buy those products if they don't have jobs to make income ? Some ways are needed to solve this problem. Such as people get paid by participating training or eduction.

[herbie]

14 hours ago, MDP said:

importing hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers from some of the world's most misogynistic, bigoted, racist, violent and corrupt societies

Hey we could use tariffs to make those here! Not the flip flops, t-shirts and iPhone assemblers. The low skilled, underpaid, exploited workers and corrupt leaders.....

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

A basic safety net is a welfare apartment that someone without income can be placed in. It will be very small, spartan, but safe and warm. Food will be provided in a cafeteria. The basic necessities of life will be met, and nothing more. No money for drugs, cigarettes, junk food, video games, cell phones, internet, etc.

You mean Prison.

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

But we don't seem capable of differentiating between those who 'need' it and those who simply want it because they're lazy.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45

"Millions of American adults who earn low wages rely on federal programs to meet basic needs, such as Medicaid for health care and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for food. To learn more about the people who use these programs, we analyzed employment data from 11 states and Census data. We found: About 70% worked full time Most worked for private sector employers in places like restaurants, department stores, and grocery stores. Others worked for state governments, public universities, or nonprofit organizations."

And those are just the full time workers. We can assume that a lot of others worked part-time and others either can't find work, or have circumstance that prevent them from working.

My point is that while thee are undoubtably some free riders, the myth of the welfare bum is overstated.

[August1991]

Canada a mess?

Check per m2  real estate prices.