There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty

[mentalfloss]

They have 11 years. If you can't learn the market, invest in a solid penny stock venture, watch it develope and cash in within 11 years you're beyond help.

People who work at Walmart can afford to make significant investments in the stock market?

 

[petros]

Yup. Aren't you buying your kid any? 18 years goes by really damn fast. If you want to pay for school on the cheap now is the time to start.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yup. Aren't you buying your kid any? 18 years goes by really damn fast. If you want to pay for school on the cheap now is the time to start.

I don't work at Walmart.

But for those who do, they would be the ones to invest in OAS. They'll have to work an extra 2 years beginning 2023 to be eligible for their retirement.

The issue is whether or not that extra 2 year requirement is fair.

The other issue that people are talking about -- those of us not stupid enough to be distracted by Flaherty or Nash's catch phrases -- is the definition of "suitable employment" when it comes to applying for a job while you're on EI. The government will take you off EI if they find that you reject a job that they offer to you, so long as the job offered is "suitable employment".

They're still working on coming up with some kind of definition for it.

 

[petros]

For $2 (the price of a double double) a day you can buy 40 (average 0.05 cents) venture stocks, set yourself up really ****ing sweet in around 7 years leaving 4 years of dividends to buy even more and adding nicely to your retirement income.

Making money isn't about being aggressive, it's about making sacrifices and having patience.

 

[mentalfloss]

For $2 (the price of a double double) a day you can buy 40 (average 0.05 cents) venture stocks, set yourself up really ****ing sweet in around 7 years leaving 4 years of dividends to buy even more and adding nicely to your retirement income.

Making money isn't about being aggressive, it's about making sacrifices and having patience.

These investments should be relegated for producing additional wealth, not for making a living.

If I wanted to get rich, then it should be expected to make these sorts of investments. If I'm a low-income earner that needs to save up for retirement, then making reasonable investments in OAS is more appropriate.

Note that $2/day is $60/mo. That's a pretty sizeable amount for some people (ie. low wage workers).

 

[petros]

It's a coffee a day. 30 coffees a month. What is your daily indulgence that you could sacrifice?

 

[mentalfloss]

It's a coffee a day. 30 coffees a month. What is your daily indulgence that you could sacrifice?

I don't have a daily indulgence - except for your daily entertainment.

 

[Machjo]

If a person has a hard time saving on his own, I suppose their could be the option of signing up for a voluntary programme that would force him to save x% of his earnings. Once signed up, the money is automatically deducted from his savings and if he ever wants to get off of it, he'd have to go back to the government and sign a paper removing himself from it along with the option of free financial consultation if he earns below a certain amount.

Could be an option.

 

[JLM]

If a person has a hard time saving on his own, I suppose their could be the option of signing up for a voluntary programme that would force him to save x% of his earnings. Once signed up, the money is automatically deducted from his savings and if he ever wants to get off of it, he'd have to go back to the government and sign a paper removing himself from it along with the option of free financial consultation if he earns below a certain amount.

Could be an option.

I was a little taken aback at what Mulcair had to say about it. He thinks teachers and other professionals should be able to look for jobs in their field..................of course they should, but in the meantime while they are waiting for one they should suck it up and take what's available.

 

[petros]

I don't have a daily indulgence - except for your daily entertainment.

Denial?

Want to set yourself or you kid up? I'll send you on a path to a good future by offering two mineral groups for you to educate yourself on if you'd like. Would you like to see kick ass returns and have a voice in how these minerals are extracted? Invest and you'll have direct say in how companies do business and you can attend shareholder meetings and voice your concerns with meaning while earning. It's win-win for you.

 

[taxslave]

Fine,give us the option to opt out of ei then,as it now takes allmost 4 months for a claim to get processed it is pretty well useless anyways.If I was to go work at tim hortons theres no way i would be working anywhere else as it takes time and lots of traveling to scare up work in the patch after spring breakup.

I got one processed in 2 weeks this winter. If you are self employed even as a labour contractor you do not have to pay into EI.

 

[mentalfloss]

Denial?

Want to set yourself or you kid up? I'll send you on a path to a good future by offering two mineral groups for you to educate yourself on if you'd like. Would you like to see kick ass returns and have a voice in how these minerals are extracted? Invest and you'll have direct say in how companies do business and you can attend shareholder meetings and voice your concerns with meaning while earning. It's win-win for you.

 

[Machjo]

I was a little taken aback at what Mulcair had to say about it. He thinks teachers and other professionals should be able to look for jobs in their field..................of course they should, but in the meantime while they are waiting for one they should suck it up and take what's available.

Likewise. In fact I can immagine even more than a few dies-in-the-wool socialists being taken aback by this. You'd think this is one area where the left and right can agree. For the right, it's less government, for the left it's equality. Where is the problem?

 

[taxslave]

Not surprisingly..

Tories backing away from Jim Flaherty’s ‘no bad job’ EI comment

OTTAWA — The Harper government is trying to douse a growing political firestorm over the finance minister’s claim that “there is no bad job,” insisting Canadians on Employment Insurance will be expected to take jobs in keeping with their skill levels and in the areas where they live.

The Conservatives also contend they don’t know the long-term cost-savings of increasing Old Age Security eligibility to age 67 from 65 — despite maintaining the current system is unsustainable — but said an estimate is likely to come over the next few months.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has come under heavy fire this week for saying — as the government contemplates reforms to the EI program — that there is no such thing as a bad job.

The NDP accused Flaherty of proposing a “nanny state” in which unemployed Canadians will lose their EI benefits unless they reluctantly accept jobs for which they are overqualified or leave their home regions to find work.

That's really funny. The Dippers accusing the Cons of creating a "nanny state" when in fact they are trying to rescue us from that very nanny state mentality.

 

[mentalfloss]

Likewise. In fact I can immagine even more than a few dies-in-the-wool socialists being taken aback by this. You'd think this is one area where the left and right can agree. For the right, it's less government, for the left it's equality. Where is the problem?

Before we get lost in some kind of ideological discussion (please see most of your rants in this thread), they're trying to determine the government's definition of "suitable employment". So far the conservatives have not given any definition, but according to them it is coming in the next few weeks.

 

[Machjo]

But I'm shocked that avowed SOCIALISTS are promoting a class structure of sorts in EI. I thought socialists oppose class divides. Hmmm...

 

[petros]

So you just want to jump up and down on the fringes of the real world ranting about how you are oppressed by banks, corporations and GHG emitters or do you want a real voice by being on the inside?

 

[JLM]

Likewise. In fact I can immagine even more than a few dies-in-the-wool socialists being taken aback by this. You'd think this is one area where the left and right can agree. For the right, it's less government, for the left it's equality. Where is the problem?

And for a good reason he probably never even thought of................... the longer more people "sit" on E.I. the greater and sooner the chance the premiums are going to have to increase to sustain it.

 

[mentalfloss]

So you just want to jump up and down on the fringes of the real world ranting about how you are oppressed by banks, corporations and GHG emitters or do you want a real voice by being on the inside?

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore and frankly shckarlette, I don't give a damn.

 

[petros]

Are you afraid of putting your money where your mouth is?