There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Back in the late 60s and early 70s, petros, I started and ran a specutive stock club. It was the coffee a day type of investment by the members so we did not get rich from it. It did well enough, though, that many members started to get cold feet, afraid that I might lose their "gains.' So we wound it ip.
At the same time, the majority of investors in those kinds of ventures were buying what I sold and papering their basements with the stock certificates.
Further, if people, en masse, get into it to create pension funds or whatever, what you have is a bubble from which most investors get hurt.
At the same time, the majority of investors in those kinds of ventures were buying what I sold and papering their basements with the stock certificates.
Further, if people, en masse, get into it to create pension funds or whatever, what you have is a bubble from which most investors get hurt.
Nothing socialist about that claim. And it is not even close to an NDP ethic.
There is no nway in hell you can go wrong IF you choose the right venture.
Take fascistbook going public. Is it better to invest in fascistbook or the minerals that make fascistbook exist?
Take fascistbook going public. Is it better to invest in fascistbook or the minerals that make fascistbook exist?
Perhaps the N.D.P. sometimes falls into the trap of that "ad hominem" way of thinking! :lol:
Dexter raises alarm over EI plan
Premier Darrell Dexter says the federal government should tread lightly when it comes to changing Employment Insurance rules.
A bill making its way through Parliament gives the federal cabinet the power to define what constitutes suitable employment and a reasonable effort to find work — key criteria for being eligible for EI.
The issue is particularly sensitive in parts of Canada where unemployment is high.
"Employment Insurance is one of those electric rails in Atlantic Canada that you want to be very, very careful about," Dexter said Tuesday.
Currently, people who have paid into the EI system and become unemployed can collect benefits for a length of time that varies depending on the region where they live. They must also look for a new job, and start work if something suitable becomes available.
Earlier this week, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the overhaul would force more people to look for work.
Dexter said he's not sure what's behind the changes. But if the plan is to lower benefits or to exclude more people from receiving EI, he said, many families will be hurt.
"The question is do the changes that are being proposed particularly in a high unemployment area, are they being made solely for the purposes of disenfranchising or are they an honest attempt to try to inspire people to take jobs that are available?"
Dexter said EI is not the security blanket it used to be.
"The benefits have been severely restricted and reduced and in fact they do not now meet the needs of many people who find themselves unemployed."
Dexter said Jean Chretien's Liberals learned a hard lesson when that government overhauled the EI system in the 1990s.
In the 1997 federal election, the Liberals lost all 11 seats they held in Nova Scotia. They kept only seven of the 25 seats in the Maritime provinces.
"People in the area have a long memory on those things," Dexter said.
Dexter raises alarm over EI plan - Nova Scotia - CBC News
Premier Darrell Dexter says the federal government should tread lightly when it comes to changing Employment Insurance rules.
A bill making its way through Parliament gives the federal cabinet the power to define what constitutes suitable employment and a reasonable effort to find work — key criteria for being eligible for EI.
The issue is particularly sensitive in parts of Canada where unemployment is high.
"Employment Insurance is one of those electric rails in Atlantic Canada that you want to be very, very careful about," Dexter said Tuesday.
Currently, people who have paid into the EI system and become unemployed can collect benefits for a length of time that varies depending on the region where they live. They must also look for a new job, and start work if something suitable becomes available.
Earlier this week, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the overhaul would force more people to look for work.
Dexter said he's not sure what's behind the changes. But if the plan is to lower benefits or to exclude more people from receiving EI, he said, many families will be hurt.
"The question is do the changes that are being proposed particularly in a high unemployment area, are they being made solely for the purposes of disenfranchising or are they an honest attempt to try to inspire people to take jobs that are available?"
Dexter said EI is not the security blanket it used to be.
"The benefits have been severely restricted and reduced and in fact they do not now meet the needs of many people who find themselves unemployed."
Dexter said Jean Chretien's Liberals learned a hard lesson when that government overhauled the EI system in the 1990s.
In the 1997 federal election, the Liberals lost all 11 seats they held in Nova Scotia. They kept only seven of the 25 seats in the Maritime provinces.
"People in the area have a long memory on those things," Dexter said.
Dexter raises alarm over EI plan - Nova Scotia - CBC News
Oppose! Oppose! Don't think, just oppose!
So enlighten me then as to how to rationalize that a job is below one person but acceptable for another.
You're missing the point (yet again), by taking this into some theoretical discussion of ideology. This is about the definition of "suitable employment" that the government has put forward for EI claimants that are looking for a job.
It's clear that pulling someone off of EI who is qualified to be a teacher (for instance), but is offered a job in a completely different field is ludicrous. Once the government can at least assure us that suitable employment allows one to choose from jobs within their own category or field of employment, then there will be less yapping from the opposition.
Sure we offer them within their field first, but if not available they can always work elsewhere in the meantime until something becomes available, right?
Perhaps we are seeing a bit of the Marie Antoinette syndrome in reverse here.................."Let us eat cake"........... :lol:
I don't think blisters and callouses ever killed anyone. Besides it's just part of the toughening up process. Also there is an added benefit, in that you could learn something about a second occupation & you might even find that your first occupation isn't as you thought it is. You don't learn anything sitting on E.I.
Mass immigration would probably help to create jobs too, more food to produce, more houses to build, more clothes to buy, etc.
Most importantly, real work keeps you fit.
Yup but we'll hear more whining. "They took our jobs" (that we didn't want).
No more excuses. I'd say scrap the dole, and if you refuse to work, we provide you with a dorm room to live in, shared washroom with 30 other guys (or gals) and shared kitchen too, with raw food ingredients bought daily along with recipe books, pots pans, etc in kitchen. That should give a little incentive.
Certainly I wouldn't force anyone out of town 'cause cometimes there are legitimate reasons they can't leave, and I'm all for skills training as necessary, but beyond that, give them prison garbs and dorm rooms with suits you can lend them when they're out looking for work.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, nah, it takes about 1/3 of job to sustain one person. Out of 35 million Canadians we have 10-12 million employed, so if we added 3 million, that might create a million jobs.
Why not? Members of my family moved out of province, let along out of town in the 90s when our illustrious N.D.P. chased a lot of the jobs out of province. Just ask people who used to live in Port Alberni, until the bubble burst.
Stats for that?
I could agree with that as long as either the company pays moving expenses I suppose since obviously you don't want to force them to move only to have no roof over their head when they arrive; an employer might have an issue with a worker who can't shower and sleeps outside.
I would also consider the best interests of dependants too, especially if their are other special circumstances or special needs to consider.