Forced Relocation of Atlantic Unemployed?

[Nuggler]

8O Obviously if one qualifies for E.I. they should be allowed to collect in where they choose to live. Mein Harper does not have the cattle cars moving...........yet.

Personally, ifn I was an unemployed "young" man, I'd move to where the work was. Did that a couple of times in me life. "Mom" was probably glad to see me go..........lol

It would take me about one nanosecond to move to Alberta, get a job, send for the family. If I was a YOUNG man, which I ain't., so go for it guys. You can have my job out there.



:idea:

 

[Machjo]

Where I stand is that society has a responsibility to the individual (i.e. society ought never allow anyone to become destitute, even if it means having to give him money for nothing) and the individual has a responsibility towards society (i.e. accept whatever work is available within moral parameters of course).

So looking at it this way, I'd say that if I'm unemployed, yes society has a duty to give me the money necessary for me to survive. On the otehr hand, I'm to accept whatever job is provided too. It does go both ways.

 

[Machjo]

Where I stand is that society has a responsibility to the individual (i.e. society ought never allow anyone to become destitute, even if it means having to give him money for nothing) and the individual has a responsibility towards society (i.e. accept whatever work is available within moral parameters of course).

So looking at it this way, I'd say that if I'm unemployed, yes society has a duty to give me the money necessary for me to survive. On the other hand, I'm to accept whatever job is provided too. It does go both ways.

 

[Machjo]

I voted the third option. Should they be denied EI? Society has a responsibility towards them, so no. Should they be forced to relocate? That's a tough one to answer. I'd say they have a duty to accept whatever work is available, which might mean relocation, so I suppose it would be a case-by-case basis. And there are always special circumstances. Family responsibilities, etc. of course. But I'm not totally opposed to the idea if it were done wisely (i.e in a wise, sensitive and humane manner).

 

[Jay]

Forced Relocation of Atlantic Unemployed?

Oh the Drama!

Why do Liberals say these sorts of things? Does it make them feel good? Do they think they can suck more money out of us or something?

My Father moved from Northern Ontario to Southern Ontario because of unemployment in the North and employment in the South....why are Liberals calling my Father "cattle"?

Please stop it.

 

[BitWhys]

8O Obviously if one qualifies for E.I. they should be allowed to collect in where they choose to live. Mein Harper does not have the cattle cars moving...........yet.

Personally, ifn I was an unemployed "young" man, I'd move to where the work was. Did that a couple of times in me life. "Mom" was probably glad to see me go..........lol

It would take me about one nanosecond to move to Alberta, get a job, send for the family. If I was a YOUNG man, which I ain't., so go for it guys. You can have my job out there.



:idea:

The way I see it that's part of the problem. Labrador may be a rock but its not incapable of substaining human life. Same goes for the rest of the struggling provinces. They've had some brutal economic shocks over the last number of years and need at the very least, time to recover. Part of the question is how deeply we as a nation want to allow the concommitent cultural shock to run in the wake of the ensuing "market correction", how willing we are to deal with the regret that could very well arise when times change and such unpredictable realities as technology and the circumstance of available resources dictate the coast is suddenly the place to be.

Lost youth means lost tradition, dispersed families and in the case of Newfies usually an increase in the number of heavy smokers wherever they end up. Besides that the problem already runs much deeper than that. I watched a documentary about East Coast families whose husbands are over in Alberta these days earning a living and collecting stamps and thought it was heartbreaking enough.

I mean, ye Gods, having nowhere in particular to market screech is a frighteningly enough proposition as it is. Lets not rush to throw out the bathwater without checking for babies first.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Personally since I'm currently in the Atlantic, If I were to lose my job and needed EI in order to get my by until I found something that would be able to support my family, but to have my EI significantly lowered beyond survival or gone altoghether. Yes. I'd feel forced to relocate. I'd also be forced out of my house with the family and forced to go on social assistance for food and shelter before I could move somewhere, or be forced into bankrupsy.

I also wonder about those that work in the fisheries or farming? They would essentially need to migrate every november to where the jobs are and return in May...or work at Tim hortons or Mcdonalds over the winter and build a debt.

I have no remorse or respect for those that abuse the EI or Social assistance systems, but they are helpful for many that do need to use them in between hard times.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: Forced Relocation of Atlantic Unemployed?

Where does it say forced relocation? Do people want to work or not? Why people want to to rot in unemployment, just because it's close to mom, is beyond me.

Funny you should say that...........

My Mom is 86, lives in a house she has lived in for over 50 years, has very few mobile friends, and I am the only living relative in the province......

that should count for something.

Then don't leave. Who's forcing you to?

Nobody.....

But what if I was unemployed? Which is the point of the current debate, or so I thought......should I be forced to relocate by the economic pressure of not being able to collect pokey here in NB?

Show me where it is proposed you won't be eligible for EI if you stay in NB?

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay[/i]]Oh the Drama!

Oh, please; given the rest of your post, I wouldn't talk.

Jay[/i]]Why do Liberals say these sorts of things? Does it make them feel good? Do they think they can suck more money out of us or something?

Are you referring to me, or to the Liberal Party of Canada? In any case, the statement was made because Mr. Jean suggested that perhaps the unemployed citizens in Atlantic Canada should be forced to move if they want to work, instead of receiving Employment Insurance payments. That is certainly not a Liberal idea.

Jay[/i]]My Father moved from Northern Ontario to Southern Ontario because of unemployment in the North and employment in the South....why are Liberals calling my Father "cattle"?

If you actually read that post, then you should see that the "cattle" reference was in reference to the sentiment expressed by Mr. Jean — not by the Liberals. The Liberals in fact denounced his efforts to suggest that Atlantic Canadians should be moved elsewhere like, as you said, "cattle". Again, perhaps you should read the entire post before you decide to negatively skew the situation.

Jay[/i]¹]Please stop it.

I could say the same thing.

:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error.

 

[#juan]

The only objection I would have is

people who are so seasonally employed that they work half a year and collect E.I the other half, every year. Some fishermen make very good money during their short season and it is a bonus to collect E.I. every year. Obviously, the system wasn't designed for that. I'm not talking about just Maritimers. There are seasonally employed people right accross the country.

 

[Jay]

Jay[/i]]Oh the Drama!

Oh, please; given the rest of your post, I wouldn't talk.

Jay[/i]]Why do Liberals say these sorts of things? Does it make them feel good? Do they think they can suck more money out of us or something?

Are you referring to me, or to the Liberal Party of Canada? In any case, the statement was made because Mr. Jean suggested that perhaps the unemployed citizens in Atlantic Canada should be forced to move if they want to work, instead of receiving Employment Insurance payments. That is certainly not a Liberal idea.

Jay[/i]]My Father moved from Northern Ontario to Southern Ontario because of unemployment in the North and employment in the South....why are Liberals calling my Father "cattle"?

If you actually read that post, then you should see that the "cattle" reference was in reference to the sentiment expressed by Mr. Jean — not by the Liberals. The Liberals in fact denounced his efforts to suggest that Atlantic Canadians should be moved elsewhere like, as you said, "cattle". Again, perhaps you should read the entire post before you decide to negatively skew the situation.

Jay[/i]¹]Please stop it.

I could say the same thing.

:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error.

I'll give you this one, it’s Friday and I’m feeling extra nice today.

Suggesting that people shouldn't move from place to place to follow economic trends and to do so would be to be treated as "cattle" is the angle I was coming from. I don’t agree with the logic.

I suppose then my father should have just stayed and collected the dole in Northern Ontario.


Oh, and is there a diffrence between you and the Liberal Party of Canada?

 

[FiveParadox]

Oh, and is there a diffrence between you and the Liberal Party of Canada?

Of course. It's not as if I have some sort of telepathic mind control power over Mike Eizenga, the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, and The Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto Centre and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — of course not. That's not even possible.

FiveParadox's eyes shift back and forth suspiciously.

 

[Vicious]

The only objection I would have is

people who are so seasonally employed that they work half a year and collect E.I the other half, every year. Some fishermen make very good money during their short season and it is a bonus to collect E.I. every year. Obviously, the system wasn't designed for that. I'm not talking about just Maritimers. There are seasonally employed people right accross the country.

Thanks #Juan. I tried to present a similar thought last night and quickly decided against it. The way you've said it works for me.

 

[Vicious]

I would prefer that businesses spring up where they chose - without the influence of government tax incentives. I would prefer that people had the confidence to move to another part of the country for work and to live. That way more people would be where the jobs are and fewer where they aren't (frickin rocket scientist aren't I). But that's not the way things have gone. Governments have attempted to bring the jobs to the people by creating tax incentives or cost sharing plans and wonder why those businesses fail after a few years.

Everyone had to grow up some place and home is not always the best place to find a job. People have family obligations that tie them to a certain area. However if you make your choices based on staying where you grew up there is a price to pay. Living on EI or welfare will never make you rich. So recognize that when you make your choice. And if I were a parent in some place that is dying economically I would not inflict the same life on my kids as the one that I find myself with. I personally won't make a decision that places the well being of my parents over the well being of my kids and I expect nothing less from my children when the time comes.

 

[jariax]

I think the problem is that the MP worded it quite poorly but the idea was sound.

Insurance is a way of everybody chipping in, to help those who fall on unexpected hard times.

We buy flood insurance in case our home gets flooded.

Now, if your house gets flooded every year, the insurance company isn't going to be selling you insurance. If they do, it's going to be at an exorbitant rate.

Compare this to seasonal workers EI. They get laid off same time every year. No private insurance company would ever sell them insurance because they're not getting insurance - they're getting a subsidy.

Now, I'm all for giving money to the disadvantaged. But these aren't - these are people making 30-40,000 in the six months they work, and then having a free tax-payer paid vacation for six months.

Instead of this system, have the employer pay them the same way that teachers are paid. Cut their cheques in half, and distribute them evenly through the course of the year.

We should not be topping up the wages of people making 30,000 a year, when we have people in Canada making 15,000 a year working full-time year round.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of jobs in other provinces, and people that think that they are entitled to regular UI payments year after year - can either accept less of a wage in their home province, or they can move.