With all the foot-dragging, bureaucratic stupidity and Court time, the only benefit would go to vul ... er ... lawyers
Should we be allowed to sue for government-imposed poverty?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Agreed. When I'm proposing removing minimum wage, I don't mean that as a be all and end all of course, though it could be a temporary solution in some cases, allowing a person to work at higher wage than social security until an opening comes up in a government-funded skills-training programme. I'm also not saying we should not allow a person who earns an extremely low wage to apply for social security instead. However, with him being free to choose to work at low wage or go on social security, then, unlike the case now, he would have the choice to work at low wage if that pays better than social security. Why not give him the choice?
In fact, with fewer people on social security, we might then even be able to afford to increase social security for those who still can't find work, or alternatively shift social security spending to skills training.
Initially, probably. But after a while, governments would be more careful to study their bills before passing them to ensure that there is no evidence that the law in question will hurt the poor. If there is evidence that it could hurt the poor, then they'd modify or scrap it before passing it, anticipating what will happen otherwise. This would be a way of preventing NIMBY laws from passing.
Life is hard.
Should we just absolve these poor unfortunates and give up on them ever going anywhere?.. We could provide food, clothing and housing for them until they move onto the great beyond and just let them rot
That has been the case since education system were developed back in the day.
The difference between then and now is that there were no social safety nets available which indirectly forced people to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions.
Educated or not, some people are just too f*cked up. When hiring do you hire the smartest person or the most stable?
you're missing something here. yes, there were fewer if any safety nets. There was also less regulation preventing them from finding work too. Why do you oppose removing obstacles to employment for instance? If a person is willing to work at slightly below minimum wage, and an employer is willing to hire him at that wage, who are we to force him onto social security at half that rate?
So what do we do with the lass stable? I'm all for social support, but I don't think that alone is the problem. I think sometimes laws regulating the private sector might also be contributing to their dependence.
I've pitched this concept at community org meetings. Drop in, community enhancement work. Pulling weeds, painting, sweeping, cleaning up garbage, sorting recycleables etc. They work when they can or need to and any monies made comes off their subsistence allowances.
That IS exactly how it is currently handled now and that is exactly what we do for them now.
And I know you would dearly love to go back in time to that system, however much you may desire it, the world has moved on.
I do like what you are saying. But it creates a problem with filling jobs in some areas such as retail, like McDonald's or Harvey's or whatever low wage retail position needs filling, apple picking, whatever. So I am saying not everyone is capable of gaining a skill considered to be evaluable enough to make a liveable wage. We are profit driven. Thus the drive is to pay the least and make the most not to look after our brethren. I am asking you what happens to them and I think that many people fall into that category. They are incapable of working for whatever reason...mental or physical. Employers do not want someone who has to be constantly watched or can not produce at the level deemed necessary.
If our society could understand that we help the child to move forward or we pay later to support that child as an adult either through the prison system or through welfare, if they could only comprehend that we could move forward faster.
I can definitely agree with that. It's a similar idea to that of a Peace Corps that I've proposed in the past, a kind of guaranteed employment programme. until such a programme exists and receives adequate funding, however, would it not make sense to remove the minimum wage and other such legislation so as to allow people to fend for themselve in teh meantime? And should such a programme ever be established, then the minimum wage would be redundant anyway, no?
then they won't work, there has to be a cut off point where we say everyone can make x amount on top of social assistance...if there is a claw back they won't work...it is not a middle class mind set...you can't view it through your eyes you have to see it through theirs
Very good points. There may certainly be cases where generous social security ought to be provided as prescribed by a doctor owing to inability to work. And again, that combined by some kind of guaranteed employement programme like a peace corps or other similar programme could help those who want to work but genuinely cannot function in the private sector. I know some might interpret opposition to minimum wage as pure heartlessness or extreme godless capitalism. However, looking at it objectively, minimum wage really does hurt the poor, especially when no other alternatives exist.
Actually I think it's probably got to be both.
In other words, I think what would work best is a graduated system. For x length of time you are required to work x hours per week, they help you find a job and you will be paid but you won't be clawed back. Then slowly start to claw back. There's value to going out every day and working, not just in the bringing home of a paycheque but also in your own self-worth. That's what really needs to be built up with most. And yes, there will always be a certain percentage that will always scrounge off the rest of us, that's a given. But those that can rise above it will see a benefit and they won't be back on assistance, which is the ultimate goal right?
not sure Pete, I find our Social Assistance programs hard to research, they are wishy washy with information... any links to any sites you know about?
Hell no! They tried rent control in Toronto, NYC, and Paris France, and in all of these cases, it merely discouraged further housing construction resulting in severe housing shortages later. Finally, they had to lift the controls and bang, prices shot up until construction cought up.
One possibility is to explore any areas where NIMBY construction laws or bylaws are in place and remove those.
Another could be, as Petros mentioned, creating guaranteeed employment opportunities for the otherwise unemployable, maybe even in the construction of low-cost (but not directly subsidized otherwise) housing. Or some other solution.
I believe there is. Seeing it's provincial though, I'm not sure about elsewhere.
yeah I like that..it's the hand up rather than the handout approach
but we have to consider child care in there too, and dental since they aren't covered and perscriptions. Everyone should be able to have their teeth cleaned and scaled once a year...it would help out our health care down the road small things like that but we have to figure out a way to increase money to social programs that would be heavier and then should get lighter down the road
Problem....where do these jobs come from?
I like your idea. I've heard a lot of people on assistance say that they "can't afford to work" meaning that they get cut off because they found a job and then fall behind on rent because a two week cheque after three weeks of work doesn't cut it, they have to buy clothes, transportation, pack lunches etc. Let them ride it out for a bit like you say before giving them the axe.
Well, first of all I've never understood how we have universal healthcare in this country but need to pay out of pocket for dental. Hell even the middle class can't afford it unless they have a group plan from work and not everyone does. That's always been a pet peeve of mine. Anyway, rant over, lol.
But essentially what you're suggesting makes the most sense. It's the same logic as putting time, effort and energy into youth offenders. Work with them to get them off the criminal path because it's much more difficult to reform them when they are older. However that smells like prevention to me, and we just don't seem to put any kind of real thought into prevention, let alone any money into it. Look at healthcare, it's not really healthcare, it's sick care. We pay exorbitant amounts of money for people to go to the doctor after they get sick but restrict visits to the doctor for preventative care. Tell me how that makes sense?
Hey if I had all the answers I'd be typing this reply on my private secluded beachfront property in some highly sought after exotic locale, lol. But you know what, I think that if we just started to look at things a bit differently, we'd probably be able to come up with something that people could do, that would be worth paying them for, that would be beneficial to society. I don't mind paying a premium social assistance rate to someone if they're putting in a solid day's work. Obviously provided it's not forever but for a specified length of time to really be able to get someone on their feet. Then it's an investment, you know?
Absolutely, I've heard the same thing. Actually, my sis-in-law is social service worker with the social assistance department here in London, I've heard stories. It makes no sense to me to make it soooo difficult for people, the margin for error is razor thin when you first get back on your feet. Plus like you mentioned, sometimes it's not even really their fault when they get behind.
We pay out the a s s for useless programs like "job finding clubs". Teaching somebody how to write a resume is useless when there are no jobs they'd qualify for.
In reading some of the posts above it mentioned a 22% cut in ON assistance rates. BC did the same thing even offering bus tickets to AB where assistance rates are higher but not a penny spent in job creation and they still have the highest homeless rate in Canada
We have oodles of jobs in SK but no where to live for under $1000 a month. SK isn't a place you want to be a working homeless person let alone unemployed and homeless.
In reading some of the posts above it mentioned a 22% cut in ON assistance rates. BC did the same thing even offering bus tickets to AB where assistance rates are higher but not a penny spent in job creation and they still have the highest homeless rate in Canada
We have oodles of jobs in SK but no where to live for under $1000 a month. SK isn't a place you want to be a working homeless person let alone unemployed and homeless.