The Entitlement Mentality

[Sal]

Companies do have a social conscious Sal. Pointing to one or 2 that are notorious for not representing the mainstream does not mean that every corp is like them.

It doesn't for sure. The problem with those two particular companies is that they employee those who at some point for some reason got stuck in an education pit. Then they have kids to care for. Etc. The kid problem we have already debated and we come down on different sides neither one of us is going to budge from so no point in debating that one. Suffice to say, we pretty much agree here in part.

But you did hit on an important theme in that it really is the impetus for the employee to find a suitable position moreso than demand that all positions adhere to your definition.

The problem I see here is that we are allowing a corporation to make a significant profit while we pay their employees to do so. Maybe it's just me but I don't like that.

You mentioned that you could see a $20-25k increase in wages by simple virtue of moving West... Have you ever looked into that option?

Yeah and that's just the starting wage, 20 to 25 thou more just to start. I have actually considered that option in a serious way. I also have a close friend currently living in Edmonton which made it much more palatable. When I viewed all of the variables, it isn't worth it to me at my age. Also my employer just changed the requirements for permanent workers, although my contracts have been excellent it would be nice to have benefits. I may seek full time placement where I am.

Further, is this an issue of those employers in the West being 'desperate' or possibly is there an oversupply of qualified individuals in your locale that contributes to the wage differential?

I would say both. Employers in the west are desperate because there are just not enough skilled people to cover the positions. My girlfriend was checking for me for a while and there were always 2 to 3 newspaper pages just for my type of work. That's a lot. Her husband's company hires my "type" of people and they keep mediocre employees much to his dismay because they are hard to replace. They bonus their best. Large. In my locale there is an oversupply of qualified individuals in everything. Considering my age and the fact that I flipped from one type of job to this I am shocked that I landed so well.

 

[Kreskin]

I'm not against having safety nets. What concerns me more is the mentality some have that living off the government is not only a permanent way of life but one they envision for their kids as well. Having a dream and putting hard work behind it gives everyone a chance to succeed well beyond life on minimum wage or social assistance. For some they don't believe they can or that such a thing is only for other lucky people.

If you want something bad enough you will get it. And if you don't you will at least achieve a level well beyond the standard low bar. Simply dreaming for it is not enough.

Life is a marathon. Success is a marathon. Nothing comes easy unless you win a lottery. One week or 10 weeks of effort is not enough. Success is an equity. A lifestyle. You first have to believe you can even if others don't, then out-work the rest on breaking down barriers for success.

 

[JLM]

I'm not against having safety nets. What concerns me more is the mentality some have that living off the government is not only a permanent way of life but one they envision for their kids as well. Having a dream and putting hard work behind it gives everyone a chance to succeed well beyond life on minimum wage or social assistance. For some they don't believe they can or that such a thing is only for other lucky people.

If you want something bad enough you will get it. And if you don't you will at least achieve a level well beyond the standard low bar. Simply dreaming for it is not enough.

Life is a marathon. Success is a marathon. Nothing comes easy unless you win a lottery. One week or 10 weeks of effort is not enough. Success is an equity. A lifestyle. You first have to believe you can even if others don't, then out-work the rest on breaking down barriers for success.

My sentiments exactly and I couldn't have said it as well myself. (that may be a clue to why I hate whiners) -

 

[captain morgan]

It doesn't for sure. The problem with those two particular companies is that they employee those who at some point for some reason got stuck in an education pit. Then they have kids to care for. Etc. The kid problem we have already debated and we come down on different sides neither one of us is going to budge from so no point in debating that one. Suffice to say, we pretty much agree here in part.

I agree about both of those companies, but I also feel that they are no where near representative of the average Canadian corporation.

The education pit is an issue, although I will suggest that this is a function of the individual and not the corps issue. As it stands, although I do not admire McD's or Walmart, I will say that they do accept individuals without significant experience or education credentials.

The problem I see here is that we are allowing a corporation to make a significant profit while we pay their employees to do so. Maybe it's just me but I don't like that.

You really need to understand the risks that are associated with starting/running a business.

The majority of small business' fail within the first couple of years. The big companies (obviously) started out as small, but the risks never go away. Those big profits that we hear about are one thing, but those same companies have also posted huge losses at times as well.

Profit is not a dirty word, and without that motivation, I believe that you will find that there would be no private companies (or investors) willing to risk their cash and resources. Without profit as an incentive, the whole machine comes to a halt, and that will affect individuals on a personal level dramatically

Yeah and that's just the starting wage, 20 to 25 thou more just to start. I have actually considered that option in a serious way. I also have a close friend currently living in Edmonton which made it much more palatable. When I viewed all of the variables, it isn't worth it to me at my age. Also my employer just changed the requirements for permanent workers, although my contracts have been excellent it would be nice to have benefits. I may seek full time placement where I am.

I would say both. Employers in the west are desperate because there are just not enough skilled people to cover the positions. My girlfriend was checking for me for a while and there were always 2 to 3 newspaper pages just for my type of work. That's a lot. Her husband's company hires my "type" of people and they keep mediocre employees much to his dismay because they are hard to replace. They bonus their best. Large. In my locale there is an oversupply of qualified individuals in everything. Considering my age and the fact that I flipped from one type of job to this I am shocked that I landed so well.

Fair enough, I do understand the nature of the decision(s) that you must make and appreciate the validity of your position. That said, I would guess that there are a number of people that may be in a position that this kind of move may be more suitable.

The point being, there is an option available for those that are willing to make the personal life change(s)

 

[Goober]

You did below.. See comments


This is a (form) of flat tax.. The kicker is that it is in addition to the various forms of income tax presently in use.

Corp tax.

GST replaced the manufacturing tax which penalized Canadian companies.A VAT is as the evil Queen of taxation stated, the fairest tax of all. Consumption based.

Corps- Move for a 1 % change. Taxation is but one of the variables that they consider.
With 3D coming into the mainstream fast and furious, infrastructure, educated work for, resources are important.

Canada has a deficit in Infrastructure, skilled trades, birth rate and no matter which was you cut it poverty costs a lot more than we see. The long term effects on society are costly.

Example would be homelessness- Estimates run from 50 K to well over 100 K.

 

[JLM]

I think sometimes people forget that profits in a business often go to funding our pension funds! -

 

[captain morgan]

GST replaced the manufacturing tax which penalized Canadian companies.A VAT is as the evil Queen of taxation stated, the fairest tax of all. Consumption based.

Corps- Move for a 1 % change. Taxation is but one of the variables that they consider.
With 3D coming into the mainstream fast and furious, infrastructure, educated work for, resources are important.

Canada has a deficit in Infrastructure, skilled trades, birth rate and no matter which was you cut it poverty costs a lot more than we see. The long term effects on society are costly.

Example would be homelessness- Estimates run from 50 K to well over 100 K.

The tax code is far too complicated as is. There are a number of taxes that are (creatively) implemented every year, but the underlying issue is still how much money is required to keep society operating?

What we are talking about are the public's expectations of what society is obligated to provide and to what level.

As it stands, the top rates for income tax in Canada hover around 50%... That figure does not include the taxes paid by business, let alone the fees, licenses, royalties, etc.. Add-in GST and eco-taxes (BC in this case) and you begin to see that even in the middle income tax brackets, people are paying far more than 50 cents on the dollar.

Increasing corp taxes are interesting because they are the inception of the revenue/income chain... More money from their pockets translates directly into the compensation that they are capable of providing to the employee base.

Go back to the example of France... They instituted a 75% marginal rate on entities that make in excess of 1 million Euros... The (immediate) result is that those entities (people and business) up and left. The fall out translated (and is still ongoing I might add) into higher unemployment, a move to more part time positions and generally fewer tax dollars into a system where more people are expecting support from society. You can talk all you want about minor increases, but the expectations also increase along with them.

In the end, a tax won't change the underlying problems here. Upping the costs to others in no way treats the issue but temporarily deals with the symptoms

 

[Sal]

The education pit is an issue, although I will suggest that this is a function of the individual and not the corps issue. As it stands, although I do not admire McD's or Walmart, I will say that they do accept individuals without significant experience or education credentials.

It is a function of the individual, absolutely. Currently I have been working in a school dealing with adults and new Canadians, although adult is a relative term. These are kids who either 'get' that they are going to be screwed for the rest of their lives unless they get their grade 12 (GED is worth nothing, zero, nada) any more to an employer. Or they are kids on welfare who in order to receive welfare are being forced to return to school. I admire the kids who get it and predict a very bad future for the kids who do not.

None the less, we as a society are giving them a way to improve themselves at a relatively low cost to ourselves short term and a large gain to society long term. I like that.

Walmart and MacDonald's accept such people (unskilled, and uneducated) because they are forced to. You are not going to work for them and neither am I. The pay is lousy and so is the working environment. On the other hand the Walmart greeters in their 70's and 80's look to be having fun.

You really need to understand the risks that are associated with starting/running a business.

The risks in todays world have changed I will grant you that. (see below).

The majority of small business' fail within the first couple of years.

Because they either do not have the buying power to complete with large corporations or they are not exclusive enough in what they offer.

The big companies (obviously) started out as small, but the risks never go away. Those big profits that we hear about are one thing, but those same companies have also posted huge losses at times as well.

Yeah, here's where we part company. They are giant mothers eating everything in their path. They swallow little businesses whole by forcing them out.

Profit is not a dirty word,

profit is a dirty word unless it is fair/ethical profit.

and without that motivation, I believe that you will find that there would be no private companies (or investors) willing to risk their cash and resources. Without profit as an incentive, the whole machine comes to a halt, and that will affect individuals on a personal level dramatically

True, but there are businesses that operate with a conscience and then there are businesses which do not. I do not support corporate welfare regardless of the number of people they employee.

Fair enough, I do understand the nature of the decision(s) that you must make and appreciate the validity of your position. That said, I would guess that there are a number of people that may be in a position that this kind of move may be more suitable.

For me it is a black and white situation; is your need greater than what you would have to sacrifice in a move. If yes, you relocate. If no, you stay put.

The point being, there is an option available for those that are willing to make the personal life change(s)

Yes, quite right.

 

[Tonington]

Others have mentioned the importance of education. I think that's definitely needed, and I think it addresses a concern Kutcher had in his speech. I'd like to see a civics class introduced, that includes in it's curriculum a focus on current job market trends, as well as an introduction to financial planning. The issue is, what we're talking about is a generational thing that spans more than just across the country. In that way, I think having education curricula controlled by the provinces is inadequate. The Federal Government should have a seat at the table on important matters like this. That speaks to something Les mentioned about the various levels of government and what spheres of our lives they can influence.

Mike Rowe is bang on with his efforts to emphasize the importance of for example, heavy diesel mechanics, and other skilled trades. There's lots of jobs available in Canada for someone with a skilled trade, and I don't think educators and counselors are doing a satisfactory job in explaining things like earning potential and opportunity costs. I know a good number of people who went to university only to end up working in retail, with huge student loan debts. The educational infrastructure needs updates as badly as our physical infrastructure.

The second part, about financial planning, I think is very important. I didn't learn a thing about this until I was nearing the end of my university education. I think I'm ahead of the curve for my generation, because I took an active role in teaching myself before I graduated. I think the entitlement aspect of the generation Y could for the most part be dealt with by giving students better information. But I think it needs attention before post-secondary education.

I think there needs to be a healthy mix of personal involvement, as well as social security. We end up leaning more on the latter I think because for a long time the focus on education doesn't really consider long term planning that students should be aware of before they reach the job market. That security should be there when someone needs it, that's part of what makes developed countries a developed country, but we can be more efficient I think by introducing more planning. We don't need a planned economy, because I think that's far more control than the government should have, but we do need people to have developed some skills and knowledge that will help them plan for themselves. Defined benefit pensions are a thing of the past, and I don't think they're likely to come back. That means I have to take more control of my long-term planning, and I have. It's necessary.

And one last pet peeve, I absolutely hate hearing people in my age group say things like 'I feel ..." as opposed to 'I think ...'; it drives me nuts.

 

[captain morgan]

None the less, we as a society are giving them a way to improve themselves at a relatively low cost to ourselves short term and a large gain to society long term. I like that.

Agreed, and this 'option' requires participation on everyone's part.

This situation has an expectation of the individual as conditional of the expectation of society

Walmart and MacDonald's accept such people (unskilled, and uneducated) because they are forced to. You are not going to work for them and neither am I. The pay is lousy and so is the working environment.

I think it's the opposite. those companies accept these folks because the individual(s) have a stronger need than the next person in the employee pool

On the other hand the Walmart greeters in their 70's and 80's look to be having fun.

Sadly, there are many seniors that find themselves in a position where the need to augment their retirement income to get by.

The risks in todays world have changed I will grant you that. Because they either do not have the buying power to complete with large corporations or they are not exclusive enough in what they offer. Yeah, here's where we part company. They are giant mothers eating everything in their path. They swallow little businesses whole by forcing them out.

That's certainly part of it, but the base component here is that the public is demanding services and prices that the small indies just can't deliver.

In part, the public is partially responsible for this. Blaming Walmart for delivering what the public prefers is kind of bizarre in my eyes.

profit is a dirty word unless it is fair/ethical profit.

Exactly, what is 'ethical profit'?

Are you suggesting that there be a cap on corporate profits?

True, but there are businesses that operate with a conscience and then there are businesses which do not. I do not support corporate welfare regardless of the number of people they employee.

Define for me what you believe 'corporate welfare' to be.

For me it is a black and white situation; is your need greater than what you would have to sacrifice in a move. If yes, you relocate. If no, you stay put.

I, personally, try and look as far as I can into the future when considering my individual needs. As an example, I honestly believe that I will be needing an amount of money in the future to deal with unexpected health concerns... I do not think that the 'system' we have here in Canada will be capable of servicing those needs in the future

 

[JLM]

"I, personally, try and look as far as I can into the future when considering my individual needs. As an example, I honestly believe that I will be needing an amount of money in the future to deal with unexpected health concerns... I do not think that the 'system' we have here in Canada will be capable of servicing those needs in the future"


I kind of agree with that statement! While I am quite happy to accept Gov't. funded healthcare while it's available, I think with all the demands on it including people expecting coverage for self imposed afflictions, only a fool would believe it's going to be there forever to cover all things. How many more diseases, afflictions and allergies do we have today than we did 30 years ago? As we age I think it is best we put a couple of bucks aside on our own account. How many of the fatties at age 40 are going to be invalids at age 60?

 

[Sal]

I think it's the opposite. those companies accept these folks because the individual(s) have a stronger need than the next person in the employee pool

You think they choose their employees according to how much the individual needs the job?

Sadly, there are many seniors that find themselves in a position where the need to augment their retirement income to get by.

Well, unfortunately, that is true.

That's certainly part of it, but the base component here is that the public is demanding services and prices that the small indies just can't deliver.

Partially true.

In part, the public is partially responsible for this. Blaming Walmart for delivering what the public prefers is kind of bizarre in my eyes.

Agreed. We should be blaming them for their off-shore sweat shops and for asking us to pay the welfare for their employees food and health care because paying a living wage would cut into the corporate profits.

Exactly, what is 'ethical profit'?

I would say, companies that pay well for work well done, don't use sweat shop labour, and contribute to their local communities would make their profit ethical.

Are you suggesting that there be a cap on corporate profits?

no

Define for me what you believe 'corporate welfare' to be.

paying your employees a low wage requiring them to live off of food stamps and and government subsidies would be a start.

I, personally, try and look as far as I can into the future when considering my individual needs. As an example, I honestly believe that I will be needing an amount of money in the future to deal with unexpected health concerns... I do not think that the 'system' we have here in Canada will be capable of servicing those needs in the future

That's a great philosophy ♦ kudos to you!

 

[Machjo]

Firstly we confuse sometimes what an entitlement is. Entitlements are things
we expect for nothing. Sometimes people talk about social programs as
entitlements they are not in most cases. For example politicians sold people
on the idea of paying more taxes in return for social programs down the road
Those are not entitlements they are called getting what one paid for. It's time
people understood and made mention of what are entitlements and what are
programs bought and paid for. I should also point out yes people paid small
amounts for substantial service. But that is how insurance works as well
everyone pays premiums and some collect some don't. Well if you paid in
and the government mismanaged the money that is not the fault of the citizen.
Quebec actually put the money toward the programs they were intended for
and they are better off. The rest of the governments filled potholes and gave
tax breaks to friends now the piper wants to be paid.

True in principle, as long as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. for instance, I'm sure you'd agree that a Jew for example would view the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 29, and an unfair entitlement, as I'm sure you'd agree that an Indigenous Canadian or a Chinese Canadian would view Sections 16 to 23 to be unfair entitlements too.

What applies to one religious, linguistic, or other group but not to all is clearly an unfair entitlement, no?

 

[JLM]

It's not the employers responsibility to pay a "liveable wage". First it's a moving target and second it's up to the employee to decide what is liveable.

 

[Sal]

It's not the employers responsibility to pay a "liveable wage". First it's a moving target and second it's up to the employee to decide what is liveable.

so you are okey dokey with paying their welfare to subsidize their income so they can actually eat and go to hospital when ill...good man JLM... I'm not okay with that.

 

[Machjo]

so you are okey dokey with paying their welfare to subsidize their income so they can actually eat and go to hospital when ill...good man JLM... I'm not okay with that.

I disagree with that too. I am in favour of an officially recognized minimum wage, with the employer being legally required to inform workers earning less than that of their legal right to apply for government-funded trades or professional education along with room and board during the education period. I'm also in favour of the government not subsidizing low wages so as to put pressure on low-wage earners to in fact seek this education.

However, an officially recommended minimum wage should not be confused with an offically enforced minimum wage. The reason I oppose an officially enforced minimum wage is that often a wage below an official minimum is still more generous than what social security provides.

 

[mentalfloss]

You're the one with the problem.

I'm curious why you (and those like-minded folk) don't curtail your consumption in order to offset the demand.

You must be talking to yourself again because I don't have a consumption problem.

But we can all agree that consumption is what acts as evidence for entitlement, so whoever advocates for needlessly extracting resources must feel the most entitled.


Those are the people on your side of the fence, by the way.

 

[damngrumpy]

There is room for business tax increases and for different reason that solely for
profit reasons. First of all profit is a relative thing, its not the profit so much as
what is done with the profit. Not saying we dictate what profits can be used for.
We can use the tax code to steer things in the right direction.
First of all we make it less attractive to award huge bonuses and advertising
pitches by celebrities. We make it less attractive to outsource and to have a
position of the stock market saying you are a Canadian company making nearly
everything off shore with materials often sucked out of the ground here.
Companies that provide Canadian full time jobs and set up factories here get a
break. The money going to crazy bonuses and celeb pitches could be better
used providing incentives to workers.
I know tip of the iceberg but we start somewhere that is what is called at the beginning.
In addition we stop these damn trade deals that weaken the status of our own citizens.
The time has come to look after us first that is not entitlement it is common sense.
When all this started the line was it would provide a new world order it has it is destroying
the middle class. There are other things to do here as well but first things first

 

[captain morgan]

You must be talking to yourself again because I don't have a consumption problem.

My only 'consumption problem' is that there isn't enough

But we can all agree that consumption is what acts as evidence for entitlement, so whoever advocates for needlessly extracting resources must feel the most entitled.

How myopic of you.

Consumption is evidence of demand and more often than not, that demand is fueled by need long before entitlement.

But, then again, for guys like you that feel that life owes you a living, it's no surprise that you confuse this most basic of tenets

Those are the people on your side of the fence, by the way.

Considering the above reality, you might want to rethink you Us vs Them stance

 

[taxslave]

Many of our problems are a direct result of government intervention in the work place. There are a multitude of areas where this happens to our detriment. First we have multiple overlaping jurisdictions which lead to turf wars where money bets squandered in the bureaucracy but little is accomplished. Education, being a provincial jurisdiction does not lend itself to changes in employment trends. Even at higher levels there is a mishmash of rules and old boys clubs that inhibit mobility. An easy example is a doctor trained in BC not being able to go to Ontario without writing another exam there. Same goes with trades outside of interprovincial TQs.