Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

[George Wallace]

If this were expected of everybody on the forum, there would be a LOT of posts that would have to be reexamined. 

I suppose, but Nemo888 seems so greatly informed as to why we have migrants taking jobs away from Canadians, I would like to see the references to where the Government has legislated that foreign labourers can work here for basically nothing. 

Nemo888 has focused on one sector and neglected all others.  Alberta has been offering jobs in all sectors for several years now, that Canadians have not been willing to fill.  There are serious shortages of labour in the Food Services industry in Alberta.  Jobs in Alberta restaurants are offering wages above minimum wage and still not enough applicants are filling them.  That is only one sector.  What of the rest?

Canadians, like many Europeans, have been spoiled.  They figure that they should have high wages, but have little personal insentive to actually work for it.

With his profound insight to this matter, through his commentary, I am sure Nemo888 has sources to back up his theories.

 

[a_majoor]

This has been examined in a number of threads (feel free to research), and I have posted several relevant articles from the National Post over the past few weeks on such topics as EI reform (where it has been discovered that Canadian workers are not going to fill jobs in their categories, while immigrant labour is being called upon to "fill the holes"), and the counterproductive supply management system, which refuses to allow a new value added yogurt company to establish itself in Ontario and buy milk, while at the same time forcing farmers to accept much less money selling the milk for animal feed.

Back when the protests against the Wheat Board were in full gear (yes, farmers were going to jail by taking their own wheat across the border to their own properties in the US to make the point), it was noted multiple times that the Wheat board was forcing farmers to accept below market prices since they were the only legal place to sell wheat. Many farmers were also switching to crops that were not under wheat board jurisdiction in order to escape.

So Nemo; historical evidence does not seem to be on your side. Things are tough, but making an emotional response that "life isn't fair" is really only a step or two away from the "occupy" movement, the Quebec "student" protests and the economic policy of the NDP. We already know life isn't fair, we need to understand how people respond to incentives and "incentivize" them to maximize their potential. Luckily there is a well known means to do so: the free market economy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>politicians took on too much debt

You misspelled "voters".  If voters had reliably and resolutely punished deficit spenders at the polls for the past 40+ years, we would not be in this situation.

I hope Europe stays European, too.  I think it is better to have differences between continents, cultures, and provinces.  I deplore the exodus of big welfare spenders from places they have ruined (eg. California) to places they have not ruined.  People who like to be looked after can move to Quebec or the Maritimes, or France or Greece.  People who imagine themselves to be rugged individualists can move to Alberta, or the US.  And it is always helpful to have some horrible warnings around.

Deficit spending is merely the spending of your future income.  Eventually the future becomes the present, and you have to pay for things you have already consumed.  When too many people do that at the same time, collective demand drops because everyone is spending less now in order to pay past debts.  Having government step in and acquire more debt on your behalf in order to "stimulate" economic activity above its natural level (ie. we can't spend 110% of income forever) just moves the problem a few years down the road (and increases the cost, assuming interest charges will be honoured) and is insane.

The Greeks are not to be pitied.  They are merely paying the price of what they already consumed.  They had it pretty good, so by comparison they might find it a little tight for a while.  Still, their per capita PPP is something over three times that of their neighbour, Albania.  Since no-one is calling for grants to Albania, it is OK to allow Greece to slip back at least that far.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:

Spot on, Brad; you are exactly right.

 

[Nemo888]

>politicians took on too much debt

You misspelled "voters".  If voters had reliably and resolutely punished deficit spenders at the polls for the past 40+ years, we would not be in this situation.

Deficit spending is merely the spending of your future income.  Eventually the future becomes the present, and you have to pay for things you have already consumed. 

The annoying part is that the next two generations will foot the bill. Not the people who ran up the debt. The ones who spent all that dosh have no qualms protecting their gold plated pensions at the cost of destroying their children's future.

Their pension funds gave us globalization and the destruction of manufacturing.  The previous generation gave them almost free education, amazing infrastructure and tons of career opportunities. They were so greedy they even rescinded mandatory retirement AFTER all their parents retired.  The generation that gave them so much were forced to retire so they could have job opportunities.

The fair thing is to slash existing pensions and stop cutting infrastructure and education. But we are doing the opposite to appease the greediest generation in history. They will suck us all dry for a comfy retirement full of vacations and leisure. Unlike their parents who left them huge inheritances they will leave little or nothing for the next generation.

I wish the baby boomers were more like the greatest generation. They really were the greatest generation. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No. They don't take them because the farm owner will not pay a fair wage. The farmer can't afford it because the middle man pays him in pennies while charging retailers dollars for produce.  The middle man needs to take less windfall profits and pay the farmer a fairer price so he can pay a decent wage. Instead government stepped in and allowed third world temp workers to come and do the work for almost nothing. Government meddling with market forces for the benefit of a few cronies. At least with the milk and wheat boards farmers got a fair price and didn't need third world labour to make ends meet.

You don't know what you're talking about. I deal with these guys daily.

The growers here sell directly to the retailer, there is no middle man.

I can buy the same tomatoes for less from the retailer than I can from the roadside outlet run by the green house that supplies those tomatoes to the retailer.

Migrant workers in the greenhouses make above minimum wage. How much above depends on their job and station. They also make enough to live here while working and send the majority of their wage home.

Come back when you can look beyond your communist ideals and provide some truth in your arguements.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The annoying part is that the next two generations will foot the bill. Not the people who ran up the debt. The ones who spent all that dosh have no qualms protecting their gold plated pensions at the cost of destroying their children's future.

Their pension funds gave us globalization and the destruction of manufacturing.  The previous generation gave them almost free education, amazing infrastructure and tons of career opportunities. They were so greedy they even rescinded mandatory retirement AFTER all their parents retired.  The generation that gave them so much were forced to retire so they could have job opportunities.

The fair thing is to slash existing pensions and stop cutting infrastructure and education. But we are doing the opposite to appease the greediest generation in history. They will suck us all dry for a comfy retirement full of vacations and leisure. Unlike their parents who left them huge inheritances they will leave little or nothing for the next generation.

I wish the baby boomers were more like the greatest generation. They really were the greatest generation. 

:bullshit:

I would remind you that it was, principally, the "greatest generation" that gave us Pierre Trudeau and the "culture of entitlement" for their kids, the boomers. The boomers, 20-somethings in the 1960s, voted in the same proportion that 20-somethings always vote: not many and not often. The "greatest generation" was scarred by the Great Depression, not war. It was the "greatest generation" that feared free markets more than the Soviet Union and voted, again and again, for cuts to defence spending and the steady, unrestrained growth of the welfare state. In the 1980s the "boomers" began to vote in large numbers: they elected Mulroney, then Chrétien because both promised to get deficits under control. (Both delivered: Mulroney balanced the "operating" budget (we took in more in revenue that we spent on programmes; the entire deficit was used to pay the interest on he national debt - Trudeau's legacy) and Chrétien slew the deficit dragon.) It is, largely, boomers who elect Stephen Harper.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nemo - I seldom agree with much of what you say, and that includes your take on income distribution.  Recceguy, Brad and ERC have my full support in that regard.

However, your comment about the Baby Boomers, the generation to which I nominally belong, has much to commend in it.  That seems to set me adrift from ERC at least.

ERC:

You're right about Trudeau's antecedents - and he too was one of the "Greatest Generation" - just proving the inadequacy of statistics - but I do find the Baby Boomers to be a special case in that they proclaim both individualism and socialism. 

The really fascinating aspect of the Che Guevara set, the anti-establishment set, the Haight-Ashbury set, is the peculiar dichotomy that allows them to espouse Socialization in the public square while adhering to their fundamental credo, loudly and vociferously proclaimed during the 60's in rebellion against those same people you now praise: "Do your own thing".  Handshakes, civility and good manners were all signs of hypocrisy.  Crude, loud, vulgar and generally obnoxious displays as people "let it all hang out" and "turned on, tuned in and dropped out"  were praised.

If ever there was a libertarian generation, there it is.  Tom Wolfe's "Me Generation" is truly worthy of the epithet.

Nemo has a point.  Perhaps overstated as usual.  But he has a point.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nemo - I seldom agree with much of what you say, and that includes your take on income distribution.  Recceguy, Brad and ERC have my full support in that regard.

However, your comment about the Baby Boomers, the generation to which I nominally belong, has much to commend in it.  That seems to set me adrift from ERC at least.

ERC:

You're right about Trudeau's antecedents - and he too was one of the "Greatest Generation" - just proving the inadequacy of statistics - but I do find the Baby Boomers to be a special case in that they proclaim both individualism and socialism. 

The really fascinating aspect of the Che Guevara set, the anti-establishment set, the Haight-Ashbury set, is the peculiar dichotomy that allows them to espouse Socialization in the public square while adhering to their fundamental credo, loudly and vociferously proclaimed during the 60's in rebellion against those same people you now praise: "Do your own thing".  Handshakes, civility and good manners were all signs of hypocrisy.  Crude, loud, vulgar and generally obnoxious displays as people "let it all hang out" and "turned on, tuned in and dropped out"  were praised.

If ever there was a libertarian generation, there it is.  Tom Wolfe's "Me Generation" is truly worthy of the epithet.

Nemo has a point.  Perhaps overstated as usual.  But he has a point.

No he doesn't, nor do you. The "boomers" may have been, maybe still are hypocritical but they neither asked for nor voted for the "culture of entitlement;" their parents, the "greatest generation" did that, for the reason I stated: the Great Depression was  a much more 'defining' experience for most Canadians than was World War II. When confronted with economic realities, in the early 1980s, as they entered real voting age (rather than the legal one), they voted for fiscal conservatism, even as they remained committed to social liberalism. They ... you, actually ... the boomers, were/are indeed  "crude, loud, vulgar and generally obnoxious," and they are the most "libertarian generation" yet, and they preach fiscal responsibility while feeling "entitled to their entitlements." But that just makes them:

1. Human; and

2. Not to blame for Trudeau's horrible legacy - that blame lies with the "greatest generation."

 

[Sythen]

No he doesn't, nor do you.

I might be wrong, but I think Kurkhill meant Nemo had a point about the Me Generation.. Basically the "Occupy" and Montreal student protester generation. At least that's how I read it.. And also, ERC, you had a double post earlier

 

[Edward Campbell]

I might be wrong, but I think Kurkhill meant Nemo had a point about the Me Generation.. Basically the "Occupy" and Montreal student protester generation. At least that's how I read it.. And also, ERC, you had a double post earlier

Thanks, double post removed. I plead old age and tired eyes.

My argument with Kirkhill is when he said that Nemo88's "comment about the Baby Boomers, the generation to which I nominally belong, has much to commend in it." I disagree.

 

[bridges]

If we all have the same counter productive but personally enriching rules we can have a decent lifestyle. No 70 hour work weeks, mat/pat leave, ample vacation to enjoy family and friends, sick days, no child labour and all the other things that were common practices before the evil spectre of socialism infected Europe. Changing the fundamentals of the social contract because politicians took on too much debt and punishing the following generations does not sound fair to me. Slash pensions on those who created the problem.

Or we could rush to the bottom to compete with defacto slave labour in Asia until we have no middle class left.  Eventually people in that hyper captialist system judge all their relationships by profitability. Welcome to Toronto. Better off moving to a small town up North where people are poor but at least they are not all jerks yet.  Where the entire town shuts down for hunting season and no one ever goes hungry at Christmas. A place where people don't judge people primarily by money.

I hope Europe stays European. Eating great food, friends, family and siestas are better than the rat race I am in.  Why would you hope that they have it as crappy as us?  Maybe we should become more like them.

I agree with Nemo888 on a couple of points he/she made, by my reading at least.  These things simply have to do with a different underlying philosophy:

-One of the dangers of capitalism is that everything is judged solely on financial profitability, and a lot of people's prospects and QOL seem to be diminished as a result.  I'd personally rather have a more balanced system where the public good remains a factor - not only "incentivizing" people to maximize their potential, as someone else said.  As if the only reason everyone isn't rich were that they simply aren't ambitious enough.

-Instead of "racing to the bottom" and casting aside the benefits like pension and vacation time that so many in our society don't even have yet (although I suspect many on this forum do), why don't we bring the bottom up? 

 

[GAP]

The difficulty is the application of "bringing the bottom up"................

Many assume that this means you take from the top and give to the bottom.

You have just taught the bottom that no more effort need be expended except to hold out their hands.

If you want to provide the opportunities, training and incentive to move the bottom up, that might be feasible, but in the process the message must get across that they are not entitled to it, they must work for it.

 

[bridges]

The difficulty is the application of "bringing the bottom up"................

Many assume that this means you take from the top and give to the bottom.

You have just taught the bottom that no more effort need be expended except to hold out their hands.

If you want to provide the opportunities, training and incentive to move the bottom up, that might be feasible, but in the process the message must get across that they are not entitled to it, they must work for it.

Again, perpetuating the view that the only reason some people don't have pensions, adequate vacations or a living wage is that they're simply not working hard enough.  That strains credulity, to say the least. 

 

[Sythen]

As if the only reason everyone isn't rich were that they simply aren't ambitious enough.

Why should everyone be rich? In reality, there is only so much capital out there to be earned. There isn't enough for everyone to be Bill Gates.

-Instead of "racing to the bottom" and casting aside the benefits like pension and vacation time that so many in our society don't even have yet (although I suspect many on this forum do), why don't we bring the bottom up?

I think (and I might be wrong) that companies are required by law to provide vacation pay? Heck, even when I was a kid and worked at McDonald's we got vacation, so not really sure what you mean there. Pensions, that's another story.

Bring the bottom up at the expense of who? I don't make a ton of money.. Heck, I'm a Commissionaire making less than $15/hour. But I have a nice apartment near downtown Ottawa, a nice car and enough money to enjoy myself within reason. I could go crazy and go to the casino or peelers every week end, but instead I invest in my RRSP's, etc so I am basically paying for my own pension now. I would NOT want others to pay for my recreation, because if given more money right now, that is exactly where it would go.. Some choose to spend theirs on recreation instead of investing and then complain when they don't have enough when they reach retirement age.

Now there are people who slip through the cracks, and get messed over by chance or circumstance, and that sucks for them.. But they are not my responsibility. When I eventually get married and have kids, then my money will go to ensuring their futures and health, not towards someone I don't know.

 

[bridges]

Why should everyone be rich? In reality, there is only so much capital out there to be earned. There isn't enough for everyone to be Bill Gates.

I misspoke there - what I meant was, having enough money to live on. 

I think (and I might be wrong) that companies are required by law to provide vacation pay? Heck, even when I was a kid and worked at McDonald's we got vacation, so not really sure what you mean there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the minimum for a F/T employee is 10 days a year - not very much if you think about it, especially if you're accustomed to having three times that.  And the more companies reduce their salaried positions in favour of terms and contracts, the more people don't have any paid vacation at all, or other spiffy benefits like drug plans, dental care & eyeglasses.

Bring the bottom up at the expense of who? I don't make a ton of money.. Heck, I'm a Commissionaire making less than $15/hour. But I have a nice apartment near downtown Ottawa, a nice car and enough money to enjoy myself within reason. I could go crazy and go to the casino or peelers every week end, but instead I invest in my RRSP's, etc so I am basically paying for my own pension now. I would NOT want others to pay for my recreation, because if given more money right now, that is exactly where it would go.. Some choose to spend theirs on recreation instead of investing and then complain when they don't have enough when they reach retirement age.

Not sure where the part about others paying for your recreation came from.  I don't think anyone but YOU should pay for your recreation.  :nod:  If you've worked as a Commissionaire your whole life (as opposed to being, say, ex-military), congratulations to you for saving your pennies.  Either way, what I'm talking about is all the people working at McJobs or intermittent contracts or not working at all, because of layoffs and other circumstances beyond their control ... we may say they should work hard and rise above it, but then so many of us patronize the Tim Hortons of the world, imagine the hue and cry if there were nobody to hand us our double-double in the morning. 

Now there are people who slip through the cracks, and get messed over by chance or circumstance, and that sucks for them.. But they are not my responsibility. When I eventually get married and have kids, then my money will go to ensuring their futures and health, not towards someone I don't know.

That's the difference between our philosophies (yellow colour added by me).  I think there must be a way to take care of each other in the greater sense to a certain basic extent, including people I don't know, and still prosper as a society.  That may sound idealistic to some ... & yep, that's the whole point.  :nod:

 

[GAP]

  I think there must be a way to take care of each other in the greater sense to a certain basic extent, including people I don't know, and still prosper as a society.  That may sound idealistic to some ... & yep, that's the whole point. 

Ah....the social safety net that keeps getting stronger and stronger until it is strangling society with it's demands and costs.

Medicare was a great program when it came in. It guaranteed everyone BASIC health care. Then they added more services, then more still until today it consumes 40+ % of provincial budgets, and is comprised on entitled little empires fighting among each other for more and more recognition/budget/etc. .

Welfare rolls are comprised of a good percentage (not sure of #) of generational recipients. The rules for denying welfare are so convoluted and getting more so, all in the name of no one being left behind.

We are not our brother's keeper. We should help the needy, not the lazy and greedy.

 

[Sythen]

I misspoke there - what I meant was, having enough money to live on. 

Minimum wage is enough to live on. Just not very comfortably. You might see it as patronizing, but if you are a hard worker then you don't work for minimum wage unless you're just entering the work force. Everyone starts at the bottom.

Unless I'm mistaken, the minimum for a F/T employee is 10 days a year - not very much if you think about it, especially if you're accustomed to having three times that.  And the more companies reduce their salaried positions in favour of terms and contracts, the more people don't have any paid vacation at all, or other spiffy benefits like drug plans, dental care & eyeglasses.

If you have 30 paid vacation days a year, then you're a government employee and I fully support cutting that back as its excessive in my eyes. No private sector job would give even close to that. 10 days paid vacation is fine. Its what I currently get, and when you take in to account all the stat days you get off, then it adds up to a lot more. If you don't get the benefits from your work, pay into an insurance plan then. Again, you are not my responsibility. You want my taxes, and as I already said I don't make a lot to begin with, to pay for your care so you can spend your own money on recreation (and I use this term loosely, I include anything that isn't a necessity, including internet connections, new cell phones, etc..) If you can't afford these things, there are many government funded groups that will help you write up a budget. As the old saying goes, poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

If you've worked as a Commissionaire your whole life (as opposed to being, say, ex-military), congratulations to you for saving your pennies.  Either way, what I'm talking about is all the people working at McJobs or intermittent contracts or not working at all, because of layoffs and other circumstances beyond their control ... we may say they should work hard and rise above it, but then so many of us patronize the Tim Hortons of the world, imagine the hue and cry if there were nobody to hand us our double-double in the morning.

As I said earlier, unless you're just starting out or have made major mistakes in your life, you are not working for minimum wage if you're a hard worker. If there was a huge demand for people to serve us our coffee in the morning, the job would pay a lot more. Its called the free market. If no one was willing to work the job, they'd need to offer more money to lure people to the positions, which would in the end make coffee more expensive. But let's face it, even if coffee costed $4 for a large, people would still be lined up to get them.

That's the difference between our philosophies (yellow colour added by me).  I think there must be a way to take care of each other in the greater sense to a certain basic extent, including people I don't know, and still prosper as a society.  That may sound idealistic to some ... & yep, that's the whole point.  :nod:

We do take care of each other in the greater sense. I fully support my taxes paying for good roads and infrastructure, a well funded police and fire departments and a fully operational armed forces. That way, you are reasonably safe, have the ability to travel to work and don't need to really worry about war coming to Canada. Everything you do within that blanket of security that is provided is your choice. Sometimes people get lucky and catch a great break and rise really far.. But most people get to where they are by how much effort they put in.

EDIT: Forgot to add free basic education to my list, which means everyone starts out on equal footing, more or less.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If you have 30 paid vacation days a year, then you're a government employee and I fully support cutting that back as its excessive in my eyes. No private sector job would give even close to that. 10 days paid vacation is fine.

I have a friend who has worked at the same Tim Horton's for a little over 15 years now and she gets 30 days paid vacation while I, as one of those evil Govt. employees, get 25 after doing this job for over 23 years.

Just like some of the other folks on this site who think Govt. employee's are the root of all evil,..you are sadly mistaken and full of ..........................stuff.

 

[Sythen]

I have a friend who has worked at the same Tim Horton's for a little over 15 years now and she gets 30 days paid vacation while I, as one of those evil Govt. employees, get 25 after doing this job for over 23 years.

Just like some of the other folks on this site who think Govt. employee's are the root of all evil,..you are sadly mistaken and full of ..........................stuff.

Unless your friend is upper management, I'm gonna call BS on this. I know people who have worked at Tim Hortons for several years (like 5 or 6) who were getting 10, the same as most McJobs, as they're called. When I worked at McDonald's, I was a supervisor. I still only got 15.