Act Acting » Acting Jobs » Modern Marriage design

Modern Marriage design

Question:

However, investors are more likely to invest where taxes are lower and profits are higher. Harris also has removed a lot of the unnecessary red tape that was keeping new companies from moving to Ontario This is an old bomide that leaves out too much to be fully plausable. What does it leave out, I hear you ask ? Actually, I didn’t.

So, you only wanted to know a convenient fiction ? I didn’t think that. Thing of it is that if they can produce it cheaper in the states, they will. Under the libs and the NDiPer the regulations were becoming so unfriendly to business that they were not only not coming to Ontario, but many left. Yeah, like Texas, where they’re sooo " friendly " to business, that Houston has the worst pollution in the US, having beaten out LA. There is a difference between being friendly and getting in bed with business.

Yes, there is. The absolute worst that business has had to face in the last thirty years from *any* government in North America is " friendly ". The Reagan, Bush, and Mulroney administrations *were* in bed with business. The present Liberals, and the provincial Tories are, too. Its just that Cretien has managed to not quite *look* as in bed as Mulroney did, and that contrast makes many people think that hes not. What you call " unfriendly " to business, many would more accurately describe as making business pay it’s fair share. You know that business’ share of the tax bills of the nation have fallen by some circa 70 % in the last thirty years ? Nowadays, even *slowing* that slide is called being " unfriendly " to business. Wheras, Harris is just " unfriendly " to everyone else… I think losing the number of jobs that could leave would be a lot more unfriendly to our tax base.

Since the share of the tax burden that businesses, especially the larger ones, are carrying has consistantly gotten smaller and smaller, and, on top of that, many of them *take* money from the gov’t purses, I don’t think that that is as powerful a " threat " as it used to be. Plus, we *used to* have the perfect mechanism that would prevent that from happening. Tariffs. If a firm wanted to sell in our market, either they would have to come here, and build a factory, or, their imported goods would have a tariff placed on them, so that our national economy would still gain from their coming in. That was a way to say that " if you don’t invest here, but only want to mine money from us, we will charge you for that privilige ". Then, Mulroney, et al, as an act of bed time with business, *gave* away that societal ability. And, we even said NO to it. More voted against FTA in ‘88, then voted for it, I’ll remind you. Right, and that didn’t make hardly any difference, in of itself. Ontario benefitted from the trends of the continent, those that are beyond the influence of even our Feds. We’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

Read some of the books that I have about globalisation. ‘Cause Harris and Martin don’t have a problem with that going on. Shouldn’t the either be Harris and Chretien or Epps and Martin??

Could be. Whos Epps, again ? What we would lose is small corner stores, which are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as it is. And, the wage laws have zilch to do with that. The real causes of that can be found at Loblaws, WalMarts, and the rest of the big box stores. Hell, they’ve even taken down Eatons, and Simpsons. The wage laws would have an effect. If the wages get too high the owners have to raise the prices to compensate and people don’t go to them at all, thus a couple less jobs here, a few less there and it all adds up.

Joe, if the customers are going to the big stores, for all the reasons and more that I described, you could give the small stores slaves and they still won’t be able to make much, if any, of a go at it. And, that method was formally eliminated in most of the civilised world in the 1830’s… Though, it still goes on, even now, as business must have what it wants… To try to blame min wage laws for that change in shopping habits is wrong. Maybe, but they could drive the prices at corner stores to the point that even being close an open late would not get people to do the already limited shopping they do there now.

As I said… If the only way that any business can make a go of it is to pay it’s workers a substandard wage, then it doesn’t deserve to exist. That goes for Nike using near slaves in the third world, too. Read " No Logo ". None of that is about wages. Both types of stores have to pay the same base wage, of course. Maybe, but a larger store would be able to absorb the increase better than a smaller one. Face it if World’s biggest had to cut staff by one person per shift it wouldn’t really hurt too much, if Bakka had to cut staff by one person per shift it might just have to close some of the time.

Yeah, but why is that the fault of the under paid employee ? On the same level, ought we push for Bakka to get to pay a lower price for their stock in trade, books, then World’s Biggest, for the same reasons ? Would the distributors go for that ? Of course not ! So, why ought an employee ? After all, both are selling what they have to sell, the distributor, books, and the employee, their time. Come on, no ones suggested that the Premier gets minimum wage. But, for what he gets paid, I’d do it. So would a lot of others. If Harris took the job, *knowing* what it paid, it’s wrong of him to try to sneak in a pile more of *our* money, on his own whim. If you don’t like it lobby for a change in the law that allows the MPPs, MLAs and MPs to set their own salary.

It’ll be an " even playing field " when they have to do the same thing, in order to get such a raise. Since they don’t have to do that, we can see that we’re not dealing with an equitable situation while dealing with our erstwhile " employees ". Say… since they work for a *small* government ( both, by their own wish, and compared to most nations ), they ought to accept a lower wage for the *same* reasons that you said the staff at Bakka ought to… Nope. By all means, let him " lobby ". Lets have a referendum on the question. I’d be cool with that, as that would be his employers ( us all ) voting together on whether to give our employees a raise. Did those aforementioned employers ( all Ontarioans ) *agree* to let him do all that ? I don’t recall being asked. Most of the self same employers know that current legislation allows the Members of the Provincial Parliment to set their own salaries. If you put someone in a job where the pay is theirs to set, you can’t complain too much when they do so.

Yes, however, none of us ever got the chance to veto that clause. Unlike the staff at Bakka… Joseph

Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

However, investors are more likely to invest where taxes are lower and profits are higher. Harris also has removed a lot of the unnecessary red tape that was keeping new companies from moving to Ontario This is an old bomide that leaves out too much to be fully plausable. What does it leave out, I hear you ask ?

Actually, I didn’t. Thing of it is that if they can produce it cheaper in the states, they will. Under the libs and the NDiPer the regulations were becoming so unfriendly to business that they were not only not coming to Ontario, but many left. Yeah, like Texas, where they’re sooo " friendly " to business, that Houston has the wrost pollution in the Us, having beaten out LA.

There is a difference between being friendly and getting in bed with business. What you call " unfriendly " to business, many would more accurately describe as making business pay it’s fair share. You know that business’ share of the tax bills of the nation have fallen by some circa 70 % in the last thirty years ? Nowadays, even *slowing* that slide is called being " unfriendly " to business. Wheras, Harris is just " unfriendly " to everyone else…

I think losing the number of jobs that could leave would be a lot more unfriendly to our tax base Right, and that didn’t make hardly any difference, in of itself. Ontario benefitted from the trends of the continent, those that are beyond the influence of even our Feds.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. ‘Cause Harris and Martin don’t have a problem with that going on.

Shouldn’t the either be Harris and Chretien or Epps and Martin?? What we would lose is small corner stores, which are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as it is. And, the wage laws have zilch to do with that. The real causes of that can be found at Loblaws, WalMarts, and the rest of the big box stores. Hell, they’ve even taken down Eatons, and Simpsons.

The wage laws would have an effect. If the wages get too high the owners have to raise the prices to compensate and people don’t go to them at all, thus a couple less jobs here, a few less there and it all adds up. To try to blame min wage laws for that change in shopping habits is wrong.

Maybe, but they could drive the prices at corner stores to the point that even being close an open late would not get people to do the already limited shopping they do there now. None of that is about wages. Both types of stores have to pay the same base wage, of course.

Maybe, but a larger store would be able to absorb the increase better than a smaller one. Face it if World’s biggest had to cut staff by one person per shift it wouldn’t really hurt too much, if Bakka had to cut staff by one person per shift it might just have to close some of the time. Come on, no ones suggested that the Premier gets minimum wage. But, for what he gets paid, I’d do it. So would a lot of others. If Harris took the job, *knowing* what it paid, it’s wrong of him to try to sneak in a pile more of *our* money, on his own whim.

If you don’t like it lobby for a change in the law that allows the MPPs, MLAs and MPs to set their own salary. Nope. By all means, let him " lobby ". Lets have a referendum on the question. I’d be cool with that, as that would be his employers ( us all ) voting together on whether to give our employees a raise. Did those aforementioned employers ( all Ontarioans ) *agree* to let him do all that ? I don’t recall being asked.

Most of the selfsame employers know that current legislation allows the Members of the Provincial Parliment to set their own salaries. If you put someone in a job where the pay is theirs to set, you can’t complain too much when they do so. Joseph —                         ILLEGITIMI                             NON                         CARBORUNDUM

Response:

On the other hand, some market analysts belive that the advent of the Harris government renewed investor confidence enough to bring up the market. And as things got better so did the market. That might have had a very miniscule effect, but since we now live in a more globalised economic market, even effects that are limited to North America tend to have relatively small effects. However, investors are more likely to invest where taxes are lower and profits are higher. Harris also has removed a lot of the unnecessary red tape that was keeping new companies from moving to Ontario

This is an old bomide that leaves out too much to be fully plausable. What does it leave out, I hear you ask ? *Productivity*, thats what. If a region has good productivity, then a firm will deal with more of the other stuff, in order to get it. Otherwise, *everybody* would be moving *all* their facilities off shore, where the wages are two bucks a *day*. The most important cause of our 990’s prosperity has been that the US has been doing at least as well, and we trade more with them then we do with the rest of the world ( and, likewise ). Thing of it is that if they can produce it cheaper in the states, they will. Under the libs and the NDiPer the regulations were becoming so unfriendly to business that they were not only not coming to Ontario, but many left.

Yeah, like Texas, where they’re sooo " friendly " to business, that Houston has the wrost pollution in the Us, having beaten out LA. What you call " unfriendly " to business, many would more accurately describe as making business pay it’s fair share. You know that business’ share of the tax bills of the nation have fallen by some circa 70 % in the last thirty years ? Nowadays, even *slowing* that slide is called being " unfriendly " to business. Wheras, Harris is just " unfriendly " to everyone else… The lowest level at which even Canadian economic policy made a serious difference at, was the combined effects of an eliminated deficit, and a stable interest rate, which where it has been for the last four years, at *under* the US prime, which is a historical anamoly, and is in part responsible for the relative fall of the Cdn $$ to the US one, so, even what the largets province did wasn’t of much importance to the growth of the economy. Not so much the federal economy, it’s the local economy that Harris has effected

Right, and that didn’t make hardly any difference, in of itself. Ontario benefitted from the trends of the continent, those that are beyond the influence of even our Feds. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ontario profited by being where it is, and by being a heavily industrial, and post industrial economy. The rest then happened *to* us, not so much *by* us. Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*. Never understood that myself, then again I believe that most senior bank managers should be shot. Oh, it’s not the banks, as much as we love ‘em ( ugh, gag ! ) that are ersponsible for that effect. Rather, it’s the holders of all that money who drive the markets. My complaint about the banks is the amount of service they have cut, the large number of jobs they have cut and the insane service charges they have instituted,

True, and I heartily agree. But, none of that is that bad for the *economy*, as a whole. The banks are just acting as big business does, when faced with a climate that lets them all but rape the economy. The real question is, why aren’t we stopping them from doing all of that ? ‘Cause Harris and Martin don’t have a problem with that going on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And, minimum wages are a joke, too. If we wanted to make a proper minimum wage regulation, it would be based on the poverty lines that our governing bodies figure out. As most folks making minimum are living *below* that line. Which is wrong. As is blaming them for that being the case, too. The only problem is that, if they went with the $9+ minimum wage that has been suggested many small businesses would end up closing this throwing the people that it was intended to help out of work. You know, the same thing was said of the end of slavery, child labour, the 80 hour working week, and so on. Much of thats not true, and for the rest, so what ? If the work really needs to be done, a way will be found for it to be done at the higher wages. If it won’t, then thats the market telling us all that the work isn’t important, and we will do without it. What we would lose is small corner stores, which are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as it is.

And, the wage laws have zilch to do with that. The real causes of that can be found at Loblaws, WalMarts, and the rest of the big box stores. Hell, they’ve even taken down Eatons, and Simpsons. The market is, and has, changed. Most folks don’t do a lot of shopping at the smaller stores, ’cause they see the ads, and go to the huge stores, and they like the choices that they are offered there, choices that cannot all be offered to them at a corner store. To try to blame min wage laws for that change in shopping habits is wrong. And smaller businesses such as non chain book stores. We had three in Ottawa and now have one. MTL has lost their biggest and best, Toronto is on the verge of losing their best.

Again, granted. But again, all of that stems from folks appreciating what the large book stores offer. I was happy when Chapters started up, as I had been doing a lot of such shopping when in the US at Barnes & Nobles, and Borders ( which, when I’m there, I still do ). Chapters offers up services and capabilities that the small stores *cannot* match. The other side of this question is, that when a whole new sector of a market opens up, one can always figure that some of the business that they get is going to be lost to another sector. Chapters’ opening did not presage a stiuation where all of their sales was going to come from *new* readers, with all the old ones still buying at the small stores. This is called " a free market ". In one, you come up with an idea that the buying public likes *more*, and you will make money, while those who are still using the idea that the public now likes *less*, won’t. In their place we are getting box stores with people who don’t know Heinlein from Harrison, Asimov from Zelazney or McCaffrey from McDonald.

Again, if the community that buys Heinlein, et al., votes with their feet and their bucks, what is the alternative ? No industry is guaranteed that it will always find sufficient favour from those who buy, or used to buy, their wares. None of that is about wages. Both types of stores have to pay the same base wage, of course. Nowadays, few buy buggy whipe, even at bargain basement prices… ( we’ll leave out the kink crowd… ) What’s a buffy whipe?

A buggy whip that goes " eeee ! ", of course… <g – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, what did you think of Harris trying to sneak in a 20+% raise for him and the boys ? Seems that self reliance is his value… for *other* people, of course. I think it is a lot lower that the 46%-60% suggested by the arbitraitor and a hell of a lot less than many of them could be making in the private sector. Then, let him *go* there and make that money. There’s never a lack of candidates for the job of Premier, so its not that he’s fiscally irreplaceable. And who would you get to run the govenment, some guy who will work for minimum wage?? If you want educated, effective, experienced people you have to pay them at least a decent percentage for what they could get elsewhere.

Come on, no ones suggested that the Premier gets minimum wage. But, for what he gets paid, I’d do it. So would a lot of others. If Harris took the job, *knowing* what it paid, it’s wrong of him to try to sneak in a pile more of *our* money, on his own whim. He knew what he’d make, before he ran for the job. If it’s not fair to boost minimum wagers, ’cause they knew what the wage was, then the same thing goes for the politicos. So, he shouldn’t lobby for a raise? That’s just daft.

Nope. By all means, let him " lobby ". Lets have a referendum on the question. I’d be cool with that, as that would be his employers ( us all ) voting together on whether to give our employees a raise. And, if he then thought that we weren’t being fair, he could… *go on strike* ! <bg He is being self reliant, he’s relying on himself to vote in his pay raise. So, let him give others the same deal… I’ll believe the supposed outrage of the opposition when and if they refuse the extra money. Let them be self reliant and get a job where they can set their own hours and wages like he did.

Did those aforementioned employers ( all Ontarioans ) *agree* to let him do all that ? I don’t recall being asked. Doesn’t matter to me. My outgares are my own… <g What are outgares??

Fast typing, coupled with no spell checker. That was, outrages, of course… Joseph

Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Actually I had no idea what a welfare recipient gets… If the figures you post are even close why would anyone bother, part time work would pay better. That said, isn’t there other aid available?

Some people are two lazy to work and some lack the skills to get a decent job. There are others who have simply given up after years of looking. Not that long ago welfare paid almost as much as minimum, then Mike Harris reduced the amount paid out and since then thousands have left the welfare roles to find work. Joseph —                         ILLEGITIMI                             NON                         CARBORUNDUM

Response:

On the other hand, some market analysts belive that the advent of the Harris government renewed investor confidence enough to bring up the market. And as things got better so did the market. That might have had a very miniscule effect, but since we now live in a more globalised economic market, even effects that are limited to North America tend to have relatively small effects.

However, investors are more likely to invest where taxes are lower and profits are higher. Harris also has removed a lot of the unnecessary red tape that was keeping new companies from moving to Ontario The most important cause of our 990’s prosperity has been that the US has been doing at least as well, and we trade more with them then we do with the rest of the world ( and, likewise ).

Thing of it is that if they can produce it cheaper in the states, they will. Under the libs and the NDiPer the regulations were becoming so unfriendly to business that they were not only not coming to Ontario, but many left. The lowest level at which even Canadian economic policy made a serious difference at, was the combined effects of an eliminated deficit, and a stable interest rate, which where it has been for the last four years, at *under* the US prime, which is a historical anamoly, and is in part responsible for the relative fall of the Cdn $$ to the US one, so, even what the largets province did wasn’t of much importance to the growth of the economy.

Not so much the federal economy, it’s the local economy that Harris has effected – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ontario profited by being where it is, and by being a heavily industrial, and post industrial economy. The rest then happened *to* us, not so much *by* us. Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*. Never understood that myself, then again I believe that most senior bank managers should be shot. Oh, it’s not the banks, as much as we love ‘em ( ugh, gag ! ) that are ersponsible for that effect. Rather, it’s the holders of all that money who drive the markets.

My complaint about the banks is the amount of service they have cut, the large number of jobs they have cut and the insane service charges they have instituted, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And, minimum wages are a joke, too. If we wanted to make a proper minimum wage regulation, it would be based on the poverty lines that our governing bodies figure out. As most folks making minimum are living *below* that line. Which is wrong. As is blaming them for that being the case, too. The only problem is that, if they went with the $9+ minimum wage that has been suggested many small businesses would end up closing this throwing the people that it was intended to help out of work. You know, the same thing was said of the end of slavery, child labour, the 80 hour working week, and so on. Much of thats not true, and for the rest, so what ? If the work really needs to be done, a way will be found for it to be done at the higher wages. If it won’t, then thats the market telling us all that the work isn’t important, and we will do without it.

What we would lose is small corner stores, which are rapidly becoming a thing of the past as it is. And smaller businesses such as none chain book stores. We had three in Ottawa and now have one. MTL has lost their biggest and best, toronto is on the verge of losing their best. In their place we are getting box stores with people who don’t know Heinlein from Harrison, Asimov from Zelazney or McCaffrey from McDonald. Nowadays, few buy buggy whipe, even at bargain basement prices… ( we’ll leave out the kink crowd… )

What’s a buffy whipe? BTW, what did you think of Harris trying to sneak in a 20+% raise for him and the boys ? Seems that self reliance is his value… for *other* people, of course. I think it is a lot lower that the 46%-60% suggested by the arbitraitor and a hell of a lot less than many of them could be making in the private sector. Then, let him *go* there and make that money. There’s never a lack of candidates for the job of Premier, so its not that he’s fiscally irreplaceable.

And who would you get to run the govenment, some guy who will work for minimum wage?? If you want educated, effective, experienced people you have to pay them at least a decent percentage for what they could get elsewhere. He knew what he’d make, before he ran for the job. If it’s not fair to boost minimum wagers, ’cause they knew what the wage was, then the same thing goes for the politicos.

So, he shouldn’t lobby for a raise? That’s just daft. He is being self reliant, he’s relying on himself to vote in his pay raise. So, let him give others the same deal… I’ll believe the supposed outrage of the opposition when and if they refuse the extra money.

Let them be self reliant and get a job where they can set their own hours and wages like he did. Doesn’t matter to me. My outgares are my own… <g

What are outgares?? Joseph —                         ILLEGITIMI                             NON                         CARBORUNDUM

Response:

     <snip Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*. Never understood that myself, then again I believe that most senior bank managers should be shot.

Quite simple, really, …..high UNemployment = low wages = higher profits All the rest is just smoke and mirrors. —   CJ da Yooper icq #96138398 "…..you can always tell when you’re in God’s country,…all the trees point to Him"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Actually I had no idea what a welfare recipient gets… If the figures you post are even close why would anyone bother, part time work would pay better. That said, isn’t there other aid available? Some people are two lazy to work and some lack the skills to get a decent job. There are others who have simply given up after years of looking. Not that long ago welfare paid almost as much as minimum, then Mike Harris reduced the amount paid out and since then thousands have left the welfare roles to find work. Well, it didn’t hurt that just as he was doing that, that the economy was revving up and actually finally providing some jobs. On the other hand, some market analysts belive that the advent of the Harris government renewed investor confidence enough to bring up the market. And as things got better so did the market.

That might have had a very miniscule effect, but since we now live in a more globalised economic market, even effects that are limited to North America tend to have relatively small effects. The most important cause of our 990’s prosperity has been that the US has been doing at least as well, and we trade more with them then we do with the rest of the world ( and, likewise ). The lowest level at which even Canadian economic policy made a serious difference at, was the combined effects of an eliminated deficit, and a stable interest rate, which where it has been for the last four years, at *under* the US prime, which is a historical anamoly, and is in part responsible for the relative fall of the Cdn $$ to the US one, so, even what the largets province did wasn’t of much importance to the growth of the economy. Ontario profited by being where it is, and by being a heavily industrial, and post industrial economy. The rest then happened *to* us, not so much *by* us. Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*. Never understood that myself, then again I believe that most senior bank managers should be shot.

Oh, it’s not the banks, as much as we love ‘em ( ugh, gag ! ) that are ersponsible for that effect. Rather, it’s the holders of all that money who drive the markets. Consider. If you’re an investor with 20 billion, your first concern is not to *lose* any of the value of that money. But inflation, which tends to come to life in a low unemployment economy, does that. So, capital markets first tend to try to batter down inflation, at nearly all costs. When unemployment is very low, the market expects, and is usually right in that expectation, that wages will go up. Which then means that prices will also go up. When prices head up, a dollar becomes worth a tad less then a dollar. Even if you lose a penny on a dollar, that becomes a whopping great number when applied to 20 billion. The loss on that, from only a penny, would be $200,000,000. So, the market likes price stability, and will reward it, while punishing instability, or even the expectation of instability. And, minimum wages are a joke, too. If we wanted to make a proper minimum wage regulation, it would be based on the poverty lines that our governing bodies figure out. As most folks making minimum are living *below* that line. Which is wrong. As is blaming them for that being the case, too. The only problem is that, if they went with the $9+ minimum wage that has been suggested many small businesses would end up closing this throwing the people that it was intended to help out of work.

You know, the same thing was said of the end of slavery, child labour, the 80 hour working week, and so on. Much of thats not true, and for the rest, so what ? If the work really needs to be done, a way will be found for it to be done at the higher wages. If it won’t, then thats the market telling us all that the work isn’t important, and we will do without it. Nowadays, few buy buggy whipe, even at bargain basement prices… ( we’ll leave out the kink crowd… ) BTW, what did you think of Harris trying to sneak in a 20+% raise for him and the boys ? Seems that self reliance is his value… for *other* people, of course. I think it is a lot lower that the 46%-60% suggested by the arbitraitor and a hell of a lot less than many of them could be making in the private sector.

Then, let him *go* there and make that money. There’s never a lack of candidates for the job of Premier, so its not that he’s fiscally irreplaceable. He knew what he’d make, before he ran for the job. If it’s not fair to boost minimum wagers, ’cause they knew what the wage was, then the same thing goes for the politicos. He is being self reliant, he’s relying on himself to vote in his pay raise.

So, let him give others the same deal… I’ll believe the supposed outrage of the opposition when and if they refuse the extra money.

Doesn’t matter to me. My outgares are my own… <g Joseph

Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Actually I had no idea what a welfare recipient gets… If the figures you post are even close why would anyone bother, part time work would pay better. That said, isn’t there other aid available? Some people are two lazy to work and some lack the skills to get a decent job. There are others who have simply given up after years of looking. Not that long ago welfare paid almost as much as minimum, then Mike Harris reduced the amount paid out and since then thousands have left the welfare roles to find work. Well, it didn’t hurt that just as he was doing that, that the economy was revving up and actually finally providing some jobs.

On the other hand, some market analysts belive that the advent of the Harris government renewed investor confidence enough to bring up the market. and as things got better so did  the market. Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*.

Never understood that myself, then again I believe that most senior bank managers should be shot. And, minimum wages are a joke, too. If we wanted to make a proper minimum wage regulation, it would be based on the poverty lines that our governing bodies figure out. As most folks making minimum are living *below* that line. Which is wrong. As is blaming them for that being the case, too.

The only problem is that, if they went with the $9+ minimum wage that has been suggested many small businesses would end up closing this throwing the people that it was intended to help out of work. BTW, what did you think of Harris trying to sneak in a 20+% raise for him and the boys ? Seems that self reliance is his value… for *other* people, of course.

I think it is a lot lower that the 46%-60% suggested by the arbitraitor and a hell of a lot less than many of them could be making in the private sector. He is being self reliant, he’s relying on himself to vote in his pay raise. I’ll believe the, supposed, outrage of the opposition when and if they refust the extra money. Joseph Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

–                         ILLEGITIMI                             NON                         CARBORUNDUM

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Actually I had no idea what a welfare recipient gets… If the figures you post are even close why would anyone bother, part time work would pay better. That said, isn’t there other aid available? Some people are two lazy to work and some lack the skills to get a decent job. There are others who have simply given up after years of looking. Not that long ago welfare paid almost as much as minimum, then Mike Harris reduced the amount paid out and since then thousands have left the welfare roles to find work.

Well, it didn’t hurt that just as he was doing that, that the economy was revving up and actually finally providing some jobs. Its the old problem ( and, one that you alluded to, re where Nick had to live… ) that there often aren’t enough jobs for everyone even who wants one. And, that the economic market forces ( such as the stock markets and central banks ) do *not* see near full employment as being a good thing. Witness the market’s reactions to reports of high employment… the indexes *dropped*. And, minimum wages are a joke, too. If we wanted to make a proper minimum wage regulation, it would be based on the poverty lines that our governing bodies figure out. As most folks making minimum are living *below* that line. Which is wrong. As is blaming them for that being the case, too. BTW, what did you think of Harris trying to sneak in a 20+% raise for him and the boys ? Seems that self reliance is his value… for *other* people, of course. Joseph

Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080.

Actually I had no idea what a welfare recipient gets… If the figures you post are even close why would anyone bother, part time work would pay better. That said, isn’t there other aid available? Philosophers and plowmen,each must know his part To sow a new mentality, closer to the Heart

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Biggest sections of working age welfare recipients are disability and single mothers. This is something I don’t get… why is pregancy a disability? You would think women would be smart enough to use some form of birth control. Don’t be so nieve, in the US there are women with 4 or 5 kids because the more kids you have the more money you get.

Which is REALLY stupid to do, as the more kids you have the more it costs. And welfare certainly doesn’t cover anything but the bare essentials.  Dumb Dumbs, the lot of them.  (When it’s intentional, anyway.)  And not too bright when it’s not intentional. Maybe some form of birth control should be mandatory for anyone seeking welfare.  Of course that would strike too many people of a communist state for that to happen, but damn, it’s frustrating to see so many people taking, taking, and taking, needlessly.  I’m not saying many people don’t need help, and it’s important for them to get that help, but too many use and abuse they system. And I hear a lot of people saying that women who co-habitat rather than get married so they don’t lose their assistance should be punished, but where is the punishment for the man who goes along with that type of situation.  He is benefiting financially from her lies. close personal friend, who abused the system, and felt like the world owed her something.  I couldn’t take it anymore, and we are no longer friends over this situation.  She just took, and took, until the government changed the rules, and boy was she pissed when she actually had to get a job. Cal~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Joseph — ILLEGITIMI     NON CARBORUNDUM

Response:

It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income.

What makes you think that the amount given to a welfare recipient is anything close to what an employed person makes. the maximum available to a single recipient in the Province of Ontario is $575, minimum wage would pay $1080. Biggest sections of working age welfare recipients are disability and single mothers. This is something I don’t get… why is pregancy a disability? You would think women would be smart enough to use some form of birth control.

Don’t be so nieve, in the US there are women with 4 or 5 kids because the more kids you have the more money you get. Joseph —                         ILLEGITIMI                             NON                         CARBORUNDUM

Response:

You know for a man who swears he’s never getting married again you seem to have a serious preoccupation with marriage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi All,              The modern institution of mass marriage is a comparatively recent innovation invented in the mid-1800’s. It was designed to solve the so-called "woman problem" of the time. The "woman at home – man at work" design was quite subtle and designed to make it so the new industrial workforce would: (a) go out to work each day to either provide for his family _or_ escape from his family. (b) It provided the sort of in-your-face personal responsibility to keep a guy working in an unfriendly workplace instead of  working just enough to loaf for a while. If a guy was a shirker then he had his own resident slave driver present. Sex outside marriage was made illegal too, thus enlisting the sex drive to keep the guy working. Really, it just goes on and on as to the "advantages" to the new industrial estate of the nuclear family. It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. Biggest sections of working age welfare recipients are disability and single mothers. And, of course, the disenfranchised divorced fathers won’t work like their life depends on it either. That local female school headmistress had it right in her school speech. Female selfishness will eventually undercut our society. I see in my morning paper that the average marriage on divorce lasts 7.9 years here in Australia. Still, I’m optimistic. Mankind survived the Black Death. It will survive Feminism too. Merry Christmas Everyone! Ross "Hell, I’m happy! Why? I’m not married anymore. :) "

– Victoria Lee Hirt Marriage is a partnership, not a dictatorship. Your life is the product of your past decisions.

Response:

Hi All,               The modern institution of mass marriage is a comparatively recent innovation invented in the mid-1800’s. It was designed to solve the so-called "woman problem" of the time. The "woman at home – man at work" design was quite subtle and designed to make it so the new industrial workforce would: (a) go out to work each day to either provide for his family _or_ escape from his family. (b) It provided the sort of in-your-face personal responsibility to keep a guy working in an unfriendly workplace instead of  working just enough to loaf for a while. If a guy was a shirker then he had his own resident slave driver present. Sex outside marriage was made illegal too, thus enlisting the sex drive to keep the guy working. Really, it just goes on and on as to the "advantages" to the new industrial estate of the nuclear family. It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare. Biggest sections of working age welfare recipients are disability and single mothers. And, of course, the disenfranchised divorced fathers won’t work like their life depends on it either. That local female school headmistress had it right in her school speech. Female selfishness will eventually undercut our society. I see in my morning paper that the average marriage on divorce lasts 7.9 years here in Australia. Still, I’m optimistic. Mankind survived the Black Death. It will survive Feminism too. Merry Christmas Everyone! Ross "Hell, I’m happy! Why? I’m not married anymore. :) "

Response:

It is interesting that the new _welfare_ industrial estate is verging on collapse because it is being so rorted. I understand the annual welfare bill in Australia has got to $55Bn with 1 in 4 Australians on welfare.

With respect, I find the 1/4 figure hard to believe. Think about it, such a system would require 25 % of a workers earnings to support the welfare state before a single service, fire,police, ect.. is delivered is the recipient is kept at a near equal income. Biggest sections of working age welfare recipients are disability and single mothers.

This is something I don’t get… why is pregancy a disability? You would think women would be smart enough to use some form of birth control. Philosophers and plowmen,each must know his part To sow a new mentality, closer to the Heart

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply