Social Welfare- How many out there are only 1-2 pay cheques away from the poor house. We are a lot closer to it then we would like to think if we are honest with ourselves. Of course if we lost our livelihood, we would like to think we would do everything possible to get back into the job market. But suppose you can't because you don't have the necessary tools, or due to age (over 45 and you are probably over the hill in getting another job). Is this your fault?
The military is looking for a few good men (and women). It infuriates me to see these kids with funny coloured hair sitting infront of cups on Robson street, squeegeeing peoples windows, and complaining about the lack of free housing when this country has so many things a fit, young person could be doing.
As before, where you think is where you fall on the spectrum. There are this that feel we have an obligation to look after the less fortunate, and those that feel that with motivation and hard work you will get ahead and if you don't its your own fault. Although there are glaring cases of those that milk the system, I think these are the minority, even though they get the lion's share of the media and politicians attention. What about those that are on social welfare, get a part time job to get ahead, and have the wages are deducted from the assistance cheque. My feeling is that a majority needs theses services. So it comes down to, do we punish all because of a few well-published abuses. I know the counter argument is that let private investment (though tax cuts and less gov't interference) create economic growth which increases jobs that these people can get. But the private sector motive is profit not social policy; the jobs are just a by-product and can come as go as the bottom line dictates.
Yes, there are the glaring errors. However, it is the systemic drains in the social welfare system that worry me.
For example, Canada's Native population is actually better off living on the dole. By staying on their reserve, which often offers no oppurtunity for employment, they can retain many of their benefits (which other Canadians do not enjoy) and as such make more by living on welfare than actually going out into the workforce, where a low skillset would force them to accept minimum wages.
Its broken situations like this that lead me to criticize social spending, and I could find many more examples. Obviously, we cannot just say "Stop Social Spending", because it would leave many people hanging. But constructive ideas must be built into the system to move them from a drain on society to a productive member.
Here is food for thought. Economics implies that we should not have a fully employed labour market. There must be some slack. There is no way that all able-bodied persons between 18 and 65 can be employed. We would have a flooded market, which would drive wages downward. As well, companies that slash their labour costs (through not hiring or laying off) are rewarded by higher shared prices. Therefore we will always have members of this society that are not employed, not will be. This, as well as the move to lower wages (another labour cost saving), means the private sector pushes the problem of subsistence on to the gov't to solve or ignore.
Your right, unemployment is unavoidable. There will always be structural unemployment (persons must upgrade their skills to be employed at an available job) and frictional unemployment (unemployment due to people switching jobs for personal reasons, moving, interests, etc.). For cyclical unemployment, we do need a safety net so that people who are in dire straits are not forced onto the streets; the Great Depression has shown us that we also need a safety net for when the rug is pulled from under the government as well.
I have seen good ideas of limiting welfare payments to a culmulative of 2 or 3 years in total. That way, the net is there for those who need it, and those who wish to not work out of laziness can squander it if they so chose, but the tap will eventually run dry on them.
I feel that we have a moral obligation to look after those less fortunate. This is where I fall on the political spectrum. I think when some say that the welfare bums should get out and be productive, it may not be as easy as it sounds. As for workfare, is that really productive and what are the differences between that and a chain gang?
I feel we have the moral obligation to look after those who have been put out of work for reasons beyond their control. However, I am against the idea that I should give over a quater of my wealth to others just because they are "less fortunate". Human beings are remarkably different in abilities and ambitions. Should someone who manages to make $100,000 be penalized for his success by making him support someone who doesn't seem interested in doing anything else then working in a 7/11 and making babies. A free and open society such as Canada allows for people to maximize their potential; it is not my fault if they chose not to.
Here's another proposition. You take a cut in pay and/or hours, so that your company can hire someone else and make them productive members of society. Honestly, I am not willing to do that. And I am not confusing EI with Social Assistance. My feeling on that is instead of cutting benefits, they should be increased to recipients, so as they are able to put more back into the economy while they look for work.
Punish people for success? EI is something I see routinely abused; two examples are military reservists returning from a class C contract overseas and going onto EI instead of returning to civilian employment; the other is employees of my family business, who take advantage of a situation in order to go on EI instead of staying at work.
A system that allows for laziness will breed laziness.
This is another long-winded post, but this being an election, issues should be discussed and debate. This is my view, and I admit is flawed in places but it is food for thought.
Long-winded or not, its best we get these issues these issues to the fore and better educate ourselves on what we a really voting for; otherwise we are just falling pray to demagouges.
