Ok so you like the polcies that might help a small segement of the population, great.
No I’m not voting for that party.
Quote:
As far being forced to fund unions, no thanks.
No one can force you to work at a unionized workplace, and why would you want to if they pay less and offer less job protection than non-unionaces?
Oh wait.
Quote:
My salary has more than tripled in the last 10 years. if i was part of union and held to ####ing 3 year contracts i'd be much worse off.
Can you prove that?
Quote:
Although in some instances i do see a little value in unions. But for most jobs i don't, plenty of competition, hard/good work and some scarcity goes along way in moving your salary up
Making it accessible to the people who need the “little value” that you see isn’t the same as suggesting every company should unionized.
If you work harder you’ll get ahead is about as reliable a theory as trickle down economics. There’s a finite number of good jobs out there so eventually somewhere down the line people working their asses off don’t have the option of moving up. Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue so we don’t have as much reliance on government assistance?
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Making it accessible to the people who need the “little value” that you see isn’t the same as suggesting every company should unionized.
touche
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
If you work harder you’ll get ahead is about as reliable a theory as trickle down economics.
You are cherry picking here, i said "plenty of competition, hard/good work and some scarcity"..takes more than hard work of course and other things i didn't mention, luck, ass kissing ect..
As far as trickle down economics goes...as oppose to bottom up lol? There are reasons why people are where they are, most things aren't perfect ect but i know which one i would choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
There’s a finite number of good jobs out there so eventually somewhere down the line people working their asses off don’t have the option of moving up. Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue so we don’t have as much reliance on government assistance?
Pretty much everything is finite...that's actually a good life lesson. Why not take care of people? Cause they can take care of themselves? If they can't well maybe they need that kick in the ass.
The Federal NDP does not have the support of the vast majority of Canadians and has not had it for most of my lifetime. Any gains they’ve made have largely been low-resolution protest votes against the Conservatives, driven by dissatisfaction rather than genuine support. The Laurentian elite almost always go down in a blaze of glory.
Advancing the NDP agenda is not a win for Canadians—the government is not a daycare.
NDP policies are regressive and will harm struggling Canadians more than the Liberals or Conservatives ever could. Their so-called “progressive” policies are a wolf in sheep’s clothing—well-intentioned on the surface but fundamentally destructive. It’s the classic “road to hell is paved with good intentions” scenario, only on an even more damaging scale compared to the other two parties. (bolded to counteract your patented whataboutism)
There is ample evidence from certain U.S. states and European countries that many of the Federal NDP’s policies simply don’t work or are outright harmful to the very people they claim to fight for.
It doesn’t matter what motivates Singh—he continues to make poor choices by propping up a government that Canadians have clearly lost faith in.
Do you have evidence to support that the federal ndps policies as implemented in Europe and several US states have been unsuccessful? I’d be interesting to see what policies you Are attributing to the NDP and the evidence that they didn’t work is.
But the other interesting comment you make is the government isn’t a day care. I’d argue that fundamentally the role of government is a daycare.
Security is clearly is government responsibility. Between military and policing ensuring the safety of citizens is the role of government responsibility
Determine who is aloud in a country is the role of government.
When people get boo boos the health care system fixes them. Unless you are arguing against a government funded health care system this is the role of government
The state provides education for its citizens unless of course you are against that.
Quite frankly the government is a daycare service to its citizens. You likely enjoy many aspects of this daycare service. The governments role is to remove obstacles that create risk to citizens accomplishing their goals. If the government is in charge of security, education, health care and minimum incomes how aren’t they a day care.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I honestly can’t tell if you agree with me or if you don’t understand how that expression is supposed to be used.
Quote:
You are cherry picking here, i said "plenty of competition, hard/good work and some scarcity"..takes more than hard work of course and other things i didn't mention, luck, ass kissing ect..
My apologies for “cherry picking” the only things that are in the workers’ control since the other ones aren’t guaranteed. But you’re welcome to continue sharing your theories and hypothetical scenarios.
Quote:
As far as trickle down economics goes...as oppose to bottom up lol? There are reasons why people are where they are, most things aren't perfect ect but i know which one i would choose.
Yeah but what if, hypothetically speaking, you’re wrong? Unless you’re saying that you’re right about everything all the time and therefore you simply agreeing with something makes it right the “I know which one I would choose” isn’t an argument. It’s what people say when they don’t have an argument.
Quote:
Pretty much everything is finite...that's actually a good life lesson. Why not take care of people? Cause they can take care of themselves? If they can't well maybe they need that kick in the ass.
How does kicking hard working people in the ass increase their pay? Slaves didn’t get raises and they got “kicked in the ass” a lot. Leverage gets you raises, not hard work alone.
Do you have evidence to support that the federal ndps policies as implemented in Europe and several US states have been unsuccessful? I’d be interesting to see what policies you Are attributing to the NDP and the evidence that they didn’t work is.
But the other interesting comment you make is the government isn’t a day care. I’d argue that fundamentally the role of government is a daycare.
Security is clearly is government responsibility. Between military and policing ensuring the safety of citizens is the role of government responsibility
Determine who is aloud in a country is the role of government.
When people get boo boos the health care system fixes them. Unless you are arguing against a government funded health care system this is the role of government
The state provides education for its citizens unless of course you are against that.
Quite frankly the government is a daycare service to its citizens. You likely enjoy many aspects of this daycare service. The governments role is to remove obstacles that create risk to citizens accomplishing their goals. If the government is in charge of security, education, health care and minimum incomes how aren’t they a day care.
Touche, certainly you can argue to a certain extent that the goverment is a daycare and streeeeetch it out even more. Not going disagree on that point. I was more talking about goverments who think they can fix every problem known to humans vs providing some value for the truck loads of money some of us send them, which seems to be your point.
Your location says California, if you still there live, you have a elected officials in that state from mayors/DAs and a governor who would slot nicely with the Federal NDP. Most of them lost their jobs because like i said above..the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly policy isn't the ONLY reason for #### hitting the fan but sometimes it just makes certain issues worse. And that is exactly what happened.
In Europe, the crazy ####ing wealth tax was tried and failed for a variety different reasons.
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 12-19-2024 at 11:59 PM.
Touche, certainly you can argue to a certain extent that the goverment is a daycare and streeeeetch it out even more. Not going disagree on that point. I was more talking about goverments who think they can fix every problem known to humans vs providing some value for the truck loads of money some of us send them, which seems to be your point.
Your location says California, if you still there live, you have a elected officials in that state from mayors/DAs and a governor who would slot nicely with the Federal NDP. Most of them lost their jobs because like i said above..the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly policy isn't the ONLY reason for #### hitting the fan but sometimes it just makes certain issues worse. And that is exactly what happened.
In Europe, the crazy ####ing wealth tax was tried and failed for a variety different reasons.
So you’ve gone from “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” to “oh yeah, touche, oh touche, yeah I guess just wealth taxes?”
I honestly can’t tell if you agree with me or if you don’t understand how that expression is supposed to be used.
"Every company shouldn't be unioned"
- that is correct, most companies don't and don't need to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
My apologies for “cherry picking” the only things that are in the workers’ control since the other ones aren’t guaranteed. But you’re welcome to continue sharing your theories and hypothetical scenarios.
It seems like you might not have much experience in the private sector to recognize that 19th- and 20th-century working norms no longer apply, especially in developed nations. Of course, nothing is black and white, but there are many professions where workers have significant leverage to advance their careers and increase their salaries. This isn’t just theory—it ultimately depends on what you make of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Yeah but what if, hypothetically speaking, you’re wrong? Unless you’re saying that you’re right about everything all the time and therefore you simply agreeing with something makes it right the “I know which one I would choose” isn’t an argument. It’s what people say when they don’t have an argument.
It ties back to your point about finiteness—we have a finite number of jobs and a finite number of ideas. Let’s focus on ideas: not only is there a limited number of them, but there’s also a finite number of people capable of generating and executing them. Given that, capital is best placed in the hands of those who can create something beneficial for the majority. Some might call this trickle-down economics, which I would prefer over a bottom-up approach, which seems to align with your preference. Ultimately, capital should go to someone with a good idea, rather than someone likely to waste it on frivolous things like booze and cigarettes. (ha ha) And that is exactly how the system is setup now and it works. It much more than tax breaks for the rich, that a ####ing genric statement you learn from the Robert Reich/Bernie Sanders/AOC/Liz Warren/NDP school of economics, nobody in the know takes those people seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
How does kicking hard working people in the ass increase their pay? Slaves didn’t get raises and they got “kicked in the ass” a lot. Leverage gets you raises, not hard work alone.
Most people perform at their best when they have an incentive to motivate them.
“Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue?”
Because that risks disincentivizing them. The realization that you need to be “taken care of” should be enough to motivate you. If it’s not, well, there’s always a street corner you can hang out on.
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 12-20-2024 at 12:34 AM.
Originally Posted by Wormius
Polls aren't really showing a majority of Canadians wanting an early election. Maybe close, but still not more than half polled want that.
Actually the most recent poll was done by Abacus and shows exactly that.
58% of Canadians want an election now
23% do not want an election
15% don't know
4% don't care
The Following User Says Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
Yes, who could ever counter “uh… California!! lots of stuff!” and why would they when you’ve done such a grand job of it yourself?
Just remember, they’re only “Champaigne” socialists if they’re from the Champaign region of Illinois.
You're a big boy ( i think don't want to assume your age! ) you can get off your ass and look it up, it's not hard to find that information, but alas i would imagine your legacy media handlers may not be reporting on it?
California lost some progressive mayors (San Fran/Oakland) and DA's (LA/Oakland?San Fran) because their dumb progressive policies especially when it came to police and crime and not helped by Prop 47 ended up hurting the people they claimed to protect and those people kicked them to the curve.
Pretty sure it also happened in Portland for the same reasons
Wealth Tax is in the NDP crapform on their site - it was tried 3 times in Europe and failed. Yet Jag thinks a 4th time is a charm! So does Liz "Why don't people like by dumb ideas" Warren
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 12-20-2024 at 12:49 AM.
You're a big boy ( i think don't want to assume your age! ) you can get off your ass and look it up, it's not hard to find that information, but alas i would imagine your legacy media handlers may not be reporting on it?
California lost some progressive mayors (San Fran/Oakland) and DA's (LA/Oakland) because their dumb progressive policies especially when it came to police and crime and not helped by Prop 47 ended up hurting the people they claimed to protect and those people kicked them to the curve.
Wealth Tax is in the NDP crapform on their site - it was tried 3 times in Europe and failed. Yet Jag thinks a 4th time is a charm!
Which dumb progressive policies, Mel?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
That article doesn’t suggest his policies failed. It is suggesting his policies made him not electable. I think you are identifying problems with elected DAs and their role in mass imprisonment in the US.
But if you have some evidence that these policies led to increased crime I’d be interested in reading it.
Look, there's no denying that there are bad unions, in that they don't do much for their workers, or make a lot of false promises. I've been involved with unions on both sides of the table, and there are absolutely unions that take advantage of workers, particularly workers who don't have or are interested in knowing how things in their workplace actually work.
Or it may be accurate to say, there are bad locals. I've been involved with more than one local from one particular large union, and in the first place, they were great for the workers, and in the second place, they were terrible for the workers, where after being unionized for around 15 years now, their wages are no better than their non-union equivalent, and in many cases are worse.
But even there, they do have better benefits then their non-union equivalent, so they may be better off when you look at the cost of everything.
But far too many people forget that even in a non-union workplace, you get that pay and those benefits largely because a union fought for them somewhere, and your company probably offers the same things to be competitive.
I disagree ideologically with many union activities, but you can't credibly deny all they have done for workers, especially when it comes to health and safety and protecting the workers from reprisals. Sure, you will argue the ministry of labour gives non-union workers the right to refuse unsafe work, but where do you think that comes from? And who is more likely to raise an issue like that? A union employee with more job protection, or a non-union who doesn't want to raise a fuss?
Unions aren't perfect. They or their leadership or their local can be corrupt or lazy or incompetent, just like everyone else they work with. I would prefer not to be part of one, but it would be extremely short-sighted to say they do no good. And if you abolished all unions, you would see a great deal of employers taking advantage of their workers even more. People and companies get away with whatever they can, whether it comes to worker rights or environmental protection or product quality, etc.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ped For This Useful Post:
“Why not take care of those people while they’re in the queue?”
Because that risks disincentivizing them. The realization that you need to be “taken care of” should be enough to motivate you. If it’s not, well, there’s always a street corner you can hang out on.
This is why you're a ghoul.
People actually perform their best when they're given support and put in positions where they can succeed.
