Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[captloadie]

I'm not saying that it is a right, or an entitlement. No more than giving farmers subsidies to make it profitable enough to stay on the farm. You can look at it as a disincentive to move, or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills. By the way, I believe that the EI should be enough to get seasonal workers by, not let them live in McMansions, drive new 4x4's every 2 years, and own 1 each of every man toy. If that is what they want, move to where the real money is.

 

[larry Strong]

I'm not saying that it is a right, or an entitlement. No more than giving farmers subsidies to make it profitable enough to stay on the farm. You can look at it as a disincentive to move, or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills. By the way, I believe that the EI should be enough to get seasonal workers by, not let them live in McMansions, drive new 4x4's every 2 years, and own 1 each of every man toy. If that is what they want, move to where the real money is.

In my eyes you have called it an "entitlement". Why should I pay for someone to sit at home for a half year or better.....Here's a real life situation. My current job working in a fab shop building drilling rigs pays just enough to keep my nose above water, but I am home everynight. And I have a house, 2 vehicles, both are 10 years or older, and no man toys except for a 5th wheel RV. All paid for except the house. After working the patch for 30 years I am going back to make better money, and in all likelyhood working away from home again.

If the job does not pay the bills then get a second job or move and find another. No one should have to pay for other people who feel they are entitled to sit around till the next season comes around. People don't like that thought....tuff, suck it up muffin and get a job

 

[Edward Campbell]

Coming from a family that had on occasion to rely on EI to get by, I find it personally offensive that they expect people who are actually working in resource areas (fishing, lumber, farming) to pick up and move. Most of the workers that are "seasonal" work long hard hours, eking by a living, just like their forefathers did. But hey, we could just tie up all the small fishing boats, put away the chainsaws, and let large conglomerates take over.

Maybe someone should write an article about making welfare cases move to find jobs, and maybe having to actually work for their money.

As for the Saskatchewan Premier, how about ending farm subsidies, and when the farmers all sell off, he'll have an ample labour force.

:2c:

I agree with Larry Strong.

I, personally, don't like agricultural subsidies any more than I like any other government intrusions into the market, but I accept them, as I accept EI, because we live and trade in a very imperfect world. Agricultural subsidies and EI share one feature: they take money out of our pockets, your and mine - through either taxes or (too high) prices - and give it to someone else for reasons that do not provide any net benefit to the "commonwealth." While I accept both I believe that both can be 'shaved' down to better suit Canada in the 21st century - will some people like Québec dairy farmers, Newfoundland fishermen, Ontario egg producers and New Brunswick forestry workers have to earn less, or work two or three jobs per year, or move to Saskatchewan or Alberta? Yes. Will some of them actually suffer? Yes. Will some riot on the streets and commit acts of vandalism on Parliament Hill in Ottawa? Yes? Does any of that make the current agricultural subsidies and EI worthwhile? No.

 

[Infanteer]

or you can look at it as an incentive to keep at a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills.

Why would we want to subsidize a way of life that normally wouldn't pay the bills?

 

[Furniture]

If people have a serious issue with the way that seasonal workers receive EI during the off season, they should be prepared to do without the products and services offered by those same seasonally employed people. A perfect example is fish, expect to pay far more for fresh seafood and to have far less available on the market. For some it's a minor inconvenience, but for those people who make their living selling the fish it's a big deal. I'm sure people from other areas have examples they can give as well.

It's all well and good to have a nation of oil refiners and high tech manufactures, but even they need to eat. Cutting out the safety net that allows primary food producers like farmers and fishermen to operate and provide somewhat stable and secure food production is a bad idea.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If people have a serious issue with the way that seasonal workers receive EI during the off season, they should be prepared to do without the products and services offered by those same seasonally employed people. A perfect example is fish, expect to pay far more for fresh seafood and to have far less available on the market. For some it's a minor inconvenience, but for those people who make their living selling the fish it's a big deal. I'm sure people from other areas have examples they can give as well.

It's all well and good to have a nation of oil refiners and high tech manufactures, but even they need to eat. Cutting out the safety net that allows primary food producers like farmers and fishermen to operate and provide somewhat stable and secure food production is a bad idea.

Perhaps the model we have been using for the fishing industry no longer works?  Many farmers in western Canada have off farm income (some of them in the oilsands, at significant distant from the farm).  Why can Atlantic Canadian fisherman also not be expected to get jobs ashore for the 41 weeks a year that they are not fishing?  What is so magic about that industry?  I'm not trying to be a jerk- I am asking an honest question.

 

[Furniture]

The answer to your question is that many of them do work for much of the rest of the year. Not all of them of course, but many do.

Lots go west and work in the oil patch, some do construction, and some draw EI. Not necessarily because they don't like work or don't want to work, but packing up the family and moving to Alberta to work in an industry that is very boom and bust doesn't make much sense to many. Particularly when ever extra cent they would make doing that would be spent trying to afford housing and food. Not to mention that the gear and licenses required to fish cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most of them are not prepared to walk away from that at a loss to work labour.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The answer to your question is that many of them do work for much of the rest of the year. Not all of them of course, but many do.

Lots go west and work in the oil patch, some do construction, and some draw EI. Not necessarily because they don't like work or don't want to work, but packing up the family and moving to Alberta to work in an industry that is very boom and bust doesn't make much sense to many. Particularly when ever extra cent they would make doing that would be spent trying to afford housing and food. Not to mention that the gear and licenses required to fish cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most of them are not prepared to walk away from that at a loss to work labour.

I had to laugh about the boom/bust part!

Again, without being a jerk, I have to wonder why the EI system should be used to keep someone in Eastern Passage NS not working for 40 weeks per year, when the oilfield worker from Red Deer AB is not allowed to do the same thing?

I tend towards saying- make the EI rules the same for the whole country and let the chips fall where they may in terms of labour force mobility after that.

 

[Furniture]

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say I disagree, I'm simply stating the reasons why people use the system the way they do.

As far as boom/bust goes, I know several guys from my own home village who went to the oil patch and were sent home as soon as things slowed down. Not a big deal when you have a job back home and a place to live. If you sold your home and moved to Red Deer based on your awesome new job and got laid off a few weeks later because there is a global recession it's a slightly bigger deal. Yes it's a bit of an exception, but when it's you that loses your home and good credit that doesn't matter much.

As I said earlier, make the system the same for everybody. When you do though, be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I understand where you are coming from and I can't say I disagree, I'm simply stating the reasons why people use the system the way they do.

As far as boom/bust goes, I know several guys from my own home village who went to the oil patch and were sent home as soon as things slowed down. Not a big deal when you have a job back home and a place to live. If you sold your home and moved to Red Deer based on your awesome new job and got laid off a few weeks later because there is a global recession it's a slightly bigger deal. Yes it's a bit of an exception, but when it's you that loses your home and good credit that doesn't matter much.

As I said earlier, make the system the same for everybody. When you do though, be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences.

You're right, WeatherdoG, there would be (notice, please, I avoided saying "will be" because I doubt the political will to overhaul EI exists) unintended and unforeseen political, economic and social consequences, some of them unfortunate.

By the way, your point about some food prices is taken but I suspect the industry can and would adapt quickly. One of the advantages of removing agricultural subsidies is that it makes the entire industry more competitive - and yes it is an industry, not a "rural way of life." With special reference to the fisheries: maybe a price hike will actually help to manage fish stocks more effectively.
 

 

[Brad Sallows]

My grandfather, the salmon troller, and a handful of my other relatives who spent their lives in fisheries all managed to make a year's pay during the seasons in which they worked.  So that's one lame excuse blown away.

My various great-uncles who worked in mining and forestry managed to make a living at it.  So that's a couple more shown the door.

If one seasonal job doesn't pay the bills for a year, then it is necessary to find other seasonal work to complement the first one during the other seasons.  Otherwise, EI is just a wage subsidy.  I can think of no valid reason why some employers should be subsidized and some should not.  If planting trees during the summer can't carry you through the rest of the year, you need to find more work in the fall, winter, and spring.

If EI were truly insurance, the rules would go something like this:
- people at higher risk of unemployment would pay higher premiums
- benefits would be uniform - a function of time employed and income earned - instead of especially peachy in certain regions
- the qualifying condition of unemployment would revolve chiefly around an abrupt and unexpected termination of employment, not a predetermined end date or end of contract

The minimum qualifying time for EI should be two years.  Termination after any shorter length of continuous employment should result simply in refund of all premiums paid during that period.

EI has become a convenient fund for all sorts of benefits not related to sudden loss of employment.  That needs to end; those programs should either be dropped or funded out of general revenue.  EI premiums should drop to a level commensurate with the true insurance program which would remain after all the other pandering is refactored out.

 

[Redeye]

You're right, WeatherdoG, there would be (notice, please, I avoided saying "will be" because I doubt the political will to overhaul EI exists) unintended and unforeseen political, economic and social consequences, some of them unfortunate.

By the way, your point about some food prices is taken but I suspect the industry can and would adapt quickly. One of the advantages of removing agricultural subsidies is that it makes the entire industry more competitive - and yes it is an industry, not a "rural way of life." With special reference to the fisheries: maybe a price hike will actually help to manage fish stocks more effectively.

I suspect the industry will adapt as agriculture has. Seasonal work will wind up being done by foreign workers who will work for comparatively small wages, who will come up for the season, work, and return home. I'm not sure that we'd save much money essentially depopulating parts of the country where seasonal industries are the norm. But I don't see why, on the other hand, we'd want to subsidize people living in remote fishing towns forever either.

Not something with easy answers, really.

 

[Furniture]

My grandfather, the salmon troller, and a handful of my other relatives who spent their lives in fisheries all managed to make a year's pay during the seasons in which they worked.  So that's one lame excuse blown away.

My various great-uncles who worked in mining and forestry managed to make a living at it.  So that's a couple more shown the door.

My family has been fishing in North America since at least the mid 1800's and likely before that. My Grandfather was a fisherman, and lived on his fishing all year too. Of course he didn't have a TV or a bathroom in his house either... Fishing in the modern world is not fishing in the the 60's, much like farming has changed in that time too.

Fishing requires that the person who is the captain of the vessel have intimate knowledge of the grounds he is fishing.  Unlike farming though, one fisherman cannot have multiple vessels, and must be present in the boat when it is being used to fish. So unless the laws regulating it change drastically(which they won`t) it must be done by owner operators on a small scale.

It is a problem with no easy answers, and that likely won`t even be addressed for many years. In reality it will likely fix itself as fewer people enter the fishery due to the ow pay and uncertain outcomes.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Seriously, where do you people live that you can just "get an off season job" ?  My work is seasonal, it pays well, and I pay a correspondingly high amount of taxes, so you can fuck right off with the "no economic benefit to Canada" dookie as well.  I paid into EI since I was 16, so 34 years worth, and I claimed for the first time when I was sent home from my prior job for a year. I felt bad for that, embarrassed in fact.  Guess what?  I'm over it.  Good for you folks with steady year round jobs, enjoy them while they last, you could find yourself in shitty circumstances very quickly, and I hope you all remember what you said here when you do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I do know of fishermen who own multiple vessels; they just don't skipper them all.  If our experience is west coast and east coast fisheries, respectively, there may be some significant differences of which we are unaware.  But while I am fully aware that fishermen in the west can and do claim EI, it is a fact that many make a year's living from their seasonal work or find other work off-season.

I agree that if you are sent home, laid off, fired, whatever, you should collect on the insurance.  That is what it should be insurance against.  It should not be a subsidy for wages or a pot for other benefits.  Whether or not those other benefits should exist is a separate question from how they should be funded.  They should be funded out of general revenues.  If we are going to prop up seasonal industries, pay for mat leave, pay for care of relatives, etc, those should be programs funded by taxpayers collectively, not the smaller fraction of people who happen to be employed.

 

[Redeye]

I do know of fishermen who own multiple vessels; they just don't skipper them all.  If our experience is west coast and east coast fisheries, respectively, there may be some significant differences of which we are unaware.  But while I am fully aware that fishermen in the west can and do claim EI, it is a fact that many make a year's living from their seasonal work or find other work off-season.

I agree that if you are sent home, laid off, fired, whatever, you should collect on the insurance.  That is what it should be insurance against.  It should not be a subsidy for wages or a pot for other benefits.  Whether or not those other benefits should exist is a separate question from how they should be funded.  They should be funded out of general revenues.  If we are going to prop up seasonal industries, pay for mat leave, pay for care of relatives, etc, those should be programs funded by taxpayers collectively, not the smaller fraction of people who happen to be employed.

Most people who pay taxes are employed, given that they have to have income to to pay tax on. Of course, pensioners do pay tax without being employed, but I'm okay with them not paying EI premiums.

 

[a_majoor]

The current edition of the National Post (11 Feb 2012) is devoted to the issue of immigration and the various changes that are coming to our society and country because of it. Multiple articles and opinion pieces. Well worth the read.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Seriously, where do you people live that you can just "get an off season job" ?  My work is seasonal, it pays well, and I pay a correspondingly high amount of taxes, so you can frig right off with the "no economic benefit to Canada" dookie as well.  I paid into EI since I was 16, so 34 years worth, and I claimed for the first time when I was sent home from my prior job for a year. I felt bad for that, embarrassed in fact.  Guess what?  I'm over it.  Good for you folks with steady year round jobs, enjoy them while they last, you could find yourself in shitty circumstances very quickly, and I hope you all remember what you said here when you do.

Kat, as a young 2Lt, I was posted to NB.  I made about $23k (late 1980s).  Yet, I could not help notice the lobster fishermen who worked 10 week season, made $40-60k in that 10 week period, had nice trucks, satellite TV- all the toys, but collected UI For the rest of the year (maybe another $10k, in those days ).  There was no way they were paying in to the system anything like what they were pulling out of he system.  I felt like a bit of tool paying UI premiums that I knew I could never collect on while guys making 2-3 times what I was making spent most of the year , every year, collecting.

My point is, if we treated this like a true insurance system, your premiums should drop the longer you worked (demonstrating that you were a good risk).  If you collected often, your premiums should go up, to reflect that you were a poor risk.

The Fact that you work in a seasonal industry is great.  Just don't try and pretend full time workers in other industries aren't subsidizing your lifestyle.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I actually subsidized my own lifestyle by paying in to it for over 30 years, but thanks all the same for the condescension, I've missed that since I left the army.  I work from March to whenever the ground freezes, usually December, so you can take your 10 weeks and shove those too.  I could get a McJob for 3 months, but it wouldn't pay for the fuel I'd burn every day getting back and forth to do it.  Oh, right, I should just move to where I can work all year, until the next round of "go home" starts.  You people have been in for too long, civil servants and retirees included.  Come on out here into the world and try it for a while, all easier said than done.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hey man, good on you for collecting EI.  You are only following the rules, as written.

Just don't try and pretend you "earned" it.