Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Let's be clear, it has been a series of conscious policy decisions to screw young people to benefit the old. Conscripting them to help them gain experience is bordering on Orwellian irony.

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Governments at all levels refusing to build enough housing, forcing substantial inflation in shelter costs.

"Governments should build housing" is a bad idea. Governments should set conditions to allow people to build housing.

Successive cuts and freezes in education funding, resulting in rising tuition, sending student debt through the roof. And of course, employers won't even hire baristas without postsecondary these days. So this is just the price of entry.

Evidence still shows that over a lifetime people with post-secondary academic educations tend to out-earn people without them; it's difficult to argue that they deserve a start-on-life grant unavailable to people who by pure accident of birth lack the capacity to achieve at that level. Yes, some people can choose poorly when selecting an area of study. Yes, it's unfair to terminate the subsidies after earlier generations benefited, but the impact can be mitigated by slowly squeezing the subsidies. And because the value of that education is no longer as useful a signal to employers, it is becoming increasingly unnecessary where it is not expressly relevant.

Successive cuts in healthcare services both from government and their employers. Resulting in this cohort having the least access to healthcare.

In view of the Health Accord and subsequent agreements to maintain funding levels, it's risible that there have been successive cuts. I certainly cannot take seriously all the people who argued that the end of that Accord - an exceptional spending commitment for a defined period - ought to be regarded as a "cut". The pressure on services results from many factors, including: increasingly effective technology and treatment options are also increasingly expensive, poor forecasting of future requirements or deliberate disregard of it, reluctance to allow private enterprise to seek markets.

More recently the federal government surged immigration to keep a lid on wage inflation, while actually driving up all kinds of other inflation, most notably on shelter. Asset holder benefited. Those who own the least assets (young people) lost.

This one was overall a mistake (in the absence of proper filtering and a multitude of other initiatives to increase public services at equivalent rates), but the purpose of increasing the work force was legitimate as evidenced by all the cries for more workers.

And now the idea is that we should conscript them, make them do something that is unproductive for their own advancement, to fulfill dreams of a cheap army. This talk reminds me of Putin's Babushka brigade ever ready to send their grandsons to their deaths as long as those pension cheques keep coming.

Conscription is stupid and unfair to the bone.

When seniors of today (not a decade from now as Harper tried) agree to give up their OAS cheques, we can start having the conversation of how young people should serve.

Not all seniors ought give up their cheques and live in poverty. OAS might be a program that can be phased out for all but the poorest as increasingly available modern credit and savings innovations have effect.

 

[Remius]

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

Boomers have been labelled the most selfish generation by sobs for a reason…

May not be deliberate but we are where we are.

 

[Brad Sallows]

European countries managed it for years.
Or course the Russian Bear being next door was more motivational I suppose…

European countries didn't often send those conscripts into actual wars.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Boomers have been labelled the most selfish generation by sobs for a reason…

May not be deliberate but we are where we are.

The Boomers were the first generation to experience young adulthood after a point in time at which human prosperity really took off.

There are real data that show imbalance. The prime culprit (perhaps the only one that really matters) is housing even adjusting for the increases in size and comforts and code-mandated requirements. The overwhelming majority of other fundamental costs of living are trending down. I suspect perceptions are skewed by unrealistic expectations and failure to see a broad enough picture. Are people really comparing what they have at 20 to what their parents and grandparents had at 20, or are they looking at what their parents have at 50?

 

[Remius]

The Boomers were the first generation to experience young adulthood after a point in time at which human prosperity really took off.

There are real data that show imbalance. The prime culprit (perhaps the only one that really matters) is housing even adjusting for the increases in size and comforts and code-mandated requirements. The overwhelming majority of other fundamental costs of living are trending down. I suspect perceptions are skewed by unrealistic expectations and failure to see a broad enough picture. Are people really comparing what they have at 20 to what their parents and grandparents had at 20, or are they looking at what their parents have at 50?

People in their 30s are looking at what their parents had in their 30s and are throwing in the towel.

From what I’ve seen, expectations are not as high as some think. Apartments and townhomes should be out of reach for anyone gainfully employed.

Your money does not get you what it did before.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People in their 30s are looking at what their parents had in their 30s and are throwing in the towel.

From what I’ve seen, expectations are not as high as some think. Apartments and townhomes should be out of reach for anyone gainfully employed.

Your money does not get you what it did before.

As I wrote: housing.

We shouldn't lose sight of the single factor that is probably responsible for all of this. If we could correct for that, we'd likely have to admit each generation unambiguously lives better than the one before it.

 

[Blackadder1916]

European countries managed it for years.
Or course the Russian Bear being next door was more motivational I suppose…

European countries didn't often send those conscripts into actual wars.

Cinching up the onion on my belt. My experience with European conscript militaries ranged from the 70's to the 90's, the good, the bad and the unkempt. The Germans were good; none were particularly bad, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the Greeks and Turks (however, the politics of their nations formed the ugly aspects of their militaries); the Dutch were notable for being unkempt, while the French could be dirty. Conscripts weren't often sent overseas, unless they volunteered, which for many had significant financial benefits. The French probably made the most use of conscripts in overseas operations but they also had the Légion étrangère to use for the nastier bits. Of the non-NATO countries (at that time) the Swedes and the Finns sent on UN PKOs were all volunteers and they had no problem filling their contingents (a highly paid vacation to sunnier climes); the Poles (we worked with served alongside them in the Middle East) were an enigma - the few times we interacted never got any sense that they wanted to make a connection or what they thought of being there.

 

[FJAG]

I'll add one. I worked with an Italian conscript regiment for the better part of several weeks. Amazingly the ranks up to sergeant and lieutenant were conscripts as well. Each went through basic training and then an "advanced" senior NCO or officer course. All within around five months leaving them with the last four months of their service time with their unit. Out of a regiment of over 1,000 (it was an artillery regiment with three "groups" of three four-gun batteries each - so nine batteries with 36 guns) less than 200 were what we would call full-time RegF while the rest were all conscripts on a nine month tour - after that it was rinse and repeat for the regiment.

Around the same time, I also worked with German conscripts (also 9 monthers) and would have rated the Italians about equal in ability.

I'm not a great fan of conscript service. I prefer a reserve service more akin to the ARNG. I think that is something well within our ability to create and sustain at numbers higher than we currently have. It needs major changes in thinking, minor changes in legislation and regulations, and an extensive equipment/infrastructure program but it's doable. OTOH, conscription is a fast way to create a mass pool of trained former conscripts who will be of use for several years.

IMHO. Our problem isn't getting enough volunteers. It's the constipated recruiting and training system and lack of equipment and a clear mission that results in our attraction and retention problems. Solve the systemic issues and the volunteers will come and will stay.

 

[ytz]

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

Votes are a deliberate policy preference. And it's all levels of government. Local councils don't zone enough for housing. Provinces put on green belts or agricultural zones. Feds don't work on lowering housing costs, instead every program they make is about helping new homebuyers take on more debt. And all along the way, certain cohorts have been dominant in voting for these policies.

Go to any city council planning consultation. Virtually every single crank whining about a housing development in their area will have the same hair colour. As will the politicians who agree with them.

This is not even controversial now. The mainstream press is starting to notice how lopsided policy is in Canada. This is from a former Harper economic advisor in Politico:

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/corridors/2021/05/19/the-politics-of-gerontocracy-in-canada-795394

 

[ytz]

I just never liked the idea of depending on someone to have my back who had no motivation at all to serve. Forcing someone to serve who doesn’t want to never sat well with me, unless things were especially dire.

For instance, conscription in Israel and Ukraine makes sense. In Canada and the US, not so much. I could see a case in pre-1990’s and post-2014 Europe.

I could see an argument for some kind of domestic civil defence conscript service. Spend a summer learning some drill, field craft, first aid and firefighting. Spend the next summer fighting fires, floods, etc. Would take the pressure off the CAF and do the national unity part.

But again.

1) What is that time worth? Especially if we're not compensating well. We could easily set up and pay high school and postsecondary students to do this now.

2) The bulk of these proposals are from those who think conscripts are cheap and can bulk up the CAF to fight expeditionary wars. That is a very, very different vision of "national service". It's basically the Russian model.

 

[ytz]

Apparently armies of slaves win.

People are motivated to fight when the threat is more immediate or perceived as impacting kin. Which is historically how Canada viewed Europe. Not sure this holds for expeditionary wars today.

 

[lenaitch]

British basic pay was about 14 shillings per week (US $2.80 at the time). US basic pay after 1942 was $50/month, so about four times more. $50/month was a very good pay rate for a single man at the time, especially when you bear in mind the Army provided food, housing, etc.

"Over paid, over sexed and over here"

 

[Brad Sallows]

Votes are a deliberate policy preference. And it's all levels of government. Local councils don't zone enough for housing. Provinces put on green belts or agricultural zones. Feds don't work on lowering housing costs, instead every program they make is about helping new homebuyers take on more debt. And all along the way, certain cohorts have been dominant in voting for these policies.

Most people vote "for" something, but there are a lot of "somethings" from which they choose. Although people who vote "for" a party are responsible for enabling all the policies of that party, it doesn't mean they wanted the entire slate. I suppose that if "boost immigration without balancing professions and occupations to avoid overages of unskilled workers and shortages of skilled workers" were on the menu, not many voters would check it off.

Go to any city council planning consultation. Virtually every single crank whining about a housing development in their area will have the same hair colour. As will the politicians who agree with them.

This is not a serious criticism. I have observed that people who accumulate capital fairly easily start looking for alternatives to ordinary financial market investments, and real estate is one of the alternatives. Many of those people are in their 30s to 50s - peak earning years. I suppose we could fix the imbalance - higher income taxes, tougher bargaining with public employees, more of the value of higher education paid by the recipients up front (longer to get out from under student debt, recognizing that the education is a major asset in the same way a home is), no real estate investment by politicians or administration employees in any way associated with housing policy, during their employment and with an embargo period after leaving employment - say, five to ten years. It isn't enough to squeeze only foreign investors. If we aren't willing to change incentives, the problem continues. Of course, all of that militates against growth of rental stock without substantial protections for landlords.

 

[lenaitch]

I’ve said numerous times in the past year that the Trudeau government needs to drastically reduce the number of people coming into this country, whether legal immigrants, students or refugees. I’ve seen all the unemployed people living in the streets and going to the Food Bank for something to eat. The infrastructure of our cities are being strained to the limit. I’ve also been one of those who were shouting for Trudeau to step down.

The problems today cannot be remedied simply by replacing an existing party leader with a new one or, for that matter, replacing one political party with another one. We’ve gone from the Harper years to the Trudeau years and, while things have definitely been getting worse, the Harper years were not exactly halcyon days. I could go on and on about how things are made worse by various provincial and municipal governments. Are the Feds deserving of all our animosity towards government? In my opinion, no. For that matter, big business shouldn’t be getting away without accepting a lot of the blame either. CEOs are earning salaries and perqs at obscene levels never seen before. In short, the rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer.

Remember when the I.T. revolution first started about 35-40 years ago? Many technology gurus predicted that it would be greater and have more impact than the Industrial Revolution. Seeing how the I.T. revolution has still only just begun, I suspect those gurus were probably right. Nevertheless. countless people who went to college or technical school and trained for a job in the I.T. sector and constantly upgraded their certification levels still found themselves out of work. To many it’s as if every new day is more demanding than the previous one. Although I’m no longer in the work force, most of us older folks are not deaf or blind to what is going on. I wish I had the solutions that some may claim to have but I feel that young people are getting screwed royally by just about everyone and everything. And that’s not an easy thing to remedy, especially when China, India, Brazil and other developing countries are snapping at our backsides for jobs.

In my previous post(s) I remarked on the desirabilty for some kind of national service. If it’s not military service then I feel there are countless other jobs that would go far beyond merely digging ditches like workers used to do in the Depression years. Would they be great jobs? Possibly, but probably not. They could involve working with existing organizations in various capacities.

Basically, government should not be doing what the private sector can do. But, hey, sometimes the private sector is the one that fucks people over. So the way I see it, government isn’t always the bad guy, whether it’s federal, provincial or municipal…or whether it’s LPC or CPC.

Nevertheless. countless people who went to college or technical school and trained for a job in the I.T. sector and constantly upgraded their certification levels still found themselves out of work.

I'm not old enough or smart enough to know the evolution of the community college system, but there was a time in this fair land when industry was willing to train new hires. When a kid could come out of high school and get trained to be mechanic, welder, machinist or whatever, and paid while doing it. If it was a ticketed trade, they would carry you as an apprentice. Now, the bulk of that has been shifted to the colleges. Even with that, in the early days, the colleges had a strong linkage to the industries they were training towards. Many of the faculties were former industry members and the course directors had an awareness of what the industry needed. Now, the college system has been taken over by professional academics who it seems neither know, or care, whether their output matches the market. Broad brush statements to be sure but I've heard it more than a few times.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"Over paid, over sexed and over here"

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not old enough or smart enough to know the evolution of the community college system, but there was a time in this fair land when industry was willing to train new hires. When a kid could come out of high school and get trained to be mechanic, welder, machinist or whatever, and paid while doing it. If it was a ticketed trade, they would carry you as an apprentice. Now, the bulk of that has been shifted to the colleges. Even with that, in the early days, the colleges had a strong linkage to the industries they were training towards. Many of the faculties were former industry members and the course directors had an awareness of what the industry needed. Now, the college system has been taken over by professional academics who it seems neither know, or care, whether their output matches the market. Broad brush statements to be sure but I've heard it more than a few times.

FYI

Mechanics' institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The foundations of the movement which created mechanics' institutes were in lectures given by George Birkbeck at the Andersonian Institute in Glasgow. His fourth annual lecture attracted a crowd of 500, and became an annual occurrence after his departure for London in 1804, leading to the eventual formation of the first mechanics' institute in Edinburgh, the Edinburgh School of Arts (later Heriot-Watt University Its first lecture was on chemistry, and within a month it was subscribed to by 452 men who each paid a quarterly subscription fee.

This new model of technical educational institution gave classes for working men, and included libraries as well as apparatus to be used for experiments and technical education. Its purpose was to "address societal needs by incorporating fundamental scientific thinking and research into engineering solutions" The school revolutionised access to education in science and technology for ordinary people.

The first mechanics' institute in England was opened at Liverpool in July 1823.

The second institute in Scotland was incorporated in Glasgow in November 1823,

They were also thought to be revolutionary hot beds. In Toronto they were associated with the Methodists, Egerton Ryerson, William Lyon Mackenzie and the Upper Canada Rebellion.

They were offsprings of the Andersonian of Glasgow.

The University of Strathclydeis a public research university located in Glasgow, Scotland. Founded in 1796 as the Andersonian Institute,...
through the will of John Anderson, professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. He left the majority of his estate to create a second university in Glasgow which would focus on "Useful Learning" – specializing in practical subjects – "for the good of mankind and the improvement of science, a place of useful learning".

Education for the masses for a fee.

 

[JLB50]

I'm not old enough or smart enough to know the evolution of the community college system, but there was a time in this fair land when industry was willing to train new hires. When a kid could come out of high school and get trained to be mechanic, welder, machinist or whatever, and paid while doing it. If it was a ticketed trade, they would carry you as an apprentice. Now, the bulk of that has been shifted to the colleges. Even with that, in the early days, the colleges had a strong linkage to the industries they were training towards. Many of the faculties were former industry members and the course directors had an awareness of what the industry needed. Now, the college system has been taken over by professional academics who it seems neither know, or care, whether their output matches the market. Broad brush statements to be sure but I've heard it more than a few times.

I think your observations are pretty much spot on. Although AI and other technologies are playing increasing roles in our lives, I think far too much attention is being taken away from the traditional trades. For example, this country could definitely use a lot more truly qualified machinists who have apprenticed in good shops. Instead, all too many young people are being steered in the same direction as everyone else by the colleges and universities. The result? Everyone chasing the same glamour jobs and often having to settle for less job security. They get seduced by the promise of high salaries only to find that in several years time they are on the street due to changing technologies. In my opinion getting a university degree is often vastly overrated.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Trying to find a night school course for welding for my daughter, there is nothing. Only trade related full time course. Night schools used to offer a variety of Hobby workshop courses.

 

[PrairieFella]

"Governments should build housing" is a bad idea. Governments should set conditions to allow people to build housing.

Government built housing for hundreds of thousands of people post-war to great success and social housing has a role to play in the housing market, but shouldn't be the number one source of housing.

Another thing government can do is get out of the way with overly restrictive zoning laws and spur densification. Our cities can't keep expanding ad infinitum to build more mcmansions, especially as we age as a country, we just can't afford the infrastructure. Nothing wrong with a mix of SFH, townhouses, apartments, condos and CRUs in the same neighbourhoods, in fact many of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Canada are laid like that since that was the traditional way to build neighbourhoods pre-automotive dominance.