Politics in 2016

[the 48th regulator]

I hark back to the words of JFK:  "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country."

What I see today is more "Me, Me, Me!" than anything else.  "Let's blame someone else for our lack of integrity, responsibility, and initiative."

Blaming your elders for your failures in any of the above, says nothing of you.  It only confirms what is being said.

I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes. 

As I said, the victor gets to write/rewrite history as they see fit.  If people want to believe the lies, then they will be the ones who suffer in the end.  The fiscal records of the nation are documented and archived.  Future historians will debate this scheme of creating a deficit by the Liberals and debate its ethical and moral values.  Perhaps in thirty years, you can be in on that debate and justify the actions taken by Bill Morneau.

:

George you are so infatuated with Bashing the liberals, you even can't post a neutral post, without following up with some assinine attack on the Liberals and PM Trudeau.  Give it a rest. 

 

[Altair]

I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes. 

As I said, the victor gets to write/rewrite history as they see fit.  If people want to believe the lies, then they will be the ones who suffer in the end.  The fiscal records of the nation are documented and archived.  Future historians will debate this scheme of creating a deficit by the Liberals and debate its ethical and moral values.  Perhaps in thirty years, you can be in on that debate and justify the actions taken by Bill Morneau.

amusing.

The liberals post a projected deficit of 29 billion dollars and Canadians barely bat an eye yet you believe that the liberals using funny accounting to make a 2 billion dollar deficit  for the last year will be the source of great future debate?

 

[Eaglelord17]

So you are against the portion in yellow?  And speaking out against it.  Yes??  Did you vote Liberal and/or support that party?
Think about it for a minute, in terms of what is happening right now in Canada.
1.  It wasn't my generation, or my fathers, who 'racked up the debt'; it was the government of that time who did.
2.  Cost of living is higher, so are wages/salaries Inflation of wages hasn't kept up with the inflation of everything else, one fully qualified machinist I know who is about to retire says the point he made the most for his money was in the 1970s, 40 years ago.. 

No I did not vote Liberal, I honestly see them as a fairly corrupt political party. Personally I am a Classical Liberal (the beliefs of which Canada and most modern democracies were born), and as such there is no real party that represents what I believe in. If you must know I voted Conservative, I am just not tied to one particular party, I see the good and bad in all.

What I want from government, is less control in peoples lives, less regulations, no corruption, removal from the UN, lower taxes*1, less restrictive firearms laws, some direct democracy*2, yearly elections*3, legalization of pot*4, fixing of the trades system *5, proper financial management (i.e. having a deficit should be illegal), and a home buying loan*6. If you can find me a political party which wants these beliefs let me know.

For those that are saying acknowledging that we do have a shorter end of a stick is whining, then yeah we are whining. Personally I am doing what I can to actually get a job which is not government dependant, however acknowledging we have some broken systems (like the trades) is a step towards actually solving problems facing my generation (and future generations). My generation will work longer hours, longer years (pensionable age is only going up), and receive less benefits for those jobs. Maybe I am a little bitter that a fair bit of our discomfort is caused by the previous generations. Things like the exporting of jobs thanks to the free trade agreements (free trade equalizes the playing field, however until our standard of living drops, or it shoots up in other countries, those jobs won't be returning with out government help), changing of the trades system (less qualified people means you can make more money as a individual), chasing the all mighty dollar (caused companies to cut back on benefits, and training to increase profit margins), and national and provincial debt.

Cry me a fucking river.... I worked my way through university.  I had to go looking for a job.  I landed up joining the CF. Your sense of entitlement and "whoa is me" is a sign of weakness on your part; and not the fault of my, or any other, generation.

Congrats. I am currently working my way through my education as well, and I have no student debt as I have paid for all my education myself. Working in the CAF isn't a great accomplishment to be 100% honest. It is fairly easy to get in, remain in, and it pays very well (not to mention great benefits). Not saying it isn't difficult (trust me I know it can be absolute hell), but there is a reason some civvies call it working welfare. I am not against the military by any means, just noting that it can be a much easier path to follow (I did it when I was 18 with only high school, so will many others).

So as you can tell I am not the average youth voter. I have made plans to get into decent paying jobs through proper education (as much as they will let me take), and realistically I don't care about many of the same issues my generation does (I am actually starting to turn into a Luddite, tempted to get rid of my cellphone, I am making quite a few things by hand without power tools, and I still read paper books).

*1 which are simplified preferably in a flat tax manner say 20% of income for all levels past about 25,000 a year, no tax reductions for any specific group, either everyone receives a tax reduction or no one does
*2 I would love to see a system much like Switzerland, you collect 50,000 signatures within say a one month time period you can have a referendum on any law currently in existence, and once the referendum is held, if the majority of people want the law gone the government gets one month to try and re-write it if they wish to, another referendum is then held on the re-written law and if it fails the law is stricken down.
*3 Every year elect a quarter of the government, that way you have stable government changes and you can hold the government accountable as they do things, instead of waiting 4 years and having a big election, by which time issues that were important say 4 years ago (maybe a corruption scandal, maybe something else) have been forgotten.
*4 I personally don't smoke it, and I have no interest in smoking it, but the amount of tax money lost, and amount of money spent on prosecuting someones poor choices is ridiculous
*5 The trades system is broken, how is it we are desperately short skilled trades people yet people refuse to take apprentices? Countries to look at for a successful trades system are Germany and Britain.
*6 We are willing to give people student loans for 100k for a Liberal arts degree (something I would also like to see changed, place a system where in demand trades and courses are given for free, well the other ones are no longer subsidized), why not make a loan for those who do not go to school and waste the money, and instead let them buy a reasonable priced home. Worst case scenario they default on it, and the government gets the collateral aka the house. Best case scenario someone who would have been unable to afford a house through the traditional route, can now get one. You are also not screwed like if someone with 100k of student debt defaults as there is no collateral.

 

[ballz]

Pot this is kettle, Over.

:facepalm: I have been saying the entire time both the old and the young show an equal sense of entitlement and stupidity in voting for parties such as the liberals.

You are too busy trying to bash "the younger ones" to realize that I am not actually arguing with you, just pointing out that you are a hypocrite for pretending your own older demographic isn't guilty of the same thing.

I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes. 

And the same for you. Too caught up in blindly blaming everybody else to realize I am not arguing with you, but pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

I would fire the Liberals in a heartbeat. Just because I don't sit here and be your cheerleader while you embarrass every fiscally conservative person in the country with your hypocrisy, doesn't mean I support the Liberals. I am actually criticizing you on behalf of Conservative supporters, not on behalf of Liberal supporters.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So I present evidence and you dispute it. Cool. You don't present any evidence and instead rely on truthiness.  Got ya.

As you say, you presented evidence - regarding two unrelated sets of facts, between which you failed to draw a line of causation.  Again, my evidence and argument go something like this: all of the issues people ranked as important are perennial; over time many parties at either the federal or provincial level make promises to favourably address one or more of the issues; voter turnout never seems to be notably deflected by those promises; therefore, some factor other than promises to address those issues drives changes in voter turnout.

You want to assume a newfound interest in voting on everlasting issues and promises; I want to assume the introduction of a different factor.

And to support my particular hypothesis - the novelty bandwagon candidate - I can point to Barack Obama.

There is a flip side to that: turnout driven not by the cool candidate, but by the desire to turn out the uncool candidate.  But that is the other side of the same coin: the scary Harper bandwagon is just the mirror of the cool Trudeau bandwagon.  And since Bush was term-limited, we know (unless they are deeply ignorant of term limits) that young voters in the US who flocked to Obama did not do so to turn out the uncool candidate.

 

[mariomike]

My generation will work longer hours, longer years (pensionable age is only going up), and receive less benefits for those jobs.

Not where I worked. They get things now that we never dreamed of. Meal breaks, meal allowance, PTSD leave, minimum car counts, specialist pay, etc...

They get a better pension too,

Accrual Rate  Ours: 2.0%  Theirs: 2.33% 
Earnings Used in the Pension Formula  Ours: “Best Five”  Theirs: “Best Three” 

Edit to add: Not to say times are better or worse then or now. Just different.

"Times change. People don't." 

 

[ballz]

Not where I worked. They get things now that we never dreamed of. Meal breaks, meal allowance, PTSD leave, minimum car counts, specialist pay, etc...

They get a better pension too,

Accrual Rate  Ours: 2.0%  Theirs: 2.33% 
Earnings Used in the Pension Formula  Ours: “Best Five”  Theirs: “Best Three”

Is this with the City of Toronto (what your profile indicates) or a private sector emergency service that was on contract with the City of Toronto?

 

[mariomike]

Is this with the City of Toronto (what your profile indicates) or a private sector emergency service that was on contract with the City of Toronto?

City.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Some of the anti-Liberals on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:

Sorry if the truth hurts.

It can also be said that "Some of the "Hate Harper" or "Hate Conservatives" on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:"


[Xp

Sorry that I am not infatuated with one ego over all others.  My apologies.

We're not about to send another thread into a spiral by letting this nonsense happen here also. Get back on track and stop the incessant stupidity of generational blame and party loyalties.

 

[ballz]

City.

And the reason I ask is, it appears that despite the economic climate, government compensation has outpaced inflation, where in most of the private sector I assume its stayed with inflation at best. I am currently executing the exit plan from the CAF, and despite New Brunswick's massive debt and deficit, the government pays junior accountants about 25% more for salary (haven't compared other benefits) than private firms*.

I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor. Indeed, I was even taught this in school, but the theory has not added up to reality.

It shows me just how unsustainable our government operations are. At all levels of government, we have massive debt and deficits, and yet government jobs are becoming the golden egg in the market.

*This is normal in accounting. Your "ceiling" salary in accounting is much higher in the private sector. However, 25% more starting out is an awful lot, and the "ceiling" isn't that low in the public sector for CPAs.

 

[mariomike]

And the reason I ask is, it appears that despite the economic climate, government compensation has outpaced inflation, where in most of the private sector I assume its stayed with inflation at best. I am currently executing the exit plan from the CAF, and despite New Brunswick's massive debt and deficit, the government pays junior accountants about 25% more for salary (haven't compared other benefits) than private firms*.

I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor. Indeed, I was even taught this in school, but the theory has not added up to reality.

It shows me just how unsustainable our government operations are. At all levels of government, we have massive debt and deficits, and yet government jobs are becoming the golden egg in the market.

*This is normal in accounting. Your "ceiling" salary in accounting is much higher in the private sector. However, 25% more starting out is an awful lot, and the "ceiling" isn't that low in the public sector for CPAs.

In Ontario at least, the municipalities say it's the arbitration system,
https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Backgrounders/2013/2013AMOAribitrationProposedImprovementsFinal.aspx

BTW Ballz, I'm sorry to hear you may be releasing. I've followed your career with some interest. You worked hard to get where you are.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor...

I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.

I'm going to grossly oversimplify and suggest that a compensation package has several factors, each with a value:

    Salary ~ very easy to measure;

    Benefits ~ a bit harder to measure but still, fairly clear;

    Job security ~ has very real value but can be hard to measure accurately.

My impression was that up until circa 1970:

    Civil service:    low salaries, good benefits, great job security; vs

    Private sector: high salaries, fair benefits, poor job security.

On balance, despite the low salaries, the federal civil service (and provincial and local governments, too) was a good place to work.

Starting in the 1970s, when the public sector was unionized, governments were slow to see the costs of doing business and we ended up with:

    Civil service:    high salaries, adequate benefits, great job security; vs

    Private sector: high salaries, fair benefits, poor job security.

The "trade-off" which had existed between the private a public sectors ~ salary vs job security ~ was gone. There were still many reasons to prefer the private sector, including flexibility and career progression, but the salary incentive was gone.

The problem wasn't/isn't "greedy unions;" it is that governments are not very good at bargaining in a free, open labour market.

 

[mariomike]

I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.

It also helps when there's no other competition in town. ( A little fear-mongering now and then doesn't hurt either. )

 

[PuckChaser]

I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.

If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Interesting ERC : since I left private sector:
- I work the same hours, but have more vacation
- I have a DB pension that costs me 1565/ month whereas in private sector I had RRSP and TFSA matching (up to 8 percent and 2500 respectively), stock options and RSU.
- I have extended health care @ 85 percent but in private sector is was 100 percent
- I have solid job security vs no private sector job security. I private sector I had 18mo severance vs a few weeks weeks public sector
- my public sector salary is 65 percent less than private,but still above sunshine list
- I have 500 percent more job satisfaction and am happier- something that money can't buy. My union tells me I should be angry? I tell them I work to live, not live to work. I have every weekend off. Every stat holiday off, no BlackBerry on call.
Comparing the two I would say the public sector university and College teaching gig is a more serene but less financially rewarding deal - money isn't everything.
Cheers

 

[mariomike]

If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.

I knew guys who got fired. All the union rep could do was hold their hands.

After that, the final decision was up to the arbitrator.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.

-- Having worked in the private sector, I can tell you it's not immune from seducers of the canine.
-- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When all the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".

 

[Good2Golf]

-- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When all the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".

:nod:

I even saw the Union bring out the 10-foot pole for the individual.  Lots of paperwork, but worth it, especially when the Union leadership gave the team a head nod, and 'well done' as they left the final meeting.

G2G

 

[mariomike]

-- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When all the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".

Union members can also be let go for off-duty conduct,

Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.
http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession#sthash.m9jwCMuY.dpuf