"Poverty Pimp?" Did I hear that right, Lorne?

The BBQ Pit
41

“By their bootstraps,” right?

We have a job market with what, about 30,000 people competing for the available jobs? Even if everyone was assumed qualified up the ying-yang, are there even 30,000 jobs available in the province at any given point in time? (I don’t know, but until I can get my ass back into school, I see about ten a week that seem likely enough to apply for.)

I’ve been looking for a 9-5er for over a year. Luckily, I do have resources to draw on without relying to public assistance, but since my resume has “self-employed” (which is overstating things quite a bit) for the past five years, I don’t get a lot of bites on my resume. This latest job search is quite another experience than it was when I was a fresh-faced youth, and the company that I dedicated ten years to has vapourized. If I didn’t have the means to bring in a few hundred a month without collecting the dole, (which I’m guessing most job-seekers don’t,) and a situation which makes it possible to get by with substantially less income than most people would consider possible, I’d be totally fucked. Still, I recognize that I’m very fortunate compared with most jobless folks. I also recognize that it’s possible, (and not uncommon,) for people to be ready, willing, and able to work, and still come up against a wall for a couple of years.

Anyone who smugly assumes that people who are out of work for a long stretch must be lazy and unwilling to work is an idiot. Anyone who advocates the suspension of whatever small support that is currently extended to these folks based on their confidence of this fallacy deserves what they get when some hungry and desperate slob knocks them down in the street for whatever cash they happen to be carrying.

Yeah, I’ve collected welfare in the last couple of years. Personally, I found the experience so humiliating and exhausting as to be debilitatingly depressing. I don’t know where some people get the idea that folks walk out of that office clutching their $500/month allowance and thinking, “Boy, this is sure better than having a job!” Because everyone loves having just a little bit less than it takes to keep yourself alive from day to day, right?

: previews :

Good points all, zoogirl.

Talking of unmentioned symptoms of the dramatic changes in B.C.'s economy under this wonderful new schema – noticed the explosive growth of outfits like LabourForce, LabourReady, etc? Those lovely little storefronts where folks start lining up at 5:00am in the hopes that they’ll be picked for a day’s labour at 7:00am? The employer has a contract with the outfit, not the labourer, so the worker gets the benefit of unpaid extra hours qeueing time, outbreaks of fights over position in line, the lottery aspect of it meaning that on any given day your as likely to find yourself slogging your idle ass back home (which costs money, of course,) while the “employer” gets the peace of mind that comes with knowing that they’re not obligated to extend any benefits beyond a “Fuck you, Charlie!” at the end of the day. I guess this sort of thing could fall into the category of “Poverty Pimping,” but back in the bad-old-days of the 1930’s, they called such parasites “Labour Sharks.”

Oh yeah, The Times They’re A Changin’ Back, all over again.

(And matt, I’ve never needed any help being kept on my toes-- I’m self conscious about my stature. :wink: )

42

Ah yes. The rarest of them all: a straw man squared. **
[/QUOTE]

Oops, sorry. IMHO, “See that’s the problem with socialists. It is never about the poor supporting themselves.”

43

Not by their bootstraps, but by creating an environment where businesses want to set up shop and employ people. If business moves away because of excessive legislation, taxes, unions, etc then how do you propose to have enough jobs available for people who want to work and pay for social services? If the solution is to make business pay more taxes then more will make the decision to move. If the decision is to increase personal income taxes then people in general become poorer and some will leave to seek employment elseware along with business. If the decision is to borrow money (the worse one, imho) then the debt and interest has to be paid back which means part of all the taxes collected have to be used to service that debt. It is nice to see that you care so much, but what solutions are you offering that won’t make things worse than they are now?

44

This is so true.

The problem, as amply demonstrated by the recent gubernatorial election in California, is that we live in the age of the payback vote, where the disgruntled electorate is often more concerned with getting rid of the incumbent than with actually paying any attention to who the replacement might be. In such circumstances, a bit of charisma and some “throw the bums out” rhetoric are enough to get you elected, and bad policies (or no policies at all) are not necessarily a drawback.

I’m not too familiar with Ontario politics, but in my opinion the NDP pretty much deserved to get turfed out of government in BC. Of course, i’d be happier if they hadn’t, because the province wouldn’t be in such a fucking shambles now, but they have themselves to blame for their ouster. They were victims of their own complacency and hubris.

Hopefully the “throw the bums out” mentality will reign at the next provincial election. The recent left/liberal sweep in Vanvouver is a good sign, but it’s by no means a guarantee that the whole province will turn against Campbell and the Liberals.

45

So some people will have to decide which they like more: living in that province or having a job. What’s the big deal?

46

OK, to clarify (I’m feeling short-winded today for some reason):

You are acting like it’s such a huge problem that the government doesn’t make sure there is a job for every single person that wants a job in the province.

Along with Uzi’s excellent points (stating generally that the government’s job is to do things that encourage other people to want to start a business in or move a business to the province), I’d like to add that it’s not necessarily the case that the government is doing something wrong if the number of people exceed the number of jobs. Some of those folks will figure out eventually that they need to move.

Any chance of getting this Gordon Campbell fellow on Bush’s cabinet?

47

When is the provincial election, anyway? 2 years from now?

I wish I could tell Campbell to his face what a disgusting person he is.

48

Spoken with all the charm and compassion of Thomas Malthus, with a very similar argument. Of course, when Malthus wrote, the argument at least made a modicum of sense, because at least the poor had somewhere they could go where labor was needed and there was land to support them–the new world. With unemployment and underemployment a problem in both new and old world countries right now, these people moving will do little except add to the unemployment wherever they happen to end up. But don’t let that get in the way of your indifference to he poor.

49

I don’t have an economics degree, so it would be naive and presumptious of me to offer novel solutions to the current problem. That being said, this crisis is not a result of attempts to fix an existing problem. When the Liberals took the helm here, we had a comfortable budget surplus and an unemployment rate of 7%. The Campbell government’s first order of business was to introduce a 25% tax cut and then table a budget with a 1.5 billion dollar deficit. Maybe you’re on to something, and this was a preemptive strike aimed at at preventing an imminent exodus of beleaguered industry, but the signs of such a disaster, if present, were too subtle to notice.

It’s unfortunate folks at different ends of the economic spectrum tend to be polarized over who should be considered first-- labour or capital. It’s common-sensical that a workable economy is dependent on having a disinterested arbitrator between the two, to ensure that a healthy symbiotic balance is maintained. If labour is favoured too heavily, things get fucked up. If capital is favoured too heavily, things get fucked up.

Right now, the see-saw has corporate interests in the clouds, which is great for short term gains for the chosen few. Campaign contributions from forestry companies, for example, have been parlayed into relaxed restrictions on raw log exports. Great news for Gordo’s buddies at TimberWest, not so hot for those (labourers, management, and owners,) effected by the resulting mill closures.

We need people in government who are willing to take an even-handed approach-- to make sure that things are arranged such that businesses are able to operate with the expectation of reasonable profit, and in such a way that their operations are, on-balance, beneficial to British Columbians. In my view, one of the most basic approaches to strengthening a local economy is tailoring regulations to discourage the export of raw materials while encouraging existing industry and start-ups to make use of local resources. Of course, this suggestion will likely offend proponents of so-called laizzes-faire capitalism.

Regardless of debate over what the ideal economic strategy is, (and I’m the first to admit that I’ve mislaid my Three-Step Utopian White Paper, just at the moment,) one thing is clear: Rising unemployment is symptomatic of a poorly-managed economy. Until the economy can be fixed, symptomatic treatment is the thing to do, unless you are prepared to simply let people starve to death.

Having a government wreak havoc on the economy and then start introducing massive cuts to the social programs that more and more people depend on is like having a physician prescribe arsenic as a dietary supplement and then, when the patient complains of an aching head, blandly say “There’s nothing for it – it’s going to have to come off.”

50

So you’re saying that there’s not a single location in the entire world that has more jobs than people. You’re saying that there is an absolutely uniform unemployment problem throughout the entire world.

Do you have a cite for that proposition?

51

Finding a cite for a hypothetical land of milk and honey tucked away somewhere on the planet is beside the point, Taxguy, since the unemployed aren’t really in the position to emigrate. Not many countries are real enthusiastic about people knocking on their door with the intention of scratching around for a job, even if the earnest seeker magically raised the necessary stake to fund the move. For folks on welfare, a couple of bucks for bus-fare to get downtown for an interview is often a concern. Flying down to Belize to apply at a hotel there just ain’t in the cards, even if it were allowed.

So let’s just look at Canada, then. Our national unemployment rate is 8%.

According to Statistics Canada, Alberta currently has the lowest provincial unemployment rate in Canada, at 4.9% – so the answer is no, there is no practically accessable place to go to that has more jobs than people.

That being said, of course there are benefits to moving somewhere where there are fewer people competing for the available jobs. I myself have been giving serious consideration to moving to Alberta or Manitoba – but there are factors that make this seem like a dubious gambit. For me, climate is a major consideration, since I have a medical condition that makes loss of fingers and toes a serious risk in case of prolonged exposure to cold. More generally, moving away from the friends and family and starting over in a strange city with absolutely nothing is a very unattractive undertaking for the increase in “odds” that it would yield. People have an understandable reluctance to do that.

If a new frontier opened up tomorrow, and people had the guarantee that “A New Life Awaits In The Off-World Colonies,” I’m sure the majority of folks would take the opportunity to get in on the ground floor. Until that happens, though, it’s more practical to try to sort things out closer to home.

(Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!)

52

Larry, I agree with your stance, and I think TaxGuy’s being a moron, but let me point out that the fact that Alberta has unemployment doesn’t disprove TaxGuy’s proposition. I’m sure that there’s a town somewhere in Canada with a labour shortage.

I’m sick to death of the “lazy bum” attitude, though. It’s a broad brush to paint with. Vancouver needs to work on harm reduction and stability for people on the streets, and berating the homeless is not going to help.