Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
krissy8237

Social Assistance/ODSP

Recommended Posts

Minimum wage... Does one thing... Only the strongest get the jobs.... Those with inexperience and disabilities are trapped in a vicious cycle of unemployment. I thought the liberals were against the survival of the fittest mindset... We'll I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very sad to see so many conservatives against eliminated the minimum wage. This will further deindustrialization, and eventually Ontario will turn into a third world economy. China, doesn't play the politically correct games... and this is the result. All this, because the progressive class doesn't respect competition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

Let me know how the homeless people are making out sleeping under bridges. $720 a month is better than nothing. By the way, if we eliminate minimum wage, the market would correct itself. Everything would get cheaper, but more manufacturing would happen in Ontario, and China would be in deep trouble.

$720/month is less than welfare.

Welfare (Ontario) for a single person is

$343 (Basic needs - food, clothing, personal supplies)

Plus 

$390 (Shelter Maximum for Rent + utilities)

= $733 

Homeless people are sleeping "under bridges" because

1- welfare amounts are not enough to pay rent and eat, and 

2- they are more often single men, who never qualify for subsidized public housing because they are never a priority and there isn't enough public housing provided to meet their needs. 

Wages paid for full-time work  must be sufficient for a person to live on. 

Businesses that can't pay people a wage they can live on are not viable businesses and deserve to go bankrupt and shut down, as there are lots of businesses that can succeed while paying livable wages. 

"Everything" would not get cheaper with poverty wages. People would be homeless and malnourished, and we know that public costs (that we all pay) get much more expensive when more people are homeless and malnourished: hospitals, policing and all social services become much more expensive. 

You are either supremely ill-informed, or just being ridiculous.

Edited by jacee
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacee said:

$720/month is less than welfare.

Welfare (Ontario) for a single person is

$343 (Basic needs - food, clothing, personal supplies)

Plus 

$390 (Shelter Maximum for Rent + utilities)

= $733 

Homeless people are sleeping "under bridges" because

1- welfare amounts are not enough to pay rent and eat, and 

2- they are more often single men, who never qualify for subsidized public housing because they are never a priority and there isn't enough public housing provided to meet their needs. 

Wages paid for full-time work  must be sufficient for a person to live on. 

Businesses that can't pay people a wage they can live on are not viable businesses and deserve to go bankrupt and shut down, as there are lots of businesses that can succeed while paying livable wages. 

"Everything" would not get cheaper with poverty wages. People would be homeless and malnourished, and we know that public costs (that we all pay) get much more expensive when more people are homeless and malnourished: hospitals, policing and all social services become much more expensive. 

You are either supremely ill-informed, or just being ridiculous.

My biggest problem with minimum wage, is forcing employees to only accept a certain wage... If an unemployed person wants to work for $3 an hour, what business does a liberal have... telling that person... They're not worthy of a job at that wage... I just think when it comes to minimum wages... liberals are snobs... Let people work for whatever wage they want to work... If the wage is too low, they won't work at all.

The only people I see working for $3 an hour are teenagers... Who want something part time to boost their self esteam, or people who have been unemployed for a few years... and need something to make them feel like their wanted in society again.

Some severly disabled people don't want to go on welfare... Not everyone is comfortable being a parasite... Let people work for any wage they can get... Stop mandating what wage people must work for. It's really none of your business.

I would like to pass a law, where anyone who can prove they havn't been able to find work in over a year.... Can get a waiver for the minimum wage, and can apply for work at any wage... That way they have a chance to compete.

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ProudConservative said:

My biggest problem with minimum wage, is forcing employees to only accept a certain wage... If an unemployed person wants to work for $3 an hour, what business does a liberal have... telling that person... They're not worthy of a job at that wage... I just think when it comes to minimum wages... liberals are snobs... Let people work for whatever wage they want to work... If the wage is too low, they won't work at all.

The only people I see working for $3 an hour are teenagers... Who want something part time to boost their self esteam, or people who have been unemployed for a few years... and need something to make them feel like their wanted in society again.

Some severly disabled people don't want to go on welfare... Not everyone is comfortable being a parasite... Let people work for any wage they can get... Stop mandating what wage people must work for. It's really none of your business.

I would like to pass a law, where anyone who can prove they havn't been able to find work in over a year.... Can get a waiver for the minimum wage, and can apply for work at any wage... That way they have a chance to compete.

Oh.well.

You can fight that out with someone else.

Or move somewhere else.  Lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WWAAAAYYY back in the early '90s sask govt (Conservative at that time) had a programme that required welfare recipients to show up in person for their cheques (THAT alone cut the roles 20% from those committing welfare fraud) and if physically able, to show up for menial tasks as an actual job.   The unions went nuts, but had to back down as the strongest supporters were...wait for it... the welfare recipients who were working at these menial tasks...not for free, but for what they got as welfare.   They were delighted to do this, because it gave them the ability submit a resume for a real job, with a reference from someone who had supervised them actually working.  Having a friend who was Minister of Social Services, I learned a lot about welfare, bureaucrats and clients.   They are not all looking for a free ride.  By the same token, there is a significant body that games the system for all it is worth.

The big problem with minimum wage in a welfare state is that it is usually less than welfare (and the side benefits that go with it).   There is simply no incentive to get off welfare and work for less.  I am not really in favour of dropping the min, but I can see where lowering welfare benefits to some bare survivable level.  Another serious problem is WHERE we give out welfare - Hogtown or Hongcouver are among the most expensive places on the planet, so why would you pay someone not working to live there?  Only a Norther reserve is more costly.   If someone made me Social Services God for a week, the only way you would get a welfare check is by living in one of the dying small towns that has an excess of accommodation and zero tolerance for dependency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cannuck said:

I am not really in favour of dropping the min, but I can see where lowering welfare benefits to some bare survivable level.

You got your wish: Welfare is already below survivable levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jacee said:

You got your wish: Welfare is already below survivable levels.

 

That depends upon where you live and how wisely you spend your available resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cannuck said:

That depends upon where you live and how wisely you spend your available resources

Please share your experiences to validate your claim: How does one pay rent, eat, clothe, maintain hygiene, pay transportation on ~$733 per month ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the role of government to house, feed, clothe, clean, nor transport you.

You are not a baby, the government is not your mommy.  

It's  "social assistance" not "the taxpayer is going to run your life for you"

We all have to take care of ourselves, explain why you think you are entitled to be treated as a helpless infant ?

You really think that we who are already paying over half of our money to the government are bound to pay all your expenses ?

Talk about infantilized. 

pasted-image-0-34-600x383.png

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It is not the role of government to house, feed, clothe, clean, nor transport you.

You are not a baby, the government is not your mommy.  

It's  "social assistance" not "the taxpayer is going to run your life for you"

Most welfare recipients are single moms with preschool children (with absent, deadbeat dads) who stay on welfare on average only 3 years, until their kid(s) are in school. (Because it's cheaper to have moms at home than to pay for child care.) Then they get training and/or job. 

It's just the social safety net working as it should, and really is not anything for people to get their pants in a knot about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jacee said:

It's just the social safety net working as it should, and really is not anything for people to get their pants in a knot about. 

That's you who get your pants in a knot,  once the government steals the money from me at gunpoint, I simply write it off as the price of doing business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

That's you who get your pants in a knot,  once the government steals the money from me at gunpoint, I simply write it off as the price of doing business.

At gunpoint?  Lol 

Such delusional and paranoid catastrophizing must really keep you on the edge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jacee said:

At gunpoint?  Lol 

Such delusional and paranoid catastrophizing must really keep you on the edge. 

If I don't pay my taxes, the police will come to arrest me at gunpoint.

I wouldn't pay them otherwise, since it is at this juncture all theft on behalf of entrenched interest elites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 11:59 AM, ProudConservative said:

Minimum wage... Does one thing... Only the strongest get the jobs.... Those with inexperience and disabilities are trapped in a vicious cycle of unemployment. I thought the liberals were against the survival of the fittest mindset... We'll I guess not.

Evaluating outcomes from Ontario's big increase to $14 min wage:

https://vocm.com/2019/12/04/minimum-wage-increase-boosting-ontario-employment-could-do-more-here-says-workers-action-centre/

Ladd says initially there was fear mongering from businesses saying that companies would pack up and move elsewhere and jobs would be lost.

But, she says that did not happen and there have been lots of positive effects.

Ontario has the lowest unemployment rate it has seen in 18 years and lots of industries are thriving. She says they are seeing the benefits of putting money in the pockets of those who will spend it in their local communities.

= less unemployment as people stay in their jobs 

= more consumer spending, more money circulating, more business for employers. 

Sometimes the knee-jerk reaction - eg, 'employers can't afford it' - is so simplistic that it doesn't reflect reality:  Businesses are thriving because min wage workers have money to spend. 

Same with welfare/ODSP: Cutting people's social support to the bone means poor health and employment outcomes, more petty crime, less money spent in local businesses, etc.

It's a well known fact that the best way to stimulate the economy is to put more money into the hands of lower income people, because they spend it on basic needs, while middle/upper income people are more likely to hoard it as their basic needs are already met. 

The business people who complain about increase in social supports and min wage are people who lack understanding of these basic economic facts, don't understand business, and aren't as likely to succeed in business with that narrow, negative, uninformed and punitive mentality. While they may blame others, the fault lies with themselves. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...