News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Government destroys jobs; the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs; they have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression, recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from. I've been arguing this case for 20 years and warning about bubbles and housing bubbles and NASDAQ bubbles. And a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing. Until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system. You have to deal with free markets. And you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system. Then you can get your jobs, because the people will create the jobs, not the government.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul, Sep 22, 2011
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
C'mon. Even those of us who work in the investment industry are getting sick of the enormous dollars CEOs have been paying themselves and the inequities it's creating. Read Barry Ritholtz' blog, or the NYT Economix blog, or any other of a number of commentators.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree... The progression of the intenet and information age has also changed our finance sector and how publicly traded companies are operated, and ultimately how top decision makers are paid. As a CEO of an established company, you no longer have the luxury of nurturing long term ideas and success (unless you're a major controlling shareholder). It's all about the next quarterly report and EPS. You're decisions are much closer scrutinized, and with prolifiration of the net social media, it's a much shorter tenure than it used to be.

I don't necessary have a problem with CEOs being grossly overpaid as ultimately, their revenue sources are elective. If you don't agree with how much HP or Motorola CEOs are being compensated, don't purchase their products or invest in their stocks...

Much like many want to purchase ethically and environmentally considerate products, but sometimes end up simply purchasing the 'cheapest' - the cheapest products generally come from companies that have the largest wage gaps. I.E. Walmart, McDonalds, Coke etc.
 
Last edited:
GraphicMatt said:
My favourite bit of cognitive dissonance is that the same people who tear down unions for being entitled and overpaid will jump to the defence of present-day CEO salaries.
Click to expand...

Self-oppression is the saddest form of oppression - people who vote for the right on the assumption that wealth will trickle down to them - and it never does. Theyre the shock troops in someone else's war.
 
Filip said:
However it's not a contradictory knot when most people KNOW and are REALISTIC that they'll never see that kind of perk in their present or future workplaces. Then it leads to resentment, and what will eventually destroy the unions in this country.
Click to expand...

There's nothing preventing you from applying for a union job with good benefits and a pension if you want to. Nobody held a gun to the head of any union member and forced them to apply for that job - they did so because they wanted to, and someone who is morally opposed to those sort of jobs is free to apply for a poorer-paying job without benefits and a pension if they feel that by doing so they'll preserve their integrity.
 
The scary thing is that the 1% cannot see the ultimate conclusion to their greed. Let's outsource all the jobs to poor countries, so then we become a society of a small number of elites in a continent of hundreds of millions of poor people. If these poor people don't have the money to buy the goods the "job creators" produce, then their business goes under and they become poor as well.

When I become ruler of the world, one of the first things I will do is to ensure all high school graduates have the know-how to start their own business. On the pessimistic view, it is an excuse for neo-liberalism and is to ensure that those entering the workforce will be able to survive. On a more optimistic view, it can help to ensure that if one cannot find a job, they can create one for themselves. It also can help to further grow our economy by giving people who traditionally would never thought of starting their own business the confidence to do so and to create jobs for others.
 
Filip said:
However it's not a contradictory knot when most people KNOW and are REALISTIC that they'll never see that kind of perk in their present or future workplaces. Then it leads to resentment, and what will eventually destroy the unions in this country.
Click to expand...

You clearly have Stockholm Syndrome- "We clearly cannot expect any better from our employers."

If only people had that mentality back in the 19th century!
 
Last edited:
My guess is that like most young people Filip believes that he will succeed well beyond the average in his field and become one of the elite, so he's not that worried about what employers will give him, despite the claims that he knows the score. Right now he doesn't believe that working class people even with decades of experience should be better rewarded than new graduates in the professions, and would like to tear them down to their rightful place.

Most of the people I know who are under 45 and working for the city or province do have university degrees, even though they are working in jobs that critics consider unskilled (administrative assistants, TTC operators). They aren't people who seem to be living the high life - money for them is tight as they try to pay the mortgages on small condos downtown. They seem like people who would make an honest effort in their jobs. In many cases they struggled during their early adult careers until employment with the city provided them with some stability.

I would like to see the public sector unions challenged some. Bereavement days for friends or weeks of sick leave does seem rich. If jobs could be sold like taxi licenses and corner shops, what would be the value of a semi-skill job paying more than $40,000 a year with an enviable benefit plan that must be replaced with an equivalent position if the need for the original job is eliminated? I don't know if anyone is entitled to that kind of ownership because they happened to get in the door at some point. Considering the size of the public workforce and the tax bite on businesses and homeowners, maybe our streets and parks should be better maintained, our transit cleaner, our police more visible and proactive, and our policy direction more clear-headed.

But Ford seems to have no respect for wide swaths of our population, including many who work for the city. He isn't looking to work with employees to help make their jobs more valuable for the city. He wants to degrade and undermine them. He and his inner circle want to break the union. Sure, if they can somehow quickly wring concessions from them, he will, after the strike of a couple years ago, look like a hero. But is that any more likely to happen than a subway being dug beneath Sheppard? If a strike or lockout drags on he will be exposed as thoughtless, mean-spirited and destructive.

Jobs aren't being eliminated to open positions for people now in school. Every job in the economy that is devalued now makes finding a living wage more difficult for people entering the workforce in the future. The present situation for graduates isn't unique. I permanently entered the workforce in the early 80's, a time that was just as challenging as today. Many people were set back then. Most eventually found some place for themselves, maybe even employment within the public sector, and were able to finance a home and a family, live a productive life. Today's graduates will do the same. But then some of us never quite found our way. I've always viewed work opportunities as scarce and the economy as inhospitable, even though there have been years between then and now that were reported to be boom times.
 
Last edited:
typezed said:
My guess is that like most young people Filip believes that he will succeed well beyond the average in his field and become one of the elite, so he's not that worried about what employers will give him, despite the claims that he knows the score. Right now he doesn't believe that working class people even with decades of experience should be better rewarded than new graduates in the professions, and would like to tear them down to their rightful place.
Click to expand...

Filip has a degree in finance, so there you go.

More cuts and implications:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-environmentalists-objections/article2233005/

Cuts to blue box program urged over environmentalists' objections
ELIZABETH CHURCH
From Friday's Globe and Mail

Toronto’s blue box program is the latest initiative to face money-saving cuts, with a plan to limit curbside collection to what residents can cram into their recycling bin.

The move is part of next year’s proposed solid waste budget and is expected to save the city about $500,000. The measure would end the long-standing practice that allows city residents to place any overflow from their recycling bins beside their blue box in clear bags. It is expected to eliminate three positions – workers required to staff “chaser trucks” that collect the recycling overflow.

The proposed change, which will go before the city’s executive committee later this month, got the approval of the budget committee on Thursday, after members listened to the objections voiced by environmentalists.

The same committee also voted to slash the number of community environment days held each year to 11 from 44 for a cost savings of $122,000.

Emily Alfred with the Toronto Environmental Alliance predicted the new limits will result in more recyclable materials entering landfills as residents with extra bottles or boxes opt to put them in their garbage bin rather than storing them for the next recycling day two weeks later.

She also questioned the savings targets provided by city staff, who noted that about 10 per cent of households have overflow bags on recycling days.

A staff report notes that residents can “upsize” their blue bins for free if the new limit is a problem.

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, chair of the city’s public works committee, also noted that residents can obtain a second blue bin if one is not enough to meet their needs.

But Ms. Alfred said the city will have to cover the cost of supplying the extra bins and of collecting materials from two recycling containers.

“I don’t really see where the savings comes in,” she said. “We are still collecting the same volume of waste, we are just using more bins to do it.”

Councillor Minnan-Wong said collecting recycling not in bins takes longer and the city also is charged extra by its private contractors for the service.
Click to expand...

Contractors unwilling to maintain current service levels? Of course- where would the savings be coming from?


http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1085836--hume-city-museum-closures-loom?bn=1

Hume: City museum closures loom

In a city consumed by the cost of things, it’s easy to lose sight of the value of things.

Torontonians will be reminded of the difference later this month when Mayor Rob Ford unveils the city budget.

Among the measures included will be the closure of four of the city’s 10 museums. Sources tell the Star that those chosen to be shut are the Market Gallery, Gibson House, Montgomery’s Inn and Zion Schoolhouse.

The justification will be the nearly $1 million in savings, a tiny fraction of a city budget that in 2010 stood at $9.2 billion.

For thousands of residents who visit and use these facilities, the impact will be more about the quality of their lives than the depth of their pockets.

The 10 museums operated by the City of Toronto Culture Division cost taxpayers about $5.3 million yearly. The institutions themselves raise $1.3 million through rentals, admissions and gift shop sales.

Annual attendance is about 250,000.

Except for the Market Gallery, located downtown in the St. Lawrence Market, the venues slated for closure are in the former North York and Etobicoke.

Montgomery’s Inn has been a landmark in Etobicoke since the 1840s, when the current building was constructed. It is one of the former borough’s few surviving links to its past.

Zion Schoolhouse, which was built just two years after Confederation, remained in service until 1955. The modest but elegant structure on Finch St. E. was built by families in what was then the farming community of L’Amoreaux.

Gibson House, an impressive 1850s Georgian mansion west of Yonge St., north of Park Home Ave., is also in the former North York.

Though shuttering these attractions is unlikely to stir up the same sort of outrage as did Ford’s threats to close Toronto public libraries, it will inflict further damage on a sector already under pressure.

“Heritage is not gravy,” insists Councillor Joe Mihevc (Ward 21). “These museums are local community hubs. . . the unsung gems of our city. They offer vigorous programs for school kids. But this administration has made it clear it wants some very, very deep cuts to arts and heritage.”

As Mihevc also points out, the city has no plans yet about what to do with these historic buildings once they’re closed. Unless they are to be abandoned and left to fall apart, they will have to be sold to the private sector or maintained by the city, which costs money.

“I think the city will try to sell them,” says Mihevc. “But no one wants to see these iconic buildings turned into bars or restaurants. That would be disastrous.”

In the case of the Market Gallery, founded in 1979 as “the official exhibition space and storage of the city’s permanent art collection,” closure would mean significantly reduced public access to Toronto’s material history.

However, unless Ford is prepared to put city-owned artworks on the block, killing the gallery won’t leave the city with any saleable assets.

Culture has never figured prominently in official Toronto; the major arts institutions in this city depend on federal and provincial funding as well as private philanthropy and the box-office. Even the city’s museums receive $430,000 from Queen’s Park every year.

Perhaps the most serious long-term threat of closing these civic institutions is that Torontonians will lose faith in the city’s cultural sector, and stop contributing the cash and artifacts on which museums depend.

“It will breach the integrity of the city museums system,” Mihevc charges, “leading to a lack of trust among potential donors, funders and partners across the 10 sites.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That's actually very interesting.

In regards to some of the museums, I know Joe Mihevc said it would be "disastrous" to convert them into restaurants, but I think Montgomery's Inn for example would be a nice pub, perhaps even a bed and breakfast. I'd like to see them stay open as museums though, because I fear what would happen to them if they were closed - the city would probably just let it crumble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top