...
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-17-2019 at 05:20 PM.
Saw some signs that show $300 for freeOriginally posted by Sugarphreak
It just occurred to me that the pay-day loan business is going to be off the hook!
You can get 300$ for just 25 bucks!
Reminds me of a storage place that has a sign showing 99% off.
Maybe because what you can take at places like SAIT has just become stupid. Not everybody needs a post-secondary education. Perfect example is the SAIT course below. I never wanna see tax dollars subsidizing bullshit like this.Originally posted by My_name_is_Rob
Why wouldn't they use this money to further supplement post-secondary education?
What's worse is as courses like this become popular, employers will request the courses on a resume, which will force more people to take them, putting a bigger strain on post-secondary education for a job you can easily learn by just working it.
http://www.sait.ca/programs-and-cour...ity-management
brb quitting 75k salary job to get 17k for doing nothing.
jk
why would anyone want that?
They tried this in Manitoba during the 70's. I don't think they completed a final report on their findings, but there is a fair amount of information of the program out there.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...411490895.html
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the NDP sees the upper middle class and the rich as having an excessive amount of disposable income. Well, certainly enough that a small tax hike on their income won't affect their lifestyle.Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Where is this money coming from?
So perhaps that's where they'll get the money. Then again, there's always the magical money printing machine.
So is this really just welfare with a different name? Lazy phucks will lazy. What the hell is anyone going to do with $17K a year, that's less than minimum wage.
"Masked Bandit is a gateway drug for frugal spending." - Unknown303
That doesn't seem too far fetched, as it seems like the condensed version of the hospitality and tourism degree at the U of C. I think the only perk out of either of those would be to work yourself into a hotel or resort somewhere tropical.Originally posted by Feruk
Maybe because what you can take at places like SAIT has just become stupid. Not everybody needs a post-secondary education. Perfect example is the SAIT course below. I never wanna see tax dollars subsidizing bullshit like this.
What's worse is as courses like this become popular, employers will request the courses on a resume, which will force more people to take them, putting a bigger strain on post-secondary education for a job you can easily learn by just working it.
http://www.sait.ca/programs-and-cour...ity-management
The average salary of $38,000 for the grads of that program, seems like it should scare some people away from it.
That would depend on what you mean by "do". It also depends on the rental market prices.Originally posted by Masked Bandit
What the hell is anyone going to do with $17K a year,
So it's about $1400 a month of what will be a zero (or close to) tax rate. Now just rent a cheap room or bachelor apartment and you're good to go to do absolutely nothing...which I suspect is exactly what the Mincome participants want to do.
Thanks for posting this.Originally posted by Aaaaaron
They tried this in Manitoba during the 70's. I don't think they completed a final report on their findings, but there is a fair amount of information of the program out there.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...411490895.html
We already did that. That's how we get all them baristas and money to "non-profit" universities.Originally posted by My_name_is_Rob
Why wouldn't they use this money to further supplement post-secondary education? And by that I mean reduce the costs to the point where its cheaper for students. At least this way they would increase the education level of the country, while providing incentive to actually learn. This country is so ass-backwards, and it confuses the hell out of me.
With how fast AI progresses, I'm not sure even coding will keep you employed. But not knowing coding will definitely not employable.Originally posted by J-hop
Get your kids learning to code at an early age. I'm so glad I took more programming classes than needed and learned a few languages. I watch people who can't make the switch to the general principles and way of thinking you need to understand to code and they are quickly becoming useless even in things as basic as excel
Last edited by Xtrema; 04-25-2017 at 09:57 AM.
$17K aka $1400/month is not a terrible income. I lived on about that much when I was working throughout my 20's. $650 on rent with a roommate, 500 on groceries and going out, remainder on bills and random stuff. It's a decent living considering you're getting paid to do NOTHING.
If you're paying people why not make them do something even if its menial tasks like street sweeping or even paying them to complete some education. Free money sends all the wrong messages and encourages laziness which becomes an unbreakable cycle. Living out west we don't get a sense of just how crazy liberal socialist the rest of Canada really is.
And I don't buy this automation killing 90% of jobs crap for a minute. 100 years ago we would've all been farmers but as technology comes along it creates a lot more skilled jobs. We just don't know what those jobs will look like at this point.
To be fair a huge portion of young baristas you are referring to are there to pay their way through uni....Originally posted by Xtrema
We already did that. That's how we get all them baristas and money to "non-profit" universities.
People always bash Starbucks and Tim Hortons employees but those are some of the better companies flexibility wise to work for during uni. I'd go out on a limb and say on average the baristas have a higher level of education than the average clientele
That is a common argument but new jobs simply are not appearing at the rate they used to, to keep pace with advancements in technology.Originally posted by Manhattan
.
And I don't buy this automation killing 90% of jobs crap for a minute. 100 years ago we would've all been farmers but as technology comes along it creates a lot more skilled jobs. We just don't know what those jobs will look like at this point.
A bad and completely fabricated example. A simple assembly line robot created a few dozen jobs to design (once), build, program and maintain. But got rid of 100s of jobs on assembly lines.
The other problem is the majority of the jobs created will be at highly technical levels and the barrier to entry is getting higher. Even today we are starting to see that a bachelor's degree isn't even enough for a lot of technical roles
Last edited by J-hop; 04-25-2017 at 09:57 AM.
Originally posted by Feruk
at places like SAIT[/url]
Get your head out of your ass.
Now THAT is a waste of money.Originally posted by My_name_is_Rob
That doesn't seem too far fetched, as it seems like the condensed version of the hospitality and tourism degree at the U of C.
While I agree with Feruk's sentiment in general, I think it is generally accepted that management have some form of formal training. Do they need a degree? No. But some training that is specific to industry isn't a bad thing.
And that train has already left the station in regards to more education for jobs that don't need it. I see so many jobs that could be done without an education. The problem is that Canada suffers from an incredibly low investment culture when it comes to employee training. Its been shoved off from companies to the education system, and it shows. And in order to get in, you have to get further post secondary
Exactly. On minicome? You're sweeping, picking up garbage, painting buildings, fences, bridges, etc.Originally posted by Manhattan
If you're paying people why not make them do something even if its menial tasks like street sweeping or even paying them to complete some education.
The idea is how to spend your public funds. Spend $17K to help someone to get back on their feet or $100K in policing and health care otherwise.Originally posted by Seth1968
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the NDP sees the upper middle class and the rich as having an excessive amount of disposable income. Well, certainly enough that a small tax hike on their income won't affect their lifestyle.
So perhaps that's where they'll get the money. Then again, there's always the magical money printing machine.
It's basically the same math Med Hat used to end homelessness. $20K to put them in a home instead of $100K of other social services.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...ness-1.3074742
Unions will not allow that.Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Exactly. On minicome? You're sweeping, picking up garbage, painting buildings, fences, bridges, etc.
Only people can live on $17K are kids leeching off parents or retirees that got the housing situation under control. For most of the population, it's still not a good enough incentive to not work.
Also, min income could be used to replace EI. And for some of the population in Calgary that EI has ran out, it's probably better shock absorber than the current EI system and even Self Employed people can benefit from it.
Last edited by Xtrema; 04-25-2017 at 10:11 AM.
Then it's no longer a "guaranteed income".Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Exactly. On minicome? You're sweeping, picking up garbage, painting buildings, fences, bridges, etc.
Thanks for that.Originally posted by Xtrema
The idea is how to spend your public funds. Spend $17K to help someone to get back on their feet or $100K in policing and health care otherwise.
It's basically the same math Med Hat used to end homelessness. $20K to put them in a home instead of $100K of other social services.
It seems like an interesting experiment.
Calgary has similar programs too.Originally posted by Xtrema
It's basically the same math Med Hat used to end homelessness. $20K to put them in a home instead of $100K of other social services.
Even if you (someone) somehow doesn't give two shits about a homeless person's life, the money spent on helping them out of homelessness and addictions recovery is cheaper overall than them ending up in emerg all the time.
It's the same reason why efforts like The DOAP team exist - it's cheaper for tax payers and less stressful to the individual for an outreach team to pick up/transport someone's drunk ass than having to call the cops/ambulance for non-emergency situations where their services could be better served.
This all falls under the umbrella of harm reduction.
Ultracrepidarian
LOL.
Mincome is coming, but not for the reasons most of you think.
What are we supposed to do with people once most jobs are automated?