subsidized housing

[Petzel]

went to take our kid over to visit gramma and the lights were off, she said that the hydro was off cuz she forgot to pay one month. hydro don't get turned off for forgetting 1 month, especially when 1 of her bills was 15$. then her phone was off for the same thing and instead of cancelling the cable she just let that bill pile up as well, no hydro to turn the t.v on so no reason to pay that bill either lol. her rent was 250$ and she got evicted for not paying, with her welfare and other money she gets for having kids she was making 3,000$ a month and getting all her food from the food bank and christmas presents at the salvation army. she was debt free and basically expense free making 3 grand a month and still managed to fuck it all up.

I swear we're talking about the same woman, cuz the one i know does exactly the same thing. They are master manipulators of the system! They know every loophole to use.

 

[simon482]

I swear we're talking about the same woman, cuz the one i know does exactly the same thing. They are master manipulators of the system! They know every loophole to use.

she wasn't from acton was she ? lol

 

[FatOne]

I know someone who lives on about 600 bucks a month on the dole. You can't live on 20K and rent a 1 bedroom in down town Toronto perhaps but I know someone who lives in a 1 bedroom in Hamilton and has done so on minimum wage for over 20 years. No car, no cigs, no booze but she is doing fine. If you are willing to split a 2 bedroom it gets even cheaper. My situation is a bit odd to figure out [no details] but I figure if I rented a 2 bedroom by myself in my small burg where the dole buddy lives I could do fine on about 1250 a month with car.

 

[FAST]

The real money

We agree again. Another broken part of the system. We glorify, push, and train people to get 'white collar jobs' when those jobs are not as available as we are told and are increasingly lower paid. Then those same people won't get 'blue collar' jobs because they are over-qualified and see the jobs as 'beneath them'.

Actually,...our so called "education system" is responsible for the "push, and train people to get white collar jobs", simply because the people running the show know nothing else, and you correctly stating,...'beneath them'.

There is a lot of people in "blue collar" jobs that are laughing all the way to the bank at these low paid suits.

Lots of unfilled, high paying get your hands dirty jobs out there.

FAST

 

[simon482]

Actually,...our so called "education system" is responsible for the "push, and train people to get white collar jobs", simply because the people running the show know nothing else, and you correctly stating,...'beneath them'.

There is a lot of people in "blue collar" jobs that are laughing all the way to the bank at these low paid suits.

Lots of unfilled, high paying get your hands dirty jobs out there.

FAST

class "A" diesel mechanic makes 32$ an hour and is in high demand. just one of many.

 

[simon482]

Yes, but most younger people do not want to get their hands dirty, no work hard to get ahead

everyone looks down on blue collar but without us the world stops moving. love it or hate it but it's the truth.

 

[Moraff]

That's not why. She's unemployed so she's shopping across the border cuz things are so much cheaper there! It's not rocket science. With the dollar almost at par you end up paying half of what we pay here for the same things! And it's not because of people like her that there are no jobs.

Oh I know you can get stuff cheaper across the border, but if everyone in the border town does that, then the retail stores in the town close up. If your life choices have left you only those jobs as an option then you've contributed to the lack of your type of jobs if you spend your money outside of your town.

 

[Petzel]

she wasn't from acton was she ? lol

No, so i guess it's not the same woman.

 

[JohnLarue]

if employers pay their employees instead of hiding and hording their wealth in offshore accounts less people would need subsidized housing

You need to understand that an employers first priority is not to maintain employment or provide a certain standard of living to employees.
The first priority is to generate a return on investment for the business owners capital invested in the business
The second priority is to meet or exceed their customers needs.(Many will say if this is the number one objective the ROI will follow)

If a business ran with a employees first model, both the customers and the investment capital would soon find other opportunities which meet their needs . i.e the business would not be responsive or price competitive, orders will slow , profits would decrease and investors would seek other more lucrative options, so the business is starved for capital for new products or even maintenance. Competitors sense problems and target your customers, the banks sense more risk and turn off the lending

The need to compete is such a simple, logical and straightforward (and correct) view of business, that lefties can not seem to grasp or just prefer to ignore it.

The driving force is each person seeks to maximize the value of their stake in the business
customers, suppliers, managers (on behalf of the investors), managers personal stake and employees.

It is a a undeniable trait of human nature, yet lefties seem to think everyone should be content with what lefties feel/determine is a fair slice of the pie. IT JUST SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU GET BUY IN FROM EVERYONE and centralized control across an industry and that is communism.

Perhaps you should consider why a business exists before you determining how it should operate

 

[Nate1]

You need to understand that an employers first priority is not to maintain employment or provide a certain standard of living to employees.
The first priority is to generate a return on investment for the business owners capital invested in the business
The second priority is to meet or exceed their customers needs.(Many will say if this is the number one objective the ROI will follow)

If a business ran with a employees first model, both the customers and the investment capital would soon find other opportunities which meet their needs . i.e the business would not be responsive or price competitive, orders will slow profits would decrease and investors would seek other more lucrative options, so the business is starved for capital for new products or even maintenance


This is such a simple, logical and straightforward view of business, that lefties can not seem to grasp or just prefer to ignore it.

The driving force is each person seeks to maximize the value of their stake in the business
customers, suppliers, managers (on behalf of the investors), managers personal stake and employees.

It is a a undeniable trait of human nature, yet lefties seem to think everyone should be content with what lefties feel is a fair slice of the pie. IT JUST WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU GET BUY IN FROM EVERYONE and centralized control across an industry and that is communism

You also need to understand the individuals who work for a company have the exact same right to self interest and a return on their asset (their skills and labour) as does the owner of the capital. Your comments leave an impression that the worker is no different than a machine and has no rights to their assets.

Calling someone a lefty, or a communist is really missing the point that we are all humans and all have equal rights to maximize our assets be it capital or labour.

 

[Petzel]

You need to understand that an employers first priority is not to maintain employment or provide a certain standard of living to employees.
The first priority is to generate a return on investment for the business owners capital invested in the business
The second priority is to meet or exceed their customers needs.(Many will say if this is the number one objective the ROI will follow)

If a business ran with a employees first model, both the customers and the investment capital would soon find other opportunities which meet their needs . i.e the business would not be responsive or price competitive, orders will slow , profits would decrease and investors would seek other more lucrative options, so the business is starved for capital for new products or even maintenance. Competitors sense problems and target your customers, the banks sense more risk and turn off the lending

The need to compete is such a simple, logical and straightforward (and correct) view of business, that lefties can not seem to grasp or just prefer to ignore it.

The driving force is each person seeks to maximize the value of their stake in the business
customers, suppliers, managers (on behalf of the investors), managers personal stake and employees.

It is a a undeniable trait of human nature, yet lefties seem to think everyone should be content with what lefties feel/determine is a fair slice of the pie. IT JUST SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU GET BUY IN FROM EVERYONE and centralized control across an industry and that is communism.

Perhaps you should consider why a business exists before you determining how it should operate

Oh please! The oil companies are making record profits. So are the insurance companies. So are the banks. For Christ's sake!

 

[canada-man]

You need to understand that an employers first priority is not to maintain employment or provide a certain standard of living to employees.
The first priority is to generate a return on investment for the business owners capital invested in the business
The second priority is to meet or exceed their customers needs.(Many will say if this is the number one objective the ROI will follow)

If a business ran with a employees first model, both the customers and the investment capital would soon find other opportunities which meet their needs . i.e the business would not be responsive or price competitive, orders will slow , profits would decrease and investors would seek other more lucrative options, so the business is starved for capital for new products or even maintenance. Competitors sense problems and target your customers, the banks sense more risk and turn off the lending

The need to compete is such a simple, logical and straightforward (and correct) view of business, that lefties can not seem to grasp or just prefer to ignore it.

The driving force is each person seeks to maximize the value of their stake in the business
customers, suppliers, managers (on behalf of the investors), managers personal stake and employees.

It is a a undeniable trait of human nature, yet lefties seem to think everyone should be content with what lefties feel/determine is a fair slice of the pie. IT JUST SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU GET BUY IN FROM EVERYONE and centralized control across an industry and that is communism.

Perhaps you should consider why a business exists before you determining how it should operate

tell that to Norway with the second highest GDP per capita, a generous welfare state, with unemployment rate at 2.6%. a strong labour/union system. maternity leave, sick pay, vacation, etc.

 

[JohnLarue]

Oh please! The oil companies are making record profits. So are the insurance companies. So are the banks. For Christ's sake!

For the record Insurance companies are not making record profits. Low interest rates are not good for them
Oil companies & banks, well they appear to have their investors best interest as a priority
As it should be.

 

[Nate1]

For the record Insurance companies are not making record profits. Low interest rates are not good for them
Oil companies & banks, well they appear to have their investors best interest as a priority
As it should be.

I like profit. I like it when corporations make profits (I am an investor). I also think that capitalism with absolutely no controls is dangerous to itself and society at large.

 

[JohnLarue]

You also need to understand the individuals who work for a company have the exact same right to self interest and a return on their asset (their skills and labour) as does the owner of the capital.

They are free to move thier assets (skill and labour) with two weeks notice & minimumn risk
A business owners assets are no where near as liquid and carry a variety of risks (to a point of total loss)

Equating these two types assets (skills and labour) with investment capital displays a lack of understanding of the risk / return trade off and the incentive to risk capital at all

Your comments leave an impression that the worker is no different than a machine and has no rights to their assets.

They are free to sell their skills and labor to the highest bidder

Calling someone a lefty, or a communist is really missing the point that we are all humans and all have equal rights to maximize our assets be it capital or labour.

I never said we all do not have the rights to maximize our assets.
Labor should seek out the highest bidder for their skills

However, that bid should be determined by the market(ie demand for that skill), not by the cost of affordable housing or someones expectation of a certain standard of living and certainly not by a unions threat to shut the business down

When a lefties tells a business ownwer he /she must divide the economic profits of that business as the leftie sees fit, then leftie is refusing the owners right to maximize thier assets and ignoring the required return for a given level of risk

 

[Rockslinger]

tell that to Norway with the second highest GDP per capita, a generous welfare state, with unemployment rate at 2.6%. a strong labour/union system. maternity leave, sick pay, vacation, etc.

Norway can afford to do that because it has North Sea oil and a small population. Greece tried to do the same thing and it imploded.

 

[frankcastle]

No there shouldn't be a time limit on how long one lives in subsidized housing. Some people just have a low earning potential and no amount of time is going to improve it. So for some people that's the best they can and will do.

Those with the will, skills and potential to leave subsidized housing will. No need to try and push out people like that they will leave on their own accord. For the rest that can't or won't leave. What good does kicking them out do?

As with any system designed for a society there will be individuals who will abuse it or not be able to do with out it.

 

[Celticman]

You need to understand that an employers first priority is not to maintain employment or provide a certain standard of living to employees.
The first priority is to generate a return on investment for the business owners capital invested in the business
The second priority is to meet or exceed their customers needs.(Many will say if this is the number one objective the ROI will follow)

If a business ran with a employees first model, both the customers and the investment capital would soon find other opportunities which meet their needs . i.e the business would not be responsive or price competitive, orders will slow , profits would decrease and investors would seek other more lucrative options, so the business is starved for capital for new products or even maintenance. Competitors sense problems and target your customers, the banks sense more risk and turn off the lending

The need to compete is such a simple, logical and straightforward (and correct) view of business, that lefties can not seem to grasp or just prefer to ignore it.

The driving force is each person seeks to maximize the value of their stake in the business
customers, suppliers, managers (on behalf of the investors), managers personal stake and employees.

It is a a undeniable trait of human nature, yet lefties seem to think everyone should be content with what lefties feel/determine is a fair slice of the pie. IT JUST SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU GET BUY IN FROM EVERYONE and centralized control across an industry and that is communism.

Perhaps you should consider why a business exists before you determining how it should operate

JohnL, I agree with you. It is very hard for some folk to have a feeling for this. I have never been able to properly explain it to friends in non profit pursuits or unions. And I do not say that to disrespect anyone. I work for a multinational and find that many of our employees do not fully grasp this. If they were responsible for several groups with budgets and cost objectives they might have a different perspective. If sales and profit objectives are not met, jobs could be at stake, investor confidence would diminish and the value of shares would drop. These are truly fundamental issues in western society.

 

[FAST]

Out of touch

You also need to understand the individuals who work for a company have the exact same right to self interest and a return on their asset (their skills and labour) as does the owner of the capital. Your comments leave an impression that the worker is no different than a machine and has no rights to their assets.

Calling someone a lefty, or a communist is really missing the point that we are all humans and all have equal rights to maximize our assets be it capital or labour.

WRONG,...individuals who work for a company,...DO NOT have the same rights as the owner of a company,...other than getting a pay cheque.

Your thought process is totally unbelievable,...and I don't even need use communist explanation !!!

FAST

 

[Rockslinger]

I have never been able to properly explain it to friends in non profit pursuits or unions.

Many of the folks in "non-profits" and unions make a pretty good coin. Have you ever seen the salaries of people who work for charitable foundations? Not bad, eh?