Discussions

now I have to say my 2cents. If people are complaining now send them back to the 40s. Now those people had it bad. I think we have all heard the term....dirt poor. Back when one pair of shoes was a luxury. Just because it isn't as easy as your parents doesn't mean it isn't a heck of lot easier than your great grandparents. Oh Canada, you have it right. We, as Canadian, are blessed to live in this country. This is truly a land of opportunity where we can obtain anything...if you are willing to sacrifice and work for it. "And a person either has an expense problem or an earning problem or both." I love it and words to live by.  
 

Jaxon said "now I have to say my 2cents. If people are complaining now send them back to the 40s. Now those people had it bad. I think we have all heard the term....dirt poor. Back when one pair of shoes was a luxury. Just because it isn't as easy as your parents doesn't mean it isn't a heck of lot easier than your great grandparents. Oh Canada, you have it right. We, as Canadian, are blessed to live in this country. This is truly a land of opportunity where we can obtain anything...if you are willing to sacrifice and work for it. "And a person either has an expense problem or an earning problem or both." I love it and words to live by.     "

Very true...anyone here should count themselves lucky to live in such a wonderful place.  
You will get complainers about everything though, no matter where you go.  
 
For me, I will make my voice heard about things like lack of funding for education. Without it our children will be the ones to suffer. The next person will groan and moan about the state of our roads, the next person will complain about their wages, or something else.  
 
It's all about your priorities. My priority is not making more money right now, my life is fine. Me making more money right now will not change my kids futures. But not everyone thinks like that, and that is where greed drives our economy. (ie. wanting a higher minimum wage will have a negative impact on our economy)  

I did some quick fact checking and in fact the provincial government has increased the amount of funding every year to the school divisions 2002 was $996.2 million and 2015/2016 is $1.27 billion (amounts taken from http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=33871 news archives) As for no availability I'm going to suggest that the housing prices and rental availability are simply supply and demand.Since the 80's the population of Brandon has increased by 10,000 people! That's a lot of new people looking for housing. I believe that has way more to do with it then wages vs. cost of living! There is also not a lot available to buy in Brandon as well so that says to me that the cost of living here can't be that far out if that many more people have decided to call this home!

instead of trying to change the funding for education, you could work a bit and set aside some money to help your children with the costs of education. I mean I guess there is always 2 sides. I for one, feel I received a quality education here in Brandon. Both pre and post secondary. No complaints and saved/sacrificed since my child was born in order to pay for her university education. I guess its a glass half full/half empty issue here. There are countries where education is almost non existent to most. You wont hear any moans from me.

I was merely interested in what the starting wage was for some of the larger and not so large companies here in Brandon for shall we say unskilled labour...wondering if they did actually start people at minimum wage or closer to the $12 or higher...this thread sure has turned into quite the discussion on life and economics!!....

Jaxon said "instead of trying to change the funding for education, you could work a bit and set aside some money to help your children with the costs of education. I mean I guess there is always 2 sides. I for one, feel I received a quality education here in Brandon. Both pre and post secondary. No complaints and saved/sacrificed since my child was born in order to pay for her university education. I guess its a glass half full/half empty issue here. There are countries where education is almost non existent to most. You wont hear any moans from me. "

We do set aside money for our children's post secondary education. That money will do nothing for them at this point in elementary school when our government will not provide funding to our daughter who has a disability. It wont do anything for them when the government wont fund a new school here to stop the problem of overflowing classrooms, which in turn affect our kids education.  
 
In terms of post secondary education, the money set aside for my kids will only go so far when they get to that age, especially if costs keep rising at the rates they are now. That just means that they will have to work harder than this generation to achieve what we have now.

They just announced on the Winnipeg CTV news that Brandon's water rate will go up 44% I believe over the next 5 years. Awful! Don't quote me. I'll try to find a link.

It is also front page news in today's Brandon Sun. It was mentioned rates had not gone up for 5 years. Would have been easier to swallow if they were increased a small amount each year.

It is simple Jellybean. If you can't afford the lifestyle you want, where you are you either change where you are or what you can afford by earning more.  
 
It is that simple.  
 
The problem is, that it isn't EASY. It's hard work and no one wants to work anymore. Even you said that people are complaining that they have to work harder.  
 
The fact that people complain about working hard for what they want is exactly what I was talking about at the beginning of this thread. Entitlement. Everyone wants to start where their parents ended without the effort their parents put in.

Sometimes i wish there was a like button for comments just like on Facebook.

Jellybean said "    Butterflymbca said "What it always comes down to is this old saying,     "If you want what others have, be prepared to do what others do."     If you are an 'average earner' as Jelly bean said and cannot afford housing where you live you have 2 choices:     1 - Move to somewhere you can afford     2 - Increase your earnings     I am really not sure what else there is to say. Complaining that others can have more because of the type of job they have is never going to change your situation, only 'you' can change 'you'.             Edited by Butterflymbca, 2015-08-24 13:45:25" If only life were that simple....     People don't just up and move every time the cost of living goes up. People go in to debt, and some complain about their situations, some get a second job, and some are able to demand raises. We all have different situations and deal with things based on our own lives, but it's not just as simple as getting a new job and moving to a new city because you can't afford something.     Moving or increasing your earnings will in no way make it untrue that wages are rising way slower than the cost of living. "

just because people dont choose to make the choices they need to make does not make them not simple choices  
 
when you take on that debt then take that second job to pay it ect. then it is you that is creating the issue, period!!! its also you that chooses where to live and what to put up with but you know that BF put it simply enough that anyone without and education can understand so its not that, AGAIN ALL of your argument is your perception and at this point im thinking it is severely skewed  
 
 
ps raising education (past a certain expectation) has the same results as raising min wage, now jobs you needed basic math for you need high school and ones you needed high school you need a degree for just delaying the start of peoples careers and putting them in debt to hopefully do more then work at McDs  
 
pps our education is cheap!!! try going to the USA for classes, last term FT cost $7500. here you can go a whole year for less even

If you want a life of luxury, the average person better be prepared to work for it. I must confess, I love owning a home with my husband, and purchasing brand new floors and chandeliers and tasteful decor, going out to eat when we want to, and buying a brand new treadmill vs. second hand... but I work 3 jobs (around 12 hours a day) at my $11-$14/hour jobs, and my husband works over-time as well 9-10 hour shifts.  
 
We want nice things, so we sacrifice spending time together at home relaxing in order to have them. Simple as that. If you want more, go out and work for it. IMO.

I have lived in a country will low taxes. Sounds great...no free schooling & extra school fees, unattainable college & university prices that are out reach for most middle class families, no free medical care (hospital or clinic), no old age pensions, poor poor road conditions, mail theft, corrupt public worker (including teacher, police, postal workers, doctors & nurses, and much more).  
Living here now I can see why we pay so much in taxes. Granted, I do believe the province could do much better than it is with budgeting, spending, etc. Granted, I believe there should be more crown and provincial corporations to generate revenue other than relying so heavily on taxes. But overall, I will pay my taxes without too much complaint and live within my means.  
I know we have it good here.  
Having said that, Brandon is overpriced for what it offers. This city really needs something to draw people here more regularly than a few times a year. Something cheap or free. Yes, there are splash parks and they are great...but not as appealing to teens and adults. Can't suggest what would draw more people and be feasible to make in Brandon. But there are few places for outdoor weddings with the damages by flooding and the lack of a beach and swimming area cripples much economy.  
Most people leave Brandon every weekend in the summer for more affordable weekend destinations or to the larger cities that have better shopping and entertainment selections.  
Even in Westman, many families west of Brandon will opt to go to Yorkton for shopping because it offers more (even Walmart and Superstore have a better selection) and it has places to swim and is cheaper than Brandon (Yes, it really is). And for many people, there is not much difference in the cost of gas.  
 
 
Edited by AndreaD., 2015-08-29 07:30:10

Are we to blame, possibly yes.  
 
Way back in the 80's Time magazine had a economic snapshot of Canada and there were two areas that wages and income seemed low looking at the nation, one area was southwest Manitoba and then there were some rural areas on Quebec. I remember having a discussion about the opportunities the such a situation presents as far as developing an industry, and then along came Mapleleaf. This company offered a chance for the use of local resources as well as labor.  
 
Butterfly has mentioned the idea of entitlement, and I have to agree with her. If local people had been willing to fill these jobs the area could of prospered with lots of jobs minus the housing crisis, and strain on all related areas such as medical and education.  
 
I enjoy seeing all the new people who have come to the area, but I can't help feel that it was an opportunity lost for local people.  
 
I could be way off on how I feel, but it's how I see it.

If you are starting out in a minimum wage position, the best way to increase your lot in life is to work hard, be dependable and become irreplaceable. Then the raises come, better shifts, overtime. Why? Because they can't afford to lose you. Eventually promotions happen and then you're sitting in a salaried position with benefits. It happened to me and others I know. Didn't happen overnight but I worked hard and got to a comfortable position in life for my family. If you're doing the minimum, you'll get the minimum. I see it everyday. If you're working hard for someone and not getting anywhere then talk to your employer and find out what you need to improve on.

don brown said "Are we to blame, possibly yes.     Way back in the 80's Time magazine had a economic snapshot of Canada and there were two areas that wages and income seemed low looking at the nation, one area was southwest Manitoba and then there were some rural areas on Quebec. I remember having a discussion about the opportunities the such a situation presents as far as developing an industry, and then along came Mapleleaf. This company offered a chance for the use of local resources as well as labor.     Butterfly has mentioned the idea of entitlement, and I have to agree with her. If local people had been willing to fill these jobs the area could of prospered with lots of jobs minus the housing crisis, and strain on all related areas such as medical and education.     I enjoy seeing all the new people who have come to the area, but I can't help feel that it was an opportunity lost for local people.     I could be way off on how I feel, but it's how I see it. "

I wouldn't say the opportunity is lost for local people. Mapleleaf will still hire locals.  
 
The problem is that local people didn't want the jobs. A company that wants to bring over foreign workers for labor first has to prove to the government that they can't fill the positions with Canadians.  
 
Migrant workers are willing to work for less, and work harder for their wage. Precisely the reason north America has seen the outsourcing that it has.  
 

AndreaD. said "I have lived in a country will low taxes. Sounds great...no free schooling & extra school fees, unattainable college & university prices that are out reach for most middle class families, no free medical care (hospital or clinic), no old age pensions, poor poor road conditions, mail theft, corrupt public worker (including teacher, police, postal workers, doctors & nurses, and much more).   Living here now I can see why we pay so much in taxes. Granted, I do believe the province could do much better than it is with budgeting, spending, etc. Granted, I believe there should be more crown and provincial corporations to generate revenue other than relying so heavily on taxes. But overall, I will pay my taxes without too much complaint and live within my means.   I know we have it good here.   Having said that, Brandon is overpriced for what it offers. This city really needs something to draw people here more regularly than a few times a year. Something cheap or free. Yes, there are splash parks and they are great...but not as appealing to teens and adults. Can't suggest what would draw more people and be feasible to make in Brandon. But there are few places for outdoor weddings with the damages by flooding and the lack of a beach and swimming area cripples much economy.   Most people leave Brandon every weekend in the summer for more affordable weekend destinations or to the larger cities that have better shopping and entertainment selections.   Even in Westman, many families west of Brandon will opt to go to Yorkton for shopping because it offers more (even Walmart and Superstore have a better selection) and it has places to swim and is cheaper than Brandon (Yes, it really is). And for many people, there is not much difference in the cost of gas.       Edited by AndreaD., 2015-08-29 07:30:10"

i would say it is a fine line, you have a point that other countries have their issues too but as always they also do have a bit more choice then their citizens think yet i agree with the statement in the post above  
 
[i] What encouragement does government have to reduce taxes and have smaller government to reduce debt and save tax payers money? When you can raise taxes who is slave to who?[/i]  
 
while we do have life pretty good compared to some (yes even our welfare recipients do here in canada) both the citizens and the governments could do a better job with their finances too

Nordberg said "    Torque said "    don brown said "Are we to blame, possibly yes.     Way back in the 80's Time magazine had a economic snapshot of Canada and there were two areas that wages and income seemed low looking at the nation, one area was southwest Manitoba and then there were some rural areas on Quebec. I remember having a discussion about the opportunities the such a situation presents as far as developing an industry, and then along came Mapleleaf. This company offered a chance for the use of local resources as well as labor.     Butterfly has mentioned the idea of entitlement, and I have to agree with her. If local people had been willing to fill these jobs the area could of prospered with lots of jobs minus the housing crisis, and strain on all related areas such as medical and education.     I enjoy seeing all the new people who have come to the area, but I can't help feel that it was an opportunity lost for local people.     I could be way off on how I feel, but it's how I see it. " I wouldn't say the opportunity is lost for local people. Mapleleaf will still hire locals.     The problem is that local people didn't want the jobs. A company that wants to bring over foreign workers for labor first has to prove to the government that they can't fill the positions with Canadians.     Migrant workers are willing to work for less, and work harder for their wage. Precisely the reason north America has seen the outsourcing that it has.     " http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/07/dangerous-meatpacking-jobs-eric-schlosser     North American workers tend not to work in meat packing operations because the wages are not competitive with jobs that are less labor intensive and have a much lower risk of injury.     If a meat packing plant cannot find domestic workers, they should have to offer higher wages until people are willing to do the job. That is called supply and demand, and it is the basis of the capitalist economy that we have. Nobody has explained to me yet why these companies are not forced to play by the same rules that they insist the rest of us play by. "

I don't disagree.  
 
But I think you kind of answered your own question.  
 
Mapleleaf is interested in it's bottom line, it couldn't care less if it's wages aren't competitive, or that it's not supplying wages to a local workforce. It's there to make money regardless of what you and I deem a competitive wage, that is precisely what capitalism means.  
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-08-29 14:29:33

Nordberg said "    Torque said "    don brown said "Are we to blame, possibly yes.     Way back in the 80's Time magazine had a economic snapshot of Canada and there were two areas that wages and income seemed low looking at the nation, one area was southwest Manitoba and then there were some rural areas on Quebec. I remember having a discussion about the opportunities the such a situation presents as far as developing an industry, and then along came Mapleleaf. This company offered a chance for the use of local resources as well as labor.     Butterfly has mentioned the idea of entitlement, and I have to agree with her. If local people had been willing to fill these jobs the area could of prospered with lots of jobs minus the housing crisis, and strain on all related areas such as medical and education.     I enjoy seeing all the new people who have come to the area, but I can't help feel that it was an opportunity lost for local people.     I could be way off on how I feel, but it's how I see it. " I wouldn't say the opportunity is lost for local people. Mapleleaf will still hire locals.     The problem is that local people didn't want the jobs. A company that wants to bring over foreign workers for labor first has to prove to the government that they can't fill the positions with Canadians.     Migrant workers are willing to work for less, and work harder for their wage. Precisely the reason north America has seen the outsourcing that it has.     " http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/07/dangerous-meatpacking-jobs-eric-schlosser     North American workers tend not to work in meat packing operations because the wages are not competitive with jobs that are less labor intensive and have a much lower risk of injury.     If a meat packing plant cannot find domestic workers, they should have to offer higher wages until people are willing to do the job. That is called supply and demand, and it is the basis of the capitalist economy that we have. Nobody has explained to me yet why these companies are not forced to play by the same rules that they insist the rest of us play by. "

Brandon has around a 3.5% unemployment rate. If a place like maple leaf can't fill a job with a person in the area the government allows them to recruit outside of Canada. This keeps plant like this in Canada vs. moving them else were or closing as not profitable  
 
If current Canadian citizens choose not to work in a job at x rate then that is their choice. One issue in many cases is that the immigrants that fill these jobs see it as a opportunity. Many are looking for a better life then where they come from .  
 
In many cases were they come from do not have social safety nets like Canada ( universal health care, social assistance , food banks, subsidized housing ect) Were they come from you work or you starve.  
 
Would suggest that in some cases the people that are unemployed do not feel the urgency to do a job that is not ideal as they have what they feel they need to survive. This could be from social programs or from other sources like family .  
 
The difference is many Canadian citizens see it as employers responsibility to "offer higher wages until people are willing to do the job". Immigrants look at the job as a stepping stone to a better life vs. the life they have or the future will hold for them if they stay were they are.  
 

"If a meat packing plant cannot find domestic workers, they should have to offer higher wages until people are willing to do the job."  
 
When overhead costs rise in business, product and service they supply rise to cover the extra costs or businesses either reduce overhead or close. So by forcing company's to pay whatever they have to in order to get entitled Canadians to do work they deem beneath them they will either:  
 
A) Raise their prices - so when you are paying more for food your higher wage won't men squat because it's buying power will be equal to what it is now.  
 
B) They will close their doors because a business that is not profitable no longer exists so that unemployment will rise even more.  
 
C) They will relocate somewhere else that allows them to operate profitably which again will cause unemployment.  
 
So which of those scenarios do you prefer over having people work at a job them don't seem as worth their effort?

North America was founded on immigration - so are you seriously suggesting that we should close our borders to immigrants because Canadians are spoiled brats who refuse to work for what others will? Do you have any idea of what that would do to our national economy and how we would (or wouldn't) be able to compete on a global scale? Do you have any idea what would happen to our industries and our work force when no one would buy from Canada because our prices are sky high and we couldn't afford to import from other countries?  
 
Have we really become so spoiled as Canadians that we cannot or will not see beyond our own self interests and pocketbooks?  
 
If you are not willing to take a job because you feel it is beneath you - you lose the right to complain about those that are willing to do what ever it takes to better their lives and provide for their families. Perhaps if our social programs stopped allowing those who can but refuse to work, benefits, this egotism would dry up in Canada and we could get back to the work ethic that once made this nation great. You think that allowing employers to hire foreign workers when they have tried and failed to hire locally because their sales market won't allow for wages that locals are demanding for unskilled work is corporate welfare? What do you call a person who refuses to work but yet has food and housing given to him? A boon to society?  
 
If minimum wage is $11 and hour and you need $22/hr to work, you either work two jobs or you better yourself to get a higher wage. That is how this country was built but now I am hearing far too much of this type of entitlement. It is sickening and just plain sad  
 
What do you teach your children - "No Johnny, you don't have to go to school, get an education or work hard, just whine and complain loud enough and long enough, eventually someone will just hand you what you need."  
 
Edited by Butterflymbca, 2015-08-29 19:55:59

I think that the wages and benefits at Mapleleaf are considerably better than those working minimum wage. Mapleleaf is a little bit different than much of the beef processing plants, there is not a lot of profit to be has in beef processing but Mapleleaf has sort of a vertically integrated business model which might make it more profitable but if there are surpluses or shortage of animals it becomes very easy for companies to lose money.  
 
The auto industry does use employees somewhat the same as packing houses the difference is people seem to be willing to pay nearly any price for a car and workers have been able to share in that, can't say the same for the meat industry since people seem to seek out cheaper protein sources if prices get high.

So Nordberg you tell me - what is a fair wage to pay for unskilled general labour?

I don't believe there is such a thing, and sometimes those words unskilled labor means nothing. Here's an example, if I was running a feedlot cleaning business I really don't need a skilled worker, but because of the type of job it is I would likely be paying way over minimum wage, this is where the job may dictate the wage and has very little to do with skill.  
 
Brandon used to have a beef processing plant, quite a few years ago, and wages were pretty decent for people working there.

Try and get a better/ real job. Hope for tax reduction for low income earners. Maybe vote NDP and they will pay you extra to do whatever it is that you do. Omg everyone struggles. Yes I make $100k a year and pay about 45% of what I earn to all forms of tax! Is that fair???? No so I actually struggle sometimes with Mt 3 kids and home. Sounds ridiculous, but NDP, sure a great power for people that work!!!

Is that with 3% unemployment there should be no one willing to work that cant get a job of some kind. If you want a free market then there would be no need for minimum wage.  
 
Back to the topic of Brandon wages and cost of living. Do you think that many of the people that come to Canada to fill jobs that employers can't find people to fill would go back to the country they came from to come here. Most find ways to live here by doing a number of things like living with more than 4 people in a 4 bedroom house. Many are sending money back to there relatives and or saving enough money to bring them here.  
 
Many are working minimum wage jobs that many 3rd and 4th generations Canadians feel are beneath them. Why did the Burns plant close back in the 80's ? Couldn't make money? Unionized workers making much hire than average wages? Ask many of those that worked in that plant what they got paid compared to the jobs they had 5 years after it closed for similar work. Many never found jobs in the industry again.

What you seem to overlook is that if an employer can find someone willing and able to do the same job for less, then they are working within the open market. I am sorry you lost your job, it sucks but isn't $4 less an hour better than $0 per hour? That's the problem with the sense of entitlement I was talking about earlier.  
 
If you had two people willing to work for you doing I don't know - cleaning your house - one was willing to work for $10 and the other for nothing less than $15 - which would you hire?  
 
Don't tell me the $15/hr worker because when it is money out of your pocket instead of demanding more money in, the story changes - it will always change. THAT is the basis of the free market.

Nordberg said "    Butterflymbca said "What you seem to overlook is that if an employer can find someone willing and able to do the same job for less, then they are working within the open market. I am sorry you lost your job, it sucks but isn't $4 less an hour better than $0 per hour? That's the problem with the sense of entitlement I was talking about earlier.     If you had two people willing to work for you doing I don't know - cleaning your house - one was willing to work for $10 and the other for nothing less than $15 - which would you hire?     Don't tell me the $15/hr worker because when it is money out of your pocket instead of demanding more money in, the story changes - it will always change. THAT is the basis of the free market. " What you seem to overlook is everything I just wrote. I wasn't looking for your pity (I don't want it) when I used myself as an EXAMPLE of the free labour market. If you took the time to look, you would realize that I said "TOO BAD FOR ME!", meaning that my employer found someone on the free and open market that could replace me for cheaper. I don't have a sense of entitlement, because I never argued that I should of kept my job.     I would hire the $10/hour because that person was available on the free and open labour market... again, something that I already said. That being said I would pay them $10.70 as to stay legal.     I never once argued about either of those situations, and if you would take the time to read my posts for what I actually said, you would realize that. Instead you argue against what you think I'm saying, which would be fine if you were not continually misinterpreting me.     Let's go back to your example. The $10.70 or the $15 per hour house cleaner. Let's change it up a bit. Let's say that the choices are between a $12/hour and $15/hour cleaner. You advertise and advertise for a house cleaner, yet no one is willing to clean your house for $10.70/hour. There are plenty of people that will do it for $12, but the people who would do it for $10.70 already have jobs at that wage that are easier and less dangerous than cleaning your house. In fact, some of those jobs still have openings. What should you do? The logical answer would be to offer perhaps $11.50/ hour, see if anyone wanted the job. Or perhaps, offer the $12/hour and get someone already in the market to take the job. However, if you operated like the temporary worker program, then what you would do is import a worker who by law could only work for you at the $10.70/hour or risk deportation. By that limitation, that worker is NOT PART of the free and open market because they are not free to go work for someone else if that other business offers them more. It is the limitation on the imported worker's freedom to move in the labour market that I am arguing against. When you essentially take away the right to job mobility, you form a section of the workforce that is indentured to their employer and is not free. That in turn artificially lowers the wages that the free market would otherwise determine.     It is not a free market when one of the people involved is not free to move about the market.     So again, I say, let the market decide. I'm willing to. In fact, the market decided that I should no longer have that job. I'm okay with that... not happy, but okay with it. I got priced out of the market: again, too bad for me!     If you cannot find workers, then you have to raise wages until you can [b]compete[/b] with the wages being offered by others. If a business is unwilling to play that free market, then that is a problem with their business plan, and should not be fixed by governments making special immigration rules. It messes with the free market forces, hurts the job market, hurts the company's competitors, and artificially drives down wages.     Again and again I have repeated, "let the market decide". I do not understand why you continually argue against a free and open market. "

When someone enters another country with the intention of working, they require a work visa. This visa has conditions attached to it.  
 
Companies that bring foreign workers in spend considerable time, money, and effort on these recruitment programs. Yes their intention is to provide labor for their companies. And yes they should have the exclusive right to employ these people for a designated time frame. This is no different than an employment contract.  
 
In your fathers farming example, would it be right if your father spent the time, money and effort to bring foreign workers to help operate the farm only to have the neighbor poach them after a month or two for a dollar or two an hour? I don't think so either.  
 

Nordberg - you make immigrant labour sound like slavery - it is not. It is a long costly process which benefits both sides and provides an absolute necessary component to the Canadian economy.  
 
Like you said, Canadians refuse to work those jobs - the fact that any able bodied person has the ability to eat and be sheltered while refusing to work is beyond me, but because that is the society we live in, we have to adjust in order to compete on the global scale.  
 
The scenario you paint is ridiculous. SO all workers demand $20/hr for unskilled entry level work. The prices adjust to accommodate this higher cost - so then they demand $25, and repeat.  
 
You say let the market decide - and if we were to get rid of social assistance for able bodied people I would agree with you 100% because if people HAD to work in order to eat in this country - they would not have the luxury of demands like this. But alas that is not and never will be the case to there has to be controls in place to balance things on the other side to ensure Canada can compete globally and the whole country doesn't end up bankrupt and unemployed because who then would pay for those same social programs that priced us into devastation in the first place.