Categories: Potter Gold

EI-EI-uh-oh?

In today’s FP, Michael Ignatieff (or, more likely, a committee of flacks writing under…

by Andrew Potter on Saturday, May 23, 2009 8:42pm - 52 Comments

In today’s FP, Michael Ignatieff (or, more likely, a committee of flacks writing under his name) makes the case for a nine-week qualification period for EI.

Over at the best economics blog in the country, Stephen Gordon thinks it’s a crazy idea:

The Harper government has provided a broad range of targets for intelligent criticism for their policy choices over the past years. But the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have instead chosen to focus their attention on advocating one of the few remaining dumb ideas that the Conservatives haven’t already jumped on.

Tags: EI, Ignatieff

More by Andrew Potter

Al Heck Brakes

“… chosen to focus their attention on advocating one of the few remaining dumb ideas that the Conservatives haven’t already jumped on.”

Err, that’s how politics works. Party ‘A’ comes up with an idiotic and dishonest way to take money away from earners, savers and investors so that they can buy votes from losers. Losers gratefully vote in Party ‘A’. Party ‘B’ is now pissed and has to come up with a way to get the losers to switch votes back to them. Obviously they must come up new, stupid ideas that have not yet occurred to Party ‘A’, or the losers will keep voting for Party ‘A’ forever.

Party ‘A’ – we must spend billions protecting Quebec from the laws of economics
Party ‘B’ – we must spend billions protecting farmers from the laws of economics
Party ‘A’ – we must spend billions saving the jobs of people who make unpopular cars
Party ‘B’ – we must spend billions eradicating the production of harmless gas
Party ‘A’ – we must spend billions protecting the arctic from evil Russian submarines

And so on.

But what about the winners who get screwed to buy votes from losers – does any party court their votes? Noooooo! They’re not concentrated in any ridings but are spread around everywhere. And being sound, intelligent people they can’t stand politicians or the government and they realize that you can’t vote away stupid policies because once they are entrenched no politician will ever dare to alienate the losers by promising to do away with the welfare and pork. They are the army of non-voters, the brain drain, and the many people who after receiving a Canadian citizenship immediately return to Hong Kong, Lebanon, Somalia, or wherever to earn a living.

The actions of political parties are a lot easier to understand if you keep this in mind.
RayK

Good God, I certainly hope that’s not one of the best economics blogs in the country.

For starters, the TD Bank, the CCPA and the Government of Ontario have all suggested flattening the hours of eligibility required to qualify for EI.

Also, the cost of a universal 360 hour standard has been pegged at somewhere between $500 million and $1.5 billion–even though it would add no additional cost for those already collecting benefits. Based on that alone it seems as though this must benefit some people. Right off the bat it occurs to me that those who might benefit most would be (a) people who just returned from parental leave before being laid off, (b) those who work seasonal jobs who will now be unable to find out of season work and (c) those who have picked up some contract work since entering the workforce but are now unable to find more. All of those people are, quite obviously, affected by the recession.

And even if reducing the hours needed to qualify for EI didn’t help anyone, how would that make it a “dumb” idea as opposed to a simply a not very important issue either way? If it doesn’t affect many people how can’t be that harmful?

Additionally, it is only the Liberals that have made this one item their sole focus. The NDP and the Bloc have both proposed a number of other improvements to EI as well.

Mr. Gordon doesn’t seem to have thought this post through far before writing it.

Alberta Friend of Liberty

The CCPA and the Government of Ontario. That’s some list of economic heavy hitters.

Also, where does the money for EI come from? Well, it comes from the remaining businesses that are still profitable. So we tax their capital base, reduce their ability to expand, and extend the slump (which was originally caused by U.S. government lending policies that subsidized home ownership for those who couldn’t afford it).

ARX

As I remember it, EI had generated over $50 billion in cumulative surpluses since the mid-90s, all of which was directed to general revenues. This “surplus” can be directed to expand EI straight from general revenues, as opposed to targeting businesses to raise the money. And it seems clear the Liberals have no intention of raising business or payroll taxes during the downturn, and it’s really not necessary, seeing as how we’re already in a deficit position. And the inevitable tax increases we’re going to see after the recovery, even if we don’t lift a finger to change EI rules, well that’s a reflection of choices made by this government throughout its time in power. I find the argument to temporarily change the EI eligibility rules to be persuasive, and in terms of the additional cost incurred to our growing deficit, this one seems to me to be a good use of the money. The point’s been made by others in this thread, and I definitely agree, this won’t make EI a more attractive option than working.
RayK

You have no idea what you are talking about.

First of all, the CCPA has a sterling economic record; they have a far more accurate record of forecasting the federal budget balance than the federal government itself (under both Liberals and Conservatives).

Second, the Government of Ontario has plenty of fine economists on payrole.

Third, EI premiums are paid by workers, not businesses.

Fourth, no EI benefits come from capital taxes.

Fifth, the federal government has eliminated capital taxes.

Sixth, the current recession was not caused by “U.S. government lending policies that subsidized home ownership for those who couldn’t afford it”. That’s just ridiculous. CRA loans have defaulted at a rate LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN MORTGAGE.

sf

Third: business pay EI premiums too.

Also, the government of Ontario is biased, they are trying to win votes. Who is the CCPA? Never heard of them.

I seriously can’t imagine how changing EI rules can be beneficial in any way. This would increase the culture of dependency, rather than encourage the unemployed to retrain themselves – this is why the rules were changed in the first place, people use EI as a crutch. They work 8 weeks and sit on EI for 50.

Also removing the waiting period is brainless, any employee who has not saved enough in the bank to last two weeks will not be helped by this, they must as well just declare personal bankruptcy and get it over with.

RayK

“Third: business pay EI premiums too.”

While EI premiums are technically broken down in to an “employer contribution” and an “employee contribution” that’s not how this stuff really works economically. The total EI premium for each employee is a percentage of their salary above a certain exemption and below a certain limit. Therefore, whether we say called that premium a contribution “paid by the business on behalf of the employee” or a contribution “paid by the employee” is irrelevant. They are part of the employees compensation package and not a business tax.

“Who is the CCPA? Never heard of them.”

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives–a highly respected left-wing think tank. One doesn’t have to agree with their policy prescriptions but their economic bona fides are top notch.

“Also removing the waiting period is brainless, any employee who has not saved enough in the bank to last two weeks will not be helped by this, they must as well just declare personal bankruptcy and get it over with.”

That’s a great idea. Take people on the edge and just push ‘em over.
sf

Oh, they’re left wing, CCPA. So that says it all. You’ve got a left wing group who will always argue for more and bigger government hand-outs, and you’ve got a group fishing for votes. Yeah, I remember them now, they’re further left than 99% of the population, that group.

I think you are splitting hairs with the whole employer thing. You could say that the employer pays the employee who pays the gov’t. Or you could say it comes out of the employer since the employee never sees a cent of it. Who cares! The money goes to the government, and neither the employer nor the employee can keep it. Nobody but the government. The one thing you can say is that it is a burden on doing business. The employee never even had it for an instant.

Take people on the edge and just push ‘em over.

Push them over? They are already over if they have zero dollars in the bank and they cannot survive a measly two weeks. Geez, there are people in the world who live for years in poverty and you’re worried about someone who can’t live without an income for two weeks. Two weeks!

herringchoker

“the CCPA has a sterling economic record”

Time to get back on the meds Ray. The CCPA is, for all intents and purposes, the NDP’s policy shop. Check the CV’s of their economists. An awful lot of them helped Bob Rae weave his ecoonomic magic in Ontario during the early 90′s. As a matter of fact, if we’d followed the CCPA’s advice on gasoline pricing in 2008, Canadians would have paid even higher prices for about 8 months of the year.

Oh yes, and employers pay EI premiums as well, $1.40 for every dollar that their employees pay.

kc

I don’t know if the liberal plan is a good one, but i do know the system has problems. It’s been a few years since i last collected uic [ i hate changng traditional namea for no good reason] but the requirement that was then in place seem to be nuts, and counterproductive. Basically if you were a new claimant [no claims history in the past 5 yrs] you needed 960[ approx] hrs of eligible employment. I may be wrong but setting the bar high for those who have’t been takng advantage of he system seemed a tad nuts. At that time it seemed the more frequently you used the programme the “less” hrs were needed to apply again – anyone see a problem here?
As far as i know it’s still the same [ at least in areas of lower unemployment]. that’s a real problem, making it harder for new applicants to qualify – particularly now.
Another injustice imo, is/was the number of people[ often well paid tradesmen] who are able to keep a rolling claim going. You work for a period [often making good money] and start claiming immediatey the term of your contract expires – youre suposed to look for work again right? I’m sure a lot of people do but i know at least one person [ i'm sure he isn't the only one] who uses this system to help pay for winters in the Phillipines. Before anybody assumes i’m makng a case for a too generous system, i’m not. It seems to me that the system benefits unfairly those who least need the help.
So i’m not particularly bothered by Ignatieff’s proposed changes. And while i don’t quite get S. Gordon’s point, i will say if he’s saying that lowering eligibility will encourage people to give up perfectly good jobs in this economy, than he’s out to lunch.
An eligibility of 360 hrs does however seem a bit low. Surely there’s a way to tie in the length of time you can claim with the amount of hours you worked over the preceeding year?
My main point is, don’t punish new claimants, if anyone is gaming the system it isn’t them.
I should point out my friend [ who i beleive unfairly benefits] does pay correspondingly high premiums. I guess he feels since puts a lot in, he’s entitled – i don’t entirely agree.

RayK

“And while i don’t quite get S. Gordon’s point, i will say if he’s saying that lowering eligibility will encourage people to give up perfectly good jobs in this economy, than he’s out to lunch.”

Not to mention that the eligibility requirements have been made so stringent that even if you left your job because your spouse had to move to find work–or your spouse was just transfered–you can’t collect benefits because that’s considered “voluntarily” terminating your employment.

kc

Yeah the tightening of the requirements has had unintended [maybe not?] consequences. It’s just become a bureaucratic excuse to cut people off – often the wrong people. I never liked the idea at the beginning of disqualifying people for say, quitting – there are any number of legimate reasons for quitting. It wouldn’t have been that hard to have a sliding scale of penalties, or longer waiting periods- if you quit you had to wait 6 or 8 weeks for a claim, or you got a shorter period that you could claim for. How Canadians just meekly sat back and allowed our govts to steam-roller the one programme we are entitled too just floors me – reform it sure – punish those who claim for too long too often, sure. But we’ve allowed various govts to gut access to a programme that no longer remotely resembles an insurance policy for the unemployed. There was one good change, it never used to be possible to aceess UI for school, that’s a positive change. oh an maternity – must mention snce i benefitted. Otherwise, give us back our UIC programme you thieving ^%&*# bastards.

Andrew (Not Potter or Coyne)

I agree. The seasonal pogey-subsidized industries like the fisheries are especially problematic. At the very least, people should have to demonstrate an attempt to find work while they are collecting EI–not going on vacation!

sf

They are required to demonstrate they are looking. But skirting this rule is very easy to do, and most of the time the rule is ignored because it is so easy to game the system.

http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

It’s a pretty straightforward argument (which I happen to agree with) – that lowering the EI threshold *as a recession fighting measure* does not make any sense. As Prof. Gordon points out “How many people are there who were hired three months ago – in the teeth of the worst labour market in a generation – and who are now unable to claim EI?” The joblessness in the recession largely involved longer-term employees losing their jobs and being unable to find new ones. How many people were being hired in Jan-Feb ’09 at all? And how many of those same people are losing their jobs today?

The policy may still be worth pursuing for other reasons. But as a policy to deal with recession-related joblessness? It’s nonsensical.

And Andrew Potter is right – it *is* the best economics blog in Canada. That could be taken as damning with faint praise – Canada has very few economics blogs. But it shouldn’t be taken that way – I don’t recall the last time I learned as much as I did in the “A “Why Fiscal Policy Won’t Work” Contest” entry from last week.

kc

I don’t know about the three month arguement, but seem to me to be missing a point i raised. How many of the newly unemployed are those who may not have claimed Uic for a lengthy period? I have been caught in this bind myself – punished for not using the system regularly.
This three month arguement makes no sense to me. [but then i'm not too quick on the uptake] Of course there will be people who aren’t qualified for UI if they have lost their job in that time frame, and if there simply aren’t that many people in that situation to begin with – then why bother to raise it as an issue? Who the hell ever said lowering the threshold wasn’t about helping all the unemployed. I can’t believe that everyone who has lost their job has met these rediculous eligibility restrictions.

Kat

Hi kc, a new entrant or re-entrant does not refer to how many claims you’ve had – if you are new to the workforce or re-entering the workforce then you are required to have 910 hours. To qualify for EI they look at the last 52 weeks to determine how many insurable hours you have. But they also look back to the previous 52 weeks to see if you have at least 460 hours. If you do then you are not a new entrant/re-entrant.

If you are claiming EI you are not allowed to leave your area of residence. If you must travel for a job hunt or interview you are entitled to do that but only for 7 days for job hunt and 14 if you have interviews. While collecting EI, you must be available and looking for work. They sometimes will contact you to ask for the places that you have applied to so it’s not as though you can just take a vacation.

Rayk, if you are forced to move to accompany a spouse, you can voluntarily quit your job to do that and collect EI. I think this part of the law was written in to support military and RCMP members who are regularly being transferred.

It’s all right here….http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/employment/ei/act_regulations/index.shtml

kc

Thanks Kat, but i think you are still missing the point. If you have had no claim for 5 yrs – in other words a honest working individual – and you are unable to meet the 910 hrs threshold then you cannot claim. This makes absolutely no sense in our current situation. Further, you must be still be a younster not to remember when it was possible to have someone else send your cards in for you, even while you were out of the country. I doubt this happens much anymore. But this was not what i meant by[ often highly paid workers] keeping a rolling claim open so they lose no income after say, a plant shutdown has ended. And i believe that you are wrong that those individuals may not claim elsewhere while waiting for a new oppotunity in their trade. This form of subsidy may even be necessary, i don’t know, but it is hardly fair to penalize new claimants who in many cases are very likely to be those folks wo are losing their jobs. And remember, if you haven’t claimed recently you’e likely to be one of the good guys. Conversely making it easier for those who have previously qualified appears to me to be an incentive to game the system.

Kat

kc, if you’ve been working for 5 years then you are not a new entrant/re-entrant and are required to accumulate the number of insurable hours according to your regional rate of unemployment. Because you’ve had a rolling claim does not mean it’s easier for you to claim again. As a matter of fact, once your claim is up, you must requalify all over again.

The 910 hours only applies to people who are entering the workforce for the first time (new-entrant – high school graduate) or if you’ve been out of the workforce for a period of time (re-entrant – stay at home mom now going back to work).

There are no more report cards, now you are required to report by telephone or internet. If you have someone else do it for you and you get caught, you could be required to pay back all of your benefits plus a pretty hefty penalty. First offense is 50% of the overpayment. You can leave the country but you must tell EI you are going and they will then determine the nature of your travels. If you are travelling for a job interview, you can leave and collect your benefit but for only 7 consecutive days. That can be extended to 14 consecutive days if you also have interviews. But…you must report back when you return and you must provide locations of where you applied, names of who you were interviewed by and the outcome. And, you can be sure, they will follow up.

kc

Kat
You only highlight the nonesensical nature of eigibility restictions at this time. Wether you are classified as a new entant or not is beside the point – that’s how you are ineffect treated if you haven’t claimed for 5 yrs. This may make sense in good times but right now it’s plain dumb. And remember, someone who hasn’t claimed in 5 yrs has been contributing in most cases – the exception being a previously self employed person.
Please don’t lecture on the rules, i have been around the block more than a couple of times and i can assure you people find a way to break them – particularly in the past. On the rolling claims yu miss the point. It’s not hard to accumulate new hours as peole in these kinds of occupations work shifts or in isolation on camps etc. The difficulty being that you may be able to subsidize 6 months of work with the highest level of UI. However, i may be overstating this problem as i honesly don’t know for sure if a large number of people are taking advantage.
The point i really want to make is that the system does not do what it should – discourage continual use while providing coverage for those who have lost jobs, regardless of how many hours they have during a recession.
Kat

kc, I’m not lecturing on the rules, I’m explaining them. It does not make any difference if you’ve had a claim in the last five years or not. You still must qualify as per the rules. The only time another claim comes into play is if you’ve had one in the last 52 weeks. You must re-qualify after the end of the last claim so if you’ve had a claim in the last 52 weeks, your qualifying period begins at the end of the last claim.

But please feel free to believe the wrong information.
kc

Kat
You obviously know the system better than i. But your info doesn’t jive with my experience. Rather than arguing i’ll attempt to get the answer fom the horses mouth – wish me luck! Thanks anyway
sf

KC, I don’t know where you live, but in many places the rules are broken all the time, so that may be why you have a different impression.

In the maritimes, employers write out employment forms so that the right amount of hours are there for EI, regardless of the actual reality. Employees use their networks to easily demonstrate they are looking for work when they are not. People employ each other just to gain EI – I hire you for a while, then you get EI. You hire me for a while, then I get EI. It’s a giant racket in some communities.
kc

sf
I’ve never heard any of this before, so unless you can prove this or know through personal experience that it happens, then you are crapping on an awful lot of maritimers.

Maureen

I know employers who structure jobs so that they meet the minimum requirements and then recruit people who are only interested in working those hours and tell them that they will be able to collect EI after the job ends. As an HR consultant I have advised them not to do this as the rules change too often and they may be promising potential employees benefits that cannot be delivered. However, that is what happens when you have an EI system that has changes almost monthly (another reason not to change it as per the opposition’s suggestions – can you imagine the amount of money that is spend on administrating such a program – retraining EI staff, revamping forms/computers programs etc. etc.).

If this was a real insurance program (in much the same way as Workers Compensation is structured) – employers who tend to have staff who claim EI frequently would end up paying higher premiums to EI. Similarly for individuals who claim repeatedly. But as I have mentioned elsewhere, EI is neither an employment program or an insurance program, it is a political program that governments can manipulate depending on whatever they are trying to demonstrate to their ‘public’. Unfortunately, it is employers and workers who end up paying for it since they are the only contributors to the program, but the federal government controls how the program is used (although they provide no funding) and as we saw with the Liberals they grabbed huge amounts from the EI surplus to create they ‘miracle’ of solving the deficit.

kc

Well at least the money did go toward the debt [not that i approve of it going into general revenue]. Didn’t the Supreme court rule that it wasn’t illegal?
Good point about higher premiums for UI hogs. But don’t get me started on WCB. Managers who receive bonuses for disallowing claims – that is major BS. Why do reforms so rarely target the real offenders?

Maureen

There are lots of problems with the EI system and one of the big ones is that it has been manipulated by successive governments to achieve who knows what. One of the first principles should be that it is a safety net for individuals who are experiencing a temporary gap in employment – not a on-going source of income for individuals who have poor skills, lack of training/education, and a limited attachment to the labour market. Yes, there should be a uniform numbers of hours that any individuals should have to work, whereever they live in Canada – but I doubt that should be 360 hours (9 or 10 weeks) – which is hardly evidence of a strong labour market attachment. The benefits should be linked to the individual’s use of the system – the more you use it, the less you get – with a strong push to programs that provide upgrading, training and additional skills. But instead we get a program that is controlled by the federal government, although they contribute NOTHING to the system (it is entirely supported by employers and employees), and the focus is rarely on helping people to get jobs (which means more training). So until someone starts talking about how EI (federal responsibility) and job training (provincial responsibility) can work better together, all we will get is more lame suggestions such as the oppositions that individuals should be able to collect more for less. Yeah, that’s going to turn Canada into an economic powerhouse!

kc

I agree with most of what you have to say except your final point. There’s nothing inherently wrong in making eligibility easier for those who have lost their jobs in this recession. Is it so difficult for the govt to determine wether the individual has received a justifiable layoff? The iiberals idea to make this a temporary change is a good start.

Maureen

Nothing in government is temporary – there will always be ‘political’ reasons to support keeping the temporary changes. My point is that the EI program should be an insurance program not a political football.

kc

Agreed, on both points. But the law of unintended consequences is always in play.

Kat

Didn’t the government just sign an agreement with Ontario to provide funds for more training under the umbrella of EI? And haven’t they also extended this training to those who do not qualify for the EI? I think so.

And I understand they are signing these agreements with all the Provinces.

Anthony

Potter writes “Over at the best economics blog in the country, Stephen Gordon thinks it’s a crazy idea:”

And this is the type of research Stephen Gordon does do over there “at the best economics blog in the country”

‘From my understanding of the literature (and I did ask around), approximately no-one who has done research in this area thinks that reducing the eligibility requirements is a good idea.’

Doesn’t say too much for the state of economics in the country if this is the work of the best economic blog in Canada.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com Stephen Gordon

I cited chapter and verse in another post, one to which I linked in the post Andrew Potter referenced in the OP. All you had to do was show a bit of curiosity and click through.

Sisyphus

For Dan Gardner and , apparently , Mr. Potter it’s a reference of choice.

For people who don’t share their viewpoint , however , there are options ….

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/relentless/

or even more so …

http://rppe.wordpress.com/
Blues Clair

Lo and behold, Erin Weir posts today at the progressive-economics blog..

Rather than waiting for this painfully slow adjustment in eligibility rules, the federal government should immediately reduce the entrance requirement to 360 hours and extend the maximum duration of benefits to 50 weeks across Canada”

Maureen

Yes they did and it is a good start, but given the respective responsibilities of each level of government we will have to see if it is seamless and more importantly if it makes sense and has results. In the past, such agreements have tended to go to individuals who have ‘multiple barriers to employment’ which is the politically correct way to say unemployed single moms who have never finished high school etc. and before I get dumped on, yes they do need supports to get into employment, but that is very different from someone who has been employed for 20 years but needs upgrading. An example – when I was unemployed six years ago (and collecting EI for the first time in my life) I wanted to take a 2 week course to upgrade my skills in a very specialized area that I worked in – I wasn’t asking EI to pay for the course as I had money to do that, but I wanted EI to waive the requirement that I was actively looking for work during the 2 weeks of the course – EI had no way of handling that request. But the kind woman gave me a list of approved training that they could offer and suggested I enroll in a short order cook training course for the next 25 weeks as it was starting the next week! I suggested that really wasn’t a viable career path given that I had 20 years experience and a graduate degree in my work area. She looked at me blankly – I just lied on my reporting form!, took the course and within a week of completing the course I was interviewed for a job where the employer was pleased so see that I had that advanced training.

Kat

I wonder if that’s changed since the last time you were on EI. Let’s hope!

Maureen

i doubt it, because I know people who still work at various EI offices and while well meaning they have little experience in the real world of work (all being civil servants!) and any large organization (such as governments) have a hard time thinking outside of the box. So the response typically is to offer the same remedies that have always been offered. And for many people that may work, however as work and careers become more complex, the one size fits all approach will not likely work. Furthermore, most evaluations of job training programs supported by government funds look at very superficial aspects of the program rather than the long-term impact on either the individual, the employer or the industry sector.

Sisyphus

Reference Coyne, Wells, and Cato. Canada is an economic powerhouse.

brick tamlin

Ask yourself these questions before thinking how much the Liberal reforms would really help.

Have you or anyone you know been unemployed in the past year?\
Of those people, how many found employment in 2009?
Of those people, how many lost that job again within 3 months?

Those are the people this program change would benefit in this recession. It’s hardly worth fighting an election over, and to be completely honest, there are far better things for government to be arguing about, like the billions of dollars being shovelled down the carmakers’ throats.

madeyoulook

Careful, brick. You might offend those so-called progressives for whom any new and creative opportunity to pay MORE people to not work must be fought for, tooth & nail.

kc

Nice bit of mis-representation of the issue myl. My,my just thinking about all those lazy citizens who just can’t wait to lolleygag on Ui makes me shudder. Outrageous, commie crap – fancy expecting your govt to help you survive arguably the worst recession in living memorary. Appalling…scandulous…are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

madeyoulook

Being without work was just as hard to a person two years ago as it is this year. Please explain why the jobless of two years ago was somehow less deserving of this proposed enhanced consideration. My suggestion: the only difference is that a recession increases the number of these individuals, which means “voting block,” and has nothing to do with any actual fair impartial study of the EI issue. So we are embarking, essentially, on finding new and creative ways to pay people to not work.

kc

myl
Well you do concede that there are more of these individuals than 2 yrs ago…and that presumably it is harder to find gainfull employment…therefor the requirement to relax eligibility, if the newly unemployment are having difficulty finding work. How you get from there to: “on finding…to pay peole not to work” escapes me. Presumably, as i said, it’s quite difficult to find work right now.
A fair and impartal study would be fine by me – i am aware the libs play politics too!

Sisyphus

myl, you’d love this guy ….

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5372890/Man-shoves-would-be-suicide-jumper-off-bridge-for-holding-up-traffic.html

madeyoulook

Ahem, kc. You want misrepresentation? You got it right here in Sisypus’s output.

Dot

myl has a point. If up to them, the bridge would have never been built.

kc

Sisyphus
And the moral is…better jump if you don’t want to be pushed. A little harsh on myl, don’t you think?

Sisyphus

Nope. The moral is society’s losers should just get the hell out of the way. They’re holding up traffic.

Fits well with myl’s petty attack on Diane from a while back , I think.

But he’d probably agree with Maggie-with-the purse that there’s no such thing as society anyway.
madeyoulook

Calling for a modicum of respect towards the taxpayer is a petty attack, eh?

Diane heard from me when she whined, as someone who pays no income taxes, that announced tax breaks did nothing for her, failing to appreciate what so many other taxpayers’ taxes were already doing for her.

But, if you want to equate respect for the productive with shoving people off bridges, go right ahead and proudly proclaim your incoherence for all to appreciate.

Travis Fast

SG wrote:

“I cited chapter and verse in another post”

that is exactly your problem “chapter and verse.” Why don’t you descend from the heavens and quit quoting scripture?
Stephen

Lets’s jump into the wayback machine and look at what the background issues were in the mid 80′s, the last time UI was much simpler to qualify for.

It isnt the direct cost as much as the indirect cost to the growth path and potential of the economy. And dont think for one moment that the change is temporary. The fight over changes to EI was massive.

http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/employment/clips/16470/

There was a report from the Newfoundland government after this one as well that addressed the harm it did to Newfoundland.