Conservatives redefining Employment Insurance:
[B]There are no bad jobs, says Finance Minister Flaherty[/B]
Putting the cart slightly ahead of the pony:
there are more unemployed Canadians today than four years ago, and more who have simply given up and left the labour force.
Meanwhile, on the sane side of the force:
She also reminded that EI is not a government funded program, but an insurance policy paid for by employers and workers.
Desslok, the rigour of that math is GOP-debate-level. The actual international comparisons involve think-tanks - not generally Canadian ones - tallying the actual math, not just doing fermi extrapolations based on ideological axe-grinding. But if you like fermi extrapolations, a pretty simple one is “if health care were 4x the end user cost as in the US, Canadian health outcomes and quality of life would both be incredibly bad,” which, per plenty of other data, they aren’t. The fiercest critic of the Canadian health or tax status quo can only claim we’re in the middle of the pack at worst.
Labour mobility needs to improve, although I don’t really agree with him. Don’t agree with the NDP critic either, who cares what your education is if no one wants to employ you in your chosen occupation?
But EI/welfare is a disincentive to work, lots of proof on that.
How can you get laid off if you’re not employed in the first place?
Feel free to show your work, then.
No idea what you mean.
“My work”, thanks for being rude. But here is one study on a natural experiment.
http://womenscourt.ca/wcc-judgments/gosselin-v-quebec-summary/
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/tlemieux/papers/lemieux-milligan.pdf
There are others too. That being said I am only familiar with the Canadian context.
The Quebec government’s defense was that work-readiness programs were available, permitting those enrolled to get an increased welfare rate. The reduced rate was intended as an incentive for the young recipients to find work or get training. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that young people could be treated differently because their circumstances were different. However, there were 75,000 under-30 recipients and only 30,000 spaces. There were also qualifications for entrance to the programs, waiting periods, and older welfare recipients competing for the spaces.
The impact of living on the reduced rate was devastating. Many young people ended up cold, malnourished, homeless and frightened. Some were reduced to begging and petty theft to survive; others were suicidal. The young women in the group became more vulnerable to sexual abuse. Many were sexually harassed in squats and rooming houses; some resorted to trading sex for food or shelter.
I don’t think that shows what you think it does.
I don’t think that shows what you think it does.
Please read the other two. The only point of the law article is the discrimination between under 30 and over 30. Good job on stopping though :)
PS. The under 30 program was also poorly run,
However, there were 75,000 under-30 recipients and only 30,000 spaces.
The other articles only focus on recepients.
OK, but these are still about one group, in one province, twenty-three years ago. I don’t see how that translates into there being “lots of proof” that EI/welfare is a disincentive to work, especially as the studies you’re giving me aren’t about EI at all.
The effects are noticable but minor. More importantly, it’s completely meaningless in a big recession when no jobs are available regardless.
There is more, I just don’t feel like posting/searching them all. :)
Also what does time have anything to do with it? Its a natural experiment that is very accepted by the academia. Unless you believe people that existed 23 years ago were significantly different from people today. Or that people in Quebec are in some relevant (in this context) way different from the rest of Canada.
Using your logic, the experiment is not valid at all because people over and under 30 are not exactly the same. Man, I wonder if you apply the same standards to studies that support your opinions? I don’t really understand why the concept of higher and longer welfare/EI payments would increase UE is so hard to grasp, makes sense to me. Finally, its kind of weird that you start with “EI/Welfare” and finish with “EI”, seems like to prove a point you have to change definitions. I think (but not 100%) sure that the income/leisure choice model would treat them similarly so it does not really matter anyways.
…
The welfare reform of 1989 appears to have reduced significantly the rate of
exit among participants under 30
Also, Canada has a big recession? I think the ministers context was hinting about the boom in the prairies and the downturn in the central provinces and the lack of labour mobility.
Well, let’s see. Are the laws governing welfare the same across the country as they are in Quebec? Have there been any changes to those laws since 1989? Can you extrapolate this one specific group to all Canadians from now until the end of time?
Also, welfare is not EI. EI does not have the political stigma attached to it. I would like to see some data on how EI, specifically, leads to people not looking for jobs, because that is the complete opposite of my experience.
Using your logic, the experiment is not valid at all because people over and under 30 are not exactly the same. Man, I wonder if you apply the same standards to studies that support your opinions? I don’t really understand why the concept of higher and longer welfare/EI payments would increase UE is so hard to grasp, makes sense to me. Finally, its kind of weird that you start with “EI/Welfare” and finish with “EI”, seems like to prove a point you have to change definitions. I think (but not 100%) sure that the income/leisure choice model would treat them similarly so it does not really matter anyways.
By that same logic, any report done about any group is valid from now until the heat death of the universe.
And, like I said, welfare is not EI. They are governed by different laws and have much, much different political opinions foisted on them. I separate them because I do not consider them to be the same thing, at all. Which is why I thought it was weird that you think a study about welfare is somehow applicable to EI.
I would like to remind you, too, that is was your claim that there is “lots of proof” about this issue. So the onus is on you to show me some, smiley-face or no smiley-face.
None of that is relevant to the experiment dude. Did you even read the papers? Also what do you mean by “Have there been any changes to those laws since 1989?” One of the papers is about those changes!!! Did you even read them?
Except that is not what we are concerned about. Only about the impact of payments, unless you believe that an $X payment from EI is significantly different from an $X payment of welfare. No idea about the stigma, EI was changed from UEI to EI specifically because of the stigma. Don’t really care about your experience. See dude, I am a bit confused how you can say an entire province is not a valid sample but your “experience” is.
Well you can make an argument that Quebecois being more European are lazy bums who take advantage, I wouldn’t. And again, yours the time of argument that would make sense in literature, not stats and rational public policy. From a stats perspective, the experiments are valid and stuff like this occurs all the time. See the natural experiment about Miami and Cuban immigration. Furthermore, I don’t think its enough to just state “laws changed” and say that a natural experiment is not valid, I think you would have to go more in depth and argue how those legal/policy changes make the Quebec situation unique and not transferable.
Because its not about the laws or policies, obviously they are manged differently.
Its a forum so I don’t bother that much. Its not like you read the articles anyways…
In order to have been laid off, you first have to have been employed in the first place. So if haven’t been employed, it’s impossible for you to have gotten laid off.
Your contention “who cares what your education is if no one wants to employ you in your chosen occupation” is wrong because somebody clearly did hire you, you’ve just been subsequently laid off. Otherwise, no EI for you.
Your argument would have made sense had I stated “who cares what your education is if no one wanted to employ you in your chosen occupation”
Great! Thanks for, well, almost nothing.
Honest question here: Are you being serious or are you trolling?
This forum is a bit different than most. If you’re interested in communicating effectively here, I recommend reconsidering.
Yes, it would in general. However, that’s in general; right now it’d just lead to more unemployment and suffering.
Also, Canada has a big recession? I think the ministers context was hinting about the boom in the prairies and the downturn in the central provinces and the lack of labour mobility.
It’s not as bad as the rest of the first world, but they’re still significantly below trendline.
On a broader point, forcing people to move before you’ll pay them unemployment benefits is goddamn ridiculous.
Well, they’re not like Germany trying to force someone to apply to a prostitution job to get benefits (that was before they decided that no, apparently prostitution isn’t just a regular job).