Changes to EI are downright un-Canadian

Jun 25 2012

The recently proposed EI changes stem from not only being arrogant, but just downright un-canadian.

And ALL OVER THE INTERNET, so casually typed and barely researched, people decry it, wishing all bodies be back to work, regardless of circumstance or status. But on a safety-net run by numbers, people never actually use numbers in arguments for the changes.

Atlantic fisheries take just under 2% of the allocated EI funds each year. Apparently, they’re complete freeloaders (even if the industry and those fishermen probably gave you a warm house to grow up in – or food to eat). The rest? it’s been a cash-pool for governments, often used to pay down debts or fund other programs. Now EI helps plenty of people, so this government’s brilliant idea is to now strap you on a 6-week benefit entitlement while you scramble to find a similar job. No luck? let’s have you flippin’ burgers instead.

And only 40% of the unemployed actually qualify for benefits. Some enlightened individuals find it empowering to shun anyone using it. Lost your job? That’s not bad luck, you just lack moral fibre. The “ideal” job is out, the “ideal” became work below your skill level and earn less.

Some people paint the poor as “Fools”, but I believe anyone thinking they’ve got job security strong enough, so as to never use EI, is a fool all on their own.

P.S. There’s an amazing piece from the Star that I base this from. It does a much better job of explaining the faults and I encourage the read: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1193419–walkom-ei-changes-driven-by-contempt-and-ideology

Rant by a Loser

One response so far

  1. I love the poor, I say this without reservation, some out there who garb themselves in the persona of a caricature of right wing ideology might call me a ‘bleeding heart liberal’, but this is simply not true, I just love the poor. Much like Tolstoy, or Gandhi, I have come to recognize that culture tends to be generated disproportionately from the lower strata of society. Why this is so I can not say. Without material distractions you have more time to focus on thoughts and emotions and creative endeavours, but this is only half the story. Contrary to stereotypes the poor are hardened people, they live on a wire of insecurity in which they must watch every step they take for fear of dashing themselves to the ground. A rich person has buffered themselves from this, they generally have a lower threshold temperamentally for this insecure mode of existence, this is why like a squirrel or other ‘insecure’ creature, they seek about to store away many nuts for the winter. If you don’t believe in yourself, if you are afraid of the vicissitudes of life, you develop a pathological need for security, even above and beyond any rational persons needs. The poor generally are attractive people, or is it just me who has noticed this? A factor that often influences (men) to pursue wealth is their inability to satisfy one of their primary Maslowan needs – sexual fulfilment. If you are unattractive, either physically or in personality then you have to overcompensate in other areas of your life, which can more often than not lead a man to pursue wealth and power to heighten his own attractiveness to the opposite sex; for those who are already attractive, who have girls lining up, wherefore is this same motivation to be found? With needs satisfied, the impetus which fuels the less genetically fortune dries up. This sort of dynamic also helps create fascinatingly wonderful and passionate relationships amongst the poor, which you generally won’t find amongst the rich. The poor mate on the basis of physical or personality attraction, there is passion and fire there, the rich on the other hand is a dynamic of rational choice which is implemented to overcome inhibiting lack of attraction which is generally felt at the outset between the female partner in these ‘arrangements’. Rich guy sees a trophy, something which like his money can be used as an extension of himself, ‘I may not be attractive, but check out the hot chick I married, therefore I must not be as ugly as you all originally thought’. Girl who goes with rich guy says ‘eh, I’m not a gold digger.. he is kind of a dick, kind of ugly, kind of a boor, but.. well.. he’s not so bad.. how much did you say you make again??” These relationships are generally pretty insipid and uninspiring. I love the poor for their ability to have indifference to social ‘standards’. A poor person may walk around in jogging pants, hair dishevelled, happy with life, not needing to prove anything to anyone, self-satisfied and contented, this same self-satisfaction has resulted in a lack of insecurity, there is no insecure fire burning to promote an all-out money-chase. The rich on the other hand, always shopping around, checking out their ‘competition’, on the prowl, looking to buy their way into contentment through superficial means, ‘keeping up with the Jones’, buying the bigger car, bigger house, metaphors for something they pray could be purchased to become bigger. I love the poor because they lack pretension, they speak simple, they are friendly and neighbourly, they do not seclude themselves behind gated brick fortresses far from the world. I love the poor because I’ve known too many rich and they have left a bad taste in my mouth.