clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (12/09/86)
(Second try at posting; sorry if you've already seen the first effort.) In article <811@mprvaxa.UUCP> acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) writes: ... referring to an article of mine ... >I certainly do not agree with this last assertion that to have a family >both father and mother *must* work to support it.... Looked at rents lately? Remember, we're talking about retail workers, not you and me. They're allowed to have children too, you know. > .... I do not support any form >of subsidized daycare. Our governments have big enough debts as it is >and I don't want them forking out even more money on another social >program. And presumably you'd like to remove government support for schools and universities? But not for assistance to single mothers, for example; to a single mother (or father) no daycare means no job. If you need daycare and have a low income, you can find cheap daycare. I've seen cheap daycare; have you? It's enough to turn (pardon the exaggeration) Erik Nielsen into a flaming welfare-stater. In the long run, it's not really cheaper either. Bad daycare now means more unemployment and higher welfare costs later. You learn a lot of things before you're six. If you get the chance. Somebody (not sure who) commented here that Sunday opening might let us save on infrastructure costs -- roads and parking lots. Daycare is a similar cost that might increase. You can't just take the savings and forget the costs, you know. You free marketeers sound to me as if you want Sunday opening because it's fairer for consumers and merchants, but you're not interested in fairness to the people who'd work Sundays. That's not a free market -- it's a free lunch. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
veerman@winston.UUCP (12/10/86)
In article <811@mprvaxa.UUCP> acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) writes: >In article <3731@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >> >>The point was that for most of us there is no choice between children and >>work. Almost everyone wants children eventually, and for the majority >>of couples both father and mother must work in order to support the family. > >One of the arguments being made as to why people need Sunday off is so >that they can be with their children. Just who the he** do these self-centered family types think they speak for ? What about all the people who think time with YOUR children is YOUR problem ? What about people required to work shifts ? What about the people in service & essential industries that have to work weekends ? (The guy pumping gas so you can drive YOUR car full of YOUR kids to the hotel, where the clerk will check you into a room made up by chambermaids on YOUR day off..) What about people who don't have kids ? What about single people ? What about policemen (policepersons 8-) ? What about firemen ? What about Highways Dept. people who clear snow ? etc. etc. Do you think they care about your day of rest ?? I have been in many of the above situations and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that it is a real drag not being able not to shop when *I* have the time to. When I lived in Australia the situation was even more ludicrous. Stores were open bankers hours only, except for 3 hours on Thursday eve, and 3 hours Saturday morning. Result: a mad frenzy every week during the few hours when 50% of the population had to do all its shopping. If you forgot anything, you waited until next week.. When I lived in Phoenix, the stores were open 7 days, 24 hours (most). Opression of the working class for the profit of the capitalists was not that evident. Phoenix is in the U.S. 'bible belt', and most people were still religious despite this tragedy... Somehow, I don't think that Sunday shopping will cause a breakdown in the moral fibre of our society... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maarten Veerman Phevbfvgl xvyyrq gur png... New Media Technologies Ltd. Burnaby, British Columbia @ ubc-vision!winston!veerman (604) 291 - 7111
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (12/10/86)
>If you need daycare and have a low income, you can find cheap daycare. >I've seen cheap daycare; have you? It's enough to turn (pardon the >exaggeration) Erik Nielsen into a flaming welfare-stater. In the long run, >it's not really cheaper either. Bad daycare now means more unemployment >and higher welfare costs later. >Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 I have heard rumours, and these may be rumours of the : "you have it so easy now, why when I was a kid we lived in a shoebox and worked 25 hours a day" variety; but nevertheless rumour has it that people at one time felt responsible for their actions and didn't cry to the government for assistance at every chance. You seem to assume that there is an automatic right for people to expect to receive unemployment and welfare. Canada cannot support its current unemployment and welfare system, at the funding levels that we now do. If we try to maintain the current system, bad daycare now may mean no more than bad daycare now, if the "safety net" you allude to crashes around us. In the same vein, I have never understood the calls for universal free daycare. People are not forced to have kids, they can choose for or against; and if they choose to have kids then they did so in an environment where having kids meant you had to make many different types and degrees of sacrifice, one of these sacrifices being arranging to care for the children. Now why all of a sudden should the entire population be held economically responsible for a decision that you made personally and the consequences of which you no longer like. i.e. why should I pay for daycare for your kids because you don't want the hassle of doing, paying, or otherwise arranging for it yourself. And while we're here; why should I pay money into the UI program, which is purportedly an insurance program, but which I will never collect from while others are encouraged by government to do a 10 week "qualification programs" in order to collect for a year and then repeat the process ad infinitum. The people administering this INSURANCE program seem to evaluate risk different then the rest of the insurance industry, because I know the first time I make a claim on my car insurance I certainly won't be offered a chance to reinsure for the next year at the same rates. Similarly, why should I pay into CPP when I'm at the tail end of the boom and the plan will almost certainly be bankrupt before I see any money from it. Given the huge influx of elderly that the plan is going to see fairly soon, even people in their forties might not see anything back from this plan. Finally, why is it that Canada, a country which in the eyes of many had the cards so stacked in our favour at the start of this century that we were certain to become a major world influence before the end; ended up as a bit player ? Why do we continually elect governments whose record can optimistically be described as mediocre, and truthfully described as poor to bad ? Possible answer (and if this doesn't reboot can.politics nothing will) : 3rd, 4th, and higher generations of Canadians have been generally lulled into a state somewhere between lethargy and laziness. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 try to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (12/11/86)
NOTE: Jim switched from can.general to can.politics. He's right. I'm cross-posting this only to warn can.general subscribers to make sure they're reading can.politics if they want to continue the discussion. This article has a Followup-To: can.politics. In article <3756@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >You free marketeers sound to me as if you want Sunday opening because it's >fairer for consumers and merchants, but you're not interested in fairness >to the people who'd work Sundays. That's not a free market -- it's a free >lunch. Let's see... g/Sunday/s//evening/p Hmm... g/Sunday/s//Saturday/p Hmm... g/Sunday opening/s//Sunday movie theatre opening/p Hmm... g/Sunday opening/s//Sunday public transportation/p Jim, if the problem is really "fairness to the people who'd work Sundays", then let the provincial government legislate that stores open on Sunday may not use their full-time employees. Only business proprietors or partners, designated shareholders (>10% ownership in the business and their families) and part-time employees may be used. That way, no employee is "forced" to work Sundays (even if they want to!), and what Sunday openings there are will reduce unemployment. David Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo seismo!mnetor utai watmath decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (12/12/86)
In article <419@winston.UUCP> veerman@winston.UUCP (Maarten Veerman) writes: > >Somehow, I don't think that Sunday shopping will cause a breakdown in the >moral fibre of our society... Too bad. Ontario could use a little breaking down of its moral fibre. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- You've just killed a small animal. It's time for a light beer. -- Robin Williams ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (12/14/86)
In article <824@mprvaxa.UUCP> I write >You socialist are concerned about jobs for everyone but have you I would like to ammend that to be "government subsidized jobs for everyone". Donald Acton
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (12/14/86)
In article <1445@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >Jim, if the problem is really "fairness to the people who'd work Sundays", >then let the provincial government legislate that stores open on >Sunday may not use their full-time employees. Only business proprietors >or partners, designated shareholders (>10% ownership in the business >and their families) and part-time employees may be used. That way, >no employee is "forced" to work Sundays (even if they want to!), and >what Sunday openings there are will reduce unemployment. This sounds like a brilliant idea. Surely there must be something wrong with it; so few simple solutions to non-scientific problems are valid...:-) But *I* can't see anything wrong with it. The usual solution has been to give people the legal right to designate one (or presumably two?) days of holiday every week, or some variation; and the obvious problem is that the spirit of such a rule would be too easy to break without breaking the letter. This suggestion, however, is compellingly nifty. Congratulations! -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke