I think there would be a lot more money available to help those people who demonstrate a proven need in our country if we had a major "tune up" in way our Municipal, Provincial, and Federal Politicians spend our money.

C’mon now, Bronco.

We’re not that stupid.

Our lame-duck mayor, Dave Bronconnier, gave a recent speech attacking the news coverage that has resulted from the fact the City of Calgary has been operating with the same kind of financial management system pioneered by crack addicts.

To wit: Keep huffing on the pipe until the money runs out.

The facts, as discovered by the city auditor, are as follows: The auditor found the city handed out contracts without competition about five times more often than the City of Toronto. Around $212 million in contracts grew to a staggering $959 million before they were done ... and in a lot of instances, the paperwork explaining the increase is nowhere to be found.

Lemme say that again:

Some of the paperwork explaining the increases is missing.

Try getting away with that crap where you work.

There is more of this article at the following link:

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/columnists/ian_robinson/2010/05/23/14051776.html

Writing about the spending habits of Members of Parliament is not among my favourite topics — not because I necessarily trust the way all of them spend their allowances or because it’s not important to see how our money is spent, but because I believe that talking about their individual spending is beside the point if we don’t talk about the billions of dollars they administer without our knowing the details.

For example, we don’t know why they spend more than $12 billion on our 700,000 natives, who nevertheless still live in Third World conditions. Nobody asks where that money goes.

We don’t know how they spend a budget of more than $22 billion for military equipment and whether we’re getting the best out of that money.

We still don’t know how many billions they spend on the computerization of federal offices while still leaving us, as the auditor general said recently, with the entire system close to technical paralysis.

There is more of this article at the following link:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/813003--persichilli-mps-restrain-their-enthusiasm-for-transparency

One has to wonder whether those who deliver these "new educational services for older workers" are going to be the main beneficiaries of all this additional spending. And the newly educated older workers are still going to find little demand from employers for their improved skills.

Is it training in case there are employment opportunities? Or training for actual employment? Training would be great if there were employers willing to employ this demographic. From experience I can say that finding employment is the biggest challenge here.

Maybe they're going to train them to train older workers to train older workers to train older workers...and so on.

Kind of like putting everyone to work digging holes, and then when they're finished, having them fill them in again.

You can create endless employment doing that if you need to have a 'moral' excuse to "Let no man eat until he has first worked."

And isn't that all this really is? A pretence that we still need these people as 'producers' in the face of the actual reality that demonstrates time and again that we don't.

For if their actual continued 'production' was really of any benefit to themselves or their fellow man, wouldn't they still be employed?

And if it isn't, then how can their continued actual 'consumption' be any detriment to themselves and their fellow man?

Give 'em the means of consumption ~ the 'money' that'll be wasted funding programs like this, and the still greater amount that'll be wasted administrating, auditing, studying, and reporting on them ~ and let them 'consume'. If their spending initiates a greater demand for MORE 'production', jobs will open up to fill that demand. If it doesn't, at least we'll be able to more fully sell the stuff we've already made without pretending we have to make still 'more' of it (that then won't be able to be fully sold either) to do that.

Here is where you and I agree 100%, socredible.

Fuzzy is right on the money. The government is totally out of ideas.

Hopefully there will be opportunities for people like Charles to be trained to post in the relevant topic area on a blog. :-)

http://www2.bc.edu/~jbw/documents/wob_11.pdf

Retraining for older workers makes more sense in some countries than others.

Here is a segment from the above link about the way this has been handled in Japan for several decades. A cultural difference to be sure.

The Japanese government has taken a number of initiatives over the years to foster continued labor force participation among older workers. Given the existence of mandatory retirement policies, much of the effort is designed not so much to protect workers from being forced to retire as it is to provide employers with incentives to help these employees find alternative employment after being forced to retire (from their career jobs) at about age 60.

With the passage of the Employment Promotion Measures Act in 1966, it became a national priority to assist older workers who were very close to the mandatory retirement age in finding new jobs after forced retirement. In 1971 the government enacted the Law Concerning Stabilization of Employment of Older Persons, which remains the most significant policy initiative related to the Japanese government’s support of older workers. The 2002 amendment to the 1971 Law required that employers start taking steps to modify their existing employment procedures so as to assure continued employment of workers up to at least age 65. This amendment also implemented various policies to provide unemployed middle-aged workers with seminars and counseling services to promote re-employment.

Subsidy Programs to Support Employers and Older Employees. Under subsequent (2004) amendments to the 1971 Law, the government has started providing support for employers in addition to employees, such as providing consultants and financial incentives to promote employment among older workers.

Support is also given to older persons who establish new businesses using their experience by subsidizing a part of the costs if they create new jobs and continuous employment for older workers.

http://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/Torres_Presentation.ppt

That links to an interesting power point that compares where we are going with older versus younger workers in several countries.

The TIOW program does not address any of this. A band aid approach would be superior. This is not even that.

I am glad to know that it is at least a targeted initiative. I hate initiatives that are scattered here and there at random. :-)

Gus:- "Support is also given to older persons who establish new businesses using their experience by subsidizing a part of the costs if they create new jobs and continuous employment for older workers."
-----------------------------------------

To me, this a backwards way of doing it. For the incentive is to provide "work", as if that was the desired 'end' in itself.

Instead of the incentive being to provide "products" that are needed or wanted as the desired 'end', and realise that "work" is simply a 'means' to that end.

If nothing else, the Japanese are extremely perceptive people. And receptive to outside ideas they can adapt to their own national purposes.

After the war, they took the ideas of American, W. Edwards Deming on closely managing manufacturing to eliminate waste and wasted time ~ ideas that had been ignored in the USA ~ and used them to literally decimate once world-dominant American industries, such as auto manufacturing and electronics.

In 1929, British professional engineer C H Douglas presented a short paper at a World Engineering Conference in Tokyo, Japan, titled "The Application Of Engineering Methods To Finance", which was a synopsis of some principles he'd developed over the previous decade known collectively as 'Social Credit'.

After his presentation, some English-speaking officials of the Japanese Ministry of Finance requested he attend an interview with some of their financial experts, and further explain his ideas to them.

What was slated to be a short interview lasting a few hours at most, stretched, at the Ministry's request, into a full week of questions and answers.

In 1934, Douglas was travelling through Canada on his way back to England after visiting Australia and New Zealand, and was asked to explain his ideas to the Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature. For them to see if there was anything in them applicable towards alleviating the hardships of the Depression, which had hit pre-oil, agriculturally dependent Alberta particularly hard.

He did, and in his presentation to that Committee stated that the Japanese had already implemented his ideas, only in reverse.

Where his policy had been to provide the financial means to every 'individual' to fully access the full potentialities of needed and desired production, with a consequent rise in the possibilities of greater leisure as Consumer demand was increasingly satiated, the Japanese had used his ideas exactly backwards.

To make increased "work", not "leisure" their goal. By using "National credit" to attempt to "capture" foreign markets for certain selected Japanese manufactures to provide the financal means (foreign exchange) to the 'State' to build up Japan and its ability to further "capture" more foreign markets commercially. Or have the means to wage war and capture them militarally, if that became, as it did, necessary.

When I read the second of Gus's posts on this thread, I can't help but think how little has changed in our world since then. For it seems no nation is content to actually, "Trust the people", their own citizens, as 'individuals', to decide and implement what's right for themselves, each as 'individuals', all on their own. In spite of most of them paying lip-service to being "democracies".

A real 'democracy' is where "...each individual can make his own policy effective unto himself." Both economically, and politically.

Products or work. Products or work. Two associated entitities. Even hunters and gatherers have to work in order to hunt and gather with their bare hands and no tools. In fact, non human animals do it all the time, although we have learned to call some of their hard wired creations tools.

Other than those products that nature gives us for the taking, we have to "work" to create the products.

You speak as if "work" is a dirty word. It is, in fact, an important part of what makes us who we are. If we do not "work" a part of us dies. In some cultures, more dies than in other cultures.

What is work and what is product? At this stage in my life I devote some of my life to still do traditional work. I do other "work" for which I do not get finacial payment but the payment of satisfaction.

I am lucky enough that for most of my life I have gotten satisfaction out of my work while still getting monetary payment for it.

With that as a paradigm in which I have existed all of my life through my upbringing I am not now sitting idly by twiddling my thumbs wondering why I am still on this earth.

That is part of the Japanese culture as well I believe. There are several reasons why the Japanese have developed some programs to assist the older generation to stay at work if they wish to beyond the age of 60. I believe that while for some it might be monetary, for most it is actually social. Japanese, especially the older generation, are not know for their independent thinking. They are very much a community based society. To them, leaving work can be considerably more devastating than to North Americans.

Socredible, I think you need to put on a bit of a different thinking hat every now and then and you might look at the world with a bit more of your emotional side. It is not all about the almighty dollar and banks and whether it is the chicken or the egg that governs.

Life is more than accounting systems and engineering principles.

BTW, the "product" that is provided by the Japanese is "work" in those programs. It will keep them alive longer and healthier and more lucid while they are alive.

I think most of us would still work even if we weren't forced to work by financial circumstance, Gus. I know I would, because my own work is still something which involves things that are interesting to me.

In fact, I'm sure some of the hardest working people in the world are people who really have no further financial necessity to work.

They, too, enjoy what they do, whether it's for the social interaction with other people, or for a multitude of other reasons.

But "work" is still only one function of man. Like "sleep". And to elevate it into the main purpose of our existence is contrary to our continued efforts to be released from the necessity of constant 'drudgery'.

Unlike in ages past, today there is no physical necessity to force people to work longer, or harder, as we now so often see attempted so many places. Not when there is already a glut of product available, and 'financially' unsaleable ~ product that can't be fully paid for from work that's already been done.

The workday came down from 12 hours to 10 hours around the dawn of the 20th Century. It was reduced to 8 hours a day at the close of World War One. The five-day, 40 hour work week became standard after World War Two. And a ONE INCOME family was not only the norm, but enjoyed a rising standard of living in the immediate post-war period, and the next two decades.

Now it takes a TWO INCOME family to try to maintain a standard of living that's still generally rising, but nowhere near as fast as the COST of living continues to rise. And the 8 hour day, and the five-day 40 hour week? Well, the push is already on to shove those out of the way in the interests of supposed 'global' competitiveness. What are we really competing for? Do we REALLY go forward by going backwards?

There is a considerable difference between "idleness" and "leisure". The latter involves having the free time, and a sufficient income, to do things people want to do. For some, that would be a lot of activities that closely resemble 'work', and might even be such, or considered as such, by others. Many of the world's great inventions, for instance, were developed because someone had the opportunity for "leisure".

Take a bunch of kids, for example. Do they have more fun making their own games, following the 'rules' as they understand, or develop, and apply them themselves; or when they're 'ordered' to play a certain way by some adult, and their play is forced into following some 'organised' structure?

"Take a bunch of kids, for example ..... etc".

Depends totally on the culture they are from and from the family they are from.

Humans are simply not all the same. Some love following instruction, others are self starters. Some are followers, others are leaders. Some like pleasing, others actually like pissing others off.
----------------------------------

The money we require is mainly to live the lifestyle we have created for ourselves. it is promoted by advertisers and other families promoting PRODUCTS!!! The very thing which you say should be the dirver of the economy rather than work actually IS the driver. If we were not so greedy, if we were not so into "keeping up with the Joneses" (remember that phrase that seems to have been lost?) then we could have a less hectic and more inclusive lifestyle and would not have to rely on facebook and opinion 250 style social interfaces.

We have become a society of recluses, people who cocoon themselves at home and people who have generally lost the art of conversing with one another face to face. Here we and others are doing that while we have a bunch of lurkers from the peanut gallery looking on. More access with more privacy.

Even on the Facebooks of the internet people are competing for how many friends they can gather. All notion of what a "friend" is has been bastardized. No word "aquaintance" has been virtually lost to us.

There is absolutely nothing that drives us to have to have two people in a family working other than the boredom that housework may have brought with all the gadgets and the need to live in a 2000 sf house instead of an 1100 sf house and have a car for each person plus an extra one just in case you need to pick up the neighbour's kids plus, plus, plus.

The term "throw away society" also seems to have disappeared. We no longer recognize that as the society we have created for ourselves.

When was the last time anyone darned socks? That is just a very small indicator of what we have actually done. We have created a society around PRODUCTS. THAT is why we have to work. Companies are hooked on making things and they cannot make them cheaply enough because they have to pay the upper management types and the investor types the money that prevents the products to become cheap enough that it does not take all those people working.

AND, it is becoming worse and worse because it is that class of people who are gaining in income in relation to those who are still manual labourers.

Look at those figures that are used for the developers in the paper the other day. 15% profit. Good lord!!!!!! And you and Eagleone talk about Banks being the culprits. They borrow money from the banks at 6%, that becomes a cost on the project, and then they take 15% on the 6%.

The finacial problem we are encountering is much more deeply rooted than you are pointing at. It is fundamental to our whole society.

Gus you are absolutely correct in your last post. The problem is, most people don't like to admit that their own choices contribute to the some of the problems they face, they'd rather blame it on someone else, especially if that person can't readily be identified (i.e. banksters, the "government", etc.).

Two incomes these days are generally needed to fund the choices that people make in their spending habits, plain and simple. When I was growing up, I lived in a single income household. We had one car, a modest home, went on a family vacation maybe once every few years or so (when we could afford it), and eating out was a treat. All of the basics were covered off though. Contrast that to today where it's unusual to not have at least 2 vehicles (that usually get traded in when warranty expires as opposed to getting them repaired), a "starter home" is 3,000 sq ft, annual trips to Hawaii or Mexico are almost the norm and eating out is a regular occurence. I won't even talk about things like cabins, boats, snowmobiles and stuff like that, which were generally reserved for the "rich" when I was growing up. 30 years ago, could you have ever imagined seeing a pulp mill worker burning around in a 60K jetboat, being pulled by a 60K truck? Not likely.

Socredible also makes it sound like people are forced to live like this, when in reality, many people WANT to live like that. They like the toys, the larger homes, women want a career these days and they are okay with the tradeoffs. Heck, I know many people who wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone unless they had their own career and were able to contribute to a household with a higher standard of living than what they experienced growing up.

Granted there are some people out there who do need two incomes to survive, but when we talk about two income households, I think most of those fall in the category of "the second income makes is feasible to have the nice things and not the necessities of life".

Then we're going to agree to disagree, Gus and NMG. Not that I feel either of you are 'entirely' wrong, for much of what you've both said is undoubtedly true.

But what of those who make the CHOICE, to the extent that they're still able, to have a "one-income" household?

Does "society" allow them to do that now? In all too many cases it does NOT. We have imposed "standards" in a whole range of areas that HAVE TO BE MET, even if meeting them drives the persons depending on that ONE-income into debt to do it. And keeps them there, for the rest of their days.

Try to build a house you can afford on one-income nowadays. Such a "shack" wouldn't be allowed in most municipalities even if it did manage, somehow, to exceed the minimum square footage requirements now imposed virtually everywhere.

Could you frame it up, and move in, finishing it off as you have the income? Like so many of our parents and grandparents did? Not on your life. It has to have an Occupancy Permit, and that's not issued until it's fundamenatlly finished.

Could you drive to work in an old beater that had worn tires, no operable signal lights, and in which you had to anticipate every stop, because you needed to pump-up the brakes well in advance to make it? Like I did, for the first two years of my working life? No way, you'd be off the road the first time a cop stopped you in a seat-belt check.

Could you, even if your beater wasn't anywhere near as beat as that, use it in the Lower Mainland, where they have "Air-Care"? Where if it emits over a certain percentage of noxious exhaust it's off the road until it's fixed? If it can be, or has to be replaced? Even if you still need a vehicle to get to your one-income job?

The list goes on. All wonderful things, requirements imposed with the best of intentions to create a better overall society, no doubt. But what of the individuals that make up that "society"? The ones we've now forced into debt to meet them?

You say, in effect, that too many are now "living beyond their means". Physically, that's impossible. Financially, who can really blame them? They've often no other choice. And if the end result is they're going to go broke at worst, or be mired in debt for a lifetime at best, why wouldn't they want to "keep up with the Jones's", or even surpass them? For whether you go broke for the
$ 10,000 or
$ 1,000, 0000, the result is exactly the same ~ either way, you're broke.

Gus:-"Depends totally on the culture they are from and from the family they are from.

"Humans are simply not all the same. Some love following instruction, others are self starters. Some are followers, others are leaders. "
-----------------------------------------
Suppose you have two philosophies. One says, "Live and let live, I mind my own business, let my neighbour mind his. I'll certainly help him if he asks for it, but it's his choice as to whether he wants me to or not."

The other one, "You'll live as I want you to live, or I'll make it impossible for you to live at all. You might not want my help to enable you to do that, but you're going to get it regardless, because I know what's best for you."

Is the second EVER going to be compatible with the first?

"But what of those who make the CHOICE, to the extent that they're still able, to have a "one-income" household. Does "society" allow them to do that now?"

Well, it really all depends on how much money that one income brings in doesn't it? There are many decisions that need to be made in every aspect of one's life. Purchase a house or rent. Buy a new vehicle vs. buy an old one. Buy a gas guzzling SUV or a Honda Civic. If you are in the LML, have a vehicle at all or just use mass transit. Have 300 channels or just have basic cable. Have a cell phone in addition to your land line, or just the latter. The list goes on and on.

There is little to no doubt that the average family in 2010 spends MUCH more money on "fluff" than the average family did in 1970 or even 1980. Buying all of this fluff requires more money (or access to credit . . . we could talk about the problems that raises until we're blue in the face as well) and thus the dilema people find themselves in. Problem is, many people see the fluff as a need and they can't (or choose not to) seperate the two.

"Problem is, many people see the fluff as a need and they can't (or choose not to) seperate the two."

Right on. I am starting to wonder, and maybe I am just late in realizing this, that socredible is one of them.

--------------------

Socredible posted: "Is the second EVER going to be compatible with the first?"

Depends on the upbringing. Remember? At one time most parents actually parented their children. The philosphy of live and let live, taken to the extreme, never crossed my mind when I was raising mine. Leadership by example is the best. It seems to have worked.

It seems to me that you have never travelled for any extended period or read or spoken to anyone from another country.

I had some interesting discussions with a Japanese who is in a masters program in counselling at UNBC geared for teachers. It turns out that the stereotype is actually quite true. Students are taught to regurgitate the content of the courses they take in school. They are not taught to think independently and creatively. As a reult, some of the introspection and self evaluation techniques used in counselling in North America simply do not work. Any probing has to use a totally different methodology which is not taught here.

So, it sounds to me that they are raised in a quasi dogmatic fashion. Actually, you might do quite well in Japan, socredible, as Douglas did. :-)

Hey, want to go to Books & Co to discuss this sometime and I can give you more personal experiences and viewpoints that are not really appropriate on here.

But, NMG, ask yourself WHY should it take 'MORE' money to access a better standard of living if advancing technological 'efficiencies' continually lead to a FALL in the actual COSTS of production? And if they didn't lead to such a FALL, then WHY would they have ever been put into operation in the first place?

I'll give you a simple example, using the Banks, since Gus opined above that Eagleone and I are often picking on them on these boards, (though I think Eagle's far more guilty of that than I am). I'm not picking on them here, just using this as an excample.

When I opened my first Bank account several decades ago I was given a little booklet outlining all the services I could access through that Bank, and what they charged for them. Many were at no charge at all.

It cost me nothing to make a deposit, which was done through a teller during banking hours, nor to make a withdrawal. Nor to write a cheque, nor for the cheque blank on which it was written.

At that time, that Bank had a large staff on hand behind the counters normally engaged in manually posting the day's debits and credits to customer accounts, cheque clearing, and all the other facets of banking.

Nowadays, if you went into the same branch of that same Bank, there are only a small fraction of the number of people employed there that there once were. When you make a deposit, or a withdrawal, both of which now incur a charge to you in some manner or another each time you do, it's either done by you, yourself, on an ATM, or if you use a 'live' teller, it's accomplished completely with a few keystrokes on her computer.

There are no battalions of clerks posting debits or credits. That's all accomplished automatically. If you still require cheques, you now pay for them, both the blanks, and for their processing.

It amazes me sometimes that they haven't figured out yet how to charge you just for coming through the door! Maybe by the time I'm finished writing this they will have!

The point is, their very real costs, in spite of all their expenditure on modern labour saving technology have continually FALLEN, or this technology would never have been installed. Yet we pay MORE.

And that is just ONE example of exactly the same phenomenon observable in virtually EVERY business. Doesn't it strike you strange that if the 'figures' of Finance were PROPERLY 'reflecting' the physical realities this situation would be reversed?

NMG:-"Well, it really all depends on how much money that one income brings in doesn't it?"
-----------------------------------------
In most cases it obviously doesn't bring in enough, nor does two incomes, or there wouldn't be such a hue and cry for 'subsidised' day care.

Gus wrote:- quoting NMG first, "Problem is, many people see the fluff as a need and they can't (or choose not to) seperate the two."

and then:- "Right on. I am starting to wonder, and maybe I am just late in realizing this, that socredible is one of them."
---------------------------------------
Sorry to disappoint you , Gus, But actually we live quite modestly, in a 30+ year old, 1,250 sq. ft. house (which my wife and I own outright ~ we bought it with a 50% down payment from our savings, and paid the balance off in four years, from MY income alone.) Which has never been what anyone would ever describe as 'high'. My wife stayed home and raised our kids. I know what it means to 'sacrifice', but just because I'm comfortable now from being uncomfortable then, doesn't mean I want to impose the same on others.

We have ONE car, my wife's. I use a Company pick-up to go back and forth to work, usually hauling one employee, or fuel, or parts, at the same time.

My 'yacht' is an eight-foot wooden rowboat. Homemade, out of plywood, by a good friend of mine. Haven't taken it out for a 'cruise' in about ten years now.

I don't have a big screen tv, this computer is at least ten years old (and won't work much longer, even for posting on Opinion 250), I don't have a motorhome, camper, or travel trailer, cottage by the lake, or airplane, nor do I aspire to possess any of these things. Nor am I envious of those who have them, my only hope being that they enjoy what they've bought.
--------------------

Socredible posted: "Is the second EVER going to be compatible with the first?"

Gus continued:- Depends on the upbringing. Remember? At one time most parents actually parented their children. The philosphy of live and let live, taken to the extreme, never crossed my mind when I was raising mine. Leadership by example is the best. It seems to have worked.
---------------------------------------
I wasn't talking about 'children' here, Gus, but responsible adults who had been, hopefully, properly parented.
------------------------------------------

Gus continues:-" It seems to me that you have never travelled for any extended period or read or spoken to anyone from another country."
-----------------------------------------
Wrong again, Gus. Partially, anyways. My 'holidays' involving travel have been necessarily short, so far. But I've had extensive conversations with many people from other countries and cultures, and I'm quite intimately familiar with the "Oriental" outlook on life, at least as it applies in China, Viet Nam and Japan. Mrs. Socredible grew up in those first two cultures.
-------------------------------------------


Gus continues:- "I had some interesting discussions with a Japanese who is in a masters program in counselling at UNBC geared for teachers. It turns out that the stereotype is actually quite true. Students are taught to regurgitate the content of the courses they take in school. They are not taught to think independently and creatively. As a reult, some of the introspection and self evaluation techniques used in counselling in North America simply do not work. Any probing has to use a totally different methodology which is not taught here.

So, it sounds to me that they are raised in a quasi dogmatic fashion. Actually, you might do quite well in Japan, socredible, as Douglas did. :-)"
-----------------------------------------

Douglas was quite impressed with what the Japanese had accomplished in a very short period of time from the "opening" of Japan to western ideas by Commodore Perry of the US Navy mid 19th Century up until his visit in 1929. This preceded the rise of 'militarism' that came later in the 1930's. General MacArthur, as the Allied overlord of Japan following the war, remarked that governing them was, "...like dealing with a nation of 14 year olds."

The stress levels imposed on
both Chinese and Japanese kids to strive for top marks in school, is, in my opinion, nothing short of barbaric.

It's small wonder the suicide rate amongst those youngsters is so high when they fail to attain what's expected of them.

Also, that same kind of stress engendered by the supposed necessity to "achieve" (for the "Company", or the "State"), takes such a toll on Japanese management personnel.

To me, this is a perfect example of pschycologically inducing the philosophy that Man exists only to serve some System, and has no worth as an individual whatsoever. It is an anathema to my own philosophy.
------------------------------------------

Gus:- Hey, want to go to Books & Co to discuss this sometime and I can give you more personal experiences and viewpoints that are not really appropriate on here.
----------------------------------------
I would welcome the opportunity to do just that if I lived in Prince George. I'm somewhat removed from the area, however, so I can not.

Thanks for the response socredible. Gives me a bit more insight.

You are going a bit against your concern for anonymity expressed yesterday in one of your posts, which I totally agree with.

Back to another topic. "small houses". These are in Kamloops. Saw them just the other day. But google does wonders with its streetview. These are on 40ft x 100ft lots with a great view of the Thomson river valley. The houses measure about 30x30 on google aerial views. They really are like post second world war houses, the kind one see on the hill overlooking Nelson. Notice the aerial view shows a few nice vegetable gardes and one with a swimming pool which over looks the City.

So, with unfinished basement, the houses would be about 1,300sf. No garages. I think a few had added them. Acually one had converted a garage to a sun room to the south facing front of the house.

Above these houses are strata units selling for about $350,000 for a 15 year old unit in a "gated" (without gate) community. The units have about 2,500 sf finished area. The aerial view show the motor homes which allow them to escape the ant hill every now and then. :-)

http://i45.tinypic.com/2qjvapz.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2lk9qhs.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/19ix1.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/5p3ajt.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/ff3bpd.jpg

I used to hear "affordable housing" in the late 1970s when houses were rapidly increasing in price in PG. Then came the crash of 1981 and the bottom dropped out of the market.

Hey, where have I heard that before? LOL. I do not think they have actually dropped as far as the 1985 or so dollar equivalency yet.

Don't worry socredible. Banks will soon no longer have more than one branch of some sort in a city. Paypall will take care of most of it.

My wife uses Trust companies and she swears by them. I must say, they seem more like the banks of old.

I still use the original bank (different branch) I used when I got my student loan. Besides, it was one block away from the university building I called home for many years so was very convenient.

So, back to the topic of programs for older workers. How would Douglas have handled the workers that were laid off after 30 years on the job since they were 18 or so years old?

I know many of them may not have graduated from grade 12 even but moved up in the union. Many of those are actually functionally illiterate so that one has to provide them with considerable upgrading if they wanted to get into a more high tech production job.

I am not sure where that sits no because I have been out of that area of work for some time. However, 15 years ago the unions really were not interested in accepting that reality until they were shown that it was not some sinister plot.

We switched to a Credit Union a dozen years ago for both our personal and business banking. The lack of service at the former Bank I'd used since I was a teenager simply became too irritating to put up with any longer.

We'd take in a business deposit, generally with a fair bit of cash along with the customers' cheques, and for that I wanted a stamped receipt in the deposit book that verified what we'd deposited, right then and there.

The Bank would have a line up right out the front door, and two girls on as tellers, while others sat at their desks looking bored.

Occasionally one would get up, as if she'd been instructed by management to do this, and walk alongside the line-up trying to convince the customers to use the ATM. If we'd WANTED to use that thing we would.

A couple of times I witnessed one old fellow go utterly ballistic, and literally start yelling for the other wickets to open up ~ and that got action. They did. Until they got him served, and then they closed again. People shouldn't have to do that to get service.

You could understand it if it was some small, stuggling enterprise trying it's best, but understaffed of financial necessity. The Bank wasn't understaffed.

That Bank lost customers in droves, many of them people I know had been with them for years. Most went to the Credit Union.

But then it went on a "merger mania" with every other Credit Union it could combine with. The service there is now getting more and more 'banklike', and the fees are all on the rise. Exponentially.

$ 6 now for a new current account deposit book, not a personalised one, just a plain one. Formerly free. And the dividend on the equity shares has never since been as high as it was before they merged.

I spoke out and voted against them doing that, citing the experiences of other "empire-building" enterprises I was familiar with. To no avail, the "bigger is better, there'll be 'economies of scale'" argument prevailed. There've been none, so far, yet they're now looking to get bigger again.

Gus:-"So, back to the topic of programs for older workers. How would Douglas have handled the workers that were laid off after 30 years on the job since they were 18 or so years old?"
----------------------------------------

Well, I think he would have been far more concerned that first they still had a means of access to the 'production' of the system that no longer needed their services.

Douglas was often pressed to provide "plans" for dealing with various situations like this, and occasionally, strictly for illustative purposes, he did.

But what he was far more concerned with was educating people on the "principles" involved in my first paragraph above. And then letting them devise their own "plans" based on those "principles", and adjusted to fit the specifics of various other extraneous circumstances and what was really desired.

It's kind of like building a bridge. There are certain "principles" on which every bridge is based, and you can't deviate from if you want it to stay up, even though the "plan" for each bridge is going to be different, and likely incorporates a number of other desired variables, too.

Social Credit does not see unemployment as 'curse' , but as a 'release' from the necessity to labour. Which is exactly what it would be if it were not accompanied by financial penalisation through loss of income.

I don't think you'd ever hear any Social Crediter say we're against 'training', or 're-training', or improving literacy, etc. ~ provided it is being provided to individuals seeking to improve themselves through their own free choice. We are all for "self-development", and always have been.

What we would object to is the notion that displaced "older workers" be FORCED to undergo these things as a condition of receiving an 'unearned' income. Especially when we all know the likelihood of most of them ever adapting to what they're trying be retrained as is slight, and even if some do so adapt, their chances of employment that can provide a commensurate income to the job they lost are slim, or non-existant.