Well, of course SHE is reasonable. SHE is up for Best Blogosphere Citizen. (Do you have a *snerk* smiley here?)
Idiocracy, ha! Either that or Children Of The Corn.
utterly astonishing, really, I mean that
I have only two words, Dawg:
Myblahg
Rabble
Yep. And we're supposed to act 'civil' towards them?
Fascism is only conservatism with the gloves off, Frank. What did you expect?
and here I always thought we were decended from Hair Dressers and mid-level advertizing executive.
I have mentioned this before on other blog comments. Many of the Blogging Tories are just tabloid bloggers.
I will give credit to conservative blogger, Ezra Levant, for his description of his encounter with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Thankfully, he did not call the woman who interviewed him a bimbo or socialist islamo-sympathizer. He was very calculating in the words that he used to describe his time with the commission. He described his "interrogation" by the government appointee and refused to explain why he published the Danish cartoons because under free speech, he does not need to explain this thoughts to a government commission.
As much as I disagree with Levant's political philosophy, he presented in his blog a excellent textbook analysis of the relationship between citizens and the human rights commission. This is what I want to read on a conservative or any other type of blog--not bimbo Fiberal Billary Taliban-Jack Islamo-fascist faggy retards.
Excellent catch and a fine dissection.
Either that or Children Of The Corn.
28 Days Later would work as well.
>I have only two words, Dawg: Myblahg Rabble
Hah! Rank amateurs. There's a kind of stunning, um, artistry about Canada's Best Blog that simply can't be matched.
(By the way, just to clear up some troublesome technical inaccuracies, here, dcardno, "My Blahg" is two words, and Rabble isn't a blog.)
I have only two words, Dawg: Myblahg
Rabble
So, what? Does that in any way excuse what was said above?
I just watched the vid, and now I feel really bad. I was so hoping that those two sweet people would, y'know, make a break for it. Boy meets girl; boy loses girl ... there's supposed to be a third act, Dr Dawg. *sniffle*
SUZANNE is the voice of reason? Up is down, black is white, right is wrong - it's a topsy-turvy world out there.
If my catholic school girl upbringing had actually taken, I'd consider this one of the Seven Signs ... we're doomed.
SUZANNE is the voice of reason?
I was speaking relatively.
First of all, conservative intelligentsia is an oxymoron. Second, when I wake up in the morning to find everybody yammering on about how Kate has finally achieved her ultimate goal of making pond scum look good in comparison I have to worry.
She and ALLCAPS sold their souls to the Devil and he’s pissed that he got a rotten deal. Heaven doesn’t want them and Hell’s afraid they’re going to take over.
The interesting thing about the SDA combox is that this stuff is so darned generic. It really doesn't matter what the issue is: the response is predictably the same when an "enemy" is brought to their attention.
There are bright conservatives out there, but you don't tend to find many of them at the Best Canadian Blog.
Does that in any way excuse what was said above?
No, of course not - although personal invective comes with the territory; if Antonia is bothered by it she should look for a new career. The evidence to date is that it doesn't affect her much, if at all.
Those citations are counterexamples to Dawg's implied criticism that conservative blogs, above all others, are cesspools, or unique homes of vitriolic and overblown comment. If that's not the point, we are left with the notion that "there are some crazy people posting stupid stuff on blogs." I think that leaves us well within 'Dog bites Man' territory.
Remember that we are talking about Canada's Best Blog. It does set a certain standard. And I must say I've never seen a tenth of the sheer hatred, bigotry and viciousness that I regularly observe over there in any progressive combox.
There's another related point to make. Blogowners set the tone. I like David Thompson's blog, for example, where I am in the distinct minority. The level of debate is strikingly good a lot of the time (it goes downhill when the SDA crowd shows up) and that is due to mine host's deft but firm handling of the tone of debate. I don't tolerate abuse on my own blog, or pointless trolling, but serious commenters of all stripes are welcome and always have been.
But some people simply whip up the crowds, and then disclaim all responsibility for the ensuing riots. That's not only a cop-out, but seriously corrupting of civil discourse. When the yokels get wind of the fact that they can say damned near whatever they like in a blogger's combox, they'll do so. And not doing something about it is a dereliction of duty, in my opinion, the "duty" being to further discussion and explore the issues.
I feel more like a chairperson than a censor, but decent chairing when you have a crowd is the only way to make order out of chaos. Canada's Best Blog, quite frankly, is a disgrace in this respect. The only reason I keep the place up on my blogroll is because Kate (but not all of her guest bloggers) is intelligent and provocative without being abusive, at least most of the time, and we should keep abreast of what sentient rightwingers are thinking about things. It's a bit like having a research assistant, as I've observed before.
But as for the company she keeps...feh. They do seem to be keeping a lot of other intelligent conservatives away.
I certainly agree with Dawg's last remark. dcardno, you KNOW where the greatest number of ignorant rants are found on "Canada's Best Blog". You go there often enough.
"The interesting thing about the SDA combox is that this stuff is so darned generic"
The exact same thing can be said about canadiancynic.
This is why some people call the blogosphere "the new Usenet", and why many on the outside have so much trouble taking bloggers seriously.
Is it a full moon or something? The villagers revolt
is because Kate (but not all of her guest bloggers) is intelligent and provocative without being abusive, at least most of the time
Yes - that's why I tend to visit. You are right, Dawg, that the host sets the tone - and it is curious that Kate doesn't try to rein things in more. Maybe it's entertainment for her, maybe it's performance art.
dcardno, you KNOW where the greatest number of ignorant rants are found...
No, actually, I don't know (upper- or lower-case). Do you have a point, Em?
Well, she doesn't like being reminded who her fans are. You might know that she banned me from SDA for repeating at my place some of the riper comments from her "winged monkeys" on a thread last year on National Aboriginal Day.
She's in cahoots, dcardno, not a helpless bystander. They say what she'd like to say, but doesn't dare.
You might know that she banned me from SDA for repeating some of the riper comments
No, I didn't know that, actually. I agree that Kate is not a helpless bystander - but you could say that about all blogowners. Generally, commentators go to greater extremes than the hosts, and that is true whether the topic is the evil Harper government, the lazy Indians who should get a job, or the Canucks' lack of secondary scoring. My point wasn't to defend Kate, but just to point out that this is not exclusively a right-wing or conservative (upper- or lower-case) phenomenon.
As for "Canada's best blog" being a disgrace, I think your real argument is with someone who would think that "best" can even be defined in a subjective and idiosyncratic medium, or that once defined, it can be identified by a show of hands.
dcardno said
"You are right, Dawg, that the host sets the tone - and it is curious that Kate doesn't try to rein things in more."
Kate is away for awhile guys.
Something to think about while you are gone Dr. Dawg
I have no worries whatsoever on that score. Here is a sample of what goes up when Kate is around, though:
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com...blogging-
1.html
Oh hello. Thanks Dawg. I love being the Damsel in Distress to your Fearless Knight.
But, at this point, my skin is so thick, I really don't care. As Frank Orr, a former sportswriter at the Star once said after Barbara Amiel excoriated me in a column, ''You have been pissed on from a very low height.''
What does bother me is that people register under fake names -- such as MINE and my friend Sooey's (using her REAL name) -- and post comments. Kate allows that when she knows damn well the people are impersonating others.
Finally, there is one person who continues to slag me under an assumed name -- somebody you and I both know and have discussed, Dawg -- who does this continually because he is a sick, sad stalker.
"Oh hello. Thanks Dawg. I love being the damsel in Distress to your Fearless Knight. "
*wince* I hope you didn't really take it that way, Antonia. You're more than capable of taking care of yourself. I just had...a few things to say of my own, and on my own behalf.
Our mutual friend puts up so many blogs that it's hard to keep track. But he doesn't post here any more, and he won't, if he wants to keep his IP.
I wish Canada's Lowest Common Denominatix (a nickname coined by PSA) would just rename the site "The Two Minute Hate" and get it over with.
Dr. Dawg... obscene comments are not limited to one of side or the other. The left and right have their fair share of imflammatory clowns (see Ti-Guy and CC)
You know that.
And unless you want to be like WK and have no comments at all, occasionally you will get comments here like the ones you complain about.
Do you pull all objectionable comments, regardless of point of view?
I'm not quite used to this "holier than thou" version of Dr. Dawg, but I guess we'll see how you manage your objectionable comments in the future.
The Greek,
I disagree with you.
I have yet to see the unadulterated hatred expresed in the comments on SDA on any left leaning blog. Can you point to any examples?
I agree that in some (a minority) of left leaning blogs, there are a couple of commenters who cross the line. But if you look at how those comments have been handled, in many cases other commenters have taken on the "rogue" commenter and of course some bloggers have taken very real heat for how they handled such rogue commenters.
Can you point me to any instance of the right wing blogging community reacting in a similar fashion?
Don't wince Dawg.
It's adorable. I may be a feminist but I love old-fashioned chivalry, even if it is not intended that way.
As for who is more hateful, the level of personal attacks is much higher -- or sinks much lower, depending on your perspective -- on blogs like SDA and Five Feet of Fury than anywhere else on similarly popular leftie/progressive blogs.
What I find funny is, they come from or allowed by women.
Says a lot that about how seriously to take them.
Now some other longtime stalker has set up another blog just to dump on me. He allows comments on his non-Antonia posts but none on those attacking me. Chickenshit.
Again, funny thing is, he claims to be gay, assuming he is a he. Somebody should inform him that, without women's lib, there never would have been gay lib.
The Greek:
Please point to a single comment on my blog that can be construed as hateful. I simply don't permit that sort of thing here.
PS: Antonia, I'm not responding to you in this comment. : )
Antonia,
Glad to see you picking up on Dr. D's point here on your own blog.
I've left a comment there.
What I find funny is, they come from or allowed by women.
Says a lot that about how seriously to take them.
How so, Antonia?
Meanwhile, someone (known to me via IP address) has left me some nasty comments on my running blog basically accusing me of stalking arthurdecco.
Have I complained to the police about a breach by him of the hate speech provisions of the CCC?
No.
Have I initiated a complaint against him under the human rights laws?
No.
Instead, I have taken him on in the marketplace of ideas.
But I seem to have struck a nerve.
Marky Mark,
You're smarter than that... Go to Canadian Cynic's blog. That's all I need to say.
Dawg, if you censor your comments, that's cool. However, you cannot tell me that one side has the franchise on idiocy.
I believe it's a matter of perspective. Frankly, as a right winger, things that would offend the left, probably wouldn't be as noticable to me. Same the the reverse.
I hate people that call Zerb "Fat Tony". I think it's disgusting. And I disagree with her point of view on damn near everything. But that's just plain ignorant.
There's garbage all over the 'net. It all depends on whether one wants to be judicious enough to see it as such from with side.
BTW, right-wingers that call people names are as despicable as left-wingers doing the same.
That's not a left/right issue. It's a netiquette/deceny discussion.
"Censor" is not really the appropriate word, The Greek. It's editorial control. I don't permit abuse over here. Or, for that matter, pointless trolling that doesn't further the debate. As I have said before, the blogowner sets the tone. I see that Kate popped in today to express her satisfaction that "things have been humming along well." There you go.
For the record, most comments deleted here (and frankly there haven't been that many) have been from screechy and foul-mouthed conservatives. I can't recall an actually hateful comment from a progressive commenter. Even the ones occasionally pushing the limits aren't a patch on the regulars at SDA.
Dr. Dawg and The Greek,
I agree with what Dr. Dawg just posted. Even the person I've been accused of following too closely has not posted anything as bad as on SDA. (That doesn't mean that what he has written is good. Or that it shouldn't be disputed in the marketplace of ideas. Or that bloggers who allow their sites to be used by him shouldn't have their editorial standards questioned, especially when they allow him in while banning or deleting the comments posted by others.)
But what I have read in the SDA comments about those idetifiable groups that seem to be the focus of the commenters on that site is much more direct and harsh in its hatred.
P.S. I do agree it in principle isn't a left/right issue. It is a matter of editorial standards and judgement. I'm just saying that I'm unaware of any internal debate on right leaning blogs about the standard to allow in comments even when they are across the line whereas there clearly has been such a debate on left leaning blogs.
''What I find funny is, they come from or allowed by women.
''Says a lot that about how seriously to take them.''
Sorry, I was speaking girl shorthand.
What I meant was, nothing meaner to a woman than another woman who is jealous. Shaidle, for some reason, can't quite get over the fact that I am a fulltime columnist at the Star and she is not. She has mentioned that many times on her blogs.
It's as if I had something to do with her being dropped when I neither knew her or even was aware that she had freelanced for us between 1998 and 2004.
Anyway, it's rather amusing that she regularly dismisses the Star (to put it mildly) when she has often lamented her loss of a platform there.
But I digress.
I think The Ambler expressed it best.
http://theambler.com/mar1-
15_05....labelleetlabete
Holy crap! I'd never read that before. I have always avoided Kevin, but this may make me reconsider. What's he done lately?
To be honest, I don't know. I believe he had some health and financial difficulties, over which Shaidle gloated in her true Christian way.
http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot...ic-sic-
sic.html
Ooops, forgot this post.
http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot...ge-
heather.html
I feel badly for Shaidle now because, as I understand, she was recently fired from her job.
Gawd, can't you just feel the love?
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
--Proverbs 16 (18 )
If it weren't for Kevin's association with VDARE--which is well beyond the pale--I might have considered putting him up on my blogroll.
Sorry, I was speaking girl shorthand.
It all becomes clear now - at least with respect to Ms Shaidle.
I just Googled VDARE. Yikes.
But I know nothing of Grace's association with that. I just recognize some very fine writing.
Just to throw in a data point into the mix. I am a somewhat regular poster over at SDA on the topic of global warming. I try to keep my posts polite and on target.
I agree that sometimes things can get pretty extreme over there and I have been called everything from a front man for Al Gore to "the most polite troll" (I really should keep a list of the names that I have been called). But there have been several people who have maintained a civil argument with me and some who will actually defend me against the insults hurled my way. I have to throw a kudos their way.
I also have never been banned on SDA unlike several other sites (e.g. Canadian Sentinel) who do not permit me to post there. Since I am relatively polite I can only surmise that they do not agree with my argument but can not find a flaw in it. Similar to the Harper government's first attempt at addressing global warming (by disappearing the education page on global warming).
Regards,
John
Hi, John,
I think they may not know quite what to do with you, because you aren't coming at this in an explicitly political manner. The usual defences (and offences) aren't triggered. You are also of the male persuasion. The real swarming starts when women are the target.
I admire you for trying to find the wheat in the chaff, and being successful at it. There is a tiny group of posters over there who are sensible and who stick around for whatever reason. Besides you, there's a fellow named EBD who has always seemed reasonable to me, and dcardno apparently posts over there--he's become a regular here as well. But my general critique of the SDA commenters stands.
Best to you in 2008.
50 comments (including the one I left) and not one on the nutty article written by Antonia.
Well, maybe, frank, the place to have had a rational discussion might have been at the blogsite where the subject was brought up in the first place. Too bad the commenters there had other ideas.
"Nutty" doesn't cut it for me as serious criticism, by the way. It does seem impossible, sometimes, for conservatives actually to engage with a POV with which they disagree. Easier just to throw insults around.
Hey Frank,
Did you actually read the ''nutty article'' or just Kathy Shaidle's twisted-to-suit-her-agenda 16-word synopsis which she puts in QUOTES????
Why don't you come on over?
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsi...ke-so-
many.html
Bring all your friends!
Since I am relatively polite...
I would like to correct this assertion by John Cross: it is simply not true. John is more than relatively polite; he is unfailingly and unceasingly polite. He is reasonable, patient and civil.
It is very interesting to follow the comments John attracts on a climate science thread at SDA. I have to admit that those threads are less vitriolic and poisoned than most at Kate's site - they are actually my main reason for showing up there.
Kathy Shaidle is a lunatic if she decides to Tangle with Antonia!Ms Zerbesias will eat her for breakfast.Kathy,accept the fact that you are not in the same class and stop picking a fight with someone who is way way better than you and the rest of your bigoted friends.
Dcardno: Thank you very much for your kind words. It is always interesting to see how someone else views your postings.
I shall start to keep an eye out for your posts.
Best,
John
Dr. Dawg: Very true in regards to the politics. I am not very knowledgable about politics so I tend to stear clear and leave it to my betters. Global warming is more my bag and I enjoy looking at the view points that challenge my own.
I will also thank your for your wishes for 2008 and note that no one on SDA ever wished me a good 2008. I hope you have a good one as well. I expect to have a great 2008 and if anyone here likes to follow the science involved, I think there may be a good paper coming out soon in regards to satellite temperature trends.
Regards,
John
PS when can we expect to see another blog post about global warming?
Look, I like Kevin. I consider him to be a dear friend. We disagree on many subjects.
What I do find objectionable is the idea that just because somebody holds an upopular idea or wants to discuss it that they are "beyond the pale".
I've spent hours and hours and hours talking with Kevin about his position viz immigration. He makes some points which, once I got past my knee-jerk open-borders libertarianism emotional response, I really had to stretch myself to think about.
Wouldn't the world be boring if everybody agreed with everybody.
One of the points he made was to suggest how differently things would have gone for Indians if we had been able to limit the numbers of non-indigenous people coming to our shores at the time after contact.
There was a part of my libertarianism which said "absolutely not - immigration and open borders are the right of every free human being"
But then there was another part of me looking at the mess that has been created by colonialization and I think..."ya know... he's kinda got a point here".
I'm just saying, it's possible to be on the fence or it's also possible to be oppposed to massive immigration and not be a racist. I've known Kevin personally for years now, and I've never heard a racist remark uttered from his lips, either in a sober, semi-sober or no so sober state. (Kevin is the only person who I drink the occasional beer with)
You know - what really bugs me is that a single word, or concept becomes a "thought-stopping" excercise. Like Oh... Kevin wrote for V-dare... He must be evil... evil... evil...
Kevin has never written anything even close to offensive as Kathy or Kate, or Steve Janke's Cindy Sheehan Vagina Monologues.
He's just a thoughtful person who explores every side of every position. And I might add, he's always been a very good friend to me. And I'm one of them brown people that I suppose the evil v-dare is out for, and for whom I need to be protected from.
Uh...OK. I'm not trying to choose your friends for you, Meaghan. But try to see it from my point of view. Here's a guy who regularly posts on a white supremacist website. He puts up a link at his place to Steve Sailer, a racial propagandist who maintains that Blacks are born stupid. He's everywhere racists are, but he's not racist himself. Hmmm...
If guilt by association is a miserable tactic, that doesn't necessarily mean that one's associations are irrelevant.
Guilt by association is a miserable tactic. And so, of course, is assuming that a person's opionion on a particular topic disqualifies their opinions on other topics.
It's a big world out there Dawg. Opposing mass immigration can be founded on irrational bigotry or a deeply held concern that one's own culture and society are being overwhelmed. I have no time for the former, I have a good deal of time for the latter.
The point about KMG - who is a friend and with whom I have shared many beers - is that he thinks well and deeply about a whole range of issues. I agree with him about as often as I agree with Antonia; but I can easily state that Kevin is not driven by hatred or bigotry.
I admire your loyalty to your friends, Jay.
You will be aware, of course, that for Steve Sailer, featured prominently on KMG's blog, immigration is the least of it.
It occurs to me that we might need a new thread for this, although I'm not feeling energetic enough to post right now. Grace emailed me this morning, asking my own views on immigration, and referring , oddly, to the "election of a new people." Sounds vaguely Calvinist, eh? Anyway, I responded:
Mr. Grace:
The "election of a new people?" Interesting choice of words. I'm not certain I understand the phrase, even granted the inkhorn usage of the word "election." I assume you are really asking why we should have immigration at all--and, underlying that, keeping your association with Steve Sailer in mind, you are asking why we should have non-White immigration.
Let's bracket the subterranean racism at this point and concentrate on the socioeconomic question.
Canada’s population growth rate is moving into a steady decline; even unprecedented levels of immigration aren't likely to turn things around. There are serious skill shortages already in manufacturing, construction, information technology, healthcare, financial services and government.
By 2015, there won't be enough qualified people to replace retiring workers. By 2020, 40% of Canada’s population will be 55 or over, up from about one-third of the population in 2001. A labour shortfall of 950,000 workers is predicted by that time. By 2025, more than 20% of Canada’s population will be over 65; by 2031, there could be twice as many seniors as children.
References on request. But a good place to start on the demographic question is:
Denton, F.T, and Byron G. Spencer, “Population, Labour Force and Long-Term Economic Growth,” Policy Options, January-February 1998, p.6.
Immigration is part of a mixed strategy to avoid the effects of an ageing population on national productivity . I suspect you know this, and wouldn't have a problem if the immigrants were of the, ah, Nordic persuasion. But feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken on this point.
Grace is an autodidact. Well-marshaled facts appear to scare the hell out of him. He simply wasn't prepared. So he took exception to my reference to subterranean racism, affected an injured innocence, and scuttled off.
I haven't had a beer with the man, admittedly. He might be quite entertaining, in fact--I like his notion that Liberals want to pack the country with (presumably non-White) immigrants because they will prove pliable political allies. From time to time I yearn for the unintentionally comedic. But, even if the opportunity were more than hypothetical, I think I'd give that beer a pass. There is only so much tinfoil commentary I can take.
ADDENDUM: I take it that this is the same Kevin Michael Grace who wrung his hands and wept bitter tears in the Alberta Report back in 2000 because the Conservative Party, angling for respectability, was shucking its neo-Nazis, who had joined up to support Stockwell Day. (I'm not making this up.)Of the four mentioned, the name "Marc Lemire" did jump out at me, I confess. And there was Paul Fromm, too, and Doug Christie, the neo-nazi mouthpiece. I swear, sometimes that side of the blogosphere resembles a demented fascist Homecoming Week.
Kevin is perfectly able to fight his own battles but a) I am not sure the concept "non-white immigration" can be imputed simply because he knows Sailer and has written at V-Dare, b)there are means other than immigration (of whatever hue, nationality or religion) to address a declining birth rate - pro-natalist policies being a good start, c)the shortages you quite correctly identify are, to a degree, driven by the sort of economy Canada has grown accustomed to - one in which labour is relatively cheap, d) there are alternatives to a constant growth, cheap labour, economy which might turn out to be quite pleasant, e)the projection of seniors vs kids in 2025 is worrying if those seniors are infirm, medically expensive and dependent upon the state - there are alternatives to that as well.
Finally, and this is my own rather than Kevin's position, it has never been clear to me why we should have the right to strip less developed nations of their educated middle classes so as to provide tax serfs and taxidrivers to Canadians.
Immigration is a conversation I think needs to happen minus the nastiness. I'll leave you with this thought, France is worried that its 300,000 legal and 100,000 illegal immigrants per year may be a bad thing; Canada with less than half France's population has 250,000 immigrants a year. It might be time to consider our own capacity to absorb this stream.
Jay:
Bravo. We do need a new post and thread. I'll try to come up with something soon.
Yes, it's possible to address immigration as a bona fide socioeconomic question and avoid the Yellow Peril crap. It's too bad that the tinfoil set don't see it that way.
Just a couple of points.
Cheap labour? Really? Compared to what? And the connection between that and Canadian demographics is escaping me. Sorry if I'm being dense.
I did say, and I think clearly, that immigration is part of a mixed strategy. I don't know about pronatalism, but a different take on the so-called "mature workforce" is another piece.
I'm not sure about your "alternatives" to caring for seniors, Jay, but I'm not getting a particularly warm feeling about your point there. Care to expand upon it?
On the brain drain from Third World countries, I agree with you--it's just more resource exploitation. But, if I may say so, you aren't exactly sounding like a libertarian here. I'm not sure how one addresses that problem, in any case, but it's worth a good discussion in itself.
Finally, I don't fear the apocalypse through immigration, and we have historically done very well "absorbing" our immigrants. Hey, look at me. : )
It appears we let you slip by Dawg...just lucky I guess.
Truth to tell I find the entire immigration dilemma perplexing. I love the vibrancy and difference immigration creates, but I am also aware of how profoundly, and not always for the better, mass immigration has changed Canada. It is a point worth thinking about and discussing.
As to alternatives to "caring for seniors" my sense as I stare 60 down - less than a decade away - is that we need to revise our entire view of adulthood, working life and wisdom. We also need to take seriously the idea of preventative medicine. (A $1500 scan can save a $500,000 course of cancer treatment and, with luck, a life.)
As to libertarian sensibility my own libertarianism is largely pragmatic. I am skeptical as to the efficacy of out current political arrangements; my sense is that they are sufficiently bad that less of the bad is a good idea. But that does not mean that I am convinced that any political arrangement is necessarily as bad. It is possible that a modest government could actually do some good.
I'll deal with cheap labour in the next bit.
Cheap labour is an interesting concept. When I say cheap I mean it in relative terms. Obviously we do not have cheap labour relative to China or India. However we have remarkably cheap labour relative to things like the price of a house or land or a university education.
To sound ancient: it is not so very long ago that people earning an average salary with one of two parents working could afford a house. Sure there was a mortgage; but that mortgage was not a great deal more than rent would be.
Now, with two parents working at average jobs, owning a house within a reasonable distance of a major Canadian city is a distant, if not impossible, dream.
There are a bunch of reasons for this. Taxes are a big part, so is an expanding population.
But so are wage rates which require two parents to work in order to, maybe, manage a downpayment and the mortgage.
Our political classes have been happy to pat themselves on the back for achieving, more or less, full employment. The problem being that they measure the number of people working rather than the amount of money, on average those people are making.
Labour is cheap when a worker is unable to provide for his (or her) family with one wage. And that has been pretty much impossible since the 1970's in Canada.
There are alternatives to this but, realistically, for the price of labour to rise there has to be scarcity. At the moment, the set policy of the Canadian government is to ensure that there is no scarcity. I am not sure that is such a brilliant idea.
Jay, et al.:
I started a new thread on this with my post "Immigration," above. Have at it!
Commenting by HaloScan
