Thus the crabbiness content?
Basic Income ... Good? Bad? Ugly?
- Thread starter Ritafee
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Thus the crabbiness content?
Really? Maybe that is not the only way. Have you heard about this grassroots organization with members sweeping local elections for democrat seats ahead of the US midterms (thanks to inspiration from Bernie)? It's mostly young people, anti-capitalist (esp. Anti-plutocratic corporate capitalism, of the monstrous proportions it has grown to today), anti-neoliberal ideology because that helped us into this mess (since the 80s) and we can't go back to relying on it again - and many who have won seats are young women. They are having a real impact on real politics, representing the communities, many communities of marginalized folks, where they live. They may even transform the Democratic Party, over the next couple of years. Though, I fear Canada will be slow to catch up and we will end up enduring our own right wing reactionary hell first - because our NDP is not with-it at the moment. I hope I am wrong. But they have to dump neoliberal tactics to win elections, because it's a failed ideology, and get with it. They have to disavow from people like Tom Mulcair and Rachel Notley (at the provincial level) because they sold out to neoliberalism.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
Last edited:
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Ritafee, do you vote in municipal elections? Those strike me as both more important than people really understand, and much less partisan than other levels of government.
Also, I see where you and kimmio are going with the American slavery/prisoner situation, but I think that our system, the not-for-profit one, is substantially different.
Also, I see where you and kimmio are going with the American slavery/prisoner situation, but I think that our system, the not-for-profit one, is substantially different.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I agree. At the same time, it's often harder to pick someone. When you have 13 people running all with individual platforms, as London has with the mayoralty race, trying to keep track of them all gets difficult. And while it's technically non-partisan, we have a Conservative (former Harper-era Federal cabinet minister Ed Holder) and a New Democrat (Councillor Tanya Park, who tried and failed to get the NDP nomination in my riding this past provincial election) among the top contenders for the job and their platforms show it.
I worked in not for profit employment services and it was not substantially different from the for profit companies at all. Instead of profit, there was surplus. And they bid on contracts with for profit companies, so they had to offer some of the same promises (bottom lines) to compete.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I think employment services might be quite different than the industrial prison complex in the U.S. They talk about school to prison "pipelines",,, It's a pretty big industry in the U.S. There are reasons why they incarcerate people at hundreds of times greater rates than 'normal' countries.
A couple of the umbrella corporations that compete are in the business of a wide range of services that includes both. Look at Britain as an example, and the US, and they do compete in Canada.
For Ontarians, on “PPPs”
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42694/6/Buitenhuis_Amy_J_201311_MA_thesis.pdf
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42694/6/Buitenhuis_Amy_J_201311_MA_thesis.pdf
This is an example of a company that has its tentacles in many public service provisions, with international partnerships in Canada. Not to single them out as the only one or particularly bad. The fee for service contract system is bad - thank neoliberals, over the past 25 years, for progressively contracting everything out, for that. There are others, but that is one I found fairly quickly.
My point is that contracting out to large not for profits is the same as contracting out to for profits. Both are still private. Both are unaccountable to the public...especially the bigger and more multifaceted they are, and if they provide services people have to use, but don’t choose to use. Their concerns are still about fee for service quotas, getting the most benefit to the company for the lowest cost, or best cost benefit to government even if quality care lacks - and one never knows with all the private partnerships, what else they might be connected to. As is the way with the whole neoliberal enterprise. I keep saying...all these places have compelling websites, but the reality might look different. The general public just assumes our “safety net” of social and health services is not broken. They often don’t even realize how much is privatized.
What we do | Ingeus
My point is that contracting out to large not for profits is the same as contracting out to for profits. Both are still private. Both are unaccountable to the public...especially the bigger and more multifaceted they are, and if they provide services people have to use, but don’t choose to use. Their concerns are still about fee for service quotas, getting the most benefit to the company for the lowest cost, or best cost benefit to government even if quality care lacks - and one never knows with all the private partnerships, what else they might be connected to. As is the way with the whole neoliberal enterprise. I keep saying...all these places have compelling websites, but the reality might look different. The general public just assumes our “safety net” of social and health services is not broken. They often don’t even realize how much is privatized.
What we do | Ingeus
Last edited:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
One of the companies that provide employments services in Canada, is linked to an Australia based company that also provides inmate services in the UK, which has seen a rise in recidivism under its watch there, and that of other private contractors in prisons. So, while Canada is paying service providers to do less than they could be doing in helping to reduce unemployment, they are also helping offenders in The UK cycle in and out, and in and out again...of prison. While they may not be working in our prisons, it is all connected, in the big picture, with a web of multinational companies.
They all work on fee for service stats. The get a fee for every itemized service. So, like it is beneficial to employment service providers’ stats to have clients not succeed in employment and have to come back in because that is the only provider in their postal code and they cannot shop around - that provider has a monopoly but no public accountability like a government agency would have. If the clients are at risk clients, have been in the prison system before, have addiction issues, not having work may increase the risk that they end up in jail again...in countries where correction services are privatized, it is beneficial for the companies for the inmates to return because they get more fee for service stats when they are busy, even overcrowded - and that leads again to higher recidivism. It’s a terrible cycle that this creates in several areas of human services - in the interest of profit (or surplus). It is not unlike the old colonial workhouse system. Thanks neoliberals, for contracting everything out and pretending you care about social health and welfare. It’s not working. people raised hell about privatization in the 90s, but slowly forgot and gave in. I didn’t understand it for awhile, but i’ve learned and changed my view.
One of the companies that provide employments services in Canada, is linked to an Australia based company that also provides inmate services in the UK, which has seen a rise in recidivism under its watch there, and that of other private contractors in prisons. So, while Canada is paying service providers to do less than they could be doing in helping to reduce unemployment, they are also helping offenders in The UK cycle in and out, and in and out again...of prison. While they may not be working in our prisons, it is all connected, in the big picture, with a web of multinational companies.
They all work on fee for service stats. The get a fee for every itemized service. So, like it is beneficial to employment service providers’ stats to have clients not succeed in employment and have to come back in because that is the only provider in their postal code and they cannot shop around - that provider has a monopoly but no public accountability like a government agency would have. If the clients are at risk clients, have been in the prison system before, have addiction issues, not having work may increase the risk that they end up in jail again...in countries where correction services are privatized, it is beneficial for the companies for the inmates to return because they get more fee for service stats when they are busy, even overcrowded - and that leads again to higher recidivism. It’s a terrible cycle that this creates in several areas of human services - in the interest of profit (or surplus). It is not unlike the old colonial workhouse system. Thanks neoliberals, for contracting everything out and pretending you care about social health and welfare. It’s not working. people raised hell about privatization in the 90s, but slowly forgot and gave in. I didn’t understand it for awhile, but i’ve learned and changed my view.
Last edited:
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Just noticed that a good friend of mine commented on this article that was shared on Facebook ...
MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette sleeps in Winnipeg's Central Park in response to spike in crime | CBC News
MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette sleeps in Winnipeg's Central Park in response to spike in crime
Hearing concerns first-hand 'makes me more aware of what I'm doing' as member of Parliament, he says
CBC News · Posted: Sep 06, 2018 9:22 AM CT | Last Updated: September 6
Oullette seems like a pretty good guy but I don't really know him ... I cheered for him when he was a candidate for Mayor of Winnipeg ... but I did not vote for him or anyone else that was in the running.
As for my old friend Doug McGiffin "Bravo! Big problem." was his facebook comment and I gave it a like ... kind of like saying Hi Doug ... facebook is good for that.
I have, in the past spent a fair bit of time volunteering on 'liberal' political campaigns with and for Doug (he ran for city council) ... but even back then ... I did not vote. I have never voted ... not even for my good friend. It just never seemed to me like the 'right' (pun intended) thing to do. Campaigning for a political 'chair' yuck yuck and yuck ... smoke and mirrors and a lot of money ... and the 'winner' is not the voter.
This is more my idea of a true political activist ...
How much of your life would you give to carve into not one, but three sheer, rocky, mountainside cliffs to provide water to your drought-stricken village? A tenacious man named Huang Dafa spent 36 years carving a 10-kilometer water channel. He kept going after several failed attempts, and people called him a fool. He is now a celebrated figure in his community at the ripe age of 82.
Last edited:
You campaigned for your friend, presumably because you honestly believed he could make a difference (campaigning usually involves sharing and spreading that view among would-be voters), yet you didn’t cast a vote for him (or any vote at all)? That really makes no sense to me. Are you saying that you believed in your friend’s ability to bring about positive change - yet, paradoxically you didn’t? You believed that you would not be a ‘winner’ in any sense, if he represented you in his seat in office...so because it wasn’t a direct vote and direct win for Ritafee, it was pointless...but campaigning for someone doing something you don’t believe in, had a point? Help me understand the logic.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I helped him as much as I could because he asked ... all of us friends pitched in in whatever way we could ... as volunteers. How does that turn into believing in my friend's ability to bring about positive change? My friend had a family that he was neglecting while he was campaigning. I had no interest in him or anyone else winning ... how does my making phone calls putting up signs taking notes setting up meetings translate into me being represented in 'his seat' in office. Doug did a lot of good in the world without politics ... when he was involved in politics it took over his life and it was not a good thing for his family or his friends. Have you 'believed' in everything that you ever helped a friend do. I wanted to get experience volunteering in the 'political forum' to add to my resume ... and I was helping a friend and his family get through the 'mechanics' of campaigning. How does that translate into me doing something I don't believe in ... helping a friend and gaining volunteer experience in the workings of civic politics - does not translate into me being a 'believer' in the necessity of him representing me in a seat in office ... it was a direct win for Ritafee ... I got the life experience and the satisfaction of helping a friend - win win for me .... no 'token' voting necessary.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I often witnessed my friend's ability to bring about positive change - but it was never when he was involved in politics. He thought he should run for an office ... I wanted to know what that meant. I learned that is was about gaining 'power' for the politician - and even at the civic level - corruption is unavoidable. I am watching the politics in Ontario ... mostly because you people in this forum like to bring it up like it has some significance in your lives ... I have said that if you have enough money or enough guts you can run - 'being in the running' - does not automatically equate with 'positive change'. I am following with great interest 'Faith' - not because I believe that she will bring about a positive change - but because she has a following - and the fellow that she is running against - is rich. It is a 'game' for the politicians. It is bread and circuses for the 'voters' ... and the people that actually do make a difference ... the 'good' citizens ... continuing to work in the background out of the limelight ... there is where my hope for change rests.
How honest was it to tell people all the reasons why your friend was a good candidate, and not vote for him?
Faith Goldy is not entertaining unless you like white nationalists. She's awful. I can't trust your rationale, Ritafee.
Mrs.Anteater
Just keep going....
I don’t think “ rational” is one of Ritafees main characteristics, judging by how she argues and her sources.