I was incredibly excited to see a competent leader at the Liberal helm. However, he slipped a little bit.
I’ve been increasingly uneasy over these Employment Insurance debates. I am a trained economist, and everything economics has to say goes against EI; we are given blips of information regarding to helpful aspect of it as well in terms of temporary assistance while an employed individual is retrained in another field or searches for a job.
The problem EI has for me (and economics): lack of incentive. For you non-economists out there, economics is all about incentives. In this case, there needs to be incentive to not only keep a job, but to find one as soon as possible in order to keep unemployment low, GDP high, and consumption high (among other things as well). With a lower requirement of worked hours (from 420-700 hours down to 360 hours), there will be a dramatic surge of Canadians on EI. Will they look as hard for employment, especially with a downtrodden economy such as this one? If it’s too hard to find a job, a lot of people will not look as they are being paid regardless.
Ignatieff is fighting for the 360 hour requirement amendment to EI requirements. Just the other day is was quoted saying, “The good thing about [the 360 hour requirement] is it is the fastest and most direct was to get stimulus into the economy.” Excuse me?
Stimulus? Here is where Harper and Ignatieff differ in their academic training. Harper, being the only economist leader, has reformed the requirements somewhat but is blatantly against the 360 hour requirement. Ignatieff, on the other hand, believes that it is a direct stimulus into the economy. So, taking general tax revenue (where he said the added EI claims would come from) and giving it to unemployed Canadians is a direct stimulus? Yes, perhaps creating a means for some people to spend is a stimulus, but the last I checked EI didn’t give you so much that you can buy everything you see. It will allow people to survive, yes, but it won’t create enough consumption to be called a direct stimulus.
Harper’s solution is to retrain the unemployed in order to land them a job in another sector. Instead of taking hardworking taxpayers dollars and sending them as gifts to people who have worked 360 hours then took a year holiday on EI, let’s retrain them so they can make more money than EI could ever give and create a stimulus that way. Will it take a little longer than than 360 hours? Probably not, depending on the training. Even if it does, the stimulus there is much more significant than an unemployed person spending tax dollars and not contributing anything to GDP, technology, or exports themselves. Bottom line: get people working!
On a last note, how many times has Ignatieff laughed at the Conservatives calling this EI reform as “socialist?” Well, aren’t the Conservatives right? They want people to suck on tax dollars and not work, just to be nice guys to everyone. Yes, I do not deny it is painful and very sad for those that have lost their jobs. But, we don’t need to pay them to sulk. I’ll gladly pay to help them find a job and get back on the bike (such as retraining). Some out there may argue that only those “seeking a job” can stay on EI. Well, yes, but I’ve known people that have easily lied about it. It’s really not that hard.
I really want to see Ignatieff act as intelligently as he claims to be. If he wants to not just pull out of this recession, but pull out stronger, then we need real contributions to the country, not a bunch of people that don’t have must need to hurry up and find a job. Canada needs people working, not wishing it were so. The last I heard, hope is not a plan.
