Lorne Gunter recently wrote a column on the Harper government's plan to cut sick leave for federal staffers. In his typically venomous style, Gunter concludes the federal public service is too large following a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer(pdf) showing there is little added cost to sick leave beyond a person's salary. Gunter reckons if there is not a replacement called in to backfill positions they must not be essential to the work of government and positions should be cut. This train of thought has not travelled far from the station but beyond being poorly thought out — it's destructive.
In his 2006 paper, Innovation in the public sector: spare tyres and fourth plinths, Wayne Parsons explains redundancy in government is in place to ensure the government never fails. Unlike the private sector, which allows and even encourages failure, governments don't have the option to go bankrupt, layoff all the employees, and be replaced by a better, smarter government. Imagine the chaos if all the work of government was halted and restarted as often as new start ups go bankrupt. A robust civil service is akin to driving with a spare tire. It costs a little more to have a spare but when it's needed the savings are vast.
Much of the work of government requires at least a degree of expertise and can not, and should not, be covered off by anyone not familiar with the work when a person is sick for a day or three. Were we to follow Gunter's advice and slash the number of civil servants, the work of government would be impacted. Workloads would increase and every sick day would cause delays in projects, extreme increases in cost to temporarily hire a subject matter expert, or, more likely, both. With a robust civil service, colleagues are familiar with one another's work and can carry on while a peer is absent for a short period. This allows work to stay on track and projects to be completed in a timely manner.
An even more insidious effect of a lean public service is the inability to innovate. Innovation can only occur where there is room for failure. The private sector excels at innovation precisely because it allows for failure. Civil servants are free to innovate and experiment when there are fail-safes in place to ensure work is completed even if the innovation is not successful. When these measures are removed, the public service cannot experiment and will not be able to provide increasingly sophisticated products. As technology rapidly changes delivery methods and expectations, it is more important now than ever that we encourage innovation in the public sector by ensuring a robust civil service.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Saturday, April 5, 2014
March Labour Force Report
Statistics Canada has released the labour force report for March. The report is positive about job growth and we see the unemployment rate has decreased a tenth of a percent to 6.9%. The increase in employment is mainly among young Canadians aged 15-24 which is nice to see as there has been little positive to hear about youth employment throughout the recession. Overall, the report has a cautiously optimistic tone despite having very little good to report.
The good is that unemployment fell by 0.1% and there was a complementary increase in the employment rate from 61.6% to 61.7%. The job growth went primarily to the youth increasing the employment rate almost a full percent to 55.4%. Over 40% of the new jobs were full time. Unemployment among young Canadians remained unchanged at 13% indicating the number of youth looking for jobs increased, a hopeful sign.
The rest of the report made a valiant effort to make it appear otherwise but there is only bad news contained in the remainder of the report. Though the employment rate increased, the full time employment rate decreased. The majority of new jobs were part time, which while better than not working, is hardly something to celebrate. The unemployment rate among Canadians aged 25-54, the backbone of the labour force, fell 0.2% as approximately 25000 Canadians gave up looking for jobs. Among older Canadians, over the age of 55, the employment rate fell by 0.2%, approximately 19000 fewer people working, and the same number gave up looking for work.
The slight decrease in unemployment results both from the increased number of young Canadians that got jobs but also from the large number of Canadians over the age of 25 that became discouraged and left the labour force altogether. More work obviously needs to be done to ensure job growth. Governments should focus investment rather than cutting taxes and expecting the private sector to do the heavy lifting.
The good is that unemployment fell by 0.1% and there was a complementary increase in the employment rate from 61.6% to 61.7%. The job growth went primarily to the youth increasing the employment rate almost a full percent to 55.4%. Over 40% of the new jobs were full time. Unemployment among young Canadians remained unchanged at 13% indicating the number of youth looking for jobs increased, a hopeful sign.
The rest of the report made a valiant effort to make it appear otherwise but there is only bad news contained in the remainder of the report. Though the employment rate increased, the full time employment rate decreased. The majority of new jobs were part time, which while better than not working, is hardly something to celebrate. The unemployment rate among Canadians aged 25-54, the backbone of the labour force, fell 0.2% as approximately 25000 Canadians gave up looking for jobs. Among older Canadians, over the age of 55, the employment rate fell by 0.2%, approximately 19000 fewer people working, and the same number gave up looking for work.
The slight decrease in unemployment results both from the increased number of young Canadians that got jobs but also from the large number of Canadians over the age of 25 that became discouraged and left the labour force altogether. More work obviously needs to be done to ensure job growth. Governments should focus investment rather than cutting taxes and expecting the private sector to do the heavy lifting.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Metrolinx and Unintended Consequences
Metrolinx has released a short list of investment tools to expand transit in the GTA. The "strategies and investment tools to fund transit" are methods of generating revenue. Taxes and added fees that will be used specifically for funding the expansion of transit. It's fantastic that this list is out and that people are talking about how to fund transit; it's got to have money to expand and that money has got to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, it looks like Metrolinx hasn't thought very hard about the effects of many of these investment tools.
Some of the investment tools, namely increasing transit fares, will have a negative effect. It will discourage ridership, especially when Toronto is already famous for having one of the highest fares. It will punish those people that rely solely on transit to get around the city. We should be rewarding riders and trying to reduce the fare to make transit a much more attractive system.
Many of the options on the list are related to vehicle use. Highway tolls, fuel tax, vehicle kilometres travelled fee. This makes a lot of sense: increase the cost of driving yourself around and people are less likely to do it. This, of course, means that these taxes aren't so much for revenue generation as they are for discouraging vehicle use. That's fantastic, for its own reason and that reason isn't to generate revenue for transit. Sure, some money will be generated but if, and when, people switch away from driving themselves the level of revenue generated will decrease. This should be expected but if it's the way transit is getting funded those fees will have to be increased over and over. It's a hassle and hard to do, politically. These fees should be put in place but as added incentive to use transit and as an added variable source of funding, not as the primary revenue generation.
One other proposal related to private vehicle use: high occupancy vehicle toll. The same as any other tax, this will encourage a reduction in the taxed behaviour. If we charge people to carpool, people will have less incentive to carpool. It would be great if people chose not to drive but, when they choose to drive, it would be better if they chose to carpool.
The best option for funding transit is to put in place an actual revenue generating tax: the sales tax. The sales tax would have to apply to a sufficiently large enough area that people could not just easily leave the area to shop but not so large as to affect a great number of people that will not be getting the benefit. The GTA is probably a large enough area, the increase in sales tax does not need to be huge so the incentive to shop elsewhere will be small. People on the edges of the GTA may take advantage but if saving a small amount of money comes at the cost of a couple hours more driving, most people are not likely to shift their shopping habits. People aren't going to stop spending their money so it's guaranteed to raise revenues.
Couple the sales tax with some, or all, of the vehicle use fees to encourage more ridership on transit. This way transit has a stable source of funding, an added variable source of funding, and increased ridership to show that it's effective. With the right mix funding transit can be mostly painless. With the wrong mix the fees will only add to the transit headache the GTA is already suffering.
Some of the investment tools, namely increasing transit fares, will have a negative effect. It will discourage ridership, especially when Toronto is already famous for having one of the highest fares. It will punish those people that rely solely on transit to get around the city. We should be rewarding riders and trying to reduce the fare to make transit a much more attractive system.
Many of the options on the list are related to vehicle use. Highway tolls, fuel tax, vehicle kilometres travelled fee. This makes a lot of sense: increase the cost of driving yourself around and people are less likely to do it. This, of course, means that these taxes aren't so much for revenue generation as they are for discouraging vehicle use. That's fantastic, for its own reason and that reason isn't to generate revenue for transit. Sure, some money will be generated but if, and when, people switch away from driving themselves the level of revenue generated will decrease. This should be expected but if it's the way transit is getting funded those fees will have to be increased over and over. It's a hassle and hard to do, politically. These fees should be put in place but as added incentive to use transit and as an added variable source of funding, not as the primary revenue generation.
One other proposal related to private vehicle use: high occupancy vehicle toll. The same as any other tax, this will encourage a reduction in the taxed behaviour. If we charge people to carpool, people will have less incentive to carpool. It would be great if people chose not to drive but, when they choose to drive, it would be better if they chose to carpool.
The best option for funding transit is to put in place an actual revenue generating tax: the sales tax. The sales tax would have to apply to a sufficiently large enough area that people could not just easily leave the area to shop but not so large as to affect a great number of people that will not be getting the benefit. The GTA is probably a large enough area, the increase in sales tax does not need to be huge so the incentive to shop elsewhere will be small. People on the edges of the GTA may take advantage but if saving a small amount of money comes at the cost of a couple hours more driving, most people are not likely to shift their shopping habits. People aren't going to stop spending their money so it's guaranteed to raise revenues.
Couple the sales tax with some, or all, of the vehicle use fees to encourage more ridership on transit. This way transit has a stable source of funding, an added variable source of funding, and increased ridership to show that it's effective. With the right mix funding transit can be mostly painless. With the wrong mix the fees will only add to the transit headache the GTA is already suffering.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Myth and Socialism
I just finished reading Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Facesand I was thoroughly impressed.
I know it's an old book and if you've seen Star Wars you already know the hero arc but, to me, the most important part of the book wasn't explaining that all mythology is based on the same archetypes or the journey all heroes take. The most important part of the book was the Epilogue, "Myth and Society." In the epilogue Campbell talks explicitly about what mythology, religion, stories, and, more recently, movies are trying to teach us; the essence of which is that there is more to life than individualism. Instead of "Myth and
Society" the epilogue could have been named "Myth and
Socialism".
The society to which we belong moulds our lives; it gives us language and shapes our thoughts. As an individual we cannot be representative of our society; we can only show facets of it, facets that change as we age and grow in experience. One person cannot represent the young, the mature, and the old at the same time; a man cannot represent the feminine or genderless aspects of society; a scholar cannot represent other professions. Together, individuals in the society make up the whole and our traditions and ceremonies serve to help us fit into the society. Most ceremonies transition us from one aspect of our life to the next: birth celebrations, such as a baptism; coming-of-age ceremonies, such as Bar and Bat Mitzvah; weddings; funerals. Each of these show us and the community where we belong in society. Other ceremonies are about the community as a whole: Plough Monday was the first day of the agricultural year in England, Thanksgiving is a celebration of the harvest made possible only through the work of the entire society.
There are no ceremonies in which we celebrate a person being an individual separate from society. Some ceremonies, such as a vision quest, might involve separation from the society but only for a period of time. Being permanently separated from society was reserved as a punishment, typically for sever crimes. Cain was exiled for the murder of Abel1, in 16th Century Scotland those found acting against the interests of the burgh were banished.2 Individual identity separate from society has only recently been something sought after.
Myths reinforce the idea that, as individuals, we are only part of the whole. As Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”3 Or God’s words, “Muhammad hadst thou not been, I would not have created the sky.”4 Myths tell us that God is part of all of us and that we are part of God; all people are interconnected and belong to the whole. And yet in today’s world we are removing all identification with groups and placing increasing emphasis on the individual. As individuals we are lost; we cannot grasp the fullness of life without a group and “we have been split in two”, our conscious and unconscious selves.5
“We think of ourselves as Americans, children of the twentieth century, Occidentals, civilized Christians. We are virtuous or sinful. Yet such designations do not tell what it is to be man, they denote only the accidents of geography, birth-date, and income. What is the core of us? What is the basic character of our being?”6 We are humankind; we are the past, the future, and each other. We are better off as a group. No single facet of humanity, not one religion, or social class, or profession, or gender can represent all of humanity. Further, no single nationality or ethnicity can represent all of humankind. As humanity has in the past, we must move beyond these limiting factors, we must recognize that our society is global not tribal or provincial or national. These labels hold humanity back from maturing.
Religion is unable to help us break away from the guardians of the status quo. Long ago religion became a tool of the “ogre-tyrant,” used for propaganda and self-congratulation. “It is hardly more today than a sanctimonious exercise for Sunday morning, whereas business ethics and patriotism stand for the remainder of the week.” For proof we need only look to the United States, it is an unofficial requirement that to run for high office a person must be a Christian while also praising the system that encourages a few to hoard while others go without. This can also be seen in Buddhism, which is today a tool for the country of Tibet. Gautama Buddha was a prince who cast off his material life for enlightenment but the Dalai Lama has, until recently, been the head of the Tibetan state and continually uses his religious position for political purposes. We must break free of these restrictive mythologies or be forever trapped in a cycle of violence against each other.
A key part in ending the cycle of violence is to discontinue our practice of Capitalism and our belief in the ideologies and myths that have sprung up to support it. The profit motive is used to excuse violence on all scales, from banks forcibly removing people from their homes to countries warring on one another. Capitalism is a belief predicated on violence and greed; it necessarily stagnates humanity as it encourages uniformity, falsely portraying a single facet of humanity as being representative of all.
We must all, as Campbell points out, be modern day heroes7. It will, however, not be for society to guide us in our journey but, rather, for each of us to bear the torch that will guide us back to society. We must discover those unconscious symbols that can serve as guideposts and help to create new mythologies or reinterpret old ones that will guide those following us. We must become united in humanity. That is not to say we must all have a single culture and use the same symbols and stories for enlightenment but we must recognize that we are all engaged in the same journey; the path may be different but the destination is the same: a global, respectful humanity.
1Gen. 4:11
2 Elizabeth Ewan, “'For Whatever Ales Ye': Women as Consumers and Producers in Late Medieval Scottish Towns,” in Women in Scotland: c.1100-1750, 124-135, ed. Elizabeth Ewan and Maureen Meikle (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1999), 126-127.
3Matt. 25:40
4 Saʻdī, The Bústán, trans. W.H. Allen (1879), 13.
5 Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 3rd ed. (Novato, California: New World Library, 2008), 334.
6 Ibid., 332.
7 Ibid., 337.
The society to which we belong moulds our lives; it gives us language and shapes our thoughts. As an individual we cannot be representative of our society; we can only show facets of it, facets that change as we age and grow in experience. One person cannot represent the young, the mature, and the old at the same time; a man cannot represent the feminine or genderless aspects of society; a scholar cannot represent other professions. Together, individuals in the society make up the whole and our traditions and ceremonies serve to help us fit into the society. Most ceremonies transition us from one aspect of our life to the next: birth celebrations, such as a baptism; coming-of-age ceremonies, such as Bar and Bat Mitzvah; weddings; funerals. Each of these show us and the community where we belong in society. Other ceremonies are about the community as a whole: Plough Monday was the first day of the agricultural year in England, Thanksgiving is a celebration of the harvest made possible only through the work of the entire society.
There are no ceremonies in which we celebrate a person being an individual separate from society. Some ceremonies, such as a vision quest, might involve separation from the society but only for a period of time. Being permanently separated from society was reserved as a punishment, typically for sever crimes. Cain was exiled for the murder of Abel1, in 16th Century Scotland those found acting against the interests of the burgh were banished.2 Individual identity separate from society has only recently been something sought after.
Myths reinforce the idea that, as individuals, we are only part of the whole. As Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”3 Or God’s words, “Muhammad hadst thou not been, I would not have created the sky.”4 Myths tell us that God is part of all of us and that we are part of God; all people are interconnected and belong to the whole. And yet in today’s world we are removing all identification with groups and placing increasing emphasis on the individual. As individuals we are lost; we cannot grasp the fullness of life without a group and “we have been split in two”, our conscious and unconscious selves.5
“We think of ourselves as Americans, children of the twentieth century, Occidentals, civilized Christians. We are virtuous or sinful. Yet such designations do not tell what it is to be man, they denote only the accidents of geography, birth-date, and income. What is the core of us? What is the basic character of our being?”6 We are humankind; we are the past, the future, and each other. We are better off as a group. No single facet of humanity, not one religion, or social class, or profession, or gender can represent all of humanity. Further, no single nationality or ethnicity can represent all of humankind. As humanity has in the past, we must move beyond these limiting factors, we must recognize that our society is global not tribal or provincial or national. These labels hold humanity back from maturing.
Religion is unable to help us break away from the guardians of the status quo. Long ago religion became a tool of the “ogre-tyrant,” used for propaganda and self-congratulation. “It is hardly more today than a sanctimonious exercise for Sunday morning, whereas business ethics and patriotism stand for the remainder of the week.” For proof we need only look to the United States, it is an unofficial requirement that to run for high office a person must be a Christian while also praising the system that encourages a few to hoard while others go without. This can also be seen in Buddhism, which is today a tool for the country of Tibet. Gautama Buddha was a prince who cast off his material life for enlightenment but the Dalai Lama has, until recently, been the head of the Tibetan state and continually uses his religious position for political purposes. We must break free of these restrictive mythologies or be forever trapped in a cycle of violence against each other.
A key part in ending the cycle of violence is to discontinue our practice of Capitalism and our belief in the ideologies and myths that have sprung up to support it. The profit motive is used to excuse violence on all scales, from banks forcibly removing people from their homes to countries warring on one another. Capitalism is a belief predicated on violence and greed; it necessarily stagnates humanity as it encourages uniformity, falsely portraying a single facet of humanity as being representative of all.
We must all, as Campbell points out, be modern day heroes7. It will, however, not be for society to guide us in our journey but, rather, for each of us to bear the torch that will guide us back to society. We must discover those unconscious symbols that can serve as guideposts and help to create new mythologies or reinterpret old ones that will guide those following us. We must become united in humanity. That is not to say we must all have a single culture and use the same symbols and stories for enlightenment but we must recognize that we are all engaged in the same journey; the path may be different but the destination is the same: a global, respectful humanity.
1Gen. 4:11
2 Elizabeth Ewan, “'For Whatever Ales Ye': Women as Consumers and Producers in Late Medieval Scottish Towns,” in Women in Scotland: c.1100-1750, 124-135, ed. Elizabeth Ewan and Maureen Meikle (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1999), 126-127.
3Matt. 25:40
4 Saʻdī, The Bústán, trans. W.H. Allen (1879), 13.
5 Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 3rd ed. (Novato, California: New World Library, 2008), 334.
6 Ibid., 332.
7 Ibid., 337.
Friday, July 16, 2010
$9 Billion for what?
It was announced today that the Canadian Government is purchasing 65 new fighter jets, the F-35. So far the only criticism of the purchase is that they did not tender the contract wasn't tendered in a competitive fashion and so should not go forward. There has been no explanation of the intended use of the jets other than to say that they are needed to replace the aging F-18s that Canada currently has. The last time that the jets were deployed was to protect the Olympics.
I can understand that we need to have some capability to defend ourselves and not rely on other nations military establishments to do it for us. I understand that sovereignty is decided by ability to defend ourselves but what are these planes meant to defend us from? Ice breakers for the north make sense, they allow us the ability to access the Arctic year-round. What do planes defend us from? Other planes? In that case they don't provide much security. A fleet of 65 planes is worth than useless compared to the nearly 2500 that the USA is planning on purchasing.
By the time maintenance costs are taken into account some experts expect the total cost to top $16 Billion. Is there no better way that money could be spent? Even keeping it in defense spending there must be better uses. Why not actually spend it on defence rather than the obviously offensive applications of jet planes. I don't buy 'the best defence is a good offence' mantra. We could have a highly trained and effective defense force that could be deployed in Canada and around the world quickly but these F-35s are not going to be taking anyone anywhere. The defense force could be used to defend against natural disasters at home, simply because there are not military conflicts for them to face here, and be deployed around the world to aid our allies in a defensive capacity. I am not advocating that they be poorly equipped; I am advocating that they be well equipped for a specific purpose.
We have a Department of National Defence not International Offensives. Equip our Armed Forces to effectively defend Canada and our allies around the world.
I can understand that we need to have some capability to defend ourselves and not rely on other nations military establishments to do it for us. I understand that sovereignty is decided by ability to defend ourselves but what are these planes meant to defend us from? Ice breakers for the north make sense, they allow us the ability to access the Arctic year-round. What do planes defend us from? Other planes? In that case they don't provide much security. A fleet of 65 planes is worth than useless compared to the nearly 2500 that the USA is planning on purchasing.
By the time maintenance costs are taken into account some experts expect the total cost to top $16 Billion. Is there no better way that money could be spent? Even keeping it in defense spending there must be better uses. Why not actually spend it on defence rather than the obviously offensive applications of jet planes. I don't buy 'the best defence is a good offence' mantra. We could have a highly trained and effective defense force that could be deployed in Canada and around the world quickly but these F-35s are not going to be taking anyone anywhere. The defense force could be used to defend against natural disasters at home, simply because there are not military conflicts for them to face here, and be deployed around the world to aid our allies in a defensive capacity. I am not advocating that they be poorly equipped; I am advocating that they be well equipped for a specific purpose.
We have a Department of National Defence not International Offensives. Equip our Armed Forces to effectively defend Canada and our allies around the world.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan!!
It's the Monday before May 24 and that means it's May Long or more officially Victoria Day, the day we celebrate that we are a member of the British Commonwealth and that we have a foreign Head of State. The day was originally made to celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday, since it actually is her birthday, and is now the official birthday of whichever monarch is currently reigning happy and glorious over us. More importantly, this date reminds us that we are a British Colony with a British history that we can all be proud of (unless you live in Quebec in which case it is National Patriots Day and celebrates the struggle of French patriots to gain political liberty and a democratic system of government). To me this holiday is archaic. Canada isn't, and arguably never was, a purely British country but we still have this holiday to recognize the United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain. Why don't we expand this a little and talk about all of our holidays? These days when the working poor get paid time and a half to make sure everyone can still get a burger and fries on his or her day off.
In a country as diverse as Canada it seems a little ridiculous to me that we can legislate national and provincial days of celebration, especially since about half of these days are purely Christian holidays. I'm not against holidays, I'm against a government saying "this is your holiday, celebrate X event" the same as I (and most others) am against a government saying "this is your religion". Why would an atheist want time off at Easter other than just to have the time off? Why would a Muslim woman want to have Christmas off? Does a Jew celebrate Good Friday?
My proposal is this: give everyone 12 general holidays for a year. It is up to the employee to inform his or her employer in a reasonable time when they are taking their holidays. Not everyone has the same holiday. I might want to celebrate Louis Riel Day but I live in Alberta so tough, maybe my neighbour wants to celebrate the Birth of the Báb; everyone should be allowed their own holidays. We don't legislate what religion everyone celebrates now let's open it up and let everyone celebrate whichever holiday they want on whichever day they want.
On that note, Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan.
In a country as diverse as Canada it seems a little ridiculous to me that we can legislate national and provincial days of celebration, especially since about half of these days are purely Christian holidays. I'm not against holidays, I'm against a government saying "this is your holiday, celebrate X event" the same as I (and most others) am against a government saying "this is your religion". Why would an atheist want time off at Easter other than just to have the time off? Why would a Muslim woman want to have Christmas off? Does a Jew celebrate Good Friday?
My proposal is this: give everyone 12 general holidays for a year. It is up to the employee to inform his or her employer in a reasonable time when they are taking their holidays. Not everyone has the same holiday. I might want to celebrate Louis Riel Day but I live in Alberta so tough, maybe my neighbour wants to celebrate the Birth of the Báb; everyone should be allowed their own holidays. We don't legislate what religion everyone celebrates now let's open it up and let everyone celebrate whichever holiday they want on whichever day they want.
On that note, Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan.
Friday, February 19, 2010
We're Helping Average Canadians
The government recently released some changes to mortgages in Canada. The changes are to help the average Canadian and to prevent a housing bubble. For a government that believes in the free market it is interesting how they are willing to interfere in the market before there is truly any problem. I don't disagree with market interference but their method does seem a little strange.
To qualify for a mortgage now the borrower must be able to afford a five year fixed term mortgage which comes with a higher interest rate than the previously required three year term. The average effects of this assuming, an average mortgage of $337 000.00, is an increase in the monthly payments of about $200 dollars but to qualify for the loan at this higher rate translates into a requirement of an extra $10 000 yearly income. Hmm... that's easy. Just be rich and then you can buy a house. If you're not rich, well then, don't. Rent. If you can find a place to rent from but the government made that a little harder too.
It costs more now for investors and developers to buy property with the intent of renting rather than living in. This way only the rich can buy houses to live in and the super rich can buy the rental properties. It's an ingenious way to keep the rich rich and the poor subsidizing them. Good idea, Mr. Flaherty.
If we are worried about people not being able to pay the mortgage why don't we attack other types of debt that might be making it hard to afford a mortgage. Check out credit card rates. With an average of 19.5% and little to no requirement to receive a credit card the government could have gone a long way to reducing consumer debt by restricting credit card rates, especially as interest rates are at historic lows, and creating some solid requirements for getting a credit card. This would have had the undesirable effect of people not spending money, though.
If someone doesn't have their credit card they might not purchase that new toaster they couldn't afford and if someone doesn't purchase that toaster than the company won't make money and if the company doesn't make money then someone loses a job and has no money to buy stuff and uses a credit card instead. It's a vicious cycle. This doesn't happen if someone doesn't buy a house. They still spend money, either on rent or on stuff. Hopefully both without saving, that way they don't ever do something silly and invest in a house, everyone knows only the rich should do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)