Taking Action to Break the Poverty Cycle in Hamilton

We need Mohawk, and especially McMaster, to move into our neighbourhoods and build the dream of higher education in all our communities.

By Joey Coleman
Published July 14, 2011

The McGuinty government declared addressing poverty as one of the top priorities of their second term with a goal of reducing child poverty by 25%. Numbers compiled from StatsCan by Ontario's Social Planning Network shows that poverty is actually increasing. What can we do? Is there a macro solution to poverty that we are missing?

There isn't a magic bullet, but we are moving in the right direction. The investments made last decade in early learning are starting to produce results in our most poverty-stricken neighbourhoods.

In one of my old neighbourhoods, Crown Point, home to the Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club, the Queen Mary Public School grade 3 classes are showing encouraging and substantial improvements in numeracy and literacy as measured by EQAO scores.

In 2005/06, only 21% of Queen Mary's grade 3 students wrote at or above the province standard for their age. The provincial average at the time was 64%. In 2009/10, 73% of the grade 3 students met or exceed the standard. The provincial average was 70%.

Literacy is important for being able to overcome poverty, but what happens to these children when they reach high school and start to consider post-secondary education? Are we doing enough as a community to promote and assist in the obtainment of post-secondary education for our most disadvantaged citizens?

We can do more. We need to create the atmosphere for success.

I attended the University of Manitoba for my first year of university. On my first day in Winnipeg, I travelled to the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club to volunteer. The Boys and Girls Club in Hamilton is the primary reason for my success and the Winnipeg Club continued the Club's support for me.

I've grown up in Hamilton's poorest neighbourhoods. Near Christmas of 2004, I was volunteering at a small Boys and Girls Club in North Winnipeg. The poverty in this neighbourhood shocked even me - how could we as a country allowed for this? I could not help but notice the majority of people in the neighbourhood were First Nations.

As I was building relationships with the members of this club, a young boy of no more than seven or eight years of age started asking me why I was in Winnipeg. He had a torn shirt and shoes with holes that could barely protect against the summer elements, let alone a Winnipeg winter.

Much like any child in a poor neighbourhood, he knew I was an outsider. I tried to avoid telling him I was attending the university. Eventually, he cornered me. I had to tell him, "I go to the University of Manitoba."

His reaction shocked me: "That's awesome, my cousin goes there. I'm going to go to the University of Winnipeg because that's where my uncle goes." A child in my neighbourhood back home wouldn't dream of a university education.

Growing up, no one around me was attending McMaster University. A few people went to Mohawk. There was no chance that a child in my neighbourhood would dream of - let alone plan - to attend McMaster.

However, both universities in Winnipeg offer extensive outreach programs in Winnipeg's poverty-stricken North End and for first-generation students on their campuses.

In Hamilton we're making strides with our younger children. Now we need Mohawk, and especially McMaster, to move into our neighbourhoods and build the dream of higher education in all our communities.

McMaster's president, Patrick Deane, served as Provost of the University of Winnipeg. He knows the positive impact that University is having in overcoming poverty in Winnipeg. I'm hopeful that he'll bring the best practices of how a university can address poverty to Hamilton.

A child born in Hamilton's wealthier suburbs is nearly guaranteed to attend post-secondary education, most likely university. Why? They have the supports to succeed. They have the financial resources to focus on studying and have the mentorship (their parents who attended university) to deal with the challenges of university.

A first-generation student rarely enjoys a mentor. For them, the adjustment to university is greater as they attempt to integrate into a foreign culture.

I challenge Hamilton's professional community to make a commitment of both their financial resources and their personal time to helping young people out of poverty. Be that mentor.

Hire a high school student from one of our "Code Red" neighbourhoods for administrative work during the summer. Be the person they can call in their senior year for homework assistance. Hire them back in subsequent summers. Fund a bursary to assist them in paying for residence during first year.

Let's produce a generation of young professionals who seed future leaders from our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

We cannot afford to squander the modest - and still inadequate - investment in early years made last decade. It's time to step up to the plate.

This article was previously published on Joey Colemans' website, and was originally published in Urbanicity.

Joey Coleman covers Hamilton Civic Affairs.

Read more of his work at The Public Record, or follow him on Twitter @JoeyColeman.


View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By MikeBelmore (registered) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 10:43:45

Great post Joey.

Permalink | Context

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 00:15:03 in reply to Comment 66147

Thank you.

I often think of that young boy in Winnipeg when I'm volunteering here in Hamilton.

We, in Ontario, focus on the fact that Winnipeg now has an NHL team again. I focus on the fact they are aggressively doing something to address their poverty issues.

It is this action on poverty that will put Winnipeg ahead of us in the next few decades.

We need action and it's not going to come from our chattering classes - we need to step up ourselves.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RichardDenOtter (registered) - website | Posted July 14, 2011 at 10:46:41

There are a lot of opportunities for young people to receive education right now. But the cycle of poverty is really tough to break. It is illustrated in the 2009 film "Precious".

The burden of student loans, as well as lack of employment opportunities for university graduates only exacerbate the problem.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 11:22:17

My parents couldn't afford to send me to College or University either, so I took my natural skill of being able to use my hands and the love of cars to become an Apprentice Mechanic after high school, attended Mohawk College to learn the craft, while continuing to work full time, where I excelled, made the Deans List and Honor Roll. After four years of hard work I became a Class "A" Licensed Mechanic. After 35 years in the trade, with a contiguous record of employment, I was able to afford to retire early at 50 and take life easy. During that time I also trained a number of Apprentices, who also had no problem making a nice living fixing cars. Today, mechanics are like rocket scientists or computer diagnostic experts, they get paid accordingly. The best way out of poverty is an education and a job, the rest will follow.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 14, 2011 at 11:34:01 in reply to Comment 66149

It's really unfortunate that more people don't recognize the market value of skilled trades. Ontario faces a serious shortage in skilled tradespeople that will limit our ability to attract and/or grow good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, subsequent Ontario governments have done little to address the regulatory barriers keeping young people from streaming into apprenticeships in larger numbers.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 14:11:33 in reply to Comment 66150

I think the Gen Xer's kids are swinging the other way - a few million folks with useless BAs are looking at their kids and saying "I'd rather raise a plumber than an art historian".

I know I am, and my wife agrees. Nothing wrong with art history, but I can't justify spending five figures and half a decade on it.

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 13:49:35 in reply to Comment 66150

Agreed 100%.

At one time, people who learned skilled trades were "looked down upon". Really, there was no reason for it then, and there is absolutely no reason for it now.

There's nothing wrong with being a mechanic, plumber, electrictian, machinist, carpenter, etc. These jobs are important, and they're in demand. People in these jobs make good money, and can enjoy more job security than someone working in an office.

Permalink | Context

By RB (registered) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 14:06:08 in reply to Comment 66158

Blue collar workers built this country (and many others), and the fact that society "looked down" upon them is baffling to me.

How anyone who is gainfully employed, with a skilled and USEFUL trade was/is ever in that position just make me shake my head.

PS: I'm an accountant who thinks he's a home renovator.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 11:46:21

For once, we can agree on something Ryan. The skilled trades may no be very romantic, but they pay a darn good living wage. When I was an Aprentice in College, we even had a few girls taking part. I also recall a trade school called Crestwood, where many bricklayers where trained, and got jobs as a result. Fast forward to today, the board wants to demolish the school to build a brand new education centre. Removing this, and other training components from public schools was a tragic mistake, given todays unfilled demands for these skilled workers. Unfortunately, there's no home-grown talent to fill them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cat (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:07:52

Hamilton needs mentors to go to the schools and plant a seed of desire to get into school and stay in desptie thier surroundings. I have seen it happen and it can happen in Hamilton.

If kid's see nothing but thier family and friend's and welfare and no outside world they often will stay in thier comfort zone. Time for a paradigm shift! Mac students can come and mentor,ditto for Mohawk. Make it mandatory to graduate to come and be a mentor.

Permalink | Context

By RB (registered) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 14:07:39 in reply to Comment 66156

Hmmm... I agree that some kind of mentor ship/early involvement would be a good thing to break this deadly "generational welfare" that runs rampant in Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted July 17, 2011 at 18:08:42 in reply to Comment 66163

I agree. Mentorship programs would be great for a couple of reasons. The ability for children to aspire to higher goals requires that they see these people working in their neighbourhoods. Also, the post secondary system is under considerable financial strain. In order to meet future needs of students entering the system they are going to need innovative ways to educate students outside of traditional classroom pen & paper methods.

Trades still have somewhat of a negative stigma from my experience with students and parents in the public education system. It is not entirely clear why, since many of my parents' neigbours in S. Creek became millionaires through hard work in trades/business.

There are some cultural factors at play. Newer immigrants believe that University is the only way to improve their lot in the new country, and I have observed some interesting correlations with background and career goals. Older generation families also tend to be one tracked, and have bought into the American culture of dream jobs in medicine, law, and business. Very few students actually declare interest in the trades at the high school level from my experience.

Permalink | Context

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 00:20:06 in reply to Comment 66163

I've been fortuante that I was exposed to areas outside of my Hamilton Housing survey when I was a child. I don't know of any of my childhood friend who've broken the cycle. In my volunteer work, I often work to assist their children.

The Early Years Centres are making a difference - they are giving these children the skills they'll need to break the cycle and many of the parents want their children to be able to break the cycle. The question is what are we going to do to help these, often single parents, to guide their children through the teenage years?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 14:07:58

If you liked this article, also see Mahesh Butani's blog entry "McMaster could be a real city University."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 14:20:03

Great article, Joey. Top shelf, all 'round!

Permalink | Context

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 00:22:26 in reply to Comment 66167

Thank you

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By what is the truth (anonymous) | Posted July 14, 2011 at 17:00:43

Getting a post secondary education does not necessarily mean you will be lifted from poverty.

I think the writer while well intentined, misses a view points. Not everyperson is geared to go towards post secondary education for a variety of reasons and, his comment about the kidds at the school while optimistic does nothing in reality if their parents are living in dire poverty. They do not get more money.

So is it going to be 25 and 25 before something ias done about the growing levels of poverty?

Lots of yakking and reports but no real action!

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 08:08:05 in reply to Comment 66180

If we've learned anything, it's that real change must start at the grassroots level through neighbourhood associations and nonprofit community development organizations working directly with disadvantaged communities to experience and understand their needs. RTH Staff

And what are the root problem? I don't know. moylek

Look at where the big food subsidies flow: Ryan

I know it isn't politically correct to talk about class, but if you don't, these issues don't make a whole lot of sense. Undustrial

Mac and The Spec should be applauded for this in depth research, but as mentioned in the above editorial, city councils track record leaves me in side of the skeptics. We'll start more roundtables, have more breakfast meetings, issue more press releases and accomplish very little between now and the next big Spec series. Jason

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 14, 2011 at 18:12:01 in reply to Comment 66180

So true, many, if not most that I know who went to university are now deeply indebted and still unemployed. The massive rise in university attendance over the last few decades clearly hasn't provided "opportunities" for all the graduates - in many cases it's actually devalued degrees.

One way or the other, a massive bulk of jobs (often a sizable majority) will still be "unskilled". Professionals still need toilets cleaned, dishes washed and floors swept - and if these jobs don't pay living wages, then a very large amount of the population will still be poor no matter how hard they work. Even if every poor person in Hamilton right now were given an MBA and $100K/year jobs, we'd just need to import more poor people (immigrants, rural populations etc) to do their former jobs.

We can't address the problems of poverty by helping a few determined young people "escape". As long as our economy depends on a large and underpaid working class (or lower grades of it), people will live in poverty. The roots of this issue go very deep...

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 13:23:49 in reply to Comment 66183

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JoeP (anonymous) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 09:31:08

Hmmm... no one has mentioned the increase in minimum wage and how that increases poverty?

Permalink | Context

By JoeP (anonymous) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 11:49:06 in reply to Comment 66207

I see that I've been negatively rated here without rebuttal.

I'll let Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams help explain what the minimum wage does to the poor:

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 12:23:24 in reply to Comment 66229

It's a commonsense assumption that increasing the price of something causes demand to go down. This is the argument that neoliberals like Sowell use against minimum wage laws, which ought to reduce employment - according to the assumption from economic common sense.

However, the evidence abundantly does not support this assumption:

The Florida Minimum Wage After One Year - None of the dire predictions of job losses came true, the Florida economy continued to lead the country in job growth, and the unemployment rate continued to decline steadily, while economic growth accelerated.

The Economics of the Minimum Wage - minimum wage increases have little or no impact on employment rates.

Step up, not out: The case for raising the federal minimum wage for workers in every state - critics argue that, faced with rising labor costs, employers are forced to lay off workers. This claim has been carefully studied by labor economists who have found little evidence that minimum wage increases lead to significant job losses. In fact, the research unequivocally shows that the benefits to low-wage workers and their families far outweigh the costs.

A more holistic study of the system of employment, wages and economic growth reveals dynamics that seem counterintuitive at first blush.

Simplistic models of free exchange miss the fact that employers and workers are asymmetric agents in in monopsonistic unskilled and semi-skilled labour markets. That is, employers have considerable power to drive down wages (since a corporation is a formal combination of thousands of shareholders pitted against separate and individual workers).

As a result, employers can pay workers less than a market with perfect competition would produce.

Raising the minimum wage restores a price for labour that still allows employers to be profitable but leaves more money in the hands of workers. This, in turn, leads to more consumer purchases, which provides more revenue for employers to offset their higher labour costs (something Henry Ford understood).

It also attracts people on social assistance to enter the labour market, which increases employment, economic activity, and consumer purchasing power, and alleviates public spending (which can go into other investments or into tax cuts).

Overall, raising the minimum wage appears not to reduce employment (in some cases, employment actually increases) and to have a slightly positive affect on GDP.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 09:34:29

While I applaud this articles focus on education and the discussions focus on skilled trades. Poverty as we see it today is a product of capitalism and our monetary policy. If we do not address these fundamental problems, anything we do about poverty is a band aid on a gaping wound.

"Affluence creates poverty" - Marshall McLuhan

"Wealth creates poverty" - Michael Parenti

Permalink | Context

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 10:03:19 in reply to Comment 66208

I agree. Although I have to say that having spent part of this year in the US, in the middle of all 'that', the one thing I took away from the sizeable amount of reading and observing I indulged myself with... how almost resistent the society is to a) developing an understanding of the basic precepts of their system, and b) how the decimation of the Middle Class isn't being protested as, say, wars have been.

I fear that the motivation just isn't there and inertia will prove to be the deciding factor as to whether or not 'triage' is performed. (I"m purposefully leaving out the various elements of complicity of those who have either engineered this dynamic or promulgated it, because in the end, it always comes down to the degree of apathy present in the populace. And the variety of apathy rampant in the US is super-fuelled.)

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 09:56:43 in reply to Comment 66208

Poverty as we see it today is a product of capitalism and our monetary policy.

Correlation != causality.

Capitalism only "creates" poverty insofar as it lifts some people, but not everyone, out of it. I'm all for sensible market regulations and higher top marginal tax rates, but you have to create wealth before you can distribute it more equitably.

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 11:26:47 in reply to Comment 66219

I suppose the question is whether wealth (or more importantly, value) is really created by capital and investment, or simply controlled by them.

If value comes, instead, from labour, the environment, or the needs of customers - then the massive amount of wealth "generated" by capitalism is really more of a diversion of value.

Wages, in real terms, are no better for (the poorest) 80% of the population than they were about four decades ago. In that time, productivity per hour worked has nearly doubled. We've seen an explosion in profits and wealth for the richest fraction of society and the economy, but not for the rest. Can anybody venture a guess where these windfall profits came from?

Centralizing wealth means taking it from somewhere, or someone.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 10:50:06 in reply to Comment 66219

Wealth is created by people's labour. People need to be given control over their labour. Show me a capitalist system that does so and I will agree, but I am not going to hold my breath.

We need to understand that wealth creation in our current global system is only achievable by exploiting others... many of whom are out of sight and mind to us. If we redistribute wealth more equitably in our country it does not change the fact that much of the wealth created by our corporations is created by the exploitation of people in other countries, their resources and their ecosystems.

Our notions of "wealth" may in fact be the problem.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 12:17:42 in reply to Comment 66226

Wealth is created by people's labour.

That's true if by "labour" you broadly mean the constellation of domain knowledge, technique, innovation and management that allow an enterprise to realize efficiencies and create value. Productivity gains emerge, in part, from techniques that produce more output for a given person-hour of work.

But without wading into the debate over competing theories of value, I want to argue (in my non-radical way) that the problem is not so much capitalism per se as corporatism, the organizational structure under which hired managers make decisions and organize capital/labour/technique in a top-down fashion on behalf of, and in the interest of, the people who effectively control the capital.

In far too many corporations, the contributions of employees toward innovation and technique, hence productivity, are sharply devalued. The employees are neither asked to innovate nor compensated for their innovations. (Often they are punished for attempting to innovate.) Instead, they are counted and treated as much as possible like generic, replaceable units of production.

Both the corporate structure and the manufacturing process come to reflect and reinforce this value assumption, which alienates employees from the working conditions that would otherwise motivate them and make them partners in the enterprise's success. (I will posit as an aside that I don't believe there is any employment occupation so 'menial' that it can't be imbued with autonomy, mastery and purpose.)

That alienation creates a self-fulfilling dynamic in which managers regard employees as unreliable units that need to be micromanaged and browbeaten to do their jobs; and the inevitably toxic work environment produces employees with bad attitudes and low motivation.

Not all enterprises follow this model, of course. Depending on the industry and local culture, some companies empower their employees to take ownership of their work, participate meaningfully in the direction of the company and enjoy more of the profits the company generates. These companies tend to enjoy faster productivity growth, lower turnover, greater job satisfaction, less employee absence, less employee theft/misappropriation, more satisfied customers, and so on.

Unfortunately, this model becomes challenging to scale upwards, as the transactions costs of open dialogue grow faster than the number of people in the network. Eventually, the sheer cost of all the transactions renders it effectively impossible to make collective decisions affordably and within a reasonable time frame.

In a large enterprise, a top-down hierarchy realizes the efficiency that comes from eliminating all those transaction costs. All direction and most information flows down from the top. The tradeoff is a dispirited workforce, an institution that knows much less than its members collectively know, and a growing managerial overhead because demotivated workers need to be managed.

It's important to note, however, that most corporations are not too big for empowerment and collaborative management. The persistence of narrow, top-down managerialism at all scales of business is a cultural artifact - and one that persistently holds back innovation. Again, the science of motivation has been clear for decades but most companies persist in demotivating their employees and then wasting money on heavy-handed management.

During the Golden Age of Capitalism, from 1945 to 1973, the top-down system prevailed but the regulatory and tax structure offered an important countervail: workers might not enjoy empowerment in the workplace, but capital gains taxes and high top marginal tax rates ensured that the wealth generated by the economy was distributed far more equitably - through both public redistribution and rising real incomes - than it is today.

Since the mid-1970s, the corporate offensive has rolled back nearly all of the tax and regulatory measures that used to share productivity gains more widely. The results have been unambiguous: productivity growth slowed, real median incomes stagnated, and poverty rates actually increased even as the wealthiest have become exponentially more wealthy.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-18 09:57:10

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 13:10:30 in reply to Comment 66231

the problem is not so much capitalism per se as corporatism

I see little if any difference.

I suppose you could say capitalism has led to unbridled corporatism. But there was no golden age of capitalism. Capitalism has always exploited and redistributed wealth to the rich. Historically it predominantly exploited a faceless "them" and shared the spoils better with us.

But the golden age is a myth for western consumption, sellable because for decades we were largely blind to the foreign costs of our capitalist consumption lifestyle. But now more of us are beginning to fall victim to its greed.

Some may believe we can perform an upheaval-free roll back to some sort of "golden age". I do not. I do not believe in that golden age and even if I did we are too far down the global path of unbridled capitalism (or corporatism) for any gentle conversion to a more equitable system.

Poverty will continue to increase, wealth will continue to accumulate in the top and sadly there is not a damning thing that any of us can do to change that until we come face to face with the fundamental deficiency of our culture and that is class.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 13:17:25 in reply to Comment 66237

I had hoped it was clear that my use of the term Golden Age was facetious. It was a time of exploitive capitalism, but that exploitation was tempered with redistribution.

I've proposed a capitalism that shares wealth more equitably - not only through redistribution but also through a re-conception of how an enterprise should be organized and structured.

What do you propose?

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-15 13:18:27

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:20:04 in reply to Comment 66238

I had a hunch Ryan :)

I just challenged that because people do believe it (even on the so-called "left") and it is a big part of the problem.

I do not discredit capitalism completely it could work on a local/smaller scale. Perhaps a hybrid economy would work better. An economy where a person could not only buy but freely trade their labour for goods, goods for labour, goods for goods and labour for labour. But how we go from our current global plunder form of capitalism to that, to be honest I'm not sure.

Perhaps the first step is to dramatically decrease our consumption and then see if we even have a global economic system left to rehabilitate? Thinking along those lines, I look toward some of these groups/sources for inspiration:

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:32:09 in reply to Comment 66249

An economy where a person could not only buy but freely trade their labour for goods, goods for labour, goods for goods and labour for labour.

The problem is transactions costs. Corporations are far more efficient than individuals negotiating contracts with each other. One hybrid that interests me is worker-owned and -run corporations. Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis made an interesting documentary some years ago called The Take about worker co-ops in Argentina after the big economic crash.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-15 15:32:19

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:04:23 in reply to Comment 66238

Ryan, I like your ideas, but I'm concerned about whether or not what you propose is achievable. The controls of yesterday which kept corporatism "in check" and redistributed wealth, are poorly suited to our globalized world.

The number of companies that pay next to no tax is ridiculous, mostly because they set up in a jurisdiction that has no corporate tax (or little corporate tax) and then proceed to funnell all their profits back there, taking advantage of tax treaties Canada has signed with other nations.

In this kind of a situatation, it's difficult to see how anything that happens, be it on a local or national level, could make workers better off. What stops some of the most important wealth making endeavours from relocating into another jurisdiction, or otherwise using legal maneuvers to shelter themselves from this redisitribution?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:14:14 in reply to Comment 66245

You're right, of course - except that it was once illegal for companies to do these sorts of things and now it's not. There's nothing aside from political will to stop a government from setting performance requirements for companies wanting to do business inside its borders.

It seems to me that as long as the same requirements would apply to domestic-based companies as well, such rules would not have to run afoul the national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment rules in international trade agreements.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 17:07:26 in reply to Comment 66248

We can't discount the roll of corruption in global capitalism. Rules are merely words in the absence of enforcement.

I have been to a few countries historically ruled by repressive regimes that have undertaken a policy of "economic restructuring" and it is amazing how easily capitalism plugs into their longstanding systems of oppression. It is plug and play. The system of overt oppression is converted to the capitalist system of marketed behavior with an undercurrent of violent oppression to back it up.

Colombia, Indonesia, China, India, Russia, all follow this basic model.

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:33:23 in reply to Comment 66248

One of the crucial problems with capitalism, unfortunately, is that it brings in far more than enough in profits to buy any influence it needs with the government. The "Golden Age" existed while unions and civil society had won many victories in terms of wages and working conditions, but it all began to slip away soon enough. Even if we won those benefits back, how long would they last?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kevin (registered) | Posted July 15, 2011 at 09:54:58

Nice job, Joey. Growing up in Ottawa's suburbs, all we ever heard was "Learn French so you can get a job with the government,Learn French so you can get a job with the government,Learn French so you can get a job with the government." Almost everyone I ever knew has done that and is dying slowly. Mark-Allan, my father panicked and got angry when I said I wanted to become an auto mechanic. I wish I had gone ahead anyway. I'd be better off and less useless.

I tell my girls to learn a trade.

BTW, standarised test scoring (EQOA) is an expensive waste of money that steals money from children and lines the pockets of conservatives. It is the work of the devil. The money should go to classrooms.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 15, 2011 at 15:09:01 in reply to Comment 66218

Google Lorna Earl to get really disgusted with EQAOs.

One of the people in charge of the process was also working as a private consultant for schools looking to push up their EQAO scores.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Art Brut (anonymous) | Posted July 16, 2011 at 16:26:23

Would that Hamilton's political and business leaders never missed an opportunity to adopt best practices that are both ethically unimpeachable and strategically sound. Post-secondary institutions in this city have demonstrated little appetite for community praxis, preferring the spongy hinterlands of urban theory -- and of course a never-ending supply of public funding. We reward them for thinking inside the box and should not be shocked when they do so.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted July 17, 2011 at 15:29:27

Being a beneficiary of the post secondary system, it's hard to diss it. Being a likely payor in the next few years for the next generation, all the great discussion above makes for an unhappy prospect. My own investigations ended up zeroing in on OSAP as a crux of the matter in foisting burdensome debts on gullible young people who mainly want to stay/keep up with their classmates and aren't really thinking yet. Peer pressure and the buzz outweighs parental and logical guidance of the sort given above.

I believe we have gone off the rails and the next generation will pay dearly. In many ways, on many topics I think we have to go backwards in order to go forward like the old saying one step back, two steps forward. This might involve a crash of the system where all sorts of things get jettisoned, frivolous and essential alike, but allowing the essential to recover faster/better and the frivolous to be mercifully forgotten.

Education is a wonderful thing but the education industry has become a self justifying sacred cow, an expensive one that ties up young people in their most energetic years. We need to ask fundamental questions as to why the situation has developed this way, especially as the jobs they train people for are being sucked overseas as fast as corporations can figure a way to tap into lower wages and taxes. Meanwhile, apathy, entertainments and the great media bamboozle continues apace, thwarting any attempt at needed reform. We have an election coming up, education is mostly a provincial issue - can we put this on the agenda?

Comment edited by BobInnes on 2011-07-17 15:30:11

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Siddhartha (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2013 at 13:56:32

As you know most of the communities (Bengali or Tamils) in this sub-continent are infected by 'Culture of Poverty(hopelessness)' syndrome, irrespective of class or economic strata, lives in pavement or apartment. Nobody is seriously ashamed of or regret the deep-rooted corruption, decaying general quality of life, worst Politico-Governance, bad work place, weak mother language, filth, continuous consumption of common social space (mental as well as physical, both). Do not ever look for any other positive alternative gesture/values to perform a real way of parenthood - deliberately stop giving birth to any child him/herself till the entire society improves up to the mark, co-parenting children those are born out of extreme poverty, instead. We are becoming parents only by self-procreation - mindlessly, blindfold (supported by some lame excuses), depriving the children's fundamental rights(of a decent & caring society, fearless & dignified living). We are being driven by the very animal instinct, pushing persons for a nasty living, indulging the entire community to go perish. If the Bengali people ever opt for a freedom from vicious cycle of poverty, need to involve in Production of Space(Henri Lefebvre), form a positive sentiment to overcome the inherent ‘hopeless’ mindset, definite application of human dignity, decent & fair Politics would certainly come up. – S. Bandyopadhyay, 16/4, Girish Banerjee Lane, Howrah -711101, India.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools