Raise the Hammer

LRT will be great for Hamilton. It will actually help to lower property taxes, by creating population density. It is a must.

Got to ask my #LRT question. Premier will not recommit to 2 LRT lines in #HamOnt. #voteON
http://twitter.com/#!/EmmaatTheSpec/status/117304950199025664

He said #LRT is "up to city council" and he will continue the discussion. #HamOnt #voteON
http://twitter.com/#!/EmmaatTheSpec/status/117305169942822912

I do not like the inference that there would be only growing economic opportunities for those coming out of post secondary education. It sounds elitest.

Transit does have to change but will those who struggle be left behind?

great question. From my view, those who struggle will be helped out the most by having Hamilton become a place of increased economic activity and opportunity. My reference to the post-secondary educated kids is due to the fact that we lose the majority of them to other cities year after year. For someone looking for a job, but not able to travel to the business parks or new suburbs outside the city, economic development along an LRT line is probably a perfect solution for them. 1. The jobs are close by, and right in the city 2. The jobs are easily accessible by LRT and bikes, thereby eliminating the need for a citizen struggling financially to have to add in the expense of a car.

Come and be Ambitious with us.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?...

I have joined, commented, shared and promoted this site. Head there. Vote early. Vote often.

http://hamiltonlightrail.com/

Lol. That's amazing.

I do not like the inference that there would be only growing economic opportunities for those coming out of post secondary education. It sounds elitest.

Actually, I'm sort-of with Grassroots on this one: our assumptions of progress often seem to imagine a world of latte-sipping, white-collar university graduates working in the "creative sector".

But an economically revitalized Hamilton which draws people with education and good prospects in the "creative economy" (which is said to include computer programmers and engineers as well as graphic designers, mind) can also be a Hamilton which has jobs for people who barely made it through high school. Unskilled and semi-skilled labour is an important part making a city work and we should stop pretending that it won't exist in the future. Someone has to clean the bathrooms, even in the economy of the future.

And off course, a good transit system is better not only for the art-crawling young statistician; it's also good for high-school dropout who's working two jobs at either end of town.

Fair enough, but here's the thing. More and more people are going to be coming out of some kind of post-secondary education. For better or worse, BA's are the new high school diploma. The provincial government has set a goal of having 80% of the population with a university or college diploma - a complete reversal from our parents' generation.

So yes, we should stop pretending that there won't be a need for unskilled and low-skilled work in the future, but we should also stop pretending that a post-secondary education is 'elitist'.

And if we don't focus on creating high-skills, 'creative economy' jobs for post-secondary graduates, they'll have no choice but to take those low-skilled jobs and where does that leave the high school drop-outs?

A society that provides for lots of well paid, high-skills jobs is a society that can afford to hire more bathroom cleaners and pay them a decent wage.

At present, this city offers NOTHING in terms of employment for the "latte-sipping, white collar university graduates" you speak of (unless one happens to work in publicly funded professions such as education, healthcare, or social services). If the city offered anything for these "elitists", then surely Hamilton would retain at least a fraction of them as they venture out the doors of our local, premier university in search of employment.

There's nothing wrong with a little socio-economic balance; Hamilton needs it. Even if it is brought upon by the "elitists" with their fancy book learnin', we should not fear economic development of a higher quality in this city. Based on my observations, this city has more than enough unskilled, part-time, minimum wage jobs, and I wouldn't worry about a shortage of those to fill them.

very well said. As I always remind people, a mega-wave of gentrification turning our entire lower city into Vancouver is not going to happen anytime soon, or probably ever.

80% with college or university? That's beginning to get a bit ludicrous. For the record, none of my dropout friends are having any trouble finding work these days - they have loads of real-world experience and connections. Almost all of my friends with impressive degrees are having a lot of trouble, not helped by their additional enormous debt burdens. In far too many cases people end up far less employable.

We could train every person in Canada to be a CEO. It wouldn't change a thing about the distribution of wealth in our economy. It certainly would be nice if everybody could be comfortably middle-class, but it will never be possible. Likewise, we could put all our money into paying CEOs - but that wouldn't help the rest of us, by definition. Despite the economic horrors which most of the world has faced since 2008, large corporations are now earning some of the highest profits ever, amidst some of the lowest wages. "Trickle down economics" are a nice idea, but always entail policies intended to do the exact opposite.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/corpora...

The turning point which Hamilton requires involve the definitions of success we work by. Light Rail will certainly help (and is a step in the right direction), but we need a lot more.

So because I went to post-secondary, I'm somehow elitist? And therefore not worthy of pursuing?

Great way to chase the educated out of our city...

Once again, the people of Hamilton shoot themselves in the foot, then blame everyone else for pulling the trigger.

You probably know more about this than I, but why will we never have a comfortable middle-class ever again?

I always hear people talk about the "erosion of the middle-class", yet don't really know why?

“I really think it’s more than anything an HR issue and it’s related to the fact people aren’t happy with the long commute. Young professionals want to live downtown because it’s an exciting and vibrant place.”

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1058962--why-toronto-businesses-are-moving-downtown

The Hamilton Civic League will meet on Monday September 26th from 7 to 9 pm at the offices of Volunteer Hamilton at 267 King Street East. Visit www.WeVote.ca to learn more about the Hamilton Civic League. The Aerotropolis will be one topic for discussion this evening.

I didn't say that we couldn't have some people living comfortable middle-class existence - just that not everybody can have it. It's an exclusive status by definition.

Class isn't just an issue of how much money you have or make, it's how you're related to the productive system. There are certainly skilled working-class people who put in lots of overtime and have far more take-home pay than hard-up entrepreneurs. The issue is one of power, and if everyone has it, then who do they have power over? Who's actually doing the work?

There's a popular myth that "everybody's middle class these days", but that only hides the vast disparities of wealth which exist in our society. Sociologically speaking, only about 30% qualify, with only the top 5% of the total ("upper-middle class") actually owning and controlling most of the economy. Making $30/hr at a factory with a pension, benefits and mortgage doesn't make you middle class - it just makes you a well-paid worker. That, of course, is a far more achievable goal for everybody, or at least it would be if we didn't allocate so much money toward the top.

This was done in the 20th century through a combination of progressive taxation, public education, broadly accessible public infrastructure, libraries, community centres, unemployment insurance, social services, CMHC, public health care, and so on.

Nice notions Ryan, but it was mainly accomplished through people willing to fight, be incarcerated and die for what they believe in. The Wobblies, Mother Jones, Big Bill Haywood, miners, rail and garment workers that went on strike to DEMAND those policies. They fought police, Pinkertons, hired thugs and died in gun battles for the 40 hour work week, a fair wage, benefits, etc...

Now many people that have benefitted from the hard work of those hardnosed labour organizers sit back in their middle class comfort and criticize unions and labour or someone throwing a rock at a bank window after said banks destroyed our economy, all the while lamenting the erosion of the middle class... they forget that the middle class didn't just happen, it was fought and paid for in blood. And once the elites realised we would no longer be willing (or informed enough) to keep fighting that fight they began clawing those things back slowly but surely. Remember the Mike Harris 60 hour work week?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar200...

For better or worse, BA's are the new high school diploma. The provincial government has set a goal of having 80% of the population with a university or college diploma - a complete reversal from our parents' generation.

Yet the top 3 jobs employers are having a hard time filling are technicians, skilled trades and sales reps, according to Manpower's 2011 Talent Shortage Survey. Jobs that do not require BAs.

So why the push for students to get BAs? Could it be the debt and heavy dose of indoctrination that accompanies the BA?

Comment edited by Kiely on 2011-09-27 11:22:06

These lifestyles were indeed brought about by labour unrest, both at home and abroad. Here, the burgeoning labour movement was making large gains, and abroad "socialism" was beginning to take hold of entire countries. By the 1950s it became obvious that a lot of concessions weren't only necessary for the system's survival, but also incredibly useful. Not only did it drive consumerist production, but it presented a powerful piece of cold war propaganda. By institutionalizing it, though, they also neutered it. The transformation of the labour movement that happened at this time was a huge part of this. Unions were granted recognition and the right to collect dues in exchange for centralizing control over locals in a way that could prevent the kind of wildcat strikes which had been so common and effective before (with the folks Kiely mentions).

Sadly, as Ryan describes, this set of benefits has been waning for decades. Wages for most of the population peaked in real terms during the 1970s, and since then we've witnessed an incredible growth in wealth and productivity, but none of it has "trickled down".

On the bright side, the IWW is on it's way back.

The list on your link is 1 skilled trades, 2 sales reps, and 3 engineers. Engineers obviously require post-secondary degrees, and while you may not need a degree to do the job of a sales rep, employers often demand it nonetheless. In a world where BA's are the new normal, it has become a minimum requirement.

As to why, well, your guess is as good as mine, but it's insane that students are being asked to take on higher and higher levels of debt to acquire the equivalent of a high school diploma - something previous generations got for free.

Edit: I should also add that many skilled trades require a diploma or certificate from a community college over and above an apprenticeship, so I think it would be safe to say that the majority of jobs in those top three fields require at least some post-secondary education.

Comment edited by highwater on 2011-09-27 12:19:00

The list on your link is 1 skilled trades, 2 sales reps, and 3 engineers

The 2011 report shows engineers at number 4 globally since 2007. Asia is filling the market nicely for engineers.

So yes the top jobs require some post secondary education, but not debt producing BAs. I was paid to go to trade school through EI. The concept is you do enough hours of your apprenticeship to earn the EI required to than attend your next session of schooling. For technician programs there are tuition fees but you're graduating from post secondary with a lower level of debt (compared to a BA) and as shown in the report, into a field where there is higher demand.

I don't question that route.

To me the problem is the lack of job prospects and the often crippling debt associated with some of the more liberal arts oriented BAs. These people are crucial for society because these are the types of degrees that produce critical thinking skills... yet they are often being relegated to an educated lower class. Hmmm???

Comment edited by Kiely on 2011-09-27 12:53:23

LOL, love that one.

Alright, I just got to tell you Undustrial I really hate that Chomsky quote.

Lots of good ideas in the world my man. Chomsky calls them "heroes" (cringe) but what we really need are people. People who inspire, people who can give the ideas a face, who can bring other people together to support an idea because people rarely rally around or are inspired by a mere idea. It is about people, referring to them as "heroes" is obscurantism on his part.

Sometimes that old codger Chomsky really gets on my nerves :)

Suppose it is about time I looked for a new one. I've just stuck with this for a while because of all the talk of "ambitious leadership" which was so common for a while.

I'll agree, we need people. Lots of people. My problem with "leadership" isn't the idea of getting more skilled and brilliant people involved or helping people learn to be better orators and organizers. I just don't think we should stop once we have enough directors to run the show - we should be encouraging everyone to learn those sorts of skills and dream those sorts of dreams.

I've met Chomsky, btw, and was really impressed. But just for you, I'll go find a new quote.

Just given ya the gears a little Undustrial : )

Sometimes Chomsky is great (mainly in writing) and other times he frustrates the hell out of me (usually when he's speaking).

Mumford...nice, great quote.

I love Chomsky, but have a hard time reading most of his books. I read lots of them when I was younger, but after a while it all starts to bleed together into one enormous rant about Vietnam, Isreal and 9/11.

Nobody pays enough attention to Mumford.