Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Money isn't everything

ROMA LUCIW

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 6:06 PM EST 14/09/07

Poll finds that Canadians would be willing to take a pay cut for more time with their families, to improve the environment ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Phil S from Toronto, Canada writes: I hope the government doesn't take this poll to mean that they should raise taxes to take more money out of our pockets and give it to their politically connected friends in some kind of a slush fund that is labeled as some kind of a "green plan". The LAST thing we need is for some arrogant government to take our money because they think they can spend our hard earned money more wisely than we can...
  2. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: 40% of Canadians are willing to SAY they'd take a reduction in pay..........anonymously that is.....(don't tell my boss).
  3. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: Oh sure, here we go again with another useless & skewed survey. More money is always useful. Just ask my boss who thinks he's losing money by paying me minimum wage. Ya, think I'm going to take a pay cut so he can have more? For some people already earning more money than they can deduct expenses on, then yes, they have the luxury of being with their families. Then give it a few months until those family members complain about the lack of funds to do the things they've been doing when the money-maker was out working before!
  4. Tony Mareschalle from Mississauga, Canada writes: I may be wrong and please correct me if I am, but vacation is approx 4% of total costs to an employer - depending I expect on the level of other "benefits" that they might provide - of a full time employee. "Benefits" are few and far between today however and have bee significantly reduced.

    But even if an employee was willing to accept a cut in pay for increased vacation time, I think you would find the employer unresponsive. It has been my experience, that even if a new employee gets through the interview process and then the Question of salary etc is raised, the one none-negotiable item from the companys' perspective is vacation time.

    That is a take it or leave it item. So anything short of legislation to mandate greater minimum vacation will never be on the table from an employers perspective.
  5. bill k from toronto, Canada writes: What Canadians want is MORE DAYS OFF WITH PAY. We want to be ranked number 1 in the world again in terms of quality of life and right now socialist Norway ranks NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD and they also have almost TWICE as many PAID DAYS OFF. The elite talk about socialism as being bad but for who? Capitalism is socialism for the rich and socialism is for middle class and poor. More time off work with pay and a better quality of life and socialism ranks NUMBER ONE in THE WORLD.
  6. Confucious Smith from Canada writes: bill k writes: What Canadians want is MORE DAYS OFF WITH PAY. We want to be ranked number 1 in the world again in terms of quality of life and right now socialist Norway ranks NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD and they also have almost TWICE as many PAID DAYS OFF....

    So, by your reasoning, in order to be (and stay) number 1, maybe EVERY day should be a paid day off...?
  7. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Tony Mareschalle from Mississauga writes:

    'It has been my experience, that even if a new employee gets through the interview process and then the Question of salary etc is raised, the one none-negotiable item from the companys' perspective is vacation time. '

    Good morning Tony. It's been my experience this is a LOT more flexible than previous times of employment. I remember in the 80s and 90s what you post to be correct. Lately, I've seen this part being more negotiable. I imagine it's got to do with skills being in demand or not.

    The fact Canada has a high demand labour market, ask for more... DO NOT wait for them to offer it. Negotiate the best deal you can possibly get, because the increases you will get employed will be insignificant to what you can get moving jobs.

    Regarding this survey. BS... Based on people's current spending habits, they are NOT in the mood to change. You have to work to buy all those fancy electronics and clothes.
  8. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Possibly the younger folks have a better, more balanced, attitude towards family and work. If so, they may find more happiness.
  9. b mac from Canada writes: It sounds nice but how many of these people have government jobs with high pay, full benefit packages, gold plated pension plans & unions to run interference for them? It's sounds a bit too good to be true from the stories I hear about people trying to make ends meet.
  10. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Obviously kids with mountains of school debt and unaffordable housing (in half of the country) will be willing to take a 20% cut for vacation, and an additional 10% for the environment. Maybe these ‘adults&8217; should move out of their parent&8217;s basement and figure out that they actually do need money to survive.

    As another poster above noted, this is simply what people SAID they will do and not what they would actually do. I&8217;d imagine if you polled people on whether they thought saving money was a good idea they would say yes &8211; then compare that to Canada&8217;s zero savings rate. While the vacation issue may be in the hands of the employer, anybody can go out and put 10% of their paycheck towards improving the environment. What&8217;s the last time you heard of anybody doing that? If anything I think that the survey shows that the older people are realistic and have now figured out they haven&8217;t saved enough for retirement and the young people have no idea what is going on.
  11. SB from Ontario from Canada writes: Another BS survey which is totally baseless.
  12. A Peon in the golden boy's court from SK, Canada writes: “Benefits are few & far between”, I’m sorry but that’s funny – maybe in the cesspool of dwindling southern Ontario manufacturing competitiveness, but out west you get good benefits at Tim Hornton’s & McDonalds, plus a raise after 3 months. I work for the federal government & out West, every large company (Starbuck’s, Tim’s, McDonalds, etc) offers benefits at least as good as I receive. Sure they don’t get paid as well, but it’s not much off. My point is you have to put it into regional perspective a little too. & I wasn’t slamming southern Ontario manufacturing workers; I was slamming the companies for failing to make investments in training their workers & becoming more competitive on the basis of productivity. We’ve been relying on a low dollar for far too long & that ship has sailed for the time being. “Capitalism is socialism for the rich” now that is clever, I’ve never heard it quite like that. I think this story is bang on. In the gov’t & we have 3 kinds of employees: 1. Those who couldn’t cut it in the cutthroat private sector so need a cushy gov’t job with great pay, 2. Those who are so close to retiring (1 to 5 years) that it doesn’t make sense to do anything but stay & ride it out & 3. Those who would like to go elsewhere but choose to stay because of the non-monetary benefits like time with their family. I never work over time, I’m home with my kids every night & I can provide for them & have a stay at home spouse. My kids & I spend time together every single day & so do my wife & I. We don’t have a lot of money, but we can afford what we need & we’re young, so we have time down the road to worry more about things like having more savings, more investments, etc. The most important thing is that we have time to enjoy each other & thank god because my kids are growing up fast.
  13. Robert Pike from Kitchener, Canada writes: I wonder how many people's answers in this survey would differ on the wording of this question. Would you take a pay cut at your PRESENT job for more time with family, etc..,? AND Would you take a pay cut if you were to go to ANOTHER employer for more time with family, etc..,?
  14. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: I would definitely not take a pay cut for the environment. What would happen is that money would go to the government and end up in some sort of slush fund for politicians' pet projects or projects designed to bribe voters. The environment is the last place that money would go to, if at all.
  15. Confucious Smith from Canada writes: James Cyr writes: I would definitely not take a pay cut for the environment. What would happen is that money would go to the government and end up in some sort of slush fund for politicians' pet projects or projects designed to bribe voters. The environment is the last place that money would go to, if at all.

    Agree 100%.
  16. Brian L from Canada writes: This simply points out that 4 out of 10 Canadians are out of touch with economic reality.

    This is not surprising.
  17. Brian L from Canada writes: Some Canadians believe they are entitled by birthright to get something for nothing.

    This is not possible economically.
  18. Ferris Bueller from Canada writes: Many, many of us here in Canada have the very real choice to work literally half as much as we do. (All the public and para-public sector for example, there's about 40% of the workforce right there)

    Very, very few take it.

    "Revealed preference", what people actually do, is a stronger analytical tool than people "saying" what they would do. As millions of people who went broke selling people things they SAID they would buy have found out!

    Very few people actually want less choices for themselves and their families. Some do, but not very many.
  19. Sharon Maracle from Toronto, Canada writes: I am finally at a wage where I can say that yes, I would take one day off a week and lose that pay - simply because I lose it in taxes anyway! Not all Canadians are so lucky. Many of my friends are working the coffee shops to pay off their student loans.
  20. NikolaTesla -the genius who lit the world from Calgary, Canada writes: I love how people think the economy and money are the be all and end all of existence. We slave all day just to make the rich richer why the middle class drowns in debt. But thats ok guys and girls, keep living in your fantasy land and supporting your slave masters. Keep supporting economic slavery drones!
  21. J Kay from Canada writes: James Cyr: I dont believe the 'environment' referred to in the article meant the environment re: natural world, but instead the persons working environment. That is they'd take slightly lower pay for better accomodations, instead of cubicle hell, etc.
  22. Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: How many of us sit our butts in front of a computer and communicate to teammates in the next cube by phone or email? I realise not everyone, but the fact that thousands of us burn fuel in horrendous traffic to do just that when they can do that at home is ridiculous. If telecommuting was embraced, it'd be win-win-win for everyone -- employee, environment and business (who wouldn't have to lease expensive office space). I would like to see some forward-thinking government support initiatives to telecommuting. I'm always amazed at the lip-service companies pay to "work-life balance" and yet telecommuting is one of the least likely items for them to allow.

    Can telecommuters slack off? Of course -- just as easy as someone in the office writing posts to the G&M. Easy management rule for telecommuting: No productivity -- no job. (Note to 1950's style management: It happens to be the same performance evaluation as if personnel are in the office.)
  23. J Williams from Canada writes: In my position (aviation industry), my employer allows us to reduce our salary by 20% a year for 4 years. The 20% is put into a fund and we can then take the fifth year off with pay of 80%. Essentially. we can work 4 years and get paid for 5, at 80% of normal salary each year. However, I would think that less than 1 in 100 take advantage of it. And these are jobs that generally pay in the low to mid 6 figure salaries. It seems that people live within their means, be it 50K per year or 150K per year. To take a salary cut for any reason seems, from my observation, that talk is louder than action.
  24. s d from Canada writes: 86% of all surveys are useless, and 45% of statistics are made-up
  25. harry carnie from Northern,B.C, Canada writes: Treating your employees with respect and appreciation.......is worth money as well............most companies do not appreciate this...only a few exceptions such as Westjet .
  26. s d from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: James Cyr: I dont believe the 'environment' referred to in the article meant the environment re: natural world, but instead the persons working environment. That is they'd take slightly lower pay for better accomodations, instead of cubicle hell, etc

    J no it means the global enviroment read the article I doubt if people want from their current employer a better workspace for their "grandchild".
  27. JDF Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Another HUGE factor is kids.....my wife and I decided to have kids later than most, and the change in my view of this matter has been dramatic as a result.....befor becoming parents we had no problems with a chaotic work schedule, both in terms of time worked and last minute business travel....my view on this ahs swung nearly 180 degrees since becoming a dad. My work is extremely important, but my commitment to mu family is far a away number 1....my employer knows this, and if they feel that I can no longer fulfil my responsibliities at work, then they can find someone else to do it. My family is number 1, and based on my knowledge and experience I am in the fortunate position of being able to provide financially for my family without sacrificing the time I want to spend with them.
  28. Mr Fijne from Fight Global Walarmism, Canada writes: Funny how the poll insidiously ties family time with the environment, suggetsing we'd be ready to PAY more for either... This is manipulation. Next poll: are you willing to make your children happy and willing to buy a Hybrid vehicle?...
  29. Sue W from Canada writes: The City of Toronto should try implementing this strategy amongst their staff to solve some of their budget problems.

    I doubt they'd get 4 out of 10 employees agreeing to it.
  30. J Kay from Canada writes: s d: It appears you are correct; either I misread the article or it changed since I did, because I do not recall that paragraph at all. I stand corrected.
    On that basis, I suspect many would feel the same as James simply because they ont believe it would be beneficial. Now of course people could take 10% of their pay and put it into energy efficient appliances and furnances, putting solar panels on their homes, increasing the insulation/R-value of their homes and numerous other things where they can directly improve the environment themselves but alas most people dont do that either.
  31. Roland Neissinger from Latteville, Canada writes: Money is not everything, but without it you would have to go back to barter......
    Money is a funny thing: All life long we have to run after it, to pay for our more and more expensive cost of just living, yet when we die, we can't take anything with us......
    If we would become a barter only society, I wonder how many people would die of hunger today, because they might not have any commodity to offer others want......
    Which brings us back to the money in whatever form: We need it to buy life and living space......
  32. Joel Parkes from Canada writes: Hey, Global Walarmism. Get a life. There's no conspiracy to lie to the planet about global warming and your pathetic rant about some conspiracy making the connection to family time shows how shallow you, and others like you, really are when it comes to the environment debate. Keep your head in the sand where it belongs and let the rest of us do something about our future.
  33. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: All this article says to me is that the younger generation can be suckered more easily by the people who preach global warming and the so-called green technology.

    When they gain a but more cynicism and street smarts this will change.
  34. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: What ? And live without widescreen TVs and SUVs and all the other must have necessities that present day families require, you must be joking.
  35. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Pay cut - yeah right. Explain that to the bank on mortgage day and you can pay the bills. Want more time with your family ??? - then quit your job and work part time flipping burgers somewhere.
  36. john setta from Canada writes: Only if all the CEO took a 50% cut in pay first, and then may be. Greed has no bounds in todays world of who has what and how much.
  37. Tony Mareschalle from Mississauga, Canada writes: Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes:

    Good morning Tony. It's been my experience this is a LOT more flexible than previous times of employment. I remember in the 80s and 90s what you post to be correct. Lately, I've seen this part being more negotiable. I imagine it's got to do with skills being in demand or not.

    The fact Canada has a high demand labour market, ask for more... DO NOT wait for them to offer it. Negotiate the best deal you can possibly get, because the increases you will get employed will be insignificant to what you can get moving jobs.

    Well Ian that may be in the US, but I am speaking from experience - within the last 2 years to be exact - that is why I continue to work as an independent contractor in IS/IT industry. I still entertain permanent opportunities whenever they arrive however I find employers less than willing to discuss the subject. From my perspective vacation time is more important, my house is paid for and I have no debts - so salary is no longer a prime motivator.

    That being said I do agree with you on the proactive approach, if you wait to be presented with it you may wait a long time.
  38. Matt H from Mississauga, Canada writes: People over 50 are thinking about retirement, At that age, no one is going to want a pay cut.

    The Survey is pointless and displays exaclty what you would expect it to. The younger generation, with no kids/mortgage and few bills are more likely to take a pay cut. Surveys should only be newsworthy if there are unexpected results.
  39. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: Governments are very behind the curve on this. By requiring companies to offer more flex time and telecommuting options for workers (they'll never do it on their own) we would achieve two things: a more healthy and less stressed out workforce and, reduced impact on the environment by taking tens of thousands of cars off the road at peek periods, or altogether through telecommuting. Of course business believes we should all be working 80 hours a week (only paid for 40 though); this is insane and counterproductive because endless studies have shown that long hours reduce productivity massively such that this is little tangible gain to be had.
  40. Rt. Revd. Malachy Egan from Halifax, Canada writes: Which 50% of Canadians are we talking about? The half that are employed by one level of government or another, or the half that actually work for a living? Because, it seems to me if the government workers take any more time off, which would mean trolling their friends and relatives for more government workers to keep things going while the others are 'resting', the tax base will collapse under the strain. Most of what they do is a make work project anyway, e.g. Passport Office, who are so overworked [cry me a river] issuing five year [valid 4 years and six months] passports, when just about everyone else issues a ten year passport. Then their is Statistics Canada, which must be the biggest old boys and gals network in the world, that would have you believe that Canadians pay 26% of income in annual taxation, or CCRA who issue a steady stream of threatening letters in error because their data entry is hopeless despite the hordes of government drones punching keyboards. Finally, there is HRDC [or whatever they call themselves these days] who farm out the real work to service providers [who are usually friends or relatives] then struggle gamely from in-service day to tea break to holiday, via a three day work week and finally [phew, that was tough!] a nice fat pension. Oh yes, don't forget to check out the master race: the politicians themselves who, with the exception of Brian Mulroney who was an honest, hardworking patriot [and one that never took a penny...], are busy redistributing your taxdollars to everyone who counts from the Queen and Prince Phillip to the corner store that sells them cigarettes or gum.
  41. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: "Money isn't everything" is a statement said by people who have lots of it!
  42. Reasonable Ranter from toronto, Canada writes: How about just having the freedom (i.e. no pressure from the overlords at work) to take my legal right to take vacation whenever the heck I please, and all at once if I so desire? The pressure to take no more than a week at a time, or to forgo it all together is immense. Far better that we take Europe's approach and give everyone 4 weeks and do it all at the same time (i.e. August), so that work isn't waiting for us on the desk when we get back. The "recovery" from vacation, in terms of catching up on the pile that grows while one is away, is enough to discourage anyone in a position of high responsibility (i.e. management, professional = high stress!), the people whom NEED the vacation most, from even taking it in the first place.
  43. Thomas King from Canada writes: Easier said than done. This is obviously the richest percentage of society as there are many families who can't afford their realities on the pay they are earning.
  44. George Lawrence from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Other than one's good health,there is nothing that one would,not rather be without,than MONEY!! and lots of it.It makes life so much better and anyone who Say's otherwise is kidding themselves.
  45. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: James Cyr writes: I would definitely not take a pay cut for the environment. What would happen is that money would go to the government and end up in some sort of slush fund for politicians' pet projects or projects designed to bribe voters. The environment is the last place that money would go to, if at all.

    So, James, you would take a pay cut for the environment. You just don't like giving money to the government.

    Well then vote for a different government (or just stop your whining). DUH!
  46. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: When I had no money I just wanted to have some, then when I got some I wanted more, when I got more I wanted a lot of it, it never ends till at the end when we realize we will leave this life with exactly the same amount of money as we came into this life with, none.
  47. Adam Peet from Oakville, Canada writes: Well, being 24 years old and in the demographic that agrees with taking a pay cut for improving social welfare areas such as paid holidays and the environment, I must say that the comments so far are typical of a generation of individualist selfish people. Everyone says "hey you need money to survive" well my friends this attitude is brought about by your insistance to live beyond your means. end of story. I' don't want to rent for the rest of my life, nor do I want be indebted due to over consumption; Give me a break. Everyone should listen to this survey, Why you might ask?? Well the younger generation - key word younger - is going to live longer and is going to stay in positions of power longer than those of you in the baby boom generation. My parents have admitted to me repeatedly that their age group has really squandered a tremendous opportunity to turn this sinking ship of civilization around. We've been brought down by consumerism; our quest for money is to blame for the current climate crisis, population crisis, incoming recession, constant threat of mass global war -Pandora's box people! greed is also known as one of the seven deadly sins. This doesn't mean a shift to a socialist state is the answer. I belive that although democracy (which is synonmous these days with capitalism) is one of the steps towards socialism, it is not the time for it; here's an idea, What about social democracy, a system that guides the market for the betterment of the community as a whole were businesses are guided in a process of developing a stronger Canadian society. A system were capitalists can still make their money (which they hold so dear to them), and socialists can see a stronger society. This is where the disconnect lies, the younger generation of today due to the terrific education here in Canada understands the issues that will have an adverse affect on their lives. The problem they're having is access to the policy arena, due to bocks from above
  48. Mr Fijne from Fight Global Walarmism, Canada writes: Joel Parkes, there is no conspiracy but there are enough little sheeps like you to follow blindly bad science, media and politicians... LOL
  49. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason (and I would question that): I was not whining, I was voicing an opinion, the same as you do from time to time. And voting for a different government isn't going to solve the problem--DUH!
  50. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: James Cyr writes: "Money isn't everything" is a statement said by people who have lots of it!

    The vast majorty of Canadians are middle class, and can satisfy far more than their basic needs with their income. For them, as the survey says, money indeed isn't everything.

    I can't imagine that even the poorest people would evey truly believe that "money is eveything. If they really believed that, they'd go get some money and wouldn't be poor.

    In fact, I can't imagine a scenario in which anyone would truly believe that "money is everything." I mean, say someone needs $1 million dollars for an operation to save their kid's life. Even for that person, money isn't eveything, since they would part with it immediately to save their kid's life.

    Which brings me to my question - What, if anything, are you trying to say James?
  51. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Canadians may be willing to settle for less, but their politicians don't feel the same way. While many of us understand that we can't BUY, BUILD or CONSUME our way to a better environment, try explaining that to politicians who are having regular cozy meetings with developers who fill their election warchests with political donations. Adam Peet from Oakville makes useful comments about consumerism, and A. Peon's statement about "regional context" is also a very good point. Sometimes, I think the people who write in the comments section have better ideas than those in the original article.
  52. Voice of Reason from Canada writes: James Cyr writes: And voting for a different government isn't going to solve the problem--DUH!

    James, your opinion, then, is that all governments waste all money and I will never try to do anything about that because there's nothing that can be done.

    Uhmmm...pretty sure that's whining.
  53. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think this shows how accurate (read: misleading) polls really are. The reality on the ground is that Canadians voluntarily work overtime / two jobs to make that extra buck, and they won't spend that extra dollar to buy flourescent lightbulbs. It's nice to mention all the goody-goody things you would theoretically pay for to someone on the telephone, but methinks 40% of Canadians aren't voting with their feet so much...
  54. Ray S from Canada writes: Phil S from Toronto, Canada writes that is EXACTLY what the government is going to do. They are going to take this poll as evidence that suggests they can tax you more in the name of the "enrionment". That is all the "environment" file is all about, and what Kyoto was all about.

    I wish people would get their heads out of the sand and ask the simple question, "if I have to get by with a little less, or cut back a bit to make things work, WHY CAN GOVERNMENT NOT FIND A WAY TO DO THIS??????" People, wake up. The government wants you to think paying more taxes is good. Yep, its good for them at the expense of everyone (yes, I mean everyone) else. Challenge the bloody government to work within its means, and keep their hands of my ever shrinking pocket.

    Just look at the size of government in Canada (including municipal, provincial, federal, region bodies (in Victoria it is known as the Capital Regional District which is UNELECTED).

    Ask yourself if we really need all these levels of government? The answer is no, but most people in this country are brainwashed to believe they are necessary. Either that, or they are employed by the Government.
  55. CD W from Simcoe County, Canada writes: Feel free to donate all of your free cash flow and sell your kids into environmental slavery.
  56. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: please stop putting your interpretation on what I am saying. I did not say that we should not try and do anything. By all means, one must never give up, and one must always try and do whatever they can.
  57. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Adam Peet - don't worry, as you get older you'll see that socialism is just a utopian ideal that is devoid of reality. Most young people share your world view but as you mature you'll also slowly ditch the socialist dogma. Most people do.
  58. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Right On the Left writes: "they won't spend that extra dollar to buy flourescent lightbulbs."

    You're talking about the other 60% referenced in the article. The ones who value money more than their family or the environment.

    People do buy flourescent lightbulbs, and hybrid cars, high efficiency appliances, and environmentally friendly products. That the 40% the survey is speaking about. The ones "voting with the feet" as you put it who are prepared to do much more according to the survey.

    Not eveyone is a selfish pig. Is that so hard to believe?
  59. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: "And voting for a different government isn't going to solve the problem."

    James Cyr then writes : "I did not say that we should not try and do anything. By all means, one must never give up, and one must always try and do whatever they can."

    How is "voting for a different govenment" not "trying to do whatever one can" for someone who believes the current government is wasting their money?
  60. J. Luft from Canada writes: Another meaningless poll. Canadians tend to always give a politically correct answer when polled.....but when the chips are down, Canadians really don't live up to their high sounding principles.
  61. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: bill k, NORWAY? Seriously, you are comparing us to NORWAY? Okay then, how about you go to work on finding 100trillion barrels of easily recoverably oil in Canada (not that oil sands variety, I mean sweet crude bubbling right out of the ground type) and I will join you on your next progressive NDP march down Yonge street, demanding socialism for all. Okay?

    Wow, get a clue.
  62. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: in response to an earlier post of yours that ridiculed my statement saying that people who say "money isn't everything are those who have lots of it"--I was being facetious, but I guess you missed that. In response to your post of 1:40 pm, by all means, vote for a different government if you think it will help. To tell you the truth, that is what I would do. However, I have come to the belief that government is government and wasting money is a speciality of all governments. Call me cynical if you will, but I am basing that on observations and documentations of public spending by all levels of government.
  63. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    J. Luft writes "Canadians tend to always give a politically correct answer when polled...but when the chips are down, Canadians really don't live up to their high sounding principles."

    What a cynical view of the Canadian people!

    But there is a little support for this view in the survey with regard to some Canadians. Afterall, the survey did show that 60% of the respondents are selfish pigs that care more about money then their family or the environment.

    And if this 60% were free to answer dishonestly - as you suggest - why did they reveal themselves as selfish pigs? Why didn't they say "oh yeah, time with the family, sure, that's a good one, put me down for that one there"?
  64. Kevin McDougald from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Reasonable Ranter wrote: "Far better that we take Europe's approach and give everyone 4 weeks [vacation]..."

    What's often overlooked is that this is not just a "lazy European" approach. Australia has had a legal minimum of four weeks annual vacation nationwide since 1974. Booming Ireland raised the legal minimum from three weeks to four weeks in 1997, and the U.K. followed suit in November 1998, with no noteworthy negative consequences in either case. Earlier this year, a new four-week minimum took effect in New Zealand.

    Even South Korea, which has a three-week minimum, outdoes Canada in this regard.

    None of these countries suffered any economic setback. This is largely due to the fact that increasing vacation time does not noticeably increase the risk placed on employers when they take on extra staff. As for the costs, these are largely passed on to consumers, but are not exhorbitant.

    Next time you meet an Australian, ask them about how much vacation they get by law, and then mention the fact that most Canadians only get two weeks by law. The reaction you'll get will be most likely either a look of pity or a more blunt reaction along the lines of, "Is that it?!?"
  65. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: It is hard to believe because there is no evidence on the ground. Canadians have been talking about how concerned they are about the environment for 25 years, and I've heard mention of shortening the work week for at least 15...still the emissions, consumption, and overtime hours worked go up up up.

    What, besides pure altruism, gives you reason to believe that this poll accurately reflects the real mettle of Canadians?
  66. JP M from Canada writes: Surprise surprise...those with the least responsibility for paying the bills are the most willing to take a pay cut....let's see how they vote in 10 years....
  67. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes "To tell you the truth, that is what I would do."

    Me too.

    Everyday, Harper is turning into more of an arrogant dictator. He treats Canadians like idiots. He flip flops, and lies. Yet he leads a slim monority government. Imagine what he'd be like with a majority.

    Vote Green. Couldn't hurt!
  68. Greedy Capitalist from small town ontario, Canada writes: "Socialism for the rich?" If you're not happy w/ any aspect of your job, get off your duff and do something about it. As a small business owner and employer, I'm greedy and capitalist and all those horrid things that I often read in these postings. I embrace capitalism, and I'm really tired of being blamed for being successful. I work hard, and put in a lot of years at below average income in order to be where I am today. Fortunately, the risk has paid off, and now I have the flexibility to take time off, donate to worthy causes, sponsor community events, AND pay a pile of taxes - income tax for me, and various payroll taxes for my employees. I don't begrudge the taxes because I believe they're necessary, but please DON'T try and tell me that capitalism is "socialism for the rich." Where would we be if nasty capitalists like me weren't in a position to pay salaries, pay taxes and into social programs, and sponsor your kids' hockey teams? Socialism works, but only to a point, just like capitalism works, but only to a point. The more I'm forced to contribute to any social program, the less there'll be for employees and voluntary contributions to causes. I'll take a paycut to fund future co. growth, but forget about it if I'm being legislated to give more paid vacation time. That will be negotiated w/ each individual. I try to treat my staff well because I believe a happy employee makes for a better work environment and is more productive. I try to be as flexible as possible with hours, vacation time (paid and unpaid), benefits, bonuses, and sick time. As we've succeeded, they've been compensated. What has amazed me is the difference I find in attitude over various age ranges. I'm in my 30's, but when I hire, I look for older employees - my experience with those in their 20's and 30's is that they feel entitled to a lot, but can't be counted on for much. I'm sure there are exceptions on both sides, but I haven't yet found them.
  69. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Greedy Capitalist: do not apologize for embracing capitalism. Most people do not know what the term even means. "Socialism for the rich" is a contradiction in terms. The more correct term would be "socialism for the intellectual", who has no conception of freedom or reality. It is capitalism, not socialism or the welfare state, that keeps us all alive, whether we want to admit it or not. By capitalism, I mean laissez-faire capitalism, not the corporate-government variety we see today.
  70. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Greedy Capitalist - Not the right name for you. You sound like an excellent citizen.
  71. Mr Fijne from Fight Global Walarmism, Canada writes: From last week's The Gazette sept. 2007

    "Worse, fewer and fewer taxpayers now must carry the load. It's not healthy to have a growing class of voters who pay zero income tax. Yet that is what's happening in Canada, where now some 7 million people - a third of all income-tax-return-filers - pay zero income tax. This creates "moral hazard:" It's easy to call for more and more government programs if you know someone else will be paying."
  72. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Oh James, laissez-faire capitalism is so 19th century. It died long before WWII, and no one seriously considers it to be an appropriate model anymore. The Earth is too small, and people are too many.

    If you read Greed Capitalist's post again, you'll see that he is motivated by many things other than pure profit, as are many good people like him. See the survey for example.
  73. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: A pay cut when 18-30 will bite them in the butt when they ask for a raise when they are 30-40 or 40-50 and their kids are growing up (and requiring extra expenditures such as sports registrations). The older generation doesn't accept a cut because they know expenses grow.
  74. Reality Check from Halifax, Canada writes: Although in our mid-40s, my wife and I both took a twenty percent pay cut in order to self-fund time off with our children, and don't regret it for a minute. No one every died wishing they had spent more time at work, away from their family. Canada ranks second last, with only the United States lower, among all 21 OECD countries, in terms of annual vacation entitlement. Our entitlement is one-half that of countries with similar cultures and values, broadly defined (e.g., the United Kingdom and Australia). Anyone who thinks this is good and healthy and the way things should be probably needs to rethink their own life, or perhaps get one.
  75. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: I do not believe that laissez-faire capitalism is "19th century". It is the elements of laizzez-faire capitalism that are responsible for all the wealth in the world. what I was saying is that "Greedy Capitalist" should not apoligize for his lifestyle. I too, agree that he is an excellent citizen.
  76. woof woof from Canada writes: Not surprising that so many say they would take a pay cut. I'd like to see them actually do it! Actions speak louder than words.
  77. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: I agree with Mr. Luft...Canadians unfortunately have a long history of putting their heads in the sand and riding the inertia until things collapse, after which we blame the government for not forbidding us to do the destructive behaviour earlier. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we're selfish pigs by normal standards. However, we need to make serious sacrifices to get where we need to be environmentally, and most people aren't going to choose the flourescents over, say, Baby's medicine, or their spouse's birthday present. Bottom line: Most Canadians make many, many times more money than we need to survive by, say, Indian standards (that's Indians from India). We could easily make any necessary environmental targets, pay for our basic survival, and still have lots of money left. Because we (me included, I cast no judgement here) include TV, a ride to work, 3 square meals a day, day care, running shoes, and other luxuries in "bare-minimum lifestyle", we don't feel we have enough money to pay for "frilly" things like a clean Earth. 40% of Canadians may well feel inspired to make sacrifices to save the environment...but due to the laws of Organizational Behaviour, they won't act on them until everyone is FORCED to as well. The tragedy of a democracy...
  78. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: I agree with Mr. Luft...Canadians unfortunately have a long history of putting their heads in the sand and riding the inertia until things collapse, after which we blame the government for not forbidding us to do the destructive behaviour earlier. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we're selfish pigs by normal standards. However, we need to make serious sacrifices to get where we need to be environmentally, and most people aren't going to choose the flourescents over, say, Baby's medicine, or their spouse's birthday present. Bottom line: Most Canadians make many, many times more money than we need to survive by, say, Indian standards (that's Indians from India). We could easily make any necessary environmental targets, pay for our basic survival, and still have lots of money left. Because we (me included, I cast no judgement here) include TV, a ride to work, 3 square meals a day, day care, running shoes, and other luxuries in "bare-minimum lifestyle", we don't feel we have enough money to pay for "frilly" things like a clean Earth. 40% of Canadians may well feel inspired to make sacrifices to save the environment...but due to the laws of Organizational Behaviour, they won't act on them until everyone is FORCED to as well. The tragedy of a democracy...
  79. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Right On the Left "What, besides pure altruism, gives you reason to believe that this poll accurately reflects the real mettle of Canadians?"

    Firstly, the fact that the poll itself shows the repondents fell into two groups of roughly equal size.

    Secondly, like I said, the fact that many, many people are actually incurring expense (or inconvenience) in an effort to do something for the environment.

    But I will say the poll asked a false question. It is not true that one needs to incur expense to protect the environment. Many effective measures actually save huge amounts of money. So asking, would you take a 10% pay cut to help protect the environment, is a misleading question, since it assumes such a financial sacrifice is necessary to do so.
  80. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: in your post of 2:17 pm, your last paragraph is bang on!
  81. Brian L from Canada writes: Mr. Peet, ah to be young and naive again. Keep working on your utopian vision.

    And while you are at it I suggest you keep working. Your boomer parents are not going to be able to cover your bills much longer.
  82. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: VoR: What does it prove that the poll is split in equalish groups? And where is your backup for the "fact" that many, many people are incurring these expenses/inconveniences? Last I heard, sales of flourescents and hybrids haven't spiked, despite the "fact" that it seems that virtually all of Canada has joined the church of Al Gore in the past 12 months.
  83. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Right On the Left writes: "The tragedy of a democracy..."

    A true leader can educate and inspire others to join in a great and noble effort, and make sacrifices if neccesary. In our democracy, we vote for leaders. But although someone always wins the election, we don't always get a leader.

    One day, we will have a leader who will take us where we must go.

    That leader is not Harper.
  84. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: Voice of Reason writes: A true leader can educate and inspire others to join in a great and noble effort, and make sacrifices if neccesary. In our democracy, we vote for leaders. But although someone always wins the election, we don't always get a leader.

    One day, we will have a leader who will take us where we must go.

    I now understand that I am talking to a utopian, probably a student, and probably fairly young. Tell you what: you go make the world whatever you want it to be without getting tied up by things like precedent or reality, and I will get back to my work, which will now take an extra hour which I've burned debating with a utopian, which in turn will add to the number of hours (over)worked by Canadians. For the record, I would probably say I'd take a pay cut to work less if someone asked me...do you see how cold, hard reality steps in?
  85. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: These numbers must include a large number of two income families because believe me as a single person I can't afford any cuts for whatever time would be valuable for me!
  86. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Right on the Left: "sales of ... hybrids haven't spiked."

    Actually, I bought a hybrid on the weekend (to finally replace my 92 car which is going to "Car Heaven"). Hybrid's are selling well. They must be. This year there are dozens of hybrid models from at least three different manufacturers.

    I see them on the strees all the time too.

    Also, there's an electricity company in Ontario - thousands of subscribers and growing - that sells only non-carbon electricity at a slight premium.

    I'm mean, its eveywhere, and growing.

    The idea that Canadians won't spend more for a clean environment has nothing to do with reality.

    The survey reflects the reality I see with my own eyes.
  87. Bake McBride from Vancouver, Canada writes: You can work less now & retire later or keep your present hours & hopefully retire sooner. I'd choose the latter.
  88. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Right On the Left writes: "I now understand that I am talking to a utopian, probably a student, and probably fairly young."

    Wrong on all counts.
  89. John Silverman from Canada writes: These results don't surprise me at all though the comments do. Money is so not the most important thing in life.

    I would totally take a 20% pay cut to have an extra day per week off. I might not be able to afford as much, but overall I would be happier b/c I'd have more time with my family and to pursue my hobbies and interests.

    Though I do actually like my job, I don't live to work, I work to live.
  90. Rick Czarnota from Calgary, writes: This poll is irrelevant and predictable.
  91. ghostofpatbuchanen buchanen from Victoria, Canada write