#flawedlogic

I’m big you’re small.

I’m older you’re younger.

I’m smart you’re dumb.

I’m right you’re wrong.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak says he would reduce the number of public sector workers in Ontario by 100,000 if he wins the June 12 election.

*NOTE: I am not in any way well educated in the world of politics, I'm just approaching this from what my logic says makes sense. If you disagree, don't read this and write your own blog, simple as that.*

Emotions aside (c'mon, you can feel for the 100,000 if he wins), I just don't understand the logic behind this guy's claims. Sure, they would definitely save money if they don't have to pay 100,000 workers, but in what way does terminating that many public sector workers from their respective positions open the doors for more jobs? The last time I checked, usually when someone is removed from their job, they are then unemployed, as in, they are no longer in possession of a job. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of creating opportunities. The Liberal leader opposing him put it perfectly, saying that the province's most vulnerable are at risk, especially since this cut would negatively affect areas like education and health care. In my opinion (REMEMBER. I SAID "MY" OPINION, MEANING IT MAY NOT BE YOURS), the most important things a government should focus on are health care, education (not just for children), PROPER law enforcement (none of those police brutality videos or stories you see on the news), and proper childcare and welfare for those less fortunate than myself (and the government, duh). His plan, while it may bring financial equilibrium to the province in 2 years time. fails to address the fact that within those two years, possibly more than 100,000 people will be negatively affected by his cuts from the public sector. I don't know who I support as far as my vote goes, but one thing is sure: This man's logic is inherently flawed, and while it reduces the time for the province to climb out of it's deficit by one year (ONE YEAR, which is not a long time at all) compared to the Liberals (they don't mention the other party's projections), it creates more issues than it solves. It is effectively cutting the tree from the roots, namely the hard working men and women who help create the foundation for our province through the public sector. And while the private sector has it's benefits, it isn't something that is readily available for everyone in the province, as things like private schools and health care can be quite costly. I am very lucky that my family is priviledged enough to afford these things, however I can sympathize with those who don't have those luxuries. He is basically removing these people from the public sector to broaden the private sector to those who can afford it. I don't know too terribly much more outside the scope of this article, but from what I read, it seems like he's waving his middle finger at those directly influenced by the public sector, whether it be an employed worker, a child of a worker, or even a student or patient of someone who will inevitably be let go to introduce this policy. In exchange for this middle finger, he's lining the pockets of those who fund the private sector. I obviously can't predict the future, so I can't say for certain the outcome of his plan should it come into action, but that's what my reasoning points to as far as what I've read would dictate. One thing is certain, however: when I do decide to get off my lazy ass and register to vote, this man, as well as the Tories, will not be receiving my support or vote. THE END.

Alright rant over.

[UPDATE]: I've lived in Ontario all my life, and last summer (2013) was the first time since I was 14 that I couldn't find work. It is true when they say unemployment is rising and becoming more difficult to manage. Namely, companies are shrewd in hiring seasoned vets for entry level positions, as they have the unrealistic experience these "entry level" positions require. The public sector directly redistributes it's wealth to the middle and lower class, offering the chance for benefits and good pay to those who need it. Hudak says by removing 100,000 public sector workers, he'll be creating 1,000,000 more. That math in itself is wrong. With this plan in effect, not only do we go backwards in terms of creating opportunities (let's face it, adding to the total number of unemployed creates more competition for the unemployed), but it allows private sector companies, and any other companies offering some of the supposed "1 million jobs", to hire workers for reduced pay and fewer benefits (if any remain). If the government is legitimately worried about unemployment, the solution can start with creating policies that require companies to change their requirements for hiring prospective employees (Seriously, I applied to write tech review articles for an online news site, where the pay would have been less than minimum wage (as it is not hourly based, and is rather a contract), and they stated that I needed at least 3 years experience with other news outlets... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!). This alone will help fill many of the vacant positions that these employers manage when recruiting. It's only a start, and I know little to nothing about all of this, but at least the logic makes a little sense there. From there, I don't know, but it definitely seems better than making the unemployment line longer. Especially since the wealth is then redistributed into the province. Most people would likely be okay with increasing taxes moderately over time, on the premise that they can comfortably afford it. I may be making zero sense to some (arrest me for not being a poli sci major), but at least an idea similar to mine eliminates the need to lay off more people and adding to the unemployment issue. Instead of appeasing the 1%, and helping them hire workers for reduced pay (which they likely will), a strategy like this can work with a slight tax increase, which, again, if the masses can afford, would lead to less unrest and argument.

Okay now the rant is REALLY over.