News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 296     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Brightwater Resubmission Proposes Increased Density and Height in Port Credit
 932     3 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 965     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
paraone said:
well good for you!! I'm glad your content with your lot in life but don't blame others for making more than you.
do you have 4 kids and a wife to support? are they in university? and don't throw the old argument that... "well they should have thought about that before they had kids"

and no job should ever "max" out, if you've put in years of service your wage should go up not down.
Click to expand...

Others can use the "but i have 4 kids....." line but we can't use the "you should've thought of that before...."
Let's use the "i have 4 kids, think about the kids" line to make others feel sorry for you.
But then again that's how we play the game isn't it. We make other feel sorry for us so we can move ahead. Actually only those bordering pathetic use such bs lines.
Last i checked the average middle class income is less then 60k/year. And you could live a good life making that salary even living downtown. And making 100K/year does not equate to middle class anymore.
 
first things first I don't have a union job, as I would never work for a union. You can try and punish people all you want for having kids but if we don't encourage people to have kids, we will end up with a stagnant population and suffer the consequences in future generations. Immigration can go a long way to counter balance this but if we don't have a healthy native population we are not going to be very competitive on the world stage.

I have to question how you think a family of 6 can live off 60k a year. I'm guessing your a twenty something living in a bachelor who's bitter because you have a crappy paying job and had dreams of making 6 figures fresh out of school. I lived quite happily on a salary of under 60k when I was single or when it was just me and the wife. Once you mix in mortgage/rent for a multiple bedroom dwelling in this city and the skyrocketing cost of daycare, as well as the added day to day costs of caring for a kid, let alone multiple kids, those making 60k+ actually end up with less than somebody making 35k living a single lifestyle.
Do I expect handouts? no, do I expect your sympathy? no. The fact that you can't fathom a family not surviving on 60k anywhere in the GTA is because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you've never done it. cuz it would make for a very hard life, if not virtually impossible.
The fact that your almost happy to watch average people have to put up with hardships because you think they some how deserve it just speaks volumes about your character
 
Gotta find someone else to sell. Toronto Hydro, maybe? There's an off-chance they might try to weasel their way out of the new streetcar contract, as between the new LRVs, the car house and other associated costs the city is probably on the hook for a billion dollars in capital costs related to this purchase.
 
Thanos said:
Well congrats on your overpayed union job.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself Thanos. Not all union jobs are the same or pay the same. And no one stopped/stopping you from for applying for a union job. Still plenty of those out there.
 
paraone said:
I have to question how you think a family of 6 can live off 60k a year.
Click to expand...
There are people I know who work in Toronto who lived just fine off that for a family of 5, and one even has a cottage. That latter family rented their home, but had purchased an el cheapo cottage decades ago. When the main income earner got a new job at higher pay, they bought a house.

So, I'm not really sure where you're coming from, unless you think it's a basic right that everyone owns a house, or if you think that if someone has an extra two kids his pay should suddenly jump $20000 or whatever despite his job being the exactly the same as before. That just makes no sense. Hell, by that logic, one my colleagues has hit the salary jackpot, since he has 12 kids. Perhaps he should make twice my salary because I have no kids, despite the fact we do the same job?
 
GraphicMatt said:
Gotta find someone else to sell. Toronto Hydro, maybe? There's an off-chance they might try to weasel their way out of the new streetcar contract, as between the new LRVs, the car house and other associated costs the city is probably on the hook for a billion dollars in capital costs related to this purchase.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I have an issue with selling Toronto Hydro. I have a hard time figuring out why that utility needs to be owned by the city, and the city might be able to make some money and/or bring a dose of competition into electricity that might help lower costs and/or help service. But, and it's a huge but, utilities are a really, really difficult thing to privatize withour adverse negative effects. I'm conflicted on that one.

Sell Etobicoke North? CNE/Ontario Place? Allow more density for condo projects to allow for more property taxes without raising the rate?
 
Fun quote from Royson James today:
"Praising Doug Ford for raising the profile of the waterfront is like awarding an arsonist for sparking debate about fire prevention."

Now that the waterfront is "saved" for the time being,
I think it might be good to take a look at some of the things that the Ford(s) have done already - to see if they can be rolled back or reinstated.

-Transit City is the first big one.
-The Fort York bridge would be a lovely gift that would show how much the Mayor respects the city's history.
-The Jarvis Bike Lane issue is a good third.
-"I never closed a library!" - well, we need look no further than the Metro Urban Affairs Library. It would be great to have that back. Maybe opening an extra new Ford Memorial Branch (or Atwood Branch) in an enthusiastic area would be a nice conciliatory touch.
-It might help council meetings to go more smoothly to have those meager lunches back that City Hall used to provide.

We're going to have to be vigilant on:
-The Waterfront. What about completing Queen's Quay boulevard - with streetcars, as planned? What news about the properties on the North Side of Queen's Quay boulevard from Yonge to Cherry? Shouldn't this be first priority?
-The Portlands. We don't want the re-opening of this case for examining flood protection turn into another devious grab, underground council alignment or backroom favourites deal of some kind.
-And just about everything else outlined in the budget - from AIDS Funding to Infrastructure to Jalopies to Zithers, we're going to have to insist, more stridently than usual, on due process and all transparency in all things, for the foreseeable future.

Everyone's exhaling right now after the marathon city hall sessions - you can feel the drain of tension. But these two brothers are not about to change their spots overnight.

I think some items that were just voted on as being valid are contentious: first off, the arts are unfairly targeted. The arts budgets are miniscule. We know the arts get picked on first because they're small, a bit obscure compared to television, and easy to target.
The reduction of community and neighbourhood development activities doesn't sound good or necessary. Nor does eliminating the public realm's neighbourhood improvement program. All small potatoes. Mean little slices.

Just about the only cut I can easily agree with is cancelling the requirement for paid duty officers at construction site. And it took all this drama to get to that?
 
Last edited:
Eug said:
There are people I know who work in Toronto who lived just fine off that for a family of 5, and one even has a cottage. That latter family rented their home, but had purchased an el cheapo cottage decades ago. When the main income earner got a new job at higher pay, they bought a house.

So, I'm not really sure where you're coming from, unless you think it's a basic right that everyone owns a house, or if you think that if someone has an extra two kids his pay should suddenly jump $20000 or whatever despite his job being the exactly the same as before. That just makes no sense. Hell, by that logic, one my colleagues has hit the salary jackpot, since he has 12 kids. Perhaps he should make twice my salary because I have no kids, despite the fact we do the same job?
Click to expand...

maybe you should go back and re-read what I've said. Never did nor would I imply, that a person should make whatever amount based on the amount of children he/she has. Nor did I say that owning a home is anyone's given right. The TTC offers positions for people to be able to make a living wage, this is not an entry level position. Nor is it a position that one would have with the expectation of having for a couple years till they get enough experience to move on. It is a career position just like working in, say, a factory, there should be an expectation of being able to rise to a salary level where one can live a life, meaning having a family if one chooses. To damn this person to never make a living wage is ludicrous. And to think that 60K is too much to pay a TTC employee is again very narrow minded, it almost boils down to people believing that this job is for losers and the working poor and they should remain such.

If we continue to lower the bar where does it end? only office workers should make x amount per year? How do you attract employees that will actually give a shit about their job? How do you keep a healthy and happy staff?
 
paraone said:
first things first I don't have a union job, as I would never work for a union. You can try and punish people all you want for having kids but if we don't encourage people to have kids, we will end up with a stagnant population and suffer the consequences in future generations. Immigration can go a long way to counter balance this but if we don't have a healthy native population we are not going to be very competitive on the world stage.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you but you can't use the "i have 4 kids as an excuse to get a higher salary. If you want more money you improve your skills through education and other tools. There are several jobs that provide higher salaries however, a job that to begin with should not even exist in our day and age should not be paying high salaries just because he has a family to feed.

paraone said:
I'm guessing your a twenty something living in a bachelor who's bitter because you have a crappy paying job and had dreams of making 6 figures fresh out of school.
Click to expand...

I've yet to meet any recent university grad expecting to make anywhere near 100K/year. And anyone in their 20s making 60K/year is a goo salary. And trust me my salary, even though it's none of your business is damn fine.

paraone said:
I lived quite happily on a salary of under 60k when I was single or when it was just me and the wife. Once you mix in mortgage/rent for a multiple bedroom dwelling in this city and the skyrocketing cost of daycare, as well as the added day to day costs of caring for a kid, let alone multiple kids, those making 60k+ actually end up with less than somebody making 35k living a single lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Daycare? What do you need daycare for if the wife is at home with the kids. If the wife is not at home then she must be working so the family income is now more then 60K/year. You're not making any sense and trying to find any excuse. You're a very arrogant individual.

paraone said:
Do I expect handouts? no, do I expect your sympathy? no. The fact that you can't fathom a family not surviving on 60k anywhere in the GTA is because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you've never done it. cuz it would make for a very hard life, if not virtually impossible.
The fact that your almost happy to watch average people have to put up with hardships because you think they some how deserve it just speaks volumes about your character
Click to expand...

I'm not happy to watch others in hardship. Many here have been gone through it and have escaped it by pushing themselves not by waiting for their union to demand unreasonable salaries.

The fact that you continue to think that these salaries are unreasonable clearly indicates that you know little regarding economic factors. Look at the thousands who lost their jobs in the states automotive factories because the unions would not compromise.
Let's continue and live in this fantasy entitlement world where everyone else owes us something.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
I'm not sure I have an issue with selling Toronto Hydro. I have a hard time figuring out why that utility needs to be owned by the city, and the city might be able to make some money and/or bring a dose of competition into electricity that might help lower costs and/or help service. But, and it's a huge but, utilities are a really, really difficult thing to privatize withour adverse negative effects. I'm conflicted on that one.

Sell Etobicoke North? CNE/Ontario Place? Allow more density for condo projects to allow for more property taxes without raising the rate?
Click to expand...

I'd say Toronto Hydro should be a No to privatization. However, some good things can come from privatizing CNE.
Isn't Ontario Place owned by the province?
 
There certainly seems to be some Twitter chatter to the effect that the next move will be an attack on the streetcar system, and Mike del Grande was quoted by the Globe yesterday grousing about the new LRV costs in the context of Miller defending his record. I am not sure what to make of all this. After all, Council just approved an expansion (!) of the legacy network without debate, and an attempt by the Fords to cancel the order would require a substantial 'why now?' justification. Lots of money has been paid out to Bombardier on their watch, not to mention the start of carhouse work and sundry smaller modifications to the existing wire and track.

Still, of all the things the Fords could try to pull, this one scares me the most. Operational funding cuts to City programs and transit can be restored, but if new streetcars don't show up in the next ten or so years we are looking at the death of the system and with it one of Toronto's most successful features.

I sincerely hope I am being paranoid.
 
allabootmatt:

Well, I suspect cutting streetcars will make their waterfront move pale in comparison, considering the sheer number of people actually affected. And what are they going to offer in place of that? A new subway line? I don't think so.

That said, it will be interesting to see how the core/periphery split plays out in that event.

AoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top