Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Let's be clear, it has been a series of conscious policy decisions to screw young people to benefit the old. Conscripting them to help them gain experience is bordering on Orwellian irony.

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Governments at all levels refusing to build enough housing, forcing substantial inflation in shelter costs.

"Governments should build housing" is a bad idea. Governments should set conditions to allow people to build housing.

Successive cuts and freezes in education funding, resulting in rising tuition, sending student debt through the roof. And of course, employers won't even hire baristas without postsecondary these days. So this is just the price of entry.

Evidence still shows that over a lifetime people with post-secondary academic educations tend to out-earn people without them; it's difficult to argue that they deserve a start-on-life grant unavailable to people who by pure accident of birth lack the capacity to achieve at that level. Yes, some people can choose poorly when selecting an area of study. Yes, it's unfair to terminate the subsidies after earlier generations benefited, but the impact can be mitigated by slowly squeezing the subsidies. And because the value of that education is no longer as useful a signal to employers, it is becoming increasingly unnecessary where it is not expressly relevant.

Successive cuts in healthcare services both from government and their employers. Resulting in this cohort having the least access to healthcare.

In view of the Health Accord and subsequent agreements to maintain funding levels, it's risible that there have been successive cuts. I certainly cannot take seriously all the people who argued that the end of that Accord - an exceptional spending commitment for a defined period - ought to be regarded as a "cut". The pressure on services results from many factors, including: increasingly effective technology and treatment options are also increasingly expensive, poor forecasting of future requirements or deliberate disregard of it, reluctance to allow private enterprise to seek markets.

More recently the federal government surged immigration to keep a lid on wage inflation, while actually driving up all kinds of other inflation, most notably on shelter. Asset holder benefited. Those who own the least assets (young people) lost.

This one was overall a mistake (in the absence of proper filtering and a multitude of other initiatives to increase public services at equivalent rates), but the purpose of increasing the work force was legitimate as evidenced by all the cries for more workers.

And now the idea is that we should conscript them, make them do something that is unproductive for their own advancement, to fulfill dreams of a cheap army. This talk reminds me of Putin's Babushka brigade ever ready to send their grandsons to their deaths as long as those pension cheques keep coming.

Conscription is stupid and unfair to the bone.

When seniors of today (not a decade from now as Harper tried) agree to give up their OAS cheques, we can start having the conversation of how young people should serve.

Not all seniors ought give up their cheques and live in poverty. OAS might be a program that can be phased out for all but the poorest as increasingly available modern credit and savings innovations have effect.

 

[Remius]

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

Boomers have been labelled the most selfish generation by sobs for a reason…

May not be deliberate but we are where we are.

 

[Brad Sallows]

European countries managed it for years.
Or course the Russian Bear being next door was more motivational I suppose…

European countries didn't often send those conscripts into actual wars.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Boomers have been labelled the most selfish generation by sobs for a reason…

May not be deliberate but we are where we are.

The Boomers were the first generation to experience young adulthood after a point in time at which human prosperity really took off.

There are real data that show imbalance. The prime culprit (perhaps the only one that really matters) is housing even adjusting for the increases in size and comforts and code-mandated requirements. The overwhelming majority of other fundamental costs of living are trending down. I suspect perceptions are skewed by unrealistic expectations and failure to see a broad enough picture. Are people really comparing what they have at 20 to what their parents and grandparents had at 20, or are they looking at what their parents have at 50?

 

[Remius]

The Boomers were the first generation to experience young adulthood after a point in time at which human prosperity really took off.

There are real data that show imbalance. The prime culprit (perhaps the only one that really matters) is housing even adjusting for the increases in size and comforts and code-mandated requirements. The overwhelming majority of other fundamental costs of living are trending down. I suspect perceptions are skewed by unrealistic expectations and failure to see a broad enough picture. Are people really comparing what they have at 20 to what their parents and grandparents had at 20, or are they looking at what their parents have at 50?

People in their 30s are looking at what their parents had in their 30s and are throwing in the towel.

From what I’ve seen, expectations are not as high as some think. Apartments and townhomes should be out of reach for anyone gainfully employed.

Your money does not get you what it did before.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People in their 30s are looking at what their parents had in their 30s and are throwing in the towel.

From what I’ve seen, expectations are not as high as some think. Apartments and townhomes should be out of reach for anyone gainfully employed.

Your money does not get you what it did before.

As I wrote: housing.

We shouldn't lose sight of the single factor that is probably responsible for all of this. If we could correct for that, we'd likely have to admit each generation unambiguously lives better than the one before it.

 

[Blackadder1916]

European countries managed it for years.
Or course the Russian Bear being next door was more motivational I suppose…

European countries didn't often send those conscripts into actual wars.

Cinching up the onion on my belt. My experience with European conscript militaries ranged from the 70's to the 90's, the good, the bad and the unkempt. The Germans were good; none were particularly bad, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the Greeks and Turks (however, the politics of their nations formed the ugly aspects of their militaries); the Dutch were notable for being unkempt, while the French could be dirty. Conscripts weren't often sent overseas, unless they volunteered, which for many had significant financial benefits. The French probably made the most use of conscripts in overseas operations but they also had the Légion étrangère to use for the nastier bits. Of the non-NATO countries (at that time) the Swedes and the Finns sent on UN PKOs were all volunteers and they had no problem filling their contingents (a highly paid vacation to sunnier climes); the Poles (we worked with served alongside them in the Middle East) were an enigma - the few times we interacted never got any sense that they wanted to make a connection or what they thought of being there.

 

[FJAG]

I'll add one. I worked with an Italian conscript regiment for the better part of several weeks. Amazingly the ranks up to sergeant and lieutenant were conscripts as well. Each went through basic training and then an "advanced" senior NCO or officer course. All within around five months leaving them with the last four months of their service time with their unit. Out of a regiment of over 1,000 (it was an artillery regiment with three "groups" of three four-gun batteries each - so nine batteries with 36 guns) less than 200 were what we would call full-time RegF while the rest were all conscripts on a nine month tour - after that it was rinse and repeat for the regiment.

Around the same time, I also worked with German conscripts (also 9 monthers) and would have rated the Italians about equal in ability.

I'm not a great fan of conscript service. I prefer a reserve service more akin to the ARNG. I think that is something well within our ability to create and sustain at numbers higher than we currently have. It needs major changes in thinking, minor changes in legislation and regulations, and an extensive equipment/infrastructure program but it's doable. OTOH, conscription is a fast way to create a mass pool of trained former conscripts who will be of use for several years.

IMHO. Our problem isn't getting enough volunteers. It's the constipated recruiting and training system and lack of equipment and a clear mission that results in our attraction and retention problems. Solve the systemic issues and the volunteers will come and will stay.

 

[ytz]

I suppose that almost no policy decisions were undertaken to screw young people. We have had programs that benefit young adults and families for decades. The chief culprit is housing cost, and the policies which created the current situation can be accused of not being thought through well enough, but not of deliberately attempting to trade financial interests between generations.

Votes are a deliberate policy preference. And it's all levels of government. Local councils don't zone enough for housing. Provinces put on green belts or agricultural zones. Feds don't work on lowering housing costs, instead every program they make is about helping new homebuyers take on more debt. And all along the way, certain cohorts have been dominant in voting for these policies.

Go to any city council planning consultation. Virtually every single crank whining about a housing development in their area will have the same hair colour. As will the politicians who agree with them.

This is not even controversial now. The mainstream press is starting to notice how lopsided policy is in Canada. This is from a former Harper economic advisor in Politico:

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/corridors/2021/05/19/the-politics-of-gerontocracy-in-canada-795394

 

[ytz]

I just never liked the idea of depending on someone to have my back who had no motivation at all to serve. Forcing someone to serve who doesn’t want to never sat well with me, unless things were especially dire.

For instance, conscription in Israel and Ukraine makes sense. In Canada and the US, not so much. I could see a case in pre-1990’s and post-2014 Europe.

I could see an argument for some kind of domestic civil defence conscript service. Spend a summer learning some drill, field craft, first aid and firefighting. Spend the next summer fighting fires, floods, etc. Would take the pressure off the CAF and do the national unity part.

But again.

1) What is that time worth? Especially if we're not compensating well. We could easily set up and pay high school and postsecondary students to do this now.

2) The bulk of these proposals are from those who think conscripts are cheap and can bulk up the CAF to fight expeditionary wars. That is a very, very different vision of "national service". It's basically the Russian model.

 

[ytz]

Apparently armies of slaves win.

People are motivated to fight when the threat is more immediate or perceived as impacting kin. Which is historically how Canada viewed Europe. Not sure this holds for expeditionary wars today.

 

[lenaitch]

British basic pay was about 14 shillings per week (US $2.80 at the time). US basic pay after 1942 was $50/month, so about four times more. $50/month was a very good pay rate for a single man at the time, especially when you bear in mind the Army provided food, housing, etc.

"Over paid, over sexed and over here"