students who have taken out a Canada Student Loan will not have to repay their debt until he or she is earning at least $25,000 per year, Does it help you?

[Sean Monahan]

About a month back I got my invoice in the mail for my student loan. I immediately went and paid the remaining balance online, thinking I was now officially done with that crap. Last Friday I received another invoice in the mail- for 27 cents. I guess it was interest that was accrued in the time between when the previous invoice was sent out and when it actually got to me. F*** you, GOC.

[luckylager]

5 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Here's a real crazy, radical solution...what if every profession was paid the same wage?

 

Then you'd find out who's really passionate and dedicated to a field, and not just who wants a good paycheque.

See, I'm a bit of a commie.... I like your crazy, radical solution. 

 

 

[Alflives]

27 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

About a month back I got my invoice in the mail for my student loan. I immediately went and paid the remaining balance online, thinking I was now officially done with that crap. Last Friday I received another invoice in the mail- for 27 cents. I guess it was interest that was accrued in the time between when the previous invoice was sent out and when it actually got to me. F*** you, GOC.

I think you're upset with a machine.  

[Alflives]

28 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

About a month back I got my invoice in the mail for my student loan. I immediately went and paid the remaining balance online, thinking I was now officially done with that crap. Last Friday I received another invoice in the mail- for 27 cents. I guess it was interest that was accrued in the time between when the previous invoice was sent out and when it actually got to me. F*** you, GOC.

Congratulations paying off your student loan.  

[Sean Monahan]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I think you're upset with a machine.  

I was upset with the fact they dinged me on 27 cents in that time. What's next, an invoice for like 4 cents?

 

thanks alf 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Sean Monahan said:

I was upset with the fact they dinged me on 27 cents in that time. What's next, an invoice for like 4 cents?

 

thanks alf 

I know the feeling that theses invoices coast more than they return.  It would be smarter for the government to forgive all debt or money owing under 10 dollars.  

You kids these days really have to work extra doubly hard to get through post secondary school.  I had a very good paying mill job for all my years of school.  These jobs were plentiful and school was not that much, so we didn't need loans.

i have a great respect for our current young post secondary students.  

[Sean Monahan]

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

I know the feeling that theses invoices coast more than they return.  It would be smarter for the government to forgive all debt or money owing under 10 dollars.  

You kids these days really have to work extra doubly hard to get through post secondary school.  I had a very good paying mill job for all my years of school.  These jobs were plentiful and school was not that much, so we didn't need loans.

i have a great respect for our current young post secondary students.  

I've no issue paying it, I think it's only fair. I was just mad about getting dinged for that 27 cents when I couldn't have paid my bill any faster than I did.

 

Instead of paying it online I sent them an envelope with two quarters and and a note telling them to keep the change. I can be petty too.

[Kragar]

10 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Here's a real crazy, radical solution...what if every profession was paid the same wage?

 

Then you'd find out who's really passionate and dedicated to a field, and not just who wants a good paycheque.

Wow, I hope you are joking.

 

Sure, let's have people forego an important career that takes years and years of training or complicated study because flipping burgers will pay them the same amount.  Or, try to find under-water welders, lumberjacks, cops and other first-responders, or any other job with significant danger involved, when they can play it safe working in Starbucks or delivering newspapers.

 

Say good-bye to the quality of athletes and professional sports.  Without the income to pay for higher quality equipment and coaching, or any way to get compensated for the huge amounts of training required to do what they do.

 

Unless you advocate forcing people to do these jobs.  Not much passion and dedication involved there, though.

[falcon45ca]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:37 PM, Kragar said:

Wow, I hope you are joking.

 

Sure, let's have people forego an important career that takes years and years of training or complicated study because flipping burgers will pay them the same amount.  Or, try to find under-water welders, lumberjacks, cops and other first-responders, or any other job with significant danger involved, when they can play it safe working in Starbucks or delivering newspapers.

 

Say good-bye to the quality of athletes and professional sports.  Without the income to pay for higher quality equipment and coaching, or any way to get compensated for the huge amounts of training required to do what they do.

 

Unless you advocate forcing people to do these jobs.  Not much passion and dedication involved there, though.

If a person is only pursuing a certain career because of the paycheque, then maybe they're not all that passionate or necessarily skilled in their field & are only in it for the money. Doesn't sound like the best way to get the best employee. I know of more than a few folks who took secondary degrees simply so they could pay the bills, and not because they are passionate about their job.

 

Lumberjacks make about 50K a year, a Solution Architect makes 120K. Yep, we definitely pay those dangerous jobs the most, yep yep yep, that's for sure. Riiiiiiiight.

 

Top athletes don't start making big money till they hit the big leagues, yet somehow still managed to hone their skills to get to that level without huge money. So, yeah...why do top athletes need to disappear? 

[Kragar]

19 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:

If a person is only pursuing a certain career because of the paycheque, then maybe they're not all that passionate or necessarily skilled in their field & are only in it for the money. Doesn't sound like the best way to get the best employee. I know of more than a few folks who took secondary degrees simply so they could pay the bills, and not because they are passionate about their job.

 

Lumberjacks make about 50K a year, a Solution Architect makes 120K. Yep, we definitely pay those dangerous jobs the most, yep yep yep, that's for sure. Riiiiiiiight.

 

Top athletes don't start making big money till they hit the big leagues, yet somehow still managed to hone their skills to get to that level without huge money. So, yeah...why do top athletes need to disappear? 

How many people are going to play pro football, putting themselves at constant risk of concussions or knee damage, things which can permanently impact the rest of their lives, for the same pay as the popcorn vendor?  Sure, they get to play a game as work, but I expect there would be a huge drop in the number of star players if they get paid the same as someone mopping the floor or delivering mail.  That multi-million dollar carrot can go a long way to play through pain and other obstacles inherent with the job.

 

Top athletes have personal trainers and other staff, to help them get better and maintain their edge.  If they get paid the same amount as each of those support staff members, how can athletes afford to pay any of them?  Athletes and other high-profile people have personal assistants and similar staff that they pay for themselves, taking care of more mundane activities, freeing them up to do whatever it is they do that earns them multi-millions.

 

Ok, lumberjack wasn't a good example in today's market, but the concept is still valid.  Sure, some people will do those jobs for reasons other than money, and in many cases that's a great thing.  But some people have to sacrifice a lot to do certain jobs, whether personal risk, many years of schooling, physical training... the list can go on.  Take the teaching industry.  The higher up you want to teach, the more schooling you need.  It's a lot easier to get a bachelor degree than a master's or PhD.  If the job requires a higher degree (i.e. professors), should they not be able to command a better salary?  Or how about the medical field.  Someone has the inner drive to help people, but they can do that by taking the easier road to being a lab tech or dental assistant, as opposed to a brain surgeon or orthodontist.  You think all those people should get paid the same, too?  That doesn't even take into account liability insurance... those with more responsibility often take on higher financial risks that they have to pay for.

 

How about taking this from another perspective.  Where is the incentive to do better?  If your pay will not improve based on productivity, because everyone should be paid the same, what point is there in trying harder?  There would be less process innovation, because if you just plug along and do it the same way as it was always done, you are doing your job.  If you make the effort to improve the process, you don't get rewarded for it.  That might be ok once or twice, but the person sitting next to you who does the same job gets paid the same without ever contributing new ideas to make the workplace more productive.  How often would people put in the effort to make positive change when they aren't compensated for it?  Morale goes to hell, and productivity along with it.

 

One more perspective that just came to mind... experience.  How can people new to the workforce compete when they cannot offer their time for less pay because they aren't as skilled as someone who as done the job for 10 years already?  If you are hiring someone to do a job, and the pay is the same, you are going to hire the most experienced person you can get (assuming all other factors are the same).

 

Meh, I don't buy it.

[falcon45ca]

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

How many people are going to play pro football, putting themselves at constant risk of concussions or knee damage, things which can permanently impact the rest of their lives, for the same pay as the popcorn vendor?  Sure, they get to play a game as work, but I expect there would be a huge drop in the number of star players if they get paid the same as someone mopping the floor or delivering mail.  That multi-million dollar carrot can go a long way to play through pain and other obstacles inherent with the job.

 

Top athletes have personal trainers and other staff, to help them get better and maintain their edge.  If they get paid the same amount as each of those support staff members, how can athletes afford to pay any of them?  Athletes and other high-profile people have personal assistants and similar staff that they pay for themselves, taking care of more mundane activities, freeing them up to do whatever it is they do that earns them multi-millions.

 

Ok, lumberjack wasn't a good example in today's market, but the concept is still valid.  Sure, some people will do those jobs for reasons other than money, and in many cases that's a great thing.  But some people have to sacrifice a lot to do certain jobs, whether personal risk, many years of schooling, physical training... the list can go on.  Take the teaching industry.  The higher up you want to teach, the more schooling you need.  It's a lot easier to get a bachelor degree than a master's or PhD.  If the job requires a higher degree (i.e. professors), should they not be able to command a better salary?  Or how about the medical field.  Someone has the inner drive to help people, but they can do that by taking the easier road to being a lab tech or dental assistant, as opposed to a brain surgeon or orthodontist.  You think all those people should get paid the same, too?  That doesn't even take into account liability insurance... those with more responsibility often take on higher financial risks that they have to pay for.

 

How about taking this from another perspective.  Where is the incentive to do better?  If your pay will not improve based on productivity, because everyone should be paid the same, what point is there in trying harder?  There would be less process innovation, because if you just plug along and do it the same way as it was always done, you are doing your job.  If you make the effort to improve the process, you don't get rewarded for it.  That might be ok once or twice, but the person sitting next to you who does the same job gets paid the same without ever contributing new ideas to make the workplace more productive.  How often would people put in the effort to make positive change when they aren't compensated for it?  Morale goes to hell, and productivity along with it.

 

One more perspective that just came to mind... experience.  How can people new to the workforce compete when they cannot offer their time for less pay because they aren't as skilled as someone who as done the job for 10 years already?  If you are hiring someone to do a job, and the pay is the same, you are going to hire the most experienced person you can get (assuming all other factors are the same).

 

Meh, I don't buy it.

 It's clear you don't watch much football. NCAA football games have far larger attendance than NFL games and are typically more exciting...guess how much the players are paid? 0, zilch, nada. 

 

The teaching field is the one I was talking about in regards to folks who just get that degree simply so they can get a decent wage. Have you ever had a disengaged, disinterested teacher in school before? I know I have had more than 1.

 

Another bad example, I know several nurses & there's definitely more than a few who took the degree just to get paid. Met more than a few crap Doc's as well, I wonder if the fat cheque had anything to do with people who have no empathy entering the medical profession?

 

It's called a meritocracy...those who contribute more and with better ideas get more desirable jobs & responsibilities within their field.

 

 

[Kragar]

15 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

 It's clear you don't watch much football. NCAA football games have far larger attendance than NFL games and are typically more exciting...guess how much the players are paid? 0, zilch, nada. 

 

The teaching field is the one I was talking about in regards to folks who just get that degree simply so they can get a decent wage. Have you ever had a disengaged, disinterested teacher in school before? I know I have had more than 1.

 

Another bad example, I know several nurses & there's definitely more than a few who took the degree just to get paid. Met more than a few crap Doc's as well, I wonder if the fat cheque had anything to do with people who have no empathy entering the medical profession?

 

It's called a meritocracy...those who contribute more and with better ideas get more desirable jobs & responsibilities within their field.

 

 

Was I ever referring to college sports?  No, I said pro athletes.  College kids play football because of scholarships and the dream of playing pro ball, where there are millions of dollars to be had.  Take away that carrot, and less kids would play college ball, especially the better ones who are on track to make the show.  Also, I would argue that the risks of getting drastically injured in NCAA are lower than in the NFL, since the NFL players are bigger and faster and the collisions are much worse on average.

 

Yes, I too have had teachers, and doctors like that.  I have no idea on their motivation to get in the field.  I think all the teachers I had like that were on the older side, so their time in service could have had something to do with their attitude, but who knows.  Regardless, you still haven't addressed my points about the effort it takes to get higher degrees/certifications or put into intense training to be able to perform more specialized work.  Some people spend an extra 5-10 years in school before they can do the job they are training for.  That's time lost that could have been spent working or raising a family.  I'm sorry you don't see the value in that because you have seen some a-holes push through that training to make an extra buck.  Guess what, some people are going to be a-holes anyhow, and they're going to get a job somewhere, and you're going to have to deal with them like you do today. 

 

There is no lasting meritocracy without compensation.  The good feelings only last so long when you see the people working alongside you doing the same job, getting the same pay, for doing less.  I can see evidence of that right now.  Your solution might clean up a few cases like you have experienced, but the bigger picture gets significantly worse, as productivity and work quality suffer everywhere else.

[Moonshinefe]

It doesn't help me at all since I had to pay all my loans off even when insanely poor previously when these rules weren't in effect. It basically screwed people in their late-20s early-30s over big time and there's no going back. I hope it helps younger people, but judging by this thread that's dubious.

[kingofsurrey]

Toughest for kids from rural bc that not only have high costs of tuition but also need housing / rent.  Right now rents are through the roof and it is really hurting students.

 

[Sean Monahan]

16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Toughest for kids from rural bc that not only have high costs of tuition but also need housing / rent.  Right now rents are through the roof and it is really hurting students.

 

Rural kids aren't the only ones. Students from the Lower Mainland may have to go to the island or interior for programs specific to a certain institution. 

[kingofsurrey]

8 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

Rural kids aren't the only ones. Students from the Lower Mainland may have to go to the island or interior for programs specific to a certain institution. 

 

Yes, very true.  I realize programs are specific to location / school.

 

Really think we as a country need to reassess our post secondary aid / funding.  It has basically become unaffordable now to most kids. Is this the kind of country we want to have where only kids from wealthy families can afford post sec  education ?  

 

No i am not a student. I am a taxpayer.   

[RUPERTKBD]

This helps me in a rather oblique manner. My student days are long behind me, but since I work at the local college, I was happy for this news. Anything with the potential to boost enrollment is a positive for us.

[Sean Monahan]

22 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

 

Yes, very true.  I realize programs are specific to location / school.

 

Really think we as a country need to reassess our post secondary aid / funding.  It has basically become unaffordable now to most kids. Is this the kind of country we want to have where only kids from wealthy families can afford post sec  education ?  

 

No i am not a student. I am a taxpayer.   

I don't think our post-secondary really is unaffordable. Of course, it's not cheap but it's certainly affordable for most people. Some countries in Europe have offered different programs (I believe it's Germany that has a program where you don't pay back your tuition unless you land a job making upwards of 60K/year or something like that), but I don't believe those programs have been in place for very long and the long-term effects of the program aren't yet known. 

 

Let's just be thankful we're not out friends south of the border. I've been to school down south, to both a junior college and a mid-major university. Even a juco education down there (which is on par with our grade 11/12 curriculum) will run you 10-12K per year without any scholarships or bursaries. You can easily pay upwards of 30K/year for university education.

[smokes]

If the government really wanted to help people out, they would figure out a way to make education more affordable for the average Canadian so they don't even have to take loans in the first place. If government educates thier people, the better the country in the future,

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

Let's just be thankful we're not out friends south of the border. I've been to school down south, to both a junior college and a mid-major university. Even a juco education down there (which is on par with our grade 11/12 curriculum) will run you 10-12K per year without any scholarships or bursaries. You can easily pay upwards of 30K/year for university education.

Only if you are out of state.  I've taken a few courses at the local JC, and tuition & fees for a full load now is under 1,200 per year, so your estimates are off by a factor of 10 in that case.  UCLA is 13K/year, and a more "normal" state school (Cal State system instead of the better/more expensive UC system) is 5,500.

 

Too many use the out-of-state numbers to talk about how expensive things are, but the only good reason to go out of state is if you are after a particular program that your state doesn't offer, and in many cases, the out-of-state rates will be waived.  But when you have so many kids using it as a vacation away from home, that's their own problem.