For Struggling Workers, Singh and Poilievre Pitch Different Fixes

So, and correct me here,

Mr Singh wants to allow gigs and other neu-age non-standard workers access to funding support as their primary gig income ebbs and flows.
Mr Polievre wants to invest in companies who will naturally grow and spread the wealth

Okay? Now opinion.

Both M-Os fit their political party themes: NDP is always pro-worker, with support and inclusion, like a pat on the back for people left out in the cold or people who like the dole and wanna be on it (which, I admit, is a miniscule amount).

Conservatives are pitching from the dugout as well, a common "trickle down" and "table scraps" idea that suggests as more companies get more investment, they'll naturally employ more people. Even though that doesn't follow on theory (that proof has a missing-middle so big we could drive a Boeing through it), nor in practice (oh, hey, Boeing again, but we could look at almost anything local, since, ever), I do admire the attempt to trot the same thing to different people and hope for a win this time.

Man I hope people know trickle-down has never worked, and that the moment food gets scarce the table scraps dry up fast. As wildly inefficient and ineffective ideas go, those two are great for ensuring company CEOs get the money they need so they can put the money back into the communities of faraway island nations with no extradition.

1 comments

So, and correct me here,
Mr Singh wants to allow gigs and other neu-age non-standard workers access to funding support as their primary gig income ebbs and flows.
Mr Polievre wants to invest in companies who will naturally grow and spread the wealth
Okay? Now opinion.
Both M-Os fit their political party themes: NDP is always pro-worker, with support and inclusion, like a pat on the back for people left out in the cold or people who like the dole and wanna be on it (which, I admit, is a miniscule amount).
Conservatives are pitching from the dugout as well, a common "trickle down" and "table scraps" idea that suggests as more companies get more investment, they'll naturally employ more people. Even though that doesn't follow on theory (that proof has a missing-middle so big we could drive a Boeing through it), nor in practice (oh, hey, Boeing again, but we could look at almost anything local, since, ever), I do admire the attempt to trot the same thing to different people and hope for a win this time.
Man I hope people know trickle-down has never worked, and that the moment food gets scarce the table scraps dry up fast. As wildly inefficient and ineffective ideas go, those two are great for ensuring company CEOs get the money they need so they can put the money back into the communities of faraway island nations with no extradition.