A good site for job hunters

For all the job hunters out there, in Canada United States,  - I wanted to share a site that Lynne found and passed on to us http://www.glassdoor.com/

 If you type in your city, you can then look for a job from the exact location to a range of 100 miles. I did a search for my town, Port Coquitlam and the site showed 76 jobs. I did a search within 10 Kilometers and it showed a total of 168 jobs posted within the last seven days. Each employer can be viewed for details about what it is like to work there, salary, etc. 

There are reviews by employees rating companies (as what it's like to work for them). Just use common sense when reading them, just like any other reviews (for instance, someone posted a review of a MA based restaurant chain in MI - not even close to where the restaurants are located!) I wonder when they will branch out to countries. other than Canada and the US This is a good idea as any job search should require doing background on the company one is applying.

The pipeline debate heats up

As we move into a very interesting period of discussion and debate over the idea of a pipline between Alberta and BC I would like to point out how at the very early stages the Neo-cons are using the rules of disinformation to their advantage. A quick Google review of some of the stories shows how this technique is working. I suspect that over the next months, we will see all of the rules of disinformation put into play over this issue by the government of the day The rules they are using are in bold the news articles with sources are in italics. As I get more examplesof how the government is using these techniques,  I will post them. The problem as I see it is the progressive movement will feel the need to counter the disinformation rather than staying the course and keeping the focus on the needs of the environment, the First Nations, and the people whose lives will be affected if this pipeline is allowed to go through.

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

The issue of Ethical Oil is the start.  The ethical oil campaign began with Ezra Levant, a political activist and lawyer with close ties to government. For the record, Levant is a former tobacco lobbyist and a convicted libeler. He is also a political extremist who has demanded the jailing of Greenpeace leaders. (Greenpeace, a civic organization with 3 million members, has poked fun of Alberta's one party petro state. The Saudis, by the way, fear transparency and accountability and don't like Greenpeace either.) Source: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/

The Ethical Oil idea started bby Levant is now touted by  Alykhan Velshi. Who is Mr. Velshi you may ask, well here is some background on the man.

You've got to hand it to Alykhan Velshi: for such a tender age, he seems to be remarkably well-versed in the dark arts of spin and misdirection.

Many people outside of Alberta believe the Canadian state's tar sands industry to be the most environmental destructive energy extraction industry in the world. But not Velshi, a 27-year-old neocon political communications adviser, who, until a few months ago, was the right-hand man to Canada's immigration minister. This week, he has relaunched a website aimed at extolling the virtues of, ahem, Canada's "ethical oil".

The term "ethical oil" was first coined two years ago in a book by a conservative activist and pundit called Ezra Levant. But Velshi has picked up the term and, well, not just run with it, but sprinted off towards the horizon at a pace that would shame Usain Bolt. Click on to EthicalOil.org's new homepage and you soon get a taste of Velshi's reasoning as to why Canada's tar sands industry is so virtuous raised by a neo conservative think tank that has ties to  Environmental groups say the Harper government is engaging in diversionary tactics aimed at tarnishing the image of pipeline opponents and deflecting attention from the serious risks posed by the project. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jul/28/oil-tar-sands-canada-ethical

While most Canadian environmental groups are charities and must disclose the sources of their funds, Ethical Oil does not. Ms. Marshall said that the group accepted money from only Canadians and Canadian companies, although she declined to directly say if that included Canadian corporations controlled by foreign entities. Many of the large energy companies active in the oil sands are foreign-owned or -controlled.  “You can look up the definition of a Canadian company,” she said Source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/oil-sands-foes-are-foes-of-canada-minister-says/

Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.  Example:  Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has slammed "environmental and other radical groups" campaigning against the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal to connect Alberta's oilsands to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C.

"Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth," said Oliver in an open letter published Monday. "They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources." Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/09/minister-spills-ink-over-pipeline-opposition

In his letter, Mr. Oliver declared that Canada’s regulatory system was “broken” and suggested that reviews could be done in a“quicker and more streamlined fashion.”

His letter does not outline suggestions for how that can be achieved, and his office did not respond to requests for comment. But representatives of several Canadian environmental groups said they believed that the government planned to severely restrict public input on environmental assessments.

But last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper also suggested that foreign interests were taking over Canada’s regulatory process Source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/oil-sands-foes-are-foes-of-canada-minister-says/

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. For Example, In an interview Monday, Mr. Oliver deliver a blunt message – that the independent panel reviewing the Gateway pipeline should not allow foreign-backed opponents to hijack the hearings and kill the project through tactical delays. He goes on to say in a CBC interview Environmental and other "radical groups" are trying to block trade and undermine Canada's economy, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Monday.

Oliver's comments come one day before federal regulatory hearings begin on whether to approve Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which would deliver crude from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat, B.C., for shipment to Asia Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html

Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact, which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. For example, Minister Joe Oliver singled out a Canadian charity, Tides Canada Inc., for channelling U.S. donor money to pipeline opponents, while the Prime Minister’s Office took aim at the Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council. Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/for-the-harper-government-the-gateway-must-be-open/article2296804/

Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. For Example While Oliver took aim at foreign funding for environment groups, foreign investment is a major part of the oilsands. American, British, Chinese, French and Norwegian companies have all invested in the oilsands. The difference, Oliver says, is that Canada needs the foreign capital.

"They’re helping us build infrastructure to help us diversify our market. Other groups are trying to impede … the economic progress; they’re trying to block development; they’re trying to block projects which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in government revenue and trillions of dollars in economic development. That’s the fundamental difference. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html "

Silence critics. (This appears to be our current governments favourite tactic)  If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. Example:  Sources say the government isn't just talking, CBC's Margo McDiarmid reports, but will be targeting environmental groups when the House finance committee reviews charitable funding next month.

The committee could recommend changing the rules to stop them from getting U.S. money. Sierra Club's John Bennett says he's worried. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html

An environmental umbrella group wants Ottawa to reverse a decision to pull its funding, though the government says the move is necessary during a time of fiscal restraint.

The Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) received notice Thursday that it would not receive $547,000 in core funding that the government had previously said it intended to provide.

Olivier Kolmel, the chairman of the organization's board of directors, said Ottawa did not give any warning that it would cut off its funding next year. Source: http://community.ebay.ca/topic/Canada-Town-Square/Harper-Stops-Funding/3000002474

Money, Happiness, and a Fulfilling Retirement

The following was posted in an email list serve that I belong to and I thought it was worth sharing.

From: Rick Reis Subject: TP Msg. #1132 November 3, 2011

Shortly after I retired, I listened to a lecture by my former internist, now a gerontologist. He underscored what he termed the "two keys to a long life." The first was, "Use it or lose it." The word "it," made infamous by former president Clinton, refers in this case to the mind and the body.

Check out the Tomorrow's Professor Blog at:  http://derekbruff.com/site/tomprof/

Folks:  Money, Happiness, and a Fulfilling Retirement You can't buy happiness.

With age 95 looming far into our future, most of us worry more about outliving our nest eggs than about leading a happy, fulfilling life. Now ten years into my retirement, I realize that focusing solely on financial planning is myopic. If you manage to save a lot of money for retirement, you may later discover that money can't buy happiness or a fulfilling life unless you have planned for it. Achieving happiness and a fulfilling life in retirement isn't easy. I know because I didn't plan for it, and I have only been partially successful.  

Use It or Lose It

Shortly after I retired, I listened to a lecture by my former internist, now a gerontologist. He underscored what he termed the "two keys to a long life." The first was, "Use it or lose it." The word "it," made infamous by former president Clinton, refers in this case to the mind and the body. According to Dr. Walter Bortz, research suggests that watching television is not the way to use your mind. Studies of brain waves show that TV viewing produces the same brain wave activity as staring at a blank wall. Unfortunately, I watch more TV than is mentally healthy because I enjoy watching movies, sporting events, and the news. Breaking this viewing habit remains a challenge for me.

For mental stimulation, I solve puzzles, read about politics and investing, and write books. In my first year of retirement, I wrote a memoir which I titled, "Looking in the Rearview Mirror." Wishing that I had known more about the lives of my father and mother, I thought my children and grandchildren would appreciate learning about mine. After my daughter read a draft, her only comment was, "Dad, it's all about you." Maybe, just maybe, she and her three brothers will some day come to appreciate that it was all about me. My next writing project focused on retirement planning and investing, topics that I thought might be beneficial to my children, grandchildren, and friends. Reading and trying to learn about topics that were foreign to me proved challenging and stimulating. My third book, A Problem-based Approach to Management Education, was written with a former student, Philip Hallinger, and built upon our previous work. I haven't yet decided on my next writing project.

To keep physically fit, I walk daily?usually 30-40 minutes, sometimes longer. Most of the time my companion is a Sony Walkman tuned to National Public Radio (NPR). Several years ago my wife and I hiked a lot, but her arthritis and bad feet limit her physical activity. Occasionally, I walk with a friend or a former student. Although I enjoy listening to NPR, I find it more enjoyable to walk and talk with someone else. Recently, I began to supplement my walking with a 25-minute exercise program Sit and Be Fit, which I recorded on my digital video recorder. Together, the walking and additional exercise have improved my emotional and physical well-being.

There are countless ways in which one can use it rather than lose it. I chose activities that I enjoy. To live a fulfilling life to 95, choose activities that you enjoy and provide a workout for your mind and your body. Spending all day in front of a TV screen does not fit the bill.

Make Yourself Useful, or What's the Job Description for the Rest of Your Life?

To drive home the second key to a long, fulfilling life, Dr. Bortz recounted an experience he had as a young lad. His grandfather owned a grocery store in rural Pennsylvania. From time to time young Walter visited the store and stood around hoping for some candy from his beloved grandfather. One day his grandfather looked at him and said, "Walter, make yourself useful." That comment stuck with him and has become a mantra for living his life.

To make yourself useful, consider volunteering. There is ample research evidence demonstrating the value of volunteering in promoting happiness, health, and longevity (see Harris & Thoresen, 2005). Serving others brings meaning to your life and rewards you with the "Helper's High." You can serve others through formal or informal volunteering. Apparently greater benefits occur to those who volunteer formally rather than informally. If this is the case, several of my friends have an edge on me. They are formal volunteers, whereas I am an informal one. A friend of mine grew up on a farm and developed a useful set of carpentry skills. When he retired from his professorship, he volunteered to build homes for Habitat for Humanity. Each year he supervises the construction of six to eight homes for the less fortunate. Another friend runs a men's group at his church and pursues his academic interests in health and psychology at a local university. A third is a retired college presiden  t who chaired a national campaign to raise money for cystic fibrosis, a  disease that afflicted his two granddaughters. He also chairs the board  of an art institute.

As for me, I never developed the habit of becoming a formal volunteer. For much of my life, I devoted my time to work and family. When I was 36, my concern for family heightened during a taxicab ride from O'Hare airport in Chicago. I engaged the cab driver in a conversation. He talked about his life. I learned that he had worked three jobs so that he could buy a home on Lake Michigan and cars for his wife and children. As a result, he spent little time with his family. In the end he was estranged from his kids, and his wife divorced him. His final comment had a profound effect on me, "I lost what I had, and what I had was more important than what I wanted." From that moment on I decided to devote even more time to my family. Consequently, I have a reasonably good relationship with my four children and have been happily married for more than 55 years. As my wife said on our Golden Wedding Anniversary, "We like as well as love each other." By emphasizing work and family, I negl  ected those activities that might have stood me in good stead as a  retiree, namely, volunteering and becoming active in social and church  groups.

My sense of usefulness derives mainly from helping former colleagues, friends, and my children with financial decisions that face them. Occasionally I speak to a group about retirement planning and work with individuals who are contemplating retirement. Though I feel reasonably competent to help others in making decisions about investments and retirement, I have discovered that many are reluctant to discuss their financial affairs with someone whom they know. From time to time former students come by my home and seek advice as they cope with a range of problems. Others phone me from distant places and use me as an executive coach. Still others drop by to talk and share what is going on in their lives. These activities nourish my spirit and afford me a taste of the "Helper's High."

If formal volunteering appeals to you, I suggest you develop the habit years before you retire. The transition to retirement will be easier. According to what I have learned, your skills and wisdom will more likely be welcomed if you have cemented yourself in the volunteer organization before you retire. Three good starting points for finding volunteer opportunities are listed below:

Administration on Aging http://www.aoa.gov (202) 619-0724. (Help older people in need.)

The National Retiree Volunteer Coalition (800) 899-0089 ext. 5091 (Work with universities and local governments.)   Senior Corps (800) 424-8867 (Helps seniors find opportunities in their local community.)

Additional Keys

My former internist overlooked two additional keys to living a happy, fulfilling, and long life in retirement: being socially connected and religiously involved. Putting all of your emotional eggs in one basket can be dangerous to your physical and mental well-being (Coontz, 2006). Retirees especially need to broaden their social connections, people whom they enjoy and in whom they confide. If your spouse is the only one with whom you discuss important matters, you will become socially isolated when that person dies or becomes incapacitated. That happened to a friend of mine's father; having no one else can be devastating. It is important to establish close social and emotional ties beyond your nuclear family. I am fortunate that I have several friends with whom I share my fears, concerns, and matters of personal import. Though I believe in God and try to lead a Christian life, I do not attend church regularly. Some of my friends have an edge on me because they attend church   regularly, and regular churchgoers tend to live longer than those who do  not.

As you think about retirement, factor into your thinking the need to plan for a long, happy, and fulfilling life. If your financial house is in order, you could benefit from adopting the philosophy of Milton W. Garland, an active centenarian and inventor. He said, "Live like you're going to live forever, not like you're going to die tomorrow."

TIP!

If you want to learn more about how to live a happy, fulfilling life, read Get a Life: You Don't Need a Million to Retire Well by Ralph Warner (2004). It will help you prepare for retirement better than any book that I have read.

Pension envy grows as boomers retire

I found this article By Jonathan Chevreau, Wealthy Boomer; Financial PostOctober 29, 2011, interesting.

There were several signs this week that pension envy - or pension apartheid - is alive and well in Canada and likely to intensify as Baby Boomers start retiring, or try to retire.

The great divide is between the lucky 20% in cushy public-sector defined-benefit pensions and the rest hoping to retire on fluctuating RRSPs or defined-contribution pensions.

On Wednesday, pension consultants Tower Watson said those with DC pensions can expect a pension freedom age approaching age 67 - two years beyond the traditional retirement age. And Statistics Canada reported 50-year-old Canadian workers can expect to work 16 more years, three years longer than in the 1990s.

The conspicuous exception to this trend is the minority who live in the protected "Bell Jar," to use a term from a new book from Wiley Canada, Pension Ponzi. It reports the average public-sector retirement age is a spry 59.

To match public-sector DB pensions, the rest of us would need $2million RRSPs, which is why the CD Howe Institute this week urged a lifetime contribution limit of just that figure.

The book's co-authors, Lee Fairbanks and Bill Tufts of the Fair Pensions for All blog, recap how Canada's public-sector unions won their members huge salaries "that far outstrip anything comparable in the private sector and incredibly generous pensions." The beneficiaries all rate chapters in the book: government workers and politicians, teachers, firefighters, police officers and the armed forces.

Rather than bring the 80% up to their level, Fairbanks and Tufts would make the Bell Jar less cushy. They liken the status quo to a "pension Ponzi scheme" that will eventually collapse. Despite the complacency of the 20%, Canada is a small country with a large ($1-trillion) public debt. The authors expect the chickens to come home to roost, as they have in Ireland and Greece.

It's true some non-unionized private-sector workers still have DB pensions but these are rarely the Cadillac inflation-indexed plans unions negotiated for the public sector. And the trend for large corporate employers is to close DB plans to new hires, switching to DC pensions, which - like RRSPs - lack the "defined" promise of a guaranteed monthly income in retirement.

While DC plans and RRSPs may do well in protracted bull markets the reality of the past decade has been the opposite. The result is what Towers Watson terms a "double whammy" for those not in DB plans.

You could argue all workers qualify for a public DB pension in the form of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). But average annual CPP benefits are $5,919, compared to $42,900 enjoyed by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP), a difference of seven times.

When I cast my envious eye at contemporaries retired in their fifties, invariably they joined DB pensions early in their careers and stuck it out. One couple has TWO teacher pensions.

But it's by no means certain these pensions can meet their obligations. The OTPP is $35-billion short. (The author may intend to imply the OTPP is in big trouble, read the next paragraphs for another perspective)

The following is from Sue at Boomer Bucks which has a different perspective than the previous statement

The envied defined benefit Ontario Teachers Pension Plan posted record income in 2010 above its target benchmarks during the year, but this was not enough to stop its funding deficit from growing to $17.2-billion from $17.1-billion, as liabilities outpaced assets.

Further impacting this plan, not only is the Boomer demographic now beginning to influence the liabilities but on average in 1990, retiring teachers received benefits for 25 years after working 29 years. Now, members draw a pension for 30 years, after working 26 years.

With low interest rates and a staggering and uncertain stock market, it will be impossible to eliminate shortfalls through investment returns alone and the retirement demographic is blooming with Boomers.

While this Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is solid for now, and can pay benefits for years, there will need to be a plan to ensure funding to pay pensions to the younger teachers decades from now.

Look no further than Greece to see how countries can default on public-sector paycheques and break pension promises

My thoughts and some others are this,  here we go again. Instead of acknowledging how unfairly to varying degrees workers in the private sector are frequently treated by their employers, how exploited they are in the name of profit since they are the most vulnerable component in the production process, these writers, like so many on the right spectrum of economics, once again choose to resent the just achievements of collective bargaining in both the private and public sector. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, armed forces, government workers: our esteemed authors - probably graduates of the CD Howe Institute of Right of Centre Economics - are saying they do not deserve their defined benefits pensions. Why? Because most of the private sector employees don't get the same sort of benefits. What bunk!

Okay, all you folks in the private sector without DB plans who feel that way do something about it by confronting your employers instead of resenting the negotiated achievements of collective bargaining. I know that's a tough thing to do when almost everyone in the private sector is in effect a just-in-time worker living in fear, who can be axed at any moment. You are instantly replaceable, and you know it. You feel powerless and your are, caught in the vicious web of capitalism. So join the occupy movement, wear a mask if you have to, and check out senior mangement's paycheck if you still want to feel envious and resentful.