What next?

Lets see what IS on my mind...oh the HYDRO is going up yet again. Another rate climb to match the date when they switch "time of day usage". It will be so much fun to have no fan, no classes, no nothing because the hydro will be:
Consumers will pay the steepest price for electricity, 13.5 cents kW/h, weekdays between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.
The on-peak power price is up 0.6 cents kW/h.

I wonder how uncomfortable it will be for seniors and disabled people this summer?
The rest of the rates are: — 7.5 cents kW/h, up 0.3 cents — in the overnight weekday hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and on all weekends and holidays.
The cost to use electricity on weekdays between 7-11 a.m. and 5-7 p.m. will be 11.2 cents kW/h, also an increase of 0.3 cents.
I get they want us to be energy conscious and efficient. WE in this family are. It just feels like they want more profits because people are being "energy conscious" and so they hike again...and again and again. Our family spends about 50-65 a month on hydro, and we find it too much. We restrict usage so much it feels more like a prison than a home. But still the rates climb and we are left holding the bag, restricting further etc.
I am not sure how much more we can restrict, so I'm going to do my part. Come May 1 I will try to be off the hydro during the daytime, using battery only at 1pm to talk to spouse. Then back off till night time. No fan either.
No courses, I wouldn't have the time to devote to them. Busfare in this city is not all that cheap so I won't be going anywhere. I'd just like to know what else Ontario Hydro would love us poor, seniors and disabled to do next.

Workhouses then and now

Watched an interesting movie lately about workhouses/poorhouses. These institutions existed once to shelter those with absolutely no money and no place to go. They were run by government and they made it their mission in life to make these poor folks feel like garbage for having to use the service.

Once you entered such a place your dignity was stripped, your family separated and they treated you to the meanest food and hardest labor, they wanted you to be "incentivized" to find "real work". Many who lived and worked in these places, died in these places.

I couldn't help but notice a few parallels as I watched. The idea that when a family goes to sign up for workfare, they give you the meanest amount of money they can, nothing to survive on, just enough to make you aware that you should be working a "real job". Not that the humiliation of going there isn't really an incentive on it's own, but they want to make sure you understand you are basically getting a handout, and since you are such a loser, they will treat you like one.

The only difference I can see is the shelter is not supplied today.

Lets check this off:

humiliate the poor and keep them so destitute they will take the meanest job (check)
make it impossible to get access to good nutritious food (check)
limit the poor to overcrowded conditions or poor housing (check)


I hear all the time that we can't trust those who are poor, they will just fritter those hard earned tax dollars away. How is this for fair?

I would gladly let them pay my rent for me directly and give me food stamps if it was enough to feed, and shelter my family while I am looking for work. Amazing how much dignity one can be willing to give up in order to make life better for their family.  Happily I would accept whatever voucher system was required to make things happen. It would definitely be better than having to choose between rent, hydro and food.

Now lets take a peek into something else: those in government, those people who say we are bums and good for nothings, they themselves receive over 100,000 a year in salary. Some of these people will actually get a pension/salary for the REST OF THEIR LIVES for having served as a politician. They would never have to work again since these pensions/salaries are so high but hey, they aren't leeches, they aren't getting government welfare after they lose their jobs are they? I think if some people think about it, they will see that the money they pay out to "retired" and politicians who have lost in their riding is a whole lot more than someone on assistance. The only difference is that the politicians can afford a nicer suit.

Perhaps one should think about who is saying things about the poor, and about what happened to the sense of charity that used to be so commonplace.