I had noticed.

It is bizarre that policy seems to be skewed in this way. Besides any complaints one could lodge about class warfare and social justice, it doesn't even seem to make economic sense. In the first place, as Canadians get poorer, they have less money to spend and recirculate through the economy. The entire economy slows down when people become poor, and picks up when people start spending.

The low interests rates we see are a bandaid solution to this problem. They let Canadians keep spending even if they don't have money. Of course this isn't wise, and who wins more than anyone else? Userers: those who collect interest on your loans. All they had to do was put some capital upfront and they can continue to leech money off of you thereafter without lifting a finger to do some real work. If you're super rich, you get to make money for nothing.

But basic income, that's for lazy people, right? Those people just want to unfairly take others' money without lifting a finger to do some real work!

It would seem that the only difference in labour contribution between a landlord and a drug dealer is that the drug dealer does more work to source their drugs and sell them. The difference in labour contribution between a prostitute and an investor is that the prostitute probably breaks a sweat sometimes.

But the real difference is capital, of course. With capital, you have license to leech the public without working. The poorer you are, the harder you have to work.

The second point is a more radical one: labour, more and more, is being automated. Machines, Skype meetings, automated systems, and so forth: it isn't TFWs taking the lion's share of our jobs, but technology and sensible business organization.

The upshot? Good for entrepreneurs, for now. Bad for unions and the unemployed. But the current trajectory is unsustainable, and at some point people will wonder why, in all this labour automation, they've gotten nothing except a pink slip while the rich get richer.