[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Free money is hard to pass up.  But if you can only be there 9 years and the pension isnt great you have to weigh that against the earning potential you are giving up not just during those 9 years but also the years following that.  The Canadian Senate doesnt exactly lend itself to immediate job prospects after the term is over.

I suppose if one was very energetic you might make a name for yourself during your nine year stint so that your experience might open some doors but that seems a pretty poor substitute for simply being that energetic in the private sphere which would result in more money and more opportunites at the end of the same 9 year period.

This is really a post for people that are ready to retire.  Like Jos.

130k$ a year is considered very good in Quebec.   I'd take it.  9 years now, I study part time in Ottawa during the time, get back to work before I hit 50, 23 400$ for the rest of my life... yeah, I'd take it.

[Grey Fox]

I don't think I have an earning potential of anything around 100k/year for the rest of my life.

[Josephus]

Free money is hard to pass up.  But if you can only be there 9 years and the pension isnt great you have to weigh that against the earning potential you are giving up not just during those 9 years but also the years following that.  The Canadian Senate doesnt exactly lend itself to immediate job prospects after the term is over.

I suppose if one was very energetic you might make a name for yourself during your nine year stint so that your experience might open some doors but that seems a pretty poor substitute for simply being that energetic in the private sphere which would result in more money and more opportunites at the end of the same 9 year period.

This is really a post for people that are ready to retire.  Like Jos.

130k$ a year is considered very good in Quebec.   I'd take it.  9 years now, I study part time in Ottawa during the time, get back to work before I hit 50, 23 400$ for the rest of my life... yeah, I'd take it.

$130Ks a year is considered very good everywhere. Not everyone is a lawyer.

[crazy canuck]

$130Ks a year is considered very good everywhere. Not everyone is a lawyer.

Yes, there are people everywhere that make less than 130k/year.  But in all urban areas and a lot of non urban areas there are also lots of non lawyers who make more than that.  For that second group of people it would not make much sense to become a senator during the prime of their working lives.

[Jacob]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers in government, do we?

[crazy canuck]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers in government, do we?

I think you misread my post.

[Josephus]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers  do we?

FYP

[Malthus]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers in government, do we?

Yes, we are much too valuable to waste as time-serving parasites in the Canadian Senate. 

[Jacob]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers in government, do we?

I think you misread my post.

Nah, I just focused on parts of it rather than the whole

[crazy canuck]

I think that's alright. We don't really need more lawyers in government, do we?

I think you misread my post.

Nah, I just focused on parts of it rather than the whole

I find your response rather confusing since I specifically referred to non lawyers making more than 130k a year.  What "whole" did you get lawyers from?

[Jacob]

Nah, I just focused on parts of it rather than the whole

I find your response rather confusing since I specifically referred to non lawyers making more than 130k a year.  What "whole" did you get lawyers from?
[/quote]

The "also".

[crazy canuck]

Nah, I just focused on parts of it rather than the whole

I find your response rather confusing since I specifically referred to non lawyers making more than 130k a year.  What "whole" did you get lawyers from?

The "also".
[/quote]

The also refers to there being people that also make more than 130,000.  The only reason you are reading any reference to lawyers in that post is because you want to find it there.

[Jacob]

The "also".

The also refers to there being people that also make more than 130,000.  The only reason you are reading any reference to lawyers in that post is because you want to find it there.
[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I wanted to make a point about lawyers in reference to the exchange you had with Josephus ("not everyone are lawyers" to which you replied in part with "also non-lawyers who make more than that").

You were taking the conversation away from lawyers. I ignored your intention and spoke about lawyers, and that was indeed deliberate. That said, I don't think it's entirely spurious to see lawyers in your post since you use the word (even if it has a "non-" in front of it), and when it's in response to a post about lawyers

[crazy canuck]

So why not just have your conversation with Jos if you are just going to ignore what I actually said.

[Jacob]

So why not just have your conversation with Jos if you are just going to ignore what I actually said.

I don't want to exclude you from the conversation