Poverty in Parliament?

[Keepitsimple]

If we are to effectively battle true poverty, we need to properly identify and reasonably measure it. Poverty is insidious - it often breeds the next generation of poverty and creates a cycle that is difficult to break. We need to break out of the pious rhetoric that has been spouted by Liberals (end poverty by 2000) and the NDP. We need to pragmatically address it - first by measuring and quanitifying and then developing policies that address the needs of those who are indeed, most in need.

....but here we go again. Stephane Dion, making policies on the fly, has started beating the Poverty drum. There has been a background din from poverty activists over the past 20 years or so - usually ebbing when Liberals are in power and rising to a crescendo when Conservatives gain the helm. As usual, poverty statistics are derived from Statistics Canada's Low Income Cutoff (LICO) - but even StatsCan warns not to use such statistics as an indication of poverty. One thing is for sure - if you can't effectively measure poverty, then you can't come up with a game-plan to tackle it properly....but similar to the heated opposition to Toronto's "counting the homeless" project that couldn't find more than five or six hundred homeless people living on the streets instead of the activist number of over 5000 (that's still not something to be proud of) - there has never been an accepted method of defining poverty - let along quantifying it. I would like to see our Federal Government put in place an all-party commission to do just that. As part of their mandate, I'd like to see the following issues addressed:

1) Differentiating poverty from being "economically challenged". One entails the basics to live, the other provides basic "extras" that allow a person to more effectively participate in society.

2) Defining a "starting age" for poverty. StatsCan includes anyone who files taxes - that can even be age 15 or 16. Certainly people who are 18 or 19 in minimum wage jobs are simply getting their feet wet on the road to better wages. Most still live at home or share lodging with friends. At what age do we consider them to be living in poverty? 20? 21? 25?

3) Refugees - of course these people - about 40,000 each and every year - will be classified as poor - they come to Canada with nothing and we support them while they find their way. Shouldn't they be excluded for a period of time? For how long? 3 years? 5 years?

4) Immigrants - while these people SHOULD be able to support themselves right away, we all know that this is not the case. Many are admitted through the family reunification process and don't necessarily have a predisposed method of support. How do we "count" this section of the population.

5) Seniors - my own mother is classified as poor - yet she has everthing that she needs and more. When you are 75, 80 or older, your lifestyle changes. Many accomodations are somewhat subsidized - clothing, transporation and entertainment needs are modest. How do we make adjustments in our "measurements" to take this reality into consideration?

6) On-reserve Indigenous people - we know there is a great deal of horrible poverty on reserves - but there are many reasons we have to identify this segment separately. There are levels of First Nations government and culture that put restraints on what can be done. Though we have to make every effort to work with First Nations to deal with on-reserve poverty, it should not be invisibly added to statistics for the sole purpose of swelling the numbers.

What do you think? Does any of this make sense to you?

Edited October 21, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Renegade]

If we are to effectively battle true poverty, we need to properly identify and reasonably measure it.

What issue do you have with the way poverty is measured?

Poverty is insidious - it often breeds the next generation of poverty and creates a cycle that is difficult to break.

Perhaps, the cycle of poverty can be broken if those in poverty avoid excerbating their poverty by having offspring which they cannot afford.

[Leafless]

Perhaps, the cycle of poverty can be broken if those in poverty avoid excerbating their poverty by having offspring which they cannot afford.

Oh, you must mean exacerbating.

Of course dear sir, this is an impossibility unless we scrap the Charter.

No?

[Renegade]

Oh, you must mean exacerbating.

Of course dear sir, this is an impossibility unless we scrap the Charter.

No?

I guess if you mean allowing the governement to have the power to dictate who is allowed to have children, then yes the Charter would need to be modified.

I was simply pointing out the the power to break the cycle of poverty was within the control of those who experience poverty.

[old_bold&cold]

While we can not stop the poor from having children, we can stop having the children raised in poverty. If we find a couple who just can not afford to pay for groceries, rent and clothes for their family, we can do as we now do, and that is pay them a subsidy so they can meet basic needs. But if we find that these people do not even try to get some sort of work that would allow them more money and less public assistance, then we should lok at having the children from this moved into a social service type arrangements for a year, and if there is still not hope for the parents to deliver a stable and healthy environment, the state should put the children up for adoption. Most of the couples who wnat babies to adopt would also adopt kids up to 4-8, if there has been no real mental issues.

It is sad that here today we have people who would gladly adopt children and raise them in good stable homes, with a healthy lifestyle, when we have many kids locked inot their parents own poverty and abuse cycles. It si not that there is not enough of demand from both sides in this but rather the goverment needs to lear that there is a tipping point, in helping thru social services and when it needs to step up as the state and say enough is enough. I know I would like to think that the numbers from each side would balance out all the needs, but I do know eventually we need to make people have enough self esteem, to make this a priority to them.

[Renegade]

While we can not stop the poor from having children,

If we were to resort to force, yeah we could. IMV part of accepting the responsibility of having children, is the responsibiliby of providing for them.

we can stop having the children raised in poverty.

Since it is the parents who choose to have children, it is they who bear the responsibility for having children raised in poverty. Why would we want to encourage such actions through subsidies?

[Keepitsimple]

The main point of my point is that we have never been able to define what poverty actually is. The Star, the NDP, and now the Liberals are behind inappropriate StatsCan numbers that say 6,000,000 (six million) Canadians are poor. In my original post, I've included categories of people who should within reason, not be part of the 6 million - a number that is outright ridiculous. And by the way - if someone is poor, does that mean they are living in poverty?....or does it mean they can't buy an Ipod for their child? My point is that if you can't define the problem, you can't properly measure any actionsw - nor can you develop effective policies.....all it does is give a continued platform to the babbling and hand-wringing that comes from people like Layton - and now Dion.....and all the while, there really are people who need our help.

[geoffrey]

Poverty in a country like Canada, barring physical or mental disability, is purely a choice.

[kengs333]

Poverty in a country like Canada, barring physical or mental disability, is purely a choice.

Wow, what a brilliant statement. Where did you learn this enlightened fact?

[geoffrey]

Wow, what a brilliant statement. Where did you learn this enlightened fact?

Quite simply the reality of Canada. Anyone can have a reasonable lifestyle if they want it. Those that don't, too bad for them.

We have limited resources. We need to be spending them on people that are actually sick (physical and mental) and not on those that are lazy or chronic system abusers.

[kengs333]

Quite simply the reality of Canada. Anyone can have a reasonable lifestyle if they want it. Those that don't, too bad for them.

We have limited resources. We need to be spending them on people that are actually sick (physical and mental) and not on those that are lazy or chronic system abusers.

I have an idea; why don't you go raise a couple million dollars and then start a company that will employ Canadians who need work and pay them a liveable wage. That will give you a few less "lazy or chronic system abusers" to complain about. Maybe if all your type in this country would do so, we wouldn't have the problems you're always complaining about.

[myata]

I have an idea; why don't you go raise a couple million dollars and then start a company that will employ Canadians who need work and pay them a liveable wage.

By "liveable wage" you, no doubt, mean something way above your average pizza or shop assistant help wage? Because those job are in quite good supply now, no need to invent bicycle. Upper teen kids of my friends, all who wanted at least, managed to secure some kind of job. I can't see why a Canadian who wants to find something, shouldn't, on average and barring some unfortunate personal circumstances, be able to.

So, for a wage way above entry / minimal level, would those Canadians need to demonstrate any special skill or ability? Or, they'll get fast track to better future while unworthy ones would have to take the hard way, from pizza jobs, through university and so on, to eventually catch up with the newly priviledged would be "poor"?

[Moxie]

I guess if you mean allowing the governement to have the power to dictate who is allowed to have children, then yes the Charter would need to be modified.

I was simply pointing out the the power to break the cycle of poverty was within the control of those who experience poverty.

Poverty is an Employment industry amongst the liberal left in Canada. When I was a University Student I worked nights and went to school during the day. I often existed on three hours sleep. I survived and thrived. Poverty is a circ cycle (Lotus math forumula), those who are raised in it often feel defeated and entitled to Social Assistance and they keep the circ logic and lifestyle alive. Our social programs are a problem, in many Europian Countries they found that eliminating the jobs of Social Workers and Social Welfare advocates and poverty decreased. An entire Government industry exist to aide those in poverty, it's in their best interest to keep the poor and unemployed poor and unemployed. If poverty were reduced they don't have jobs, ergo they keep the myth alive and well-the people who suffer matter not to them. However their comphy Federal/Provincial jobs for a lifetime are of utmost importance.

[Hydraboss]

I have an idea; why don't you go raise a couple million dollars and then start a company that will employ Canadians who need work and pay them a liveable wage. That will give you a few less "lazy or chronic system abusers" to complain about. Maybe if all your type in this country would do so, we wouldn't have the problems you're always complaining about.

Can't afford to. Too busy paying most of my disposable income to lazy bums that are in turn busy teaching their 13 kids how to scam the system to get more of my disposable income. If they would turn off the "Have a bunch of kids and whine a lot and then we'll fleece the taxpayer for more and pay you for everything" tap, I could afford to help some people out OF MY OWN ACCORD.

Due to the government stealing from me to give to the lazy and stupid, I refuse to voluntarily give one red cent to ANY charity except the Stollery Children's Hospital. The United Way can kiss my ass.

[geoffrey]

I have an idea; why don't you go raise a couple million dollars and then start a company that will employ Canadians who need work and pay them a liveable wage. That will give you a few less "lazy or chronic system abusers" to complain about. Maybe if all your type in this country would do so, we wouldn't have the problems you're always complaining about.

Working full-time at my local Superstore (IGA elsewhere I think) pays just under $40k a year. Work two jobs if you must to get your standard of living.

I went to University and lived on my own on just over $30k a year, in one of Canada's most expensive cities. It sucked, but proved worthwhile.

In Calgary, you can make $20 shoveling shit if you have to. Elsewhere it may be less but the cost of living is generally tied quite closely to hard labour type jobs.

If you can work in Canada, and aren't, it's your choice. If you can't make enough and are only working one job, that too is a choice. If you smoke, drink or eat anything other than KD, your living beyond your means. If welfare has to exist, it should come with a zero tobacco, mandatory alcohol and drug testing caveat. And should be your monthly rent and bills plus $100 for food. I did that for a month. Kinda sucked. But that's because I wanted something nice while struggling through school.

I've seen people live off McDonald's jobs, it's not nice, but it's possible. And there are plenty of them. If you choose not to move to them, that too is your choice.

I should not pay for the poor choices of others, that's the bottom line.

[kengs333]

By "liveable wage" you, no doubt, mean something way above your average pizza or shop assistant help wage? Because those job are in quite good supply now, no need to invent bicycle. Upper teen kids of my friends, all who wanted at least, managed to secure some kind of job. I can't see why a Canadian who wants to find something, shouldn't, on average and barring some unfortunate personal circumstances, be able to.

So, for a wage way above entry / minimal level, would those Canadians need to demonstrate any special skill or ability? Or, they'll get fast track to better future while unworthy ones would have to take the hard way, from pizza jobs, through university and so on, to eventually catch up with the newly priviledged would be "poor"?

What a liveable wage is should be self-evident. No person should have to live in poverty working full-time, or even two or three jobs, but that's the way Mr. I-hate-lazy-bums has to have it because a) he wants his conveniences cheap, b ) people that are lesser than him have no right rasing themselves up. That's the way it is. People who are well off hate poorer people, but they hate it when poorer people surpass them. Being able to find a job depends on a number of factors, and if there are no jobs to be had, there are no jobs to be had. Of course for rich kids it's always easy; mom or dad, aunt or uncle, some family member or friend always has something for them; they get the advantage and build on it, something that many people don't get, and then twenty years down the road they've convinced themselves that all their hard work got them where they're at and people that are lesser than them, don't have what they have are somehow "lazy".

Edited October 27, 2007 by kengs333

[daniel]

Sometimes it's not a choice. Have you read Jan Wong's "Maid for a Month" article in the Globe and Mail?

[kengs333]

Working full-

I should not pay for the poor choices of others, that's the bottom line.

Absolutely nothing in your thread deals with what I stated; let's see you start a business--do you even have the ability to do something like that?--and employ people who need work and actually do something instead of just mouthing off. If it's so easy for others to just hop to it and start attaining things that may be beyond them, then let's see you do. Don't you want to earn more money? Wouldn't you like to have twice as much money as you do now. Go get another job or find a higher paying job right now. This is Canada, you should be able to do it if you want to. If you don't, then that just shows that you're lazy, too.

Edited October 27, 2007 by kengs333

[Hydraboss]

I was never a "rich kid"...not even close. And my hard work DID get me where I am. Would I like to make twice as much as I do now? Sure, why not. Do I need to? Not even a little. You're right. I am lazy. I used to work 7 days a week 52 weeks a year and never saw my kids.

Newsflash!!!! Because I worked my ass off, I can take it relatively easy now. "Nobody done never gived me nuttin'".

Why the hell would I want the headache of employing a bunch of deadbeats? I look after about 1200 of them now, and it's not my company. Of course, those deadbeats make $50-$70k a year when they want to.

Doesn't matter anyway...the problem isn't a lack of jobs....it's a lack of workers. Unemployed in this country are lazy. Period.

[kengs333]

I was never a "rich kid"...not even close. And my hard work DID get me where I am. Would I like to make twice as much as I do now? Sure, why not. Do I need to? Not even a little. You're right. I am lazy. I used to work 7 days a week 52 weeks a year and never saw my kids.

Newsflash!!!! Because I worked my ass off, I can take it relatively easy now. "Nobody done never gived me nuttin'".

Why the hell would I want the headache of employing a bunch of deadbeats? I look after about 1200 of them now, and it's not my company. Of course, those deadbeats make $50-$70k a year when they want to.

Doesn't matter anyway...the problem isn't a lack of jobs....it's a lack of workers. Unemployed in this country are lazy. Period.

The problem with this country is people like you. Please stay in Alberta where you belong.

[Hydraboss]

I'll be glad to stay in my country, if you promise to keep people like you out of it. Want any of your welfare bums back?

[myata]

What a liveable wage is should be self-evident. No person should have to live in poverty ...

As OP said, that depends very much on one's interpretation of "liveable" and "poverty". Maybe, we're already there (by and large)? Numbers, please.

Anyways, as numerous examples show, handout is not a solution. Education and practical help in trying to find a better lifestyle, would be much more efficient. But it'll take time. And will never be 100% guaranteed.

[myata]

I agree with the general idea of the OP, in what if we're serious about addressing at least some issues, we should stop using broad (and for that reason, lacking specific meaning) terms and attempt to understand causes of problem. In my view, here and now, in Canada, all that can be broadly defined as causes of "poverty" should be classified in more specific categories, such as e.g.:

- permanent disability and / or old age;

- temporary income challenges (entering work force, immigration, between jobs, etc);

- lifestyle / choice/ personal attitudes

Now poverty itself should be defined as inability to access basic life necessities; lower income per ce does not mean poverty as long as it's sufficient to acquire basic necessities.

Now, only from looking at the causes of poverty, it's instantly becomes obvious that there will be no single simple solution (and quite likely, no absolute and permanent solution either).

While #1 and 2 can be addressed via an array of social policies (OA / disability assistance / EI / youth programs / social assistance) - not meaning to say, always sufficient and adequate, but then it's a matter of adjusting the policy, the last one is much harder to crack.

We base policies here on the assumption of individual freedom. Individuals are free to make choices. And poor choices can, potentially, make them poor (pun not intended). E.g if somebody decides to blow, each week, $ 20 on beer, $ 30 on cigarettes, $ 10 on lottery tickets and $20 on fast food, that would be the equivalent of adequate and nutritional monthly supply of food for the entire familty. Giving another $100 per week won't help much as those may get blown on CDs and movies. And so on. Short of "institutionalization" (anyone?), poor choices will always be made. "Ending poverty" is really a utopia.

That's not to say that nothing could (and should) be done. I'd like to see more specific targeted programs to help those, who are interested to make a change, with specific concrete help. Such as training, child care, and so on. But it's a great naivety to think that by some swoop of a magic wand people can be made to turn their minds around and come reborne anew. And short of such magic (or call it mind control?) the enterprise does not look very promising.

[old_bold&cold]

To me a living wage which is not poverty, is when you can pay for the rent with one weeks pay, and the groceries for the month with another weeks pay. That would leave you 50% of your earnings for things like clothes and entertainment, transportation and insurance etc. That would be a good living wage. If you live in an area where rents for most apartments are $1,000.00 then you would need to make approx $1,000.00 per week. But if you live where rents are $600.00 then you wouldf need $600.00 per week This is at the gros pay before taxes etc. If you then have a spouse who works it should be to the addition of this rate, not to be taken as the combined rate.

If we followed this more closely we would find that people would start families sooner and have more children, which in its self is good for the economy.

[geoffrey]

Absolutely nothing in your thread deals with what I stated; let's see you start a business--do you even have the ability to do something like that?--and employ people who need work and actually do something instead of just mouthing off. If it's so easy for others to just hop to it and start attaining things that may be beyond them, then let's see you do.

I have done that. I'm in my early twenties and own a home and a European car with a sizeable disposable income. I have materially attained what my parents didn't until their 40's. All through responsible choices.

Why? Because I earned it. I worked full time through university (still am), fought hard for the position I'm in now. It was my choices that got me where I'm at, not connections, not parent's money. Choices. I choose to work 60 hours after classes (a B.Comm isn't exactly a cakewalk either) instead of drinking everynight at the bar like my classmates. It sucked for a bit, but I get to enjoy that responsbile choice now.

Don't you want to earn more money? Wouldn't you like to have twice as much money as you do now. Go get another job or find a higher paying job right now.

I actually just applied for a few that look promising, a little higher paying. Then again, making twice the average national income in your twenties is pushing the upper limits of reasonability. I like to ski on the weekends in the winter and ride my bike everyday weather permitting. I don't really feel like working more than full-time anymore. But I don't whine about what I have. And I certainly have never used a social program to get anything I 'want.'

I'm no brainchild either, wasn't never above average by any means in school. I just always saw business and work as a priority and pushed hard to get there. Most importantly, I always took responsibility for my choices rather than pointing at society and saying "no fair."

This is Canada, you should be able to do it if you want to. If you don't, then that just shows that you're lazy, too.

Agreed. I have what I want and I do what I want. It's fantastic. God bless Canada and how it rewards choices.