Income gap widens between Canada's rich and poor, OECD study says

jdobbin · October 21, 2008

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...xYTA1q9R7ipHcrQ

The gap between the rich and poor in Canada widened significantly in a recent 10-year period partly because Ottawa spent less on cash benefits than many other developed countries, the OECD says.
It was a reversal of the trend in the two previous decades when the gap was narrowing, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development said in a report.

The report said both Canada's poverty and income inequality rates spiked between 1995 and 2005 until they both exceeded the 30-member organization's average.

I think that is pretty clear evidence that Liberal cuts in the 1990s had significant impact on lower income people.

Vancouver King · October 21, 2008

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...xYTA1q9R7ipHcrQ
I think that is pretty clear evidence that Liberal cuts in the 1990s had significant impact on lower income people.

This is the issue no one wants to touch except the NDP. Oh sure, Liberals always campaign from the left but once in power promptly forget their promises to eradicate child poverty and the plight of the poor. Tories, of course wear the misery of the marginalized as evidence of their political destiny.

Only when widows and orphans beg for loonies on street corners will this problem be seriously addressed.

Argus · October 22, 2008

This is the issue no one wants to touch except the NDP. Oh sure, Liberals always campaign from the left but once in power promptly forget their promises to eradicate child poverty and the plight of the poor. Tories, of course wear the misery of the marginalized as evidence of their political destiny.
Only when widows and orphans beg for loonies on street corners will this problem be seriously addressed.

Oh please. What utter drivel.

First, we will always have "poverty" because poverty is measured as some arbitrary distance from the median. In other words, if most people in Canada lived in mansions and had chauffeur driven limos, the guy living in the 5 bedroom, $400k house in the suburbs making only $100k per year would be listed as living below the poverty line.

Second, the distinction between Left and Right is not that the Left cares about the poor but the Right does not. The Left believes you address poverty by taking money away from other people and giving it to the poor. The Right believe that by creating a good economic climate where there are jobs aplenty, and providing free education and skills training, anyone with the drive and motivation to succeed will be able to get out of poverty. The Left does not care whether people have drive or motivation, does not care why they are poor, does not care if they're lazy or prefer to get drunk and party. The Left just wants to give them all money - which it takes from those who work hard and earn it.

marksman · October 22, 2008

Oh please. What utter drivel.
First, we will always have "poverty" because poverty is measured as some arbitrary distance from the median. In other words, if most people in Canada lived in mansions and had chauffeur driven limos, the guy living in the 5 bedroom, $400k house in the suburbs making only $100k per year would be listed as living below the poverty line.

Second, the distinction between Left and Right is not that the Left cares about the poor but the Right does not. The Left believes you address poverty by taking money away from other people and giving it to the poor. The Right believe that by creating a good economic climate where there are jobs aplenty, and providing free education and skills training, anyone with the drive and motivation to succeed will be able to get out of poverty. The Left does not care whether people have drive or motivation, does not care why they are poor, does not care if they're lazy or prefer to get drunk and party. The Left just wants to give them all money - which it takes from those who work hard and earn it.

The study wasn't about eliminating poverty. It was about the gap between poor and rich. As long as you always use the same definition of poverty then each time you do a comparison you'll be able to see if the gap is growing or not. A widening gap creates problems for countries.

The poverty definition isn't based only on Canada either. It's based on the OECD median which makes it a bit more realistic. But the definition of poverty has always been controversial. In Canada differing definitions have allowed governments to claim a reduction in poverty from previous governments even though the only thing that changed was how poverty was defined.

Your distinction between left and right is as simplistic as the 1 you argued against. If the right creates skills training and free education programs where do you think that money comes from? Taxpayers who work hard and earn it. If the right only focusses on jobs then they also don't care why people are poor. Having education and skills training doesn't help a poor person who can't afford to stop working their low paying job because they're barely making ends meet for their family. Your distinction seems to assume that poor people who can't better their conditions even if there is skills training available must be lazy or more interested in getting drunk.

We shouldn't be paying for freeriders. But poverty is a complex problem that requires more than just looking at the number of jobs available or skills training programs out there.

Argus · October 22, 2008

If the right only focusses on jobs then they also don't care why people are poor. Having education and skills training doesn't help a poor person who can't afford to stop working their low paying job because they're barely making ends meet for their family. Your distinction seems to assume that poor people who can't better their conditions even if there is skills training available must be lazy or more interested in getting drunk.
We shouldn't be paying for freeriders. But poverty is a complex problem that requires more than just looking at the number of jobs available or skills training programs out there.

Why is it government's responsibility to hold people's hands and urge them to improve their lives? If people are too stupid, or lack the drive or motivation to suceed, then why does government have to insist they change their behaviour? I made some dumb decisions when I was young, including dropping out of high school in grade nine. Nobody held my hand. It was up to me to decide I didn't like the result, take advantage of the programs available to get myself educated, get some skills training, and then plug away at jobs which were progressively less crappy and better paying. If others aren't willing to put in that effort why should I forfeit my money to them?

marksman · October 22, 2008

Why is it government's responsibility to hold people's hands and urge them to improve their lives? If people are too stupid, or lack the drive or motivation to suceed, then why does government have to insist they change their behaviour? I made some dumb decisions when I was young, including dropping out of high school in grade nine. Nobody held my hand. It was up to me to decide I didn't like the result, take advantage of the programs available to get myself educated, get some skills training, and then plug away at jobs which were progressively less crappy and better paying. If others aren't willing to put in that effort why should I forfeit my money to them?

Once again you've assumed that the only reason someone can't improve their situation is because they're stupid or lazy. And you wonder why some people believe the myth that the right doesn't care about poor people.

If someone's got to spend all their time and money caring for their family and working a low paying job they don't have the resources to take advantage of programs. Going to a skills program takes time which some people need to either make money to make ends meet or to care for their families. And that's just 1 example.

1 size doesn't fit all when it comes to poverty. I'm glad you had the chance to improve your situation. Some people don't get that chance. I don't think it's a big sacrifice for those who're successful to help those who need help. People shouldn't be punished because a simplistic solution to a complex problem doesn't work.

Renegade · October 22, 2008

A widening gap creates problems for countries.

Please explain what problems it creates? Class envy or something more?

Oleg Bach · October 22, 2008

Please explain what problems it creates? Class envy or something more?

There is no class contained in those that imagine themselves as the upper class. What's happening now as far as money being a social lubricant is that their is the grit of greed in the machinery. It's like the proverbial lamp covered by a basket and their is no light coming down on the city or the people...Imagine a nuclear power plant that has leads running in and is packed with a tremendous amount of energy and POWER! Now imagine that power plant with out wires leading out - It is pretty much useless..this is our dilema at this point in time - We all realize that as Ross Pereau said a number of years ago - that there is a "sucking sound' of all the wealth going up into the stratusphere to one tenth of one per cent of the population - internationally.

The situation is that power for powers sake is not power - power is the generation of power - a mutural contract between the holders of the hoard and those that actually generated what is now common lucre - or plunder...The money is simply not moving and those in control can not bare to part with it - Imagine you dedicate your whole life to the accumulation of money - then the accumulation of power - once you have it you grind to a hault...this is serious - those that are in control of the cash supply can not bare to part with a penny - and if money is not moving or active then it becomes worthless...that's what I see - money without purpose - but - can we instill a social benevolence in the hearts and minds of the super rich..where for them it is not about money but about complete and utter control of the population...not likely...it is human nature to be a pig..sadly.

marksman · October 22, 2008

Please explain what problems it creates? Class envy or something more?

That's a huge question which I can't pretend I'm an expert on. But here's a place to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ineq...s_of_inequality

Class envy may be part of it but the effects of that're more than simply saying someone is jealous of someone else. Greater economic inequality seems to lead to less trust in a society and to more crime. Studies focus on homicide since it's defined almost the same in a lot of countries and the results seem pretty clear that homicide rates are lower in countries with better economic equality. It's seen that lower socioeconomic status means worse health. If the gap between rich and poor are growing because more people are getting poorer then this has implications for healthcare. Discussion about economic utility are interesting with respect to a widening gap. 1 dollar is generally worth more to a poor person than to a rich person so a society with big income gaps could be seen as less efficient or has less utility. These gaps aren't all bad. Some inequality seems necessary to act as an incentive for people. Which is probably good since we'll probably never eliminate inequality. But promoting this aspect has its own problems it appears that inequality's got a negative effect on economic growth.

That's a bit of a summary of the page and I'm sure there's more out there.

Oleg Bach · October 22, 2008

No one with any sense would be jealous of a person in control of billions of dollars - once you know the origin of the wealth - all envy falls away - Most fortunes were originally made though booze - opium - and war supplies - not to mention legal loan sharking - I have no envy of those in high places - I have no idols that I worship... :unsure: :rolleyes: :lol: ....class envy is not a highly developed social attribute...only those of limited knowledge and intellect envy - One must know who you are..That YOU are important and that a bum on the street is just as important as the highest CEO ..that approach is mature and wise.

Argus · October 22, 2008

Once again you've assumed that the only reason someone can't improve their situation is because they're stupid or lazy. And you wonder why some people believe the myth that the right doesn't care about poor people.

Aside from people with physical or intellectual handicaps, most people on poverty row are there because of their own bad choices and decisions. They chose to have a baby without being able to pay for it, they chose to drop out of school and do drugs, they chose to break the law - or they're simply too lazy to bother to work, or to learn a skill. Much easier to get drunk and party.

If someone's got to spend all their time and money caring for their family and working a low paying job they don't have the resources to take advantage of programs

If you're in that low paying a job the government will pay you to take skills training and you'll make just as much. As for those on welfare "looking after a family" by which you mean "women looking after the kids they had with that long haired freak with the tatoos who took off" that too is a decision they made. Why should I be fined for it?

I don't think it's a big sacrifice for those who're successful to help those who need help. People shouldn't be punished because a simplistic solution to a complex problem doesn't work.

I am helping them. I'm paying for the food they eat, the home they're living in and the clothes on their back. That seems sufficient to me.

Kitch · October 22, 2008

First, we will always have "poverty" because poverty is measured as some arbitrary distance from the median. In other words, if most people in Canada lived in mansions and had chauffeur driven limos, the guy living in the 5 bedroom, $400k house in the suburbs making only $100k per year would be listed as living below the poverty line.

What an ignorant thing to say. I'm confident the kids in my classes that arrive at school hungry would be offended by your comment.

Riverwind · October 22, 2008

I'm confident the kids in my classes that arrive at school hungry would be offended by your comment.

And how many of them are hungry because parents put buying booze or cigarrettes ahead of buying food for the kids?

Kitch · October 22, 2008

Aside from people with physical or intellectual handicaps, most people on poverty row are there because of their own bad choices and decisions. They chose to have a baby without being able to pay for it, they chose to drop out of school and do drugs, they chose to break the law - or they're simply too lazy to bother to work, or to learn a skill. Much easier to get drunk and party.
If you're in that low paying a job the government will pay you to take skills training and you'll make just as much. As for those on welfare "looking after a family" by which you mean "women looking after the kids they had with that long haired freak with the tatoos who took off" that too is a decision they made. Why should I be fined for it?

I am helping them. I'm paying for the food they eat, the home they're living in and the clothes on their back. That seems sufficient to me.

Wow bud, you are ignorant.

People who are poor are so due to disabilities or choice? No other reasons are possible? What's going to happen to all the employees of auto plants after they close? Sure some of them will be able to find jobs, but not all of them. And if they do, they won't necessarily pay as much. Perhaps they HAD the means to take care of their kids until circumstances changed.

Sure you're helping (mind you, obviously not by choice), but you're also spitting in the face of those that need help.

Edited.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Kitch

Kitch · October 22, 2008

And how many of them are hungry because parents put buying booze or cigarrettes ahead of buying food for the kids?

Perhaps some. Are you implying that it's a rule that if a kid is hungry the parents are degenerates?

I am amazed at the lack of empathy and closed mindedness of some of you.

A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,

We bid be quiet when we hear it cry;

But were we burdened with like weight of pain,

As much or more we should ourselves complain.

William Shakespeare

Alta4ever · October 22, 2008

Wow bud, you are ignorant.
People who are poor are so due to disabilities or choice? No other reasons are possible? What's going to happen to all the employees of auto plants after they close? Sure some of them will be able to find jobs, but not all of them. And if they do, they won't necessarily pay as much. Perhaps they HAD the means to take care of their kids until circumstances changed.

Sure you're helping (mind you, obviously not by choice), but you're also spitting in the face of those that need help.

Fuck you bud.

Why so much profanity?

There is one thing that this news artical has missed and I would love to see the numbers for this. Has the number of people living in poverty gone up or down? This artical doesn't address this. Question 2 why is bad the people are doing better for themselves, why should we take this away from them, we should maybe have a study on why these people are doing better, and contrast that against why the there is a widing gap instead of the emotional driven lunacy perpetuated in this thread.

Kitch · October 22, 2008

Why so much profanity?
There is one thing that this news artical has missed and I would love to see the numbers for this. Has the number of people living in poverty gone up or down? This artical doesn't address this. Question 2 why is bad the people are doing better for themselves, why should we take this away from them, we should maybe have a study on why these people are doing better, and contrast that against why the there is a widing gap instead of the emotional driven lunacy perpetuated in this thread.

Not SOO much profanity. Reason being:

"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine"

Unfortunately, it seems that some not only do not tremble at injustice, they are unable to perceive it.

It's not bad if people are doing well. Claiming class envy is too simplistic. I'm no economist, but when companies are losing money yet the CEOs are 'earning' greater and greater salaries something is wrong... and unjust. Proponents of free market capitalism often refer to Adam Smith. Was it not he who made a statement about the wage diversity within a company? I'm curious... what did he believe was a reasonable amount for the top dog in a company to earn?

Riverwind · October 22, 2008

Perhaps some. Are you implying that it's a rule that if a kid is hungry the parents are degenerates?

I am saying that there is a strong correlation. Trying to pretend that there is not does not help us make policy choices. In fact, anti-poverty programs that do not take addiction problems into account will invariably enable the addict and make the problem worse. Edited October 22, 2008 by Riverwind

Alta4ever · October 22, 2008

Not SOO much profanity. Reason being:
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine"

Unfortunately, it seems that some not only do not tremble at injustice, they are unable to perceive it.

It's not bad if people are doing well. Claiming class envy is too simplistic. I'm no economist, but when companies are losing money yet the CEOs are 'earning' greater and greater salaries something is wrong... and unjust. Proponents of free market capitalism often refer to Adam Smith. Was it not he who made a statement about the wage diversity within a company? I'm curious... what did he believe was a reasonable amount for the top dog in a company to earn?

After this recession, you will see shareholders not put up with the golden parachute which you are refering to and capitalism will take care of it in a hurry with more vengance then could be regulated.

Kitch · October 23, 2008

After this recession, you will see shareholders not put up with the golden parachute which you are refering to and capitalism will take care of it in a hurry with more vengance then could be regulated.

I hope so. But, isn't that supposed to be the case in a truly free market? That it will correct itself (not that I'm confident that would happen... people with a lot of money have the ability to control circumstances to their advantage)? But this is not a free market... it's a mixed market. So the amount of regulation that is already in place has changed the game. Either we can release all regulation and let capitalism have at it, or we have to do something to prevent (what some would refer to as) human nature from taking unearned pieces of the pie.

Alta4ever · October 23, 2008

I hope so. But, isn't that supposed to be the case in a truly free market? That it will correct itself (not that I'm confident that would happen... people with a lot of money have the ability to control circumstances to their advantage)? But this is not a free market... it's a mixed market. So the amount of regulation that is already in place has changed the game. Either we can release all regulation and let capitalism have at it, or we have to do something to prevent (what some would refer to as) human nature from taking unearned pieces of the pie.

I think you will be surprised what will come of this, I have been to a couple of AGMs for some of the fun management companies in Canada, I can tell you that the minute that investors see this kind of crap going on they will put the screws to the board of directors, or even replace them. Once bitten twice shy. Most of these dhareholders have already been bitten in the US. Things should get interesting after the forth quarter results are released.

marksman · October 23, 2008

Aside from people with physical or intellectual handicaps, most people on poverty row are there because of their own bad choices and decisions. They chose to have a baby without being able to pay for it, they chose to drop out of school and do drugs, they chose to break the law - or they're simply too lazy to bother to work, or to learn a skill. Much easier to get drunk and party.

Your world must be so nice to live in where everyone can be slotted into such simplistic categories. You've said yourself that you made dumb decisions in the past. How would you feel if you weren't able to correct those decisions? Why is it you feel the need to keep someone down even if they're willing to work hard but just need some help? Poverty is too complex a problem to take a 1 size fits all approach. Poor people can't be divided into the 2 categories of people who're lazy and people who're disabled.

Why should I be fined for it?
I am helping them. I'm paying for the food they eat, the home they're living in and the clothes on their back. That seems sufficient to me.

Your me first approach is commendable. It's also selfdefeating. If you're paying for those things now then why wouldn't you want to deal with poverty in an effective way so that you can stop paying for those things? Dealing with individuals can help more people so that taxpayers don't have to keep paying for them.

Kitch · October 23, 2008

I am saying that there is a strong correlation. Trying to pretend that there is not does not help us make policy choices. In fact, anti-poverty programs that do not take addiction problems into account will invariably enable the addict and make the problem worse.

I don't mean to sound facetious but I am unaware of a study that finds a correlation between hungry kids and degenerate parents. Pretending that this correlation exists when it might not doesn't help either.

The problem that you say will get worse is that poor people will get more poor?

I know that by 'problem' you're referring to the poor people who take advantage of social assistance... what does that have to do with the income gap?

Alta4ever · October 23, 2008

I don't mean to sound facetious but I am unaware of a study that finds a correlation between hungry kids and degenerate parents. Pretending that this correlation exists when it might not doesn't help either.
The problem that you say will get worse is that poor people will get more poor?

I know that by 'problem' you're referring to the poor people who take advantage of social assistance... what does that have to do with the income gap?

I was thinking more about this artical, and they didn't study what was contributing to the growth of this and which numbers are moving where and what the bench mark is. Theie is a lot of info missing from this news story. Sometimes the MSM really drives me nuts, its time consuming to try and find these studies to find out what the hard data is really saying and not the position the reporter has taken and the facts that they want to report.

marksman · October 23, 2008

There is one thing that this news artical has missed and I would love to see the numbers for this. Has the number of people living in poverty gone up or down? This artical doesn't address this. Question 2 why is bad the people are doing better for themselves, why should we take this away from them, we should maybe have a study on why these people are doing better, and contrast that against why the there is a widing gap instead of the emotional driven lunacy perpetuated in this thread.

The article didn't really miss those things. The study was only looking at the gap between rich and poor it wasn't saying it dealt with every issue related to poverty.

But those are questions that need to be asked in order to come up with a realistic view of what's happening. 1 problem I think I mentioned before is that different governments have used different definitions of poverty to show the number of poor people going up or down.

I'd say it isn't bad that people are doing well for themselves and it isn't necessarily about taking from them. But if the gap keeps widening then that means we aren't doing enough to help lower income Canadians keep up or take advantage of growing economies.

The only emotional driven lunacy I've seen here is the need for some people to blame the victim. We can admit there're freeriders in the system without assuming everyone who's poor must be disabled or freeriding. You'd think when faced with problems like kids going hungry we'd want to help but instead some people feel that all we need to do is point at the parents and blame them. It doesn't help anyone but I guess it makes some people feel superior.