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

[marksman]

Er, No one should have a child if they can't afford to provide food or shelter.

It's a wonderful sentiment. Ideally people would plan to have children when their finances are in order and all that. But it's not reality. Some people make mistakes or poor choices. In other cases life intervenes and what used to be a financially sound situation changes. No matter the reason I don't think our society should be breaking up families. We should be helping them to stay together and get back on their feet.

Statements like yours do nothing to help and don't reflect reality.

[Kitch]

Again, "link" doesn't mean "cause".

But it can. And your assertion doesn't speak to the likelihood of a cause/effect relationship either. This is one step short of saying "it's not true because it's not true".

[marksman]

Who knows how likely it is that such a union member exists (realistically... all you union haters out there can't claim to KNOW either). But my overall point is that people aren't always responsible for their circumstances. Sometimes things happen by chance or as a result of OTHER peoples' decisions.

Union members like that do exist. Many unions will publish their strike vote results before heading out on strike. I don't think I've seen any that were 100% in favour of striking.

[Kitch]

It is not that simple since a poorly designed system will actually increase the number of freeloaders.

For example, a generous system that provided more than minimum wage which discourage people from taking minimum wage jobs.

Providing generous support to single mothers will encourage more mothers to keep children they should be aborting or giving up for adoption.

IOW - any system has to have benefits low enough to ensure that people have no incentive to stay in the system if they really do have choices.

I don't disagree with you here.

But the system can be poorly designed in the other direction. I can't comment on the reasons that some of my students don't have money, but it is an indication that there is a problem when a student is absent one day because they can't afford bus tickets. Or, if a student is disruptive because they haven't eaten anything that day. This doesn't NECESSARILY indicate a societal problem, but it's worth investigating, right?

[marksman]

I'm working on a book right now about people who live in the rain forest in Panama. People in Canada have no idea what poverty is.

I've heard people say this in attempts to avoid discussion about poverty in Canada. It's a dismissive argument that misses the point entirely. Obviously Canada's poverty problem really doesn't compare to the poverty that exists in many other parts of the world. And hopefully we're compassionate enough to do something about it. But we can't solve the world's problems. What we can do is look at our problems. We can try to address our poverty issues.

If someone complained about hospital wait times in Canada how would you address the problem? Would you point out that most people in the world don't get anywhere near the level of healthcare that we get and then tell them to stop complaining? Would you expect them to say well I guess if it's worse somewhere else then we shouldn't complain or try to improve our system?

Just because it's worse elsewhere doesn't mean we don't have a problem and it definitely doesn't mean we should give up on trying to solve our problems.

[Kitch]

Er, No one should have a child if they can't afford to provide food or shelter.

What if they have the child while they can afford it but at some point, in the child's life before it can provide for itself, the parents, for whatever reason, can no longer afford it?

[Renegade]

It's a wonderful sentiment. Ideally people would plan to have children when their finances are in order and all that. But it's not reality. Some people make mistakes or poor choices. In other cases life intervenes and what used to be a financially sound situation changes. No matter the reason I don't think our society should be breaking up families. We should be helping them to stay together and get back on their feet.

Statements like yours do nothing to help and don't reflect reality.

When people make mistakes or poor choices there are a couple of options: 1 Proactively prevent them from making those mistakes or choices. 2. Let them suffer the consequences of those mistakes or choices. 3. Provide an excuse for those mistakes and choices and bail them out. I don't believe that option 3 should ever be considered as an option. Onus shoudl be on people to mitigate risks (for example with disability or job loss insurance when life intervenes). It seems very few will avail themselves of such risk mitigation because it is all too easy to rely on the public dole. I am not looking to break up families. I am looking for people to take responsibiilties for their actions. The reality is that people have and make choices and should be accountable for those choices.

[Renegade]

What if they have the child while they can afford it but at some point, in the child's life before it can provide for itself, the parents, for whatever reason, can no longer afford it?

I'm not opposed to insurance type programs which parents would pay into which pay out in the event of financial disaster (job loss, disability, etc). If what you are pointing out is that there is risk in being a parent, this is true, however parents should bear the cost of mitigating that risk.

[Renegade]

But it can. And your assertion doesn't speak to the likelihood of a cause/effect relationship either. This is one step short of saying "it's not true because it's not true".

Yes it may or it may not. What I am saying is that don't assume one, because there is no evidence to show a cause-and-effect relationship. I have not ruled out that such a relationship could exist, but there seems to be a supposition that if we fix income inequity then other associated problems will also be reduced. That supposition would only be true if there were a cause and effect relationship.

[marksman]

When people make mistakes or poor choices there are a couple of options: 1 Proactively prevent them from making those mistakes or choices. 2. Let them suffer the consequences of those mistakes or choices. 3. Provide an excuse for those mistakes and choices and bail them out. I don't believe that option 3 should ever be considered as an option. Onus shoudl be on people to mitigate risks (for example with disability or job loss insurance when life intervenes). It seems very few will avail themselves of such risk mitigation because it is all too easy to rely on the public dole. I am not looking to break up families. I am looking for people to take responsibiilties for their actions. The reality is that people have and make choices and should be accountable for those choices.

The reality is that you say you don't want to break up families while seeming to support forcing families to either abort pregnancies or give their children up for adoption. You can't have it both ways.

Your choice of options is interesting. You've missed the 1 option that we've been talking about here. 4. Support people so that they have the chance to improve their own situation. That doesn't involve making excuses for anyone and doesn't involve bailing them out. It's giving people the chance to bail themselves out.

You can't demand that people take responsibility for their actions if they're in a situation where they can't do anything but struggle to tread water.

[Renegade]

The reality is that you say you don't want to break up families while seeming to support forcing families to either abort pregnancies or give their children up for adoption. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see that aborting an unborn child or giving a newly born child up for adoption is breaking up families. I don't have an issue with either where the parents arent' in a position to take care of that child. The families I'm refering to are onces where there is a long-duration relationship between parties.

Your choice of options is interesting. You've missed the 1 option that we've been talking about here. 4. Support people so that they have the chance to improve their own situation. That doesn't involve making excuses for anyone and doesn't involve bailing them out. It's giving people the chance to bail themselves out.

Your option 4 is the same as my option 3 minus the excuses. If you can give people a chance to bail themselves out without taxpayer finanical support, I'm all for it and I'd like to hear more. If it requires taxpayer finanicial support then yes indeed we are bailing them out.

You can't demand that people take responsibility for their actions if they're in a situation where they can't do anything but struggle to tread water.

Sure I can. Where their stuggles are caused by their own actions I have no issue in letting them suffer the consequences of their actions by letting them struggle.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Renegade

[Kitch]

When people make mistakes or poor choices there are a couple of options: 1 Proactively prevent them from making those mistakes or choices. 2. Let them suffer the consequences of those mistakes or choices. 3. Provide an excuse for those mistakes and choices and bail them out. I don't believe that option 3 should ever be considered as an option. Onus shoudl be on people to mitigate risks (for example with disability or job loss insurance when life intervenes). It seems very few will avail themselves of such risk mitigation because it is all too easy to rely on the public dole. I am not looking to break up families. I am looking for people to take responsibiilties for their actions. The reality is that people have and make choices and should be accountable for those choices.

I don't disagree that people should be and ARE accountable for their choices (sorry for jumping in). But to make such a strong statement... that people should suffer the consequences, without any consideration for reasons or the nature of the consequences... that's not what I would describe as civilized. This would imply that we don't tolerate anything less than perfection from ourselves. Learning happens when mistakes are made. If we don't help a person to utilize what they've learned when they can't do it for themselves, then we're definitely not an 'advanced' species.

[Kitch]

I'm not opposed to insurance type programs which parents would pay into which pay out in the event of financial disaster (job loss, disability, etc). If what you are pointing out is that there is risk in being a parent, this is true, however parents should bear the cost of mitigating that risk.

But it's not just the parents that suffer! The children are being viewed as a possession of the parents rather than members of our species!

[Kitch]

Yes it may or it may not. What I am saying is that don't assume one, because there is no evidence to show a cause-and-effect relationship. I have not ruled out that such a relationship could exist, but there seems to be a supposition that if we fix income inequity then other associated problems will also be reduced. That supposition would only be true if there were a cause and effect relationship.

Well, I've recently been convinced that reducing business taxes would result in a better local economy. That's speculation as well. We'll always have 'feelings' about cause and effect relationships. You're right that until we can truly come to any conclusions until proper studies have been performed. But sometimes, particularly in social science, it is nearly impossible to identify causality in a correlation. So, sometimes we are reduced to relying on inductive reasoning. With that understanding, it doesn't always progress a discussion by identifying the obvious that causality hasn't been determined. If you don't believe that income gap causes problems, continue to make points about that.

(The tone of this post might sound aggressive and condescending... I didn't intend it to... my apologies).

[White Doors]

When did age become part of the discussion? A few of you, now, have claimed that rich and poor people are not static groups. Well, young and old are, and you're trying to link wealth to age.

oh boys, young and old are static 'groups'? well duh, who cares? People (unless they have discovered the fountain of youth) move through these groups, much the same way people move from poor to wealthy. I know I was poor. I'm not 'trying' to do anything, I simply said that alot of people who were 'poor' when they were young are not 'poor' as they get older. Is that so hard to understand?

[Riverwind]

Support should be given so that people can meet their needs. Minimum wage shouldn't enter into the equation at this point.

A system that punishes people for choosing to work cannot be supported under any circumstances. This will likely mean that the non-working poor will end up with less than what poverty activists would like them to have because the money available has to be shared with the much larger group of working poor.

Noone should have to give up their child because they can't afford food or shelter. Our system shouldn't force families apart.

I disagree completely. Women who are already receiving assistance should have their benefits reduced if they have more children. If you cannot afford to support your own children then you should not be having children. I have zero sympathy for people who think they have a right to reproduce and yet expect others to pay for their children.

That said, I don't necessarily like the idea of punishing children for having irresponsible parents so some balance is necessary. OTOH, I categorically reject the suggestion that the system should not force people to give up their children. A system that reduces the number of teenage moms beause it encourages teen moms give their babies up for adoption would be a good system.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston S. Churchill

How does one work this pith into a policy?

I think the income gap is a measure of the rate at which the Earth's natural capital is being liquidated. The faster its liquidated the faster the gap grows. The implications of a faster rate is that more natural resources are being liquidated faster. The fact that our ecosystems and environment are conventionally viewed as being external to our economy means we don't have any handle on how sustainable all this growth really is. The point being that for growth to occur somewhere there must be a corresponding shrinkage ocurring somewhere else - what else do people think that might be other than natural capital?

I think the rate at which the income gap spreads is something that central banks should be regulating before they even start thinking about anything else. We have to find a happy medium between vice and virtue.

[normanchateau]

If you cannot afford to support your own children then you should not be having children. I have zero sympathy for people who think they have a right to reproduce and yet expect others to pay for their children.

No doubt you're mad as hell at Harper's Universal Child Care Benefit which gives parents more money for having more children.

And I'm sure you're pissed off at Harper's Child Fitness Credit which gives your money and mine to parents who can't afford sports for their children.

And what must you think of Harper's latest lame-brained squandering of money for children:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...r-families.html

That's right. It's not a joke. "Fiscal conservative" Harper has pledged $150,000,000 a year in order to provide $500 per year per child for low income families to send their children to ballet and finger painting lessons.

If the Liberals had come up with something so stupid, we'd be hearing about it daily. But when it's Harper, it's OK because hey, he's a tight-fisted, fiscal conservative.

[Kitch]

oh boys, young and old are static 'groups'? well duh, who cares? People (unless they have discovered the fountain of youth) move through these groups, much the same way people move from poor to wealthy. I know I was poor. I'm not 'trying' to do anything, I simply said that alot of people who were 'poor' when they were young are not 'poor' as they get older. Is that so hard to understand?

Good call. That was a dumb thing for me to say.

I don't think that this trend, assuming there is one that applies to the population, is as important as some might think it is though.

[Riverwind]

No doubt you're mad as hell at Harper's Universal Child Care Benefit which gives parents more money for having more children.

It would not bother me to see these programs cancelled since I see them as pure pandering. That said, giving assistance to all parents is preferable to giving assistance only those parents that make bad choices.

[Renegade]

I don't disagree that people should be and ARE accountable for their choices (sorry for jumping in). But to make such a strong statement... that people should suffer the consequences, without any consideration for reasons or the nature of the consequences... that's not what I would describe as civilized. This would imply that we don't tolerate anything less than perfection from ourselves. Learning happens when mistakes are made. If we don't help a person to utilize what they've learned when they can't do it for themselves, then we're definitely not an 'advanced' species.

We each have our own definition of what constitutes a "civilized" society. In my view a civilized society is one which maximizes individual freedom but expects individuals to live with the consequences of those freedoms.

There is no implication of or expectation perfection at all. When an individual makes a mistake or bad choice (as we all do), we suffer the consequence and thus learn from our actions. As I've said before, if you want to mitigate risk of errors, mistakes, bad choices, or acts beyond one's control, I'm all for insurance-type programs, but where the individuals getting the benefit of risk mitigation are those paying the cost and the cost is commesurate to the risk being migitated. It matters not whether it fits your definition of an "advanced" species.

But it's not just the parents that suffer! The children are being viewed as a possession of the parents rather than members of our species!

I fully agree that kids shouldn't bear the brunt of their parents bad choices, mistakes or luck. That is exactly why I have suggested that there needs to be proactive action to prevent unsuitable parents from bringing up kids.

[Renegade]

Well, I've recently been convinced that reducing business taxes would result in a better local economy. That's speculation as well. We'll always have 'feelings' about cause and effect relationships. You're right that until we can truly come to any conclusions until proper studies have been performed. But sometimes, particularly in social science, it is nearly impossible to identify causality in a correlation. So, sometimes we are reduced to relying on inductive reasoning. With that understanding, it doesn't always progress a discussion by identifying the obvious that causality hasn't been determined. If you don't believe that income gap causes problems, continue to make points about that.

What I'm saying is since there is no proven causal relationship between income inequity and problems, and there are benefits of income inequity, why would we worry about addressing what seems like a meaningless statistic. If anything we should focus on areas where there are proven relationshps and address those. In addition, there needs to be an assessment of whether the fix is worth the cost otherwise it woudl be yet another case of the cure being worse than the sickness.

(The tone of this post might sound aggressive and condescending... I didn't intend it to... my apologies).

I didn't take it that way, so no worries.

[Renegade]

No doubt you're mad as hell at Harper's Universal Child Care Benefit which gives parents more money for having more children.

And I'm sure you're pissed off at Harper's Child Fitness Credit which gives your money and mine to parents who can't afford sports for their children.

And what must you think of Harper's latest lame-brained squandering of money for children:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...r-families.html

That's right. It's not a joke. "Fiscal conservative" Harper has pledged $150,000,000 a year in order to provide $500 per year per child for low income families to send their children to ballet and finger painting lessons.

If the Liberals had come up with something so stupid, we'd be hearing about it daily. But when it's Harper, it's OK because hey, he's a tight-fisted, fiscal conservative.

All of these are dumb ideas which do nothing more than pander to a subset of the population.

[capricorn]

All of these are dumb ideas which do nothing more than pander to a subset of the population.

A subset implies a portion. This "subset of the population" as you call it, is in fact families. According to demographics data, families as a group is anything but a "subset".

For the purpose of generating estimates, the definition of family is, with one exception, similar to what is used for the Census. As defined up to and including the 2001 Census, a census family can be any of the following:

- a married couple (with or without children of either or both spouses);

- a couple living common-law (with or without children of either or both partners) ;

- a lone parent of any marital status, with at least one child living in the same dwelling.

The term children refers to blood, step- or adopted sons and daughters (regardless of age or marital status) who are living in the same dwelling as their parent(s), as well as grandchildren in households where there are no parents present. Sons and daughters who are living with their spouse or common-law partner, or with one or more of their own children, are not considered to be members of the census family of their parent(s), even if they are living in the same dwelling. In addition, the sons or daughters who do not live in the same dwelling as their parent(s) are not considered members of the census family of their parent(s). When sons or daughters study or have a summer job elsewhere but return to live with their parent(s) during the year, these sons and daughters are considered members of the census family of their parent(s).

The exception resides in how same-sex couples are recognized. While in Census, same sex common-law partners are creating a census family, this is not the case for the estimates program. This situation should change in a near future.

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl...adm=8&dis=2

There are 8.9 million families in Canada

Number of Families in Canada, by Type, Canada 2006

Number %

Total Families 8,896,840 100%

married couples with children2 at home 3,443,775 39%

married couples without children at home 2,662,135 30%

common-law couples with children at home 618,180 7%

common-law couples without children at home 758,715 9%

lone-parent families 1,414,060 16%

http://www.vifamily.ca/library/facts/facts.html#how

(Sorry, tables don't copy properly from the web.)

I don't think policies that aim to benefit the family can be equated with pandering to special interest groups which is what I believe you are trying to argue. In modern terminology, special interest groups implies that these groups represent a minority in society. Families are far from being a minority group in Canada. Hence, policies that benefit families are generally well received.

[Argus]

Situating yourself on a higher horse does not equate to higher education. You're a clown and me saying so says nothing about my intellectual capacity nor my ability to teach.

Perhaps not, but for a teacher, I find your writing to be curiously weak in your ability to express your opinions, and laden with grammatical and punctuation errors.

And yes, I am passionate about some things. Anger doesn't immediately make me wrong... but your tunnel vision on this issue does prevent you from acknowledging its complexity.

Poverty is not complex: it's due to people being unable to command a high level of monetary compensation for the work they are capable of supplying.

Most = majority, no? You're right though. My question wasn't a good one. I'm challenging you on the notion that poor = result of bad choices more often than other reasons... not the number of possible reasons.

I stated that, other than physical and mental handicap (which is generally the same thing, but never mind) poor life choices are the reason why the majority of people are on welfare. If you wish to challenge this the logical methodology to follow is to suggest an alternative reason or reasons.

Don't let YOUR little feelings get hurt because I'm noticing the selfish, CLOSED MINDED character of your posts.

Don't worry. I think you're a weak-minded putz, so your poor opinion of me doesn't really place high on my anxiety list.

So nothing is left to chance? It's ALL about good and bad choices? You ridicule me for my tendency to be emotional yet you lack the capacity to experience empathy, it seems.

I cried when Old Yeller died.