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

[tango]

Income gap:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

I think the real 'gap' is between the wealthiest and the rest of us. The money is increasingly flowing to the few wealthiest people out of our pockets.

[marksman]

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.

Oh you're using the common "long-duration" definition of family. Tell me how long is long duration? Obviously a newborn child isn't part of any family. He or she's just too new. When does a child become part of a family? A decade seems like a long duration. Do kids have to be 10 before they're considered family? But they change a lot growing up so maybe it should be longer. 13 maybe? Maybe even 16? Seems a long time.

Do you have kids? When did you start treating them as family? If you don't have kids that might explain the absolute idiocy of that statement.

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.

There's a difference between letting people live comfortably off the state and giving people enough breathing room so that they can take responsibility and make their lives better. You don't distinguish between these 2 options.

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.

Look at all the money we can save using your philosophy on life. We don't need to treat car accident victims any more. It was their choice to get in the car. They knew it was a risk therefore let them suffer. You want to work at a company like Enron? Sorry you're on your own. Sure you worked hard got an education and joined what everyone called 1 of the most successful companies in the US. But that was your choice. You should've realized that Enron would collapse taking all of your 401ks with it. No help for you. You should've worked somewhere else.

You get the prize for most unenlightened post of the day. Depending on the day around here that's saying something.

[marksman]

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.

I'm not sure why people are arguing this. The recent OECD study found that 1/5 of the change in the gap had to do with changes in age and household structure in the Canadian population. So people who say it's got an effect are right. And that effect was linked to 20% of the change in the most recent study. Up to each of you to decide if 20% is significant enough to outweigh the other factors.

[marksman]

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.

Yes I too call for proactive action to prevent unsuitable parents from bringing up kids. I say let's create a database for everyone. All information about potential parents can be entered in. Age education income ethnicity occupation religion allergies. We can include town of residence and dietary needs and hair colour and political preferences. Those already with kids who're deemed unworthy will have their kids removed. We don't want unsuitable people bringing them up. Whether you've got kids or not all deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having kids. Wait that's not proactive enough. Accidents happen. All deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having sex. Much better. Except that might need enforcement. We'll start signing up recruits to watch these people. That even creates jobs so 2 problems solved. Who wouldn't want to spend their lives watching over teenagers in private? Maybe on 2nd thought that isn't a great idea. Too expensive to employ those people. Why not just go for sterilization? Then all those deemed unworthy can get a simple and quick procedure and we don't have to worry about all those unsuitable parents from bringing up kids.

[marksman]

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.

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

It's only meaningless when you ignore the evidence that there're problems associated with larger gaps. But I see you've just decided that there're no problems and only benefits. Must be nice to be able to pick and choose your information like that.

This statistic is part of an overall picture. When discussing things like equality in society no single statistic will suffice.

[fairvotecanada]

Most of the "wretched souls" I've seen who are "poor" still manage to have large TVs with cable, stereos, DVD players, computers, MP3 players, cell phones, and more than enough money to pay for booze and cigarettes. Nor do any of them appear to be wasting away for want of food. On the contrary, most seem to be quite fat.

I think Shakespeare would have been quite startled to go into a Canadian housing project in search of his wretched souls and see how many people were grossly overweight.

Ok I am one of those poor that has grabbed an old TV out of the laundry room in my building because someone had left it there and I was lucky enough for it to work; I have found a DVD player in the same manner; and I have bought a computer with my tax return and all my saving for the last two years previous to that, I have had a cell phone (for 8 years old) with Fido, which allowed me to get a new one for free through my Fido-dollars.

I do not go out or drink, so I do pay for a combo-pack of cable-internet to keep in touch with this world, at which I have not been invited to participate in anyway except when charities are calling, asking me to donate my measly $2.75 a day to feed another...

Maybe a crash is what we really need; put everybody back on the same level, with the same priorities like feeding, sleeping, getting warm and simply survive...

I don't care anymore, I have been there for ten years, so any change is welcome in my book, it cannot get worse. As long as there is food people will survive, money can all burn it has in fact not even the value of the ink used to print it, so cry me a river.

Edited October 25, 2008 by fairvotecanada

[blueblood]

Ok I am one of those poor that has grabbed an old TV out of the laundry room in my building because someone had left it there and I was lucky enough for it to work; I have found a DVD player in the same manner; and I have bought a computer with my tax return and all my saving for the last two years previous to that, I have had a cell phone (for 8 years old) with Fido, which allowed me to get a new one for free through my Fido-dollars.

I do not go out or drink, so I do pay for a combo-pack of cable-internet to keep in touch with this world, at which I have not been invited to participate in anyway except when charities are calling, asking me to donate my measly $2.75 a day to feed another...

Maybe a crash is what we really need; put everybody back on the same level, with the same priorities like feeding, sleeping, getting warm and simply survive...

I don't care anymore, I have been there for ten years, so any change is welcome in my book, it cannot get worse. As long as there is food people will survive, money can all burn it has in fact not even the value of the ink used to print it, so cry me a river.

Poor my ass, high tail it to Africa and visit Darfur then come and tell us how poor you are.

[Oleg Bach]

Remember that idiot - Ross Pereau that was running to be an American president a number of years back - He was a rich eccentic with a socially benevolent spirit. He said way back then, that "there is a sucking sound that can be heard world wide of all the wealth going upwards to a tiny few men" to para phrase...It's not just Canada - it is the whole damned planet - buisness buy it's nature is the accumulation and acqusition of companies. After about 50 years of acqusition - the corporates and the corporate leaders have literally gathered up ALL the wealth on the planet - first it was an ambtion concerning money - then it went past the money phase - to the gathering of total power - power for powers sake..now they simply don't know what to do with the POWER - I suppose this is the end game - now the powers that be must reverse the process and send it back - it is a 50 year cycle...it's been happening since time began. Just hope they come to their senses ----It is much like a chapter our of Miltons "Paradise Lost" _ the heroic figure is the mythical Satan - and he finally owns the planet - that is now a pile of ash and rubble - and he screams - I am king of the world...of a manure pile...Not wise.

[fairvotecanada]

Poor my ass, high tail it to Africa and visit Darfur then come and tell us how poor you are.

Hey blueblood, I am Canadian born and raised since Champlain brought the first group of teachers in Canada; so if you can afford the fligth please move to Africa as you must feel right at home there as they take precious care to bash their poor there too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes I too call for proactive action to prevent unsuitable parents from bringing up kids. I say let's create a database for everyone. All information about potential parents can be entered in. Age education income ethnicity occupation religion allergies. We can include town of residence and dietary needs and hair colour and political preferences. Those already with kids who're deemed unworthy will have their kids removed. We don't want unsuitable people bringing them up. Whether you've got kids or not all deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having kids. Wait that's not proactive enough. Accidents happen. All deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having sex. Much better. Except that might need enforcement. We'll start signing up recruits to watch these people. That even creates jobs so 2 problems solved. Who wouldn't want to spend their lives watching over teenagers in private? Maybe on 2nd thought that isn't a great idea. Too expensive to employ those people. Why not just go for sterilization? Then all those deemed unworthy can get a simple and quick procedure and we don't have to worry about all those unsuitable parents from bringing up kids.

Really, and who gets to make this determination? The government? You perhaps? I will suggest this line of reasoning deserves to be deep sixed immediately, unless of course you wish to bring back Uncle Adolf from the dead and perhaps recreate a Fourth version of that era.

[blueblood]

Hey blueblood, I am Canadian born and raised since Champlain brought the first group of teachers in Canada; so if you can afford the fligth please move to Africa as you must feel right at home there as they take precious care to bash their poor there too.

you have a computer and are complaining about being poor, a person in darfur hardly has enough to eat let alone a change of clothes.

You might not be rich, but you certainly are not poor compared to what's out there.

[capricorn]

you have a computer and are complaining about being poor, a person in darfur hardly has enough to eat let alone a change of clothes.

The poster in question complained of having to subsist on $2.50 per day for food. Internet must cost minimum one dollar per day or $30. per month. In dire circumstances I would say damn the internet and use that money to increase my food budget. Some people apply the wrong priorities then complain about the injustices of life. It's like someone maxing out a credit card then complaining about the monthly payments and high interest rates. Beats the hell out of me.

[Alta4ever]

So we have to choose one or the other?

We have to be completely equal (in terms of finances) or the opposite?

Mr. Churchill was a smart man indeed. But this particular quotation doesn't do justice to the debate. How can you possibly make definitive statements about models of society in one sentence?

That is the beauty of speaking in absolutes as Churchill did in this instance. Its about simplicity of communication. In one sentence we are able to see both the positive and negative of both isms. This sentence brings the debate to a simple choice. Which would you prefer the security of knowing that you will be just the same as everybody else and brought down to the same common denominator, or take the risk? A risk that could provide you with great reward in your life, what ever you deem that to be.

This statement does indeed to justice to the debate, it frames it.

[Kitch]

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.

My ability to write doesn't have a whole lot to do with my ability to teach. And my ability to express my opinions is just fine. You dislike what I'm saying... that doesn't mean I'm not being clear. (Just out of curiosity, because I'm unaware... what grammatical/punctuation errors have I made? For real.)

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.

Tunnel... vision.

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.

Tunnel... vision.

Other reasons (some of which have been stated but ignored, presumably due to being blocked by blinders):

Losing one's job due to a poor economy

Losing one's job due to illegal termination of employment

Losing one's ability to earn a living but denied disabled status

Decrease in a person's buying power due to inflation w/o wage increase

Poor choices

Good choices (because some people want to live poor and don't ask for/receive any help)

Loss of home due to poor real estate market (foreclosure)

I'm sure that there are many more possible reasons... and probably even better (realistic?) reasons that I can't think of because I'm a weak minded putz.

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.

Typical. We disagree, so I'm stupid. A reasonable conclusion. You're still a closed-minded clown though. You exemplify what I imagine this quotation is aimed at:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy:

that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith

I cried when Old Yeller died.

So sensitive... I was way wrong.

[Kitch]

That is the beauty of speaking in absolutes as Churchill did in this instance. Its about simplicity of communication. In one sentence we are able to see both the positive and negative of both isms. This sentence brings the debate to a simple choice. Which would you prefer the security of knowing that you will be just the same as everybody else and brought down to the same common denominator, or take the risk? A risk that could provide you with great reward in your life, what ever you deem that to be.

This statement does indeed to justice to the debate, it frames it.

It provides one possible frame, indeed, but there are others that lean to varying degrees in both directions. But it says nothing about the magnitude to which inequality is a vice nor the severity of the misery. Nor does it give room for hybrids of varying composition.

[Alta4ever]

It provides one possible frame, indeed, but there are others that lean to varying degrees in both directions. But it says nothing about the magnitude to which inequality is a vice nor the severity of the misery. Nor does it give room for hybrids of varying composition.

When talking about socialism there is no varying degree as per Karl Marx, its nothing more than a transition between capitalism, and communisim.

[fairvotecanada]

I learned a lot more out of school than I ever did in one. As for you - I don't choose to visit the web sites of kooks who believe in 'secret agendas' and 911 conspiracies.

And you rather have Harper get his North Americain Union then; abolish the borders so that Americans and Mexicans can all freely share on your tax-paid services, and take your jobs because they will work for less and many more hour for the same buck...

I have no problem with people that work but I do have a problem when a paper-pusher takes months and years to sign the forms necessary to get on with anything, and I have been there more often than most, so I hope you hurry it up, when you do work.

But I understand that those same paper-pusher cannot always do that because of the POWER that IS at the time, so the blame falls on your employers, and again on the PM finally, lucky you!

[Renegade]

Oh you're using the common "long-duration" definition of family. Tell me how long is long duration? Obviously a newborn child isn't part of any family. He or she's just too new. When does a child become part of a family? A decade seems like a long duration. Do kids have to be 10 before they're considered family? But they change a lot growing up so maybe it should be longer. 13 maybe? Maybe even 16? Seems a long time.

It is not binary. The longer an individual has been part of a family the stronger the bonds are and the greater impact of breaking those bonds, thus there shoudl be greater justification for doing so. There is no maximium age or duration. No one seems to have an issue of breeaking up a family if the child is in an abusive situation regardless of how old the child is. The same should be true for parents without capacity to bring up kids. However I woudl say that the longer the kids have been in the family, the more the justitication which is required to remove them from that situation.

Do you have kids? When did you start treating them as family? If you don't have kids that might explain the absolute idiocy of that statement.

Indeed I am a parent. I didn't become a father when I procreated. I became a father once I acted as one. I had kids only once I had the emotional, mental, and financial capacity to do so. If I never had that capacity I would never become a father.

There's a difference between letting people live comfortably off the state and giving people enough breathing room so that they can take responsibility and make their lives better. You don't distinguish between these 2 options.

No because either way you are bailing them out if you are expecting the taxpayer to fund them, it is only a question of degree.

Look at all the money we can save using your philosophy on life. We don't need to treat car accident victims any more. It was their choice to get in the car. They knew it was a risk therefore let them suffer. You want to work at a company like Enron? Sorry you're on your own. Sure you worked hard got an education and joined what everyone called 1 of the most successful companies in the US. But that was your choice. You should've realized that Enron would collapse taking all of your 401ks with it. No help for you. You should've worked somewhere else.

Quite right. You are responsible for your own choices. I certainly can discuss each of your examples if you wish, but it would probably divert this thread.

You get the prize for most unenlightened post of the day. Depending on the day around here that's saying something.

Thanks!! I didn't know that you had been appointed by the forum to judge, or even what makes you qualified to judge but thanks anyway.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Renegade

[Renegade]

Yes I too call for proactive action to prevent unsuitable parents from bringing up kids. I say let's create a database for everyone. All information about potential parents can be entered in. Age education income ethnicity occupation religion allergies. We can include town of residence and dietary needs and hair colour and political preferences. Those already with kids who're deemed unworthy will have their kids removed. We don't want unsuitable people bringing them up. Whether you've got kids or not all deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having kids. Wait that's not proactive enough. Accidents happen. All deemed unworthy shall be prohibited from having sex. Much better. Except that might need enforcement. We'll start signing up recruits to watch these people. That even creates jobs so 2 problems solved. Who wouldn't want to spend their lives watching over teenagers in private? Maybe on 2nd thought that isn't a great idea. Too expensive to employ those people. Why not just go for sterilization? Then all those deemed unworthy can get a simple and quick procedure and we don't have to worry about all those unsuitable parents from bringing up kids.

Hmm, we regulate to make sure that only qualified individuals drive or can assume a mortgage, or own a firearm, all without resorting to extreme measures, yet you seem to suggest that we shouldn't do so for a vastly more important role of parenting.

It is quite simple, people should either expect complete freedom to make choices as parents and both they and their kids should live with the consequences of those freecdoms or people should expect limited choices on making individual choices if they are expecting a state support for their choices. Personally I prefer the former "hands-off" approach, however if society insists on providing support systems to parents, then society should have a say in who is a parent.

So your sarcasm aside, do you think there are any prerequesites which should be enforced (aside from the obvious biological ones) to be a parent?

Edited October 25, 2008 by Renegade

[Mr.Canada]

Ok I am one of those poor that has grabbed an old TV out of the laundry room in my building because someone had left it there and I was lucky enough for it to work; I have found a DVD player in the same manner; and I have bought a computer with my tax return and all my saving for the last two years previous to that, I have had a cell phone (for 8 years old) with Fido, which allowed me to get a new one for free through my Fido-dollars.

I do not go out or drink, so I do pay for a combo-pack of cable-internet to keep in touch with this world, at which I have not been invited to participate in anyway except when charities are calling, asking me to donate my measly $2.75 a day to feed another...

Maybe a crash is what we really need; put everybody back on the same level, with the same priorities like feeding, sleeping, getting warm and simply survive...

I don't care anymore, I have been there for ten years, so any change is welcome in my book, it cannot get worse. As long as there is food people will survive, money can all burn it has in fact not even the value of the ink used to print it, so cry me a river.

This is your own fault. Your life is your problem. You could have went to school post secondary and made something of yourself but you chose the life of welfare. That is no ones fault but your own. No one owes you anything. People who want more money go and work for it, they don't make excuses for their life. You're poor by choice. No one to blame but yourself for how your life turned out.

Again no one owes you anything.

[Kitch]

When talking about socialism there is no varying degree as per Karl Marx, its nothing more than a transition between capitalism, and communisim.

So if we were to nationalize certain industries... say health care, but leave others open to market forces, that's a transition toward communism?

[Argus]

My ability to write doesn't have a whole lot to do with my ability to teach.

I find that an astonishing answer. Many have complained that our young emerge from high school without the ability to adequately read or write. This is an ongoing problem, and here we have a teacher who shrugs off the ability to express oneself in writing as not particularly important. What else is not important for a teacher? Arithmetic? Science? Geography?

Ideally, a teacher ought to be a highly educated person, should they not?

And my ability to express my opinions is just fine. You dislike what I'm saying... that doesn't mean I'm not being clear.

I'm not saying that your writing is of a level with Oleg's or some of the other oddities here, merely that it's below par for what I expect of a teacher.

Losing one's job due to a poor economy

Losing one's job due to illegal termination of employment

Losing one's ability to earn a living but denied disabled status

Decrease in a person's buying power due to inflation w/o wage increase

Poor choices

Good choices (because some people want to live poor and don't ask for/receive any help)

Loss of home due to poor real estate market (foreclosure)

None of that leads to poverty, aside from disability - which I've already mentioned. If you have made the right choices in life, and attained the proper skills, saved, not run up debts, you should be all right. Even if you have to take a cut in wages, that's not the same as living life on welfare.

I'm sure that there are many more possible reasons... and probably even better (realistic?) reasons that I can't think of because I'm a weak minded putz.

Well, imho you haven't come up with a single good one yet. And bear in mind I said "most" which would allow for other reasons.

Typical. We disagree, so I'm stupid. A reasonable conclusion.

I don't agree. There are many reasons for you to be wrong. Stupidity isn't necessarily the only one. You should simply examine why your beliefs vary from mine, and figure out where you went wrong so as to correct the problem.

So sensitive... I was way wrong.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step, you know.

[Kitch]

I find that an astonishing answer. Many have complained that our young emerge from high school without the ability to adequately read or write. This is an ongoing problem, and here we have a teacher who shrugs off the ability to express oneself in writing as not particularly important. What else is not important for a teacher? Arithmetic? Science? Geography?

Ideally, a teacher ought to be a highly educated person, should they not?

I really have no use for this conversation anymore. It's not progressing anybody's understanding of anything. It's simply a tennis match of insults, which I thought would be considered infantile by some one of your high intellectual ability.

You are arrogant and closed-minded. Your view of poverty is very narrow, as others have noted, and you label me as weak minded because I disagree. I am not stupid because I don't arrive at the same conclusions that you do. Nor is anybody who disagrees with me.

Your attacks on my abilities are unfounded and ridiculous. My writing is just fine. My ability to communicate my thoughts is just fine. I do not have a weak mind. You have no reason to claim that I do other than the fact that I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you. You've read posts that I've written just fine, and presumably understood it. So where's the problem with my writing? Perhaps in your mind my ideas aren't as sophisticated as yours. I disagree, but who cares!! Were it true, that wouldn't make me weak minded. I called you ignorant, you didn't like it and lashed out like a child.

I do not write essays for my students to read and learn. I speak with them, give demonstrations, let them give them passages to read from books/articles and sometimes write short notes, often in point form, for them to transcribe. So no, my ability to write is only moderately important as a teacher. If you want to discuss effective education with me, I'm game. Start a new thread. I'm confident that I'll have much to learn from you and your expertise.

[bush_cheney2004]

And you rather have Harper get his North Americain Union then; abolish the borders so that Americans and Mexicans can all freely share on your tax-paid services, and take your jobs because they will work for less and many more hour for the same buck...

Did you feel this way when American automotive manufacturing jobs were exported to Canada?

Why is it that some Canadians wish to blame Americans and Mexicans for what is largley circumstances of their own making?

Do you think the Americans (or Mexicans, who don't whine like this) owe you something?

If Canada were to join the alleged NAU, it would constitute about 8% of the population. Yet "services" are already lacking right now.

Edited October 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Vancouver King]

Did you feel this way when American automotive manufacturing jobs were exported to Canada?

Why is it that some Canadians wish to blame Americans and Mexicans for what is largely circumstances of their own making?

Do you think the Americans (or Mexicans, who don't whine like this) owe you something?

If Canada were to join the alleged NAU, it would constitute about 8% of the population. Yey "services" are already lacking right now.

Canada's auto industry was established to reflect Canada's share of the auto sales market and had absolutely nothing to do with benevolence from Uncle Sam. Lower production costs, ie. medical coverage, allowed the industry to expand here.

BTW, are you considering a moniker trade-in? I understand McCain/Palin will be pretty cheap in about a week.