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

[Renegade]

And considering that the middle class in Canada & the US has been shrinking for a decade or longer, and those folks slipping into lower classes of income, I'd say that the ability of people to work themselves up the ladder is being hindered by an economic system which favours those who already are in the top income bracket.

You neglect that not all the middle class have been "slipping into lower classes of income". Many in fact have moved out of the middle class and into the upper class.

During the nineties, changes in Canadian taxes and transfers had little net effect on redistribution, the study said.

Instead, the study suggested some middle class families may be becoming richer because of the rising earning power of the two-earner family, especially when both earners are highly educated.

Others may be becoming low-income as more people started living alone — particularly the elderly. “When you're unattached, you often can't pool your resources into a family — it's a bit cheaper to live as two than to live as one,” Mr. Heisz said.

The shrinking of the middle class

[Kitch]

Yes it is good for a select group. That group is the one which is smart enough to take advantage of the growth for economic gain. That applies to both rich and poor. If you look at the economic boom in Alberta, do you not think that poorer people are also benefiting because there is a huge demand for their skills?

First of all, it seems that the use of the word 'skills' by pro-free market types is sometimes a euphemism for 'willing to do things we don't want to do'... but we still pay them less.

I used to work at MDS Pharma services who perform blood testing as part of clinical trials for novel drug licensing. The people who worked in the lab, doing the actual testing, which is indeed a skill, were paid FAR less than were the people in the offices upstairs. The people who made more money than lab technologists included administrative assistants, marketing consultants, etc... I'm sure you can come up with a list of positions in a typical corporate office that can and SHOULD be considered supplemental, equal or dependent on the people who perform the main function of the company. Why do these people make so much more than those in the lab? Those jobs wouldn't exist without the lab. Perhaps the lab wouldn't expand without the corporate offices, PERHAPS, but that doesn't justify higher pay... it justifies EQUAL pay. And mind you, this isn't considering the 10 million in severance pay the CEO was given after losing much money for MDS.

Why is it that my father, who is a carpenter, worked on a renovation at Osgoode Hall and installed some 'special' doors that the contractor charged $2400 for each, yet my father, who could install 3 a day, was paid $1000/week? Materials don't account for the price... and nothing else justifies such a difference. The company could earn $36K a week off my father's sweat, but still pays him $1000 a week?

You're not acknowledging that capitalism benefits equal people unequally. That should, in my opinion, be fixed.

I didn't say the free-market was better for eveyone. It is better for the skilled, the smart, the hard-working, and anyone who can excell above others. It isn't so good for the unskilled, uneducated, lazy or stupid as they would likely not economically thrive, so it is they who are propoenents of wealth redistribution. It is far easier for them to support such a parasitic system then have to justify why they actually deserve a smaller piece of the economic pie.

Not everyone who doesn't benefit from a free-market is stupid, lazy or uneducated. "All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" (Martin Luther King Jr.) yet opponents of what you call a "parasitic system" seem to believe otherwise.

[Renegade]

First of all, it seems that the use of the word 'skills' by pro-free market types is sometimes a euphemism for 'willing to do things we don't want to do'... but we still pay them less.

I used to work at MDS Pharma services who perform blood testing as part of clinical trials for novel drug licensing. The people who worked in the lab, doing the actual testing, which is indeed a skill, were paid FAR less than were the people in the offices upstairs. The people who made more money than lab technologists included administrative assistants, marketing consultants, etc... I'm sure you can come up with a list of positions in a typical corporate office that can and SHOULD be considered supplemental, equal or dependent on the people who perform the main function of the company. Why do these people make so much more than those in the lab? Those jobs wouldn't exist without the lab. Perhaps the lab wouldn't expand without the corporate offices, PERHAPS, but that doesn't justify higher pay... it justifies EQUAL pay. And mind you, this isn't considering the 10 million in severance pay the CEO was given after losing much money for MDS.

Why is it that my father, who is a carpenter, worked on a renovation at Osgoode Hall and installed some 'special' doors that the contractor charged $2400 for each, yet my father, who could install 3 a day, was paid $1000/week? Materials don't account for the price... and nothing else justifies such a difference. The company could earn $36K a week off my father's sweat, but still pays him $1000 a week?

Let me ask you since the people who work in the lab are paid less, why didn't they work in the office? Perhaps you should ask why MDS is willing to pay the office workers more. Is it because MDS is being generous or are there other reasons. BTW, you used the personal pronoun "we". (ie "we don't want to do'" "we still pay them less."). "We" don't pay them anything. The company pays them whatever it agrees with them to pay them and they agree to accept. You and I have nothing to do with it.

The same question of your father. Since teh contractor was getting such a high price for the package, which included your father's work, why didn't your father sell directly to Osgoode Hall and cut out the contractor?

You're not acknowledging that capitalism benefits equal people unequally. That should, in my opinion, be fixed.

No, I'm completely acknowledging that capitalism benefits equal people unequally, but it is because people are inherently unequal, something you fail to acknowledge.

Not everyone who doesn't benefit from a free-market is stupid, lazy or uneducated. "All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" (Martin Luther King Jr.) yet opponents of what you call a "parasitic system" seem to believe otherwise.

No, there are probably many reasons why people don't benefit including bad decisions, choices, luck. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter why someone doesn't benefit, it is up to each individual to resolve their bad choices, bad decisions, luck or whatever.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Renegade

[Kitch]

Is there an easy way to put quote boxes around other people's posts? Separate ones I mean? I've been copying and pasting the codes and it sucks!

Let me ask you since the people who work in the lab are paid less, why didn't they work in the office? Perhaps you should ask why MDS is willing to pay the office workers more. Is it because MDS is being generous or are there other reasons.

They work in the lab for the same reason people work in the office. It's a choice. But the point is that people in the lab and people in the office make equal (if not leaning more heavily on the lab and NOT the office) contributions to the 'success' of the company. In reality, there are fewer people who have the lab skills compared to those who do whatever is done in an office. But that's besides the point.

BTW, you used the personal pronoun "we". (ie "we don't want to do'" "we still pay them less."). "We" don't pay them anything. The company pays them whatever it agrees with them to pay them and they agree to accept. You and I have nothing to do with it.

I was sort of mocking those who would use the euphemism. I know I'm not part of the "we". It's difficult to communicate subtleties of messages on internet forums.

The same question of your father. Since teh contractor was getting such a high price for the package, which included your father's work, why didn't your father sell directly to Osgoode Hall and cut out the contractor?

Well, my father is intelligent enough, hard working enough and skilled enough to do so. Unfortunately, because he only makes $1000/week, he is unable to save enough money to begin doing so. There are many people who do try, and many who fail. There are also many companies that exploit their employees like this and violate union rules but when they're found guilty of wrong doing, they dissolve the company and start up under another name. All that I'm saying is that the system is built to benefit equal people unequally (I'm glad that you acknowledge that). The opportunities for people with money to both make money AND prevent others from joining the club don't exist for those without money.

No, I'm completely acknowledging that capitalism benefits equal people unequally, but it is because people are inherently unequal, something you fail to acknowledge.

People are indeed unequal in ability and such. But I'm not talking about the abilities of unequal people. I'm talking about the opportunities available to people who provide equal contributions to the betterment of society.

No, there are probably many reasons why people don't benefit including bad decisions, choices, luck. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter why someone doesn't benefit, it is up to each individual to resolve their bad choices, bad decisions, luck or whatever.

But it DOES matter why certain people don't benefit equally. Plumbers work just as hard (harder in my opinion) as anyone else and provide a service that is EXTREMELY valuable to everyone. They're paid well, but there are many occupations that are less valuable to society yet pay more.

[Renegade]

Is there an easy way to put quote boxes around other people's posts? Separate ones I mean? I've been copying and pasting the codes and it sucks!

Not that I know of. Yes I know it sucks.

They work in the lab for the same reason people work in the office. It's a choice. But the point is that people in the lab and people in the office make equal (if not leaning more heavily on the lab and NOT the office) contributions to the 'success' of the company. In reality, there are fewer people who have the lab skills compared to those who do whatever is done in an office. But that's besides the point.

It's a choice. Exactly! The guys in the lab presumably get some other benefit other than their income (eg they enjoy the work more than office work). There may even be some office workers who prefer to work in the lab but are willing to trade that off against the higher pay of office work. The fact is that they have chosen a trade which they are willing to accept or they wouldn't be working there in that position. Their income is dependant not just upon their contribution but upon the availability of an alternative. If for example the lab guy's job could be automated and was, why should a rational company offer them any more than it woudl cost under an automated system? Your assessment of "equal contributions" is completely subjective. The only subjectiveness which counts is the company's as it is their funds to dedide what they do with.

When you look at two jobs and compare them and determine that one is being unfairly treated you are looking at the comparison two narrowly (ie only by income). There are other aspects of jobs which you are not taking into account (eg job satisfaction, flexibility, skills required, effort required, etc). All of those and more factor into a person's decision to take and keep a job.

Well, my father is intelligent enough, hard working enough and skilled enough to do so. Unfortunately, because he only makes $1000/week, he is unable to save enough money to begin doing so. There are many people who do try, and many who fail.

Exactly! He may have had some of the ingredients needed, but he didn't have all. As well he didn't take the risk that those who put up the capital did. You seem to beleive that the entire product delivered was the materials and the labour supplied. What about finding the sale, billing, collecting, tax collection, warranty, and a host of other functions which are required to provide in order to stay in business. Certainly what your father did was augment his skills with the services which were necessary and supplied by the company. If he could have found a better deal, from some other company, no doubt he should have and would have taken it.

There are also many companies that exploit their employees like this and violate union rules but when they're found guilty of wrong doing, they dissolve the company and start up under another name.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. There are lots of employees who screw their companies too.

All that I'm saying is that the system is built to benefit equal people unequally (I'm glad that you acknowledge that). The opportunities for people with money to both make money AND prevent others from joining the club don't exist for those without money.

What do you mean by "prevent others from joining the club"? Certainly many of those who are high-income earners today were not born "into the club". There is very little barriers to earning money, which are imposed by others to exclude "outsiders", however yes it takes capital and willingness to take risks. The issue is that you don't place any value on either.

People are indeed unequal in ability and such. But I'm not talking about the abilities of unequal people. I'm talking about the opportunities available to people who provide equal contributions to the betterment of society.

But it DOES matter why certain people don't benefit equally. Plumbers work just as hard (harder in my opinion) as anyone else and provide a service that is EXTREMELY valuable to everyone. They're paid well, but there are many occupations that are less valuable to society yet pay more.

"contributions to the betterment of society"???? cm'on now. Unless they are Mother Theresa neither companies nor individuals are working for the "betterment of society". They both are working to maximize their self-interest. You have made some kind of subjective judgement of how valuable an occupation is to society. How did you determine that? Hard work isn't the only factor. (I can work hard digging diches and filling them up. Does that make me valuable?). There is another measure of value to society which doesn't depend upon your subjectivity. A person is worth EXACTLY what someone else offers him and he willingly accepts.

Since you agree that people are indeed unequal in ability, and I assume you agree that people can make unequal contributions, do you agree that people making unequal contributions should beneift unequally?

Edited October 30, 2008 by Renegade