Tories tiptoe around poverty line

[Anne2]

http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id...19-653b85b35dab

Basically, it observes that Harper believes it is a provincial responsibility to reduce poverty. That sure worked well for Bennett.

[takeanumber]

Each province has a different definition of what poverty is according to what the political party of the day is.

In Alberta, to be employed, yet unable to afford shelter, is not considered to be poverty.

Why?

Because for a Conservative government to admit that fully employed people could be homeless in Canada's richest province would be an admission of fault and failure.

And admitting fault or selfishness is not part of the Conservative tool kit.

So you see, in Harper's Canada, the working poor should be homeless, because that's just the Conservative vision of Canada.

[Slavik44]

takeanumber, that is absolutley not true. Perhaps the conservatives, recognizes the fact that in many cases fixing poverty needs to be micromanaged to a great extent. The federal government better serves as a macro manager. Infact the best thing to do would be to let cities fight poverty and just supply them money to do so. You cannot solve poverty in Vancouver from ottawa it doesn't work. Ottawa is busy enough stealing money from Canadian citizens, and as jack layton says killing them. Perhaps it is best to leave the organization behind fixing poverty to a local level, because it sure as hell has yet to work at a federal level. There are only 24 hours a day and if the federal government starts to micromanage what goes on everywhere you will run into problems, fighting poverty must be fought at all three levels of governments, but the organisation and workload as well as the initiative falls on the city and the people who liv ein the city, the best the federal government can do is supply them with money...it cannot do there job for them and succeed.

[takeanumber]

The only thing more vile than the Federal Liberals record on poverty (both child and working poor) is Alberta's.

There is no excuse for having WORKING, GOOD people living on the streets because the labour market and the apartment renting markets are out of allignment.

Slavik, I appreciate your point, it is very true that is it very difficult for a central government to resolve local market failures from afar.

Yet, we have a central bank that (apparently) tries to smooth out the business cycle from Ottawa. It's not all sucessful, but at least they try.

My point is: Ottawa really hasn't done much to give municipalities money for building affordable housing units.

Alberta Conservatives are not outraged about the fact that good, hard working, non-alcoholic people, who are fully employed, are living on the streets, homeless. In fact, they seem to be just fine with it.

And I think that fact speaks to some seriously sick values on the part of Alberta Conservatives.

The fact that Martin's Conservative Liberal's don't care either is just sick, too.

In my Canada, those who work and arn't addicted to drugs/alcohol, are the most deserving of shelter, and if market failures deprive those people of shelter, government needs to step in and address thoes market failures.

The fact that neither brand of Conservative (Red or Blue) cares, speaks volumes about those people.

[Argus]

The only thing more vile than the Federal Liberals record on poverty (both child and working poor) is Alberta's.

There is no excuse for having WORKING, GOOD people living on the streets because the labour market and the apartment renting markets are out of allignment.

Problem with having the government involved in creating affordable housing is that it does a really, really, really lousy job of it. All too often what we wind up with are "affordable" apartments put together with cardboard and tinfoil that cost the taxpayers half a million bucks apiece.

[idealisttotheend]

Fun while you are in Alberta. Suggest to someone that competiition is not the answer to the housing problem and that the government should step in and regulate some prices on the lower end and even possibly build some cheap units. Listen politely for the indignant righteous defense of the free market, competition in general and keeping big bad monopolistic government out of buisness. Then quietly point out the Boardwalk Properites Ltd. owns almost 50% of the rental market in both Calgary and Edmonton where they invariably buy a building, make some cosmetic repairs and then jack up rents by about 25% knowing full well that most people have nowhere else to go and depending on their domination of the market. Watch the facial contortions of your conversation mate and the spluttering that will ensue.

It's fun but not if you rent in Edmonton or Calgary.

[takeanumber]

Markets work 95% of the time.

There are times when there is market failure.

The monopolization of apartments in Alberta is one such example. I'm sure supply problems exist in other cities.

When Markets fail, it is the governments job to step in.

I'm against:

Quotas

Rent Ceilings

Rent Floors

What I'm FOR:

Government sponsored/secured Co-op projects. (NGO/IGO-Government Partnerships)

Government INCENTIVES for builders to add supply.

Shelter futures.

Market share caps. (No single individual/group of individuals may own/operate more than 10 percent of any given market, for instance)

The Market often works. But when it fails, it's up to the government, and the taxpayer, to step in to correct it.

For a Conservative to tell me "no, no, the market works all the time" need only look at the railroad industry, 1900-1925, to see that that is not the case.

[August1991]

The monopolization of apartments in Alberta is one such example. I'm sure supply problems exist in other cities.

How is that evidence that markets don't work? If rents are so high in Alberta, then why don't people get into the rental market? It sounds like there is good money to be made. Real estate is one of the easiest businesses to get into.

[takeanumber]

How is that evidence that markets don't work? If rents are so high in Alberta, then why don't people get into the rental market? It sounds like there is good money to be made. Real estate is one of the easiest businesses to get into.

There is a lag between a demand spike and a supply response.

This is because of the capital intensive nature of apartments.

A similiar phenom happens in the oil/gas industry.

This often happens in macroeconomic situations too, which is why we use stabilization policy.

Which is why there should be similar policies in place for housing.

[August1991]

All markets have shifts in supply and demand. You are talking about concentration of ownership. I don't understand why a housing market should be a "monopoly". And I understand even less how "demand spikes" should lead to monopoly.

In any case, a previous poster claims that one firm owns 50% of rental apartments in Edmonton and Calgary. I don't know these markets at all but I find that very hard to believe. But 50% is not a monopoly.

Most durable monopolies are caused by government - precisely the kind of action you favour.

If I understand properly, you think your rent is too high and your salary is too low. You're not happy so you are inventing a complex theory to justify the government giving you someone else's money. Let's be honest here.

This is because of the capital intensive nature of apartments.

WTF? A basement apartment is capital intensive?

[takeanumber]

Alright, one step at a time. I guess not all Conservatives know economics.

First, I never said 'monopoly', I said 'monopolization'. There's a difference. The first term implies one firm, the other word implies an emerging single firm dominance.

If Boardwalk Equity Trust has 50% share (which I believe is very close to the actual number), that means that all of the other firms have less than a 50% share. In fact, vis-a-vis everybody else, Boardwalk Equity has more power to move the market, depending on which model we're using. (Bertrand pricing, price competition, etc.)

I never said that demand spikes lead to monopoly. I don't know where you got that from. Nothing I said even remotely implies that demand spikes lead to monopoly.

What I said was that demand spikes and supply lags lead to market failures.

I never said governments should engage in monopolies. If you actually read my post, I stated that I favoured three types of government intervention, partnerships with NGO's-IGO's (you wouldn't call a PPP a monopoly, would you, why would you call such partnerships such a thing?), incentives, and market share caps.

In fact, the word 'market share cap' should have rang a little bell in your brain that a monopoly couldn't possibly happen with such market share caps, because it violates the def. of 'monopoly'.

That said: you have not understood me correctly so far, instead, you've ignored what I have written with respect to markets and have jumped at calling me a big government inteventionist.

Basement suites alone represent a share of apartments. But the apartment complexes represent significant capital investment and significant planning and building times. This is what causes lags.

I earn a lot of money (I'm an analyst), and I reside in a lovely house in NW Calgary. Do not presume anything about my socio-economic status.

As for your final charge, that I've invented all of this just to justify getting money, lol, I suggest you read again.

I'm against rent control and quotas.

I'm also against virtually all forms of subsidy.

What I AM for is market correction and stabilization SO THAT GOOD PEOPLE DON'T END UP HOMELESS.

It's a basic Canadian value and I posit that in the face of ECONOMIC FACT and somebody who really is holier than you are in economic policy are inventing facts about myself to disupte my arguement.

August1991, your ongoing justification for the homelessness of working individuals is proof of my contention that it is a matter of values, and that your values are inferior to mine.

You ought to be ashamed, and if I ever catch you using Christian logic on these boards, this thread will be used in reference to your religious hypocracy.

You have been pwned.

Regards,

takeanumber.

[Slavik44]

you make it sound as if every oen in alberta is un-able to afford to live in an apartment. Not only that but you make it sound like there is a high percentage of financially prudnet people with out a place to live in alberta.

So I went looking, and found that a good majority of apartments in alberta fall between $500-$1,000 obviously it is not scientific, but that is what i found in the few minutes I looked, $6,000 to $12,000 a year. Obviously this does not leave a huge amount of money to live off of but clearly if in ten seconds i can find 80 apartments available in this price range, a finanacially responisble, hard working employed albertan can do just as well, and not only that but they could manage to live off of that. Personally i wonder how financially responsible these employed homeless people are, obviously there is a human element to this, and when dealing with a human element their will be imperfections. Could it be ciggarettes? alcohol? keeping up a good impression? I am not sayign that what they go through is fair, but i find it hard to belive that there is an abundance of employed homeless people in alberta, especially considering alberta has one of the lower poverty rates in

Canada. If there is such an abundance perhaps government funded financial counseling for these people may better suit their needs, and then we can move on to government sponsered co-ops.

[takeanumber]

Alright, so let's go with this 500-1000 dollar thesis.

The 500 dollar suites are not downtown. They are not along any major transit line. (I just know the market well).

Alright, so now we're going to assume that if it's a 500 dollar suite, that it is unfurnished, and doesn't include electricity or telephone.

Now we can haggle over whether or not a person needs a phone after we talk about about what this persons protein source is...

So now, we're up to, conservatively, no long distance calls back to Acme or anything. So now we're up to what, 700 dollars, conservatively.

Alternatively, we can assume that phone and electric is included in the rent, bringing it up to 700. Your choice.

So, just for basic shelter, no furniture, we're looking at 700 dollars a month. Which is 8400 dollars a month.

Now, let's assume that he doesn't drive. That's 70 dollars for a bus pass. That's 840 dollars a month.

And that bus pass comes first, because if he can't get to work, he can't get paid.

Now, we're going to factor in food, which comes second or first. Now, let's say he lives exclusively off hamburger and it's helper. That's what? 200 a month. Now I know that's a ridiculous number for a grown man to live off of, because that's 6.50 a day, so assuming he eats a 700 gram package of ground beef (regular), he's looking at 3.50 gone there. That's, assuming 3 meals, 200g of protein. Plus an apple. Plus the helper. Let's say he could do it. Even though chances are he's doing physical labour, we'll just assume 200 dollars a month just to satisfy the 60yo men who post on these forums who remember and still think milk is 25 cents a quart. We'll say 6.50 a day even though it's pure fiction.

That's 2400 dollars a month.

We're going to assume the following things too:

We're going to assume that this is not a proud man. We're going to assume that he gets his steel toed boots from the Sally Anne, and in fact, he gets all his clothing from there too.

Moreover, we're going to assume that he relies on the Calgary Food Bank for the toileterries. You know, he needs soap, toilet paper, razors, shampoo etc.. He might even get a few extra things from there to supplement his diet.

We're going to assume that he has sex quite often, but grabs free condoms from a social service.

Alright, so he's entertained, fed, sheltered and clothed, already heavily subsidized by charity, because I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that some conservatives believe that somebody earning a wage SHOULD have to resort to asking for charity.

We'll assume that he picked up a urine soaked matress from the Sally Anne too, so he doesn't have to sleep on the rough shag carpetting.

So, to maintain this lifestyle, he would need to earn 1040 net.

1040/37.5/4 = 6.90/hr NET. (that's 12480, net)

I believe at this level, he need not pay any income tax. If he earns more than 14000 gross in Alberta, that's 10 percent income tax.

At the 12480 net level (which is also his gross), he would only get 50 percent subsidized for Alberta Health Insurance. Don't worry though, because he can use his GST rebate check to pay that off. So it balances out.

Alright, so here we have a man, working full time, who has shelter. Hooray. Plus, he's living a life, according to many Albertan Conservatives, which is fitting for a lower class scumbag. (And note that he's not even drinking. No time! 1 hour commute each way, combined).

Let's assume that he's found a job that pays 7.10 net.

Wham. He gets hit with income tax.

His income plummets, and suddenly, something has to be given up.

He can't give up food.

He can't give up electricity.

He can't give up his phone (without forfeiting his deposit).

So, gone is his shelter.

Or worse, he starts using his credit card.

So now he's homeless. Worse, it becomes really hard to bathe, but somehow, he keeps his job by living out of his bag and showering at the U of C gym.

Or, let's assume rents as they were last year, eh, where a single on a far edge of a city would cost 810?

Homeless again.

And people, I'm assuming an extremely poor life here.

Alright, let's talk options.

He could get roomates. (He doesn't really know anybody, I suppose he could make connections, but I bet it's tough.)

He could go back to Acme. (And better yet, tell others not to come!)

He could wait 8 years for the market to rationalize.

He could learn a trade. But to learn a trade, you need shelter, and trade wages are well below 6.90 net to start.

-----------------------------------------------------

He is not getting 'ahead'.

He is literally forced to ask for the neccisities of life.

He cannot afford to drink.

We say to these unemployed people in the regions to 'go where the work is', (hence the demand spike), yet, supply doesn't respond fast enough. And worse, those who were barely just getting by go homeless because their rents inflate faster than their wages.

(Which is why we get families ending up going from Church to church, something I can't imagine doing, and I can't imagine how that would affect the kids.)

[min wage 5.50; but most working poor earn in excess of this rate.]

Call me crazy, but I believe that when rent exceeds 40% of the income of somebody who is borderline, there is a serious misallignment of the market.

Worse, when working people are forced out of their homes when rent goes from 35% to 45% of their income, and they can't find another apartment in their price range, there is a serious problem with the market.

I'm not saying 'subsidize'. I'm saying that just as we stabilize the macro-economic market, there should be policy in place to rationalize and stabilize micro-economic housing markets.

I'm not saying 'raise the minimum wage', because only extreme youth and waiters earn the minimum. Unskilled labour already earns in excess of 6.50/hr. Raising the minimum wage will cause more unemployment.

Introducing rent ceilings causes what? That's right everybody, a supply shortage, causing even more homelessness.

The solution?

Introducing stabilization policy so that when demand exceeds supply, the borderline working poor do not get thrown out as the supply lag works its way out.

Stabilization policy can take a number of forms, including government-IGO/NGO partnerships, temporary housing a la Atco at previous rental rates, and greater incentives for supply to come online sooner to reduce the supply lag.

I'm interested to hear critiques of the Takeanumber Free Market Rent Stabilization Policy.

Better yet, I'd like to read a small 'c' economic conservative tell me that somebody earning 6.90 an hour, who doesn't drink or do drugs, should be damn thankful that he's able to sleep on a urine soaked mattress.