The "growth economy" is not sustainable.

[Michael Hardner]

Pretty simple. Look at the 1970 and 2005 bars on slide 13.

15% above average income, 66% average, 19% below average in 1970.

19% above average, 29% average, 52% below average in 2005.

Looks like the poor are flourishing to me. The only people who can escape the gravitational pull of poverty in the borderline socialist framework we live in are the very affluent/successful or government elites (aka bus drivers and other municipal/provincial/federal government employees).

Flourishing ? Increasing in numbers, ok. But aren't you in favour of removing minimum wages, organized labour and all of the mechanisms that keep wages higher ?

[Michael Hardner]

Your way results in an economic collapse under the weight of the debt. When the inevitable rapid devaluation of our currency occurs, EVERYONE will be working for less than minimum wage in real terms anyways but the western world will have much more debt to pay off.

What is 'my way'?

Lots of people are making money through globalized trade, but not manufacturing workers. Companies like Apple make a lot of money and manufacture everything offshore.

[Topaz]

A report out says that manufacturing and the unions are on their way out. Well, it seems that could be true but lets look at it IF it did happen. IF Canada becomes a non-manufacturing country then that means we have to IMPORT. That also means the middle-class is virtually gone and so that makes wages around 10.25, at least in Ontario. So now we have the working poor and the rich and the rich isn't going to like it because most the the taxes are going to come from them and it going to be the rich to do all the buying to keep the country economy going. This also means that the working poor won't be able to send their kids to college and so we have many people with just a high school education. I don't see how this is good for ANY country and the middle income earners is very important to the economy. Thoughts?

[jacee]

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/TorontoDivided-PolarizingTrends-TDSB-January2010.pdf

Pretty simple. Look at the 1970 and 2005 bars on slide 13. 15% above average income, 66% average, 19% below average in 1970 19% above average, 29% average, 52% below average in 2005 Looks like the poor are flourishing to me.

Are you joking?

You think the poor are "flourishing" because there are many more of them now?

Right.

The data presented show the opposite of what you claimed earlier: Wealth is being taken from the middle class and given to the rich, resulting in more people living in poverty.

[Bonam]

This also means that the working poor won't be able to send their kids to college and so we have many people with just a high school education.

Not with that again. In Canada, any "kid" can afford to go to college, most especially those who have "working poor" parents. People need to look at the existing programs for bursaries, scholarships, student loans, fellowships, and other forms of financial aid before making such statements. The whole assumption that parents need to save tons of money for their kids education is outdated by several decades. Anyone whose parents are middle class or lower is guaranteed a student loan sufficient to pay for tuition and living expenses if they apply for it.

[jacee]

A report out says that manufacturing and the unions are on their way out. Well, it seems that could be true but lets look at it IF it did happen. IF Canada becomes a non-manufacturing country then that means we have to IMPORT. That also means the middle-class is virtually gone and so that makes wages around 10.25, at least in Ontario. So now we have the working poor and the rich and the rich isn't going to like it because most the the taxes are going to come from them and it going to be the rich to do all the buying to keep the country economy going. This also means that the working poor won't be able to send their kids to college and so we have many people with just a high school education. I don't see how this is good for ANY country and the middle income earners is very important to the economy. Thoughts?

Very well said.

We are brainwashed by business, industry and their pet politicians to believe we should just leave everything in their 'capable' hands as they know what they're doing. However it's becoming increasingly apparent that they are only "doing" for themselves. The health and well-being of the people and of the country itself is of no concern to them at all.

Your point is well-taken: What happens when the middle class no longer exists and all taxes have to come from the rich! Clearly they have not thought this through at all. Just as clearly, they are not acting with a plan at all, just a dog-eat-dog mentality focused by greed.

Actually, they're not even as smart as dogs: When there's plenty to go around, dogs don't fight to hoard more for themselves; They all eat!

[CPCFTW]

Are you joking?

You think the poor are "flourishing" because there are many more of them now?

Right.

The data presented show the opposite of what you claimed earlier: Wealth is being taken from the middle class and given to the rich, resulting in more people living in poverty.

That's the politically correct way or liberal spin way of looking at it, yes.

In reality the left is trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

"Oh crap people are poor and there's an income disparity. What should we do? Clearly the markets have failed to give everyone equal outcomes because we all know that each person is equally productive. It's time for the government to step in and fix this. Wait now there's even more income inequality because of the inflationary effects of borrowing money, controlling prices, and legislating minimum labour costs?? Time for the government to step in again!!"

Corporations didn't destroy the middle class, we taxed away the middle class. Anyone making middle class income outside of the government can't afford to retire comfortably and send their kids college. You make 60k in ON and you can only take home 45k. Rent in Toronto is 1/4 to 1/3 of your income. Food is another 1/4. Your taxes go to pay for the government bureaucrat's pensions rather than your own.

If you're a single person making 60k in Toronto and you max out your RRSP every year, you can put away 10k/yr into RRSPs for 30 years and then you have a 300k nest egg to retire off of. The way the markets are going, you'd be lucky if that turns into 500k. How can you live off of 500k for 25 yrs of retirement? That's a 30k/yr annuity in 2040 dollars. That will be minimum wage by then.

If you're a government worker making 60k, you get more disposable income in the present (you don't have to contribute 18% of your income to your pension.. I think you contribute about 8%), you get guaranteed inflation indexed raises, and you get promotions based heavily on seniority rather than talent. By the time you retire, you're likely to be making 100k and get a guaranteed 60k/yr pension, paid for by the guy in the above scenario retiring on minimum wage.

The great social engineering experiment of the hippy generation has failed. Instead of manufacturing products, we manufactured a middle class of bureaucrats, public service workers, and bus drivers. We did this through the unsustainable model I described. Overtax the rich and private sector, borrow from borderline slave labour nations, dump all the money into feel good programs and pensions for government elites and listen to the great wooshing sound of the socialist model flushing real profit-creating jobs down the toilet.

[Michael Hardner]

The great social engineering experiment of the hippy generation has failed. Instead of manufacturing products, we manufactured a middle class of bureaucrats, public service workers, and bus drivers. We did this through the unsustainable model I described.

Note that globalized trade was brought in as a main tenet of the 80s conservatives.

[CPCFTW]

Note that globalized trade was brought in as a main tenet of the 80s conservatives.

Who said I have anything against globalized trade?

Unlike the "progressive" left, I don't believe that western nations have a noble right to better paying jobs than the poorer nations. I guess the "progressive" mindset is that only whites or immigrants are entitled to a 'living wage'. The three billion humans who don't live in the Western world can either immigrate here or rot?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Unlike the "progressive" left, I don't believe that western nations have a noble right to better paying jobs than the poorer nations. I guess the "progressive" mindset is that only whites or immigrants are entitled to a 'living wage'. The three billion humans who don't live in the Western world can either immigrate here or rot?

Spot on...why does all this talk of organized labour and brotherhood end at the border? If they really believe all that socialist worker's rights rhetoric they should be supporting such globalization.

[Michael Hardner]

Who said I have anything against globalized trade?

You seem to be sad about the decline of manufacturing is all.

[Wild Bill]

I agree that if we eliminated the minimum wage, some manufacturing jobs would come back.

This is also known as 'the race to the bottom'.

Yes and no, Michael. If the jobs are gone, are we not already at the bottom? Isn't having some come back a step back up the ladder?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and no, Michael. If the jobs are gone, are we not already at the bottom? Isn't having some come back a step back up the ladder?

Did you miss the part where I said 'remove the minimum wage' ?

[Wild Bill]

Did you miss the part where I said 'remove the minimum wage' ?

"I agree that if we eliminated the minimum wage, some manufacturing jobs would come back.

This is also known as 'the race to the bottom'. "

Not at all! You are either above or on the bottom. I took your words to mean that if removing the minimum wage would bring jobs back then that would be a move off the bottom, so we must be on the bottom now!

As opposed to being bottom feeders, which of course is something entirely different! Likely, it would involve being elected!

[Saipan]

WE CANNOT EAT OR DRINK MONEY.

No need. I can do that for you.

[Saipan]

Yes and no, Michael. If the jobs are gone, are we not already at the bottom?

No, most nations are below us. It's our cushion well above the bottom.

[Michael Hardner]

Not at all! You are either above or on the bottom. I took your words to mean that if removing the minimum wage would bring jobs back then that would be a move off the bottom, so we must be on the bottom now!

We're above the bottom.

[dre]

The options are to let our poor work for less than minimum wage and rebuild our manufacturing sector, or to continue to pay Chinese workers to manufacture for us while simultaneously borrowing from China to pay our unemployed a 'living wage'.

Your way results in an economic collapse under the weight of the debt. When the inevitable rapid devaluation of our currency occurs, EVERYONE will be working for less than minimum wage in real terms anyways but the western world will have much more debt to pay off.

Its a fantasy to think the manufacturing sector will come back whether you get rid of minimum wages or not.

A lot of workers in the developing world make well under $1 per hour. As low as 10 cents in some cases. The only way the manufacturing industry will return is if theres a huge devaluation in the US dollar, or a energy crisis.

Its over... and it wasnt minimum wages that killed it. In fact it wasnt just wages at all. Everything in the developing world is cheaper from building facilities and factories, to have virtually no workers rights, human rights, or environmental standards.

[dre]

Yes and no, Michael. If the jobs are gone, are we not already at the bottom? Isn't having some come back a step back up the ladder?

Why do you think jobs would come back? In order to compete with the developing world the US would need a very large workforce willing to work for about 25 cents an hour, and it would have to completely deregulate, and the cost of realestate and facilities would need to come down by about 75%.

Do you understand? We are not even CLOSE to being competitive. Not even in the same ballpark.

The only things that will bring manufacturing back are a crashed US dollar, or if energy becomes too expensive to move goods here cost efficiently.

[Saipan]

Its over... and it wasnt minimum wages that killed it. In fact it wasnt just wages at all. Everything in the developing world is cheaper from building facilities and factories, to have virtually no workers rights, human rights, or environmental standards.

Yes, the developing world is the culprit.

[dre]

Yes, the developing world is the culprit.

I never said they are the "culprit". I said they can produce stuff exponentially cheaper than us, to the point where its kind of silly to suggest some little tweaks to how we tax, or a reduction of the minimum wage is going to make a big diference.

The jobs are NOT coming back, no matter what we do.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Do you understand? We are not even CLOSE to being competitive. Not even in the same ballpark.

Are you channeling the "US" again...tsk tsk.

[Saipan]

The jobs are NOT coming back, no matter what we do.

So why are we bringing more immigrants from third world countries who don't even have any skills? Except maybe picking cotton and deal drugs.

[TimG]

I never said they are the "culprit". I said they can produce stuff exponentially cheaper than us, to the point where its kind of silly to suggest some little tweaks to how we tax, or a reduction of the minimum wage is going to make a big diference.

Globalization is redistributing wealth and it will settle at a new equilibrium that will require that the standard of living in developed to countries drop. The idea that the entire world can rise to our level is a fantasy. There are simply too many people that want a piece of the action and are not willing to wait their turn. 50 years from now Canada will look like China and India with large gaps between the rich and the poor. No social safety net will be able to stop this because there will be no money to pay for it.

[dre]

Are you channeling the "US" again...tsk tsk.

Are you derailing the thread again with meaningless retarded bullshit?