Cdn Gap Wdens Between Rich & Poor

[maplesyrup]

'Sick humour' angers

Sounds like this organization needs some sensitivity training, and better yet, those employees responsible need to be replaced, eh?

[Hugo]

Why do women earn so much less than do men? Are women lazy?

No, they take maternity leave, and often choose to work part-time to raise children. So, on average, they earn less because they work less.

[RB]

Posted on Jul 10 2004, 03:11 PM

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

QUOTE 

Why do women earn so much less than do men? Are women lazy? 

No, they take maternity leave, and often choose to work part-time to raise children. So, on average, they earn less because they work less.

on the other hand women are not compensated for their talents .. well there is a small shift for some inclusion but no major impact for equal monies for equal work hence the usual .. they are kept economically at a disadvantage

we find that female have twice the qualification, twice the education, twice the performance in order to be on par with their male counterparts

i usually attribute this to less vocalisation of women talking about women, and women representing the same

in politics i find women are counterproductive meaning that the few women that do find their way into politics and streamlined are swayed to party polictics which men are more persuasive in their arguments and set rules for women's issues.

well, maybe its not the women's style to shout at each other four at a time to agree on policies.

but what i mean is men are the usual ones who bring up issues about women, and then determine what is acceptable. the women who are in politics for whatever reason usually veto against what the common woman usually want

we want wage equality

we want rights such as abortion rights to choose so that we don't have to stay at home to look after kids and are able to work as many hours as the male for the same amonts of money

we want to share some POWER such as power to control economics that we should not be kept poor

i believe that male is fearful of loosing their bits of control of power. what i mean is that the male dominates the decision as to who get in and stays in and unless they can release themselves of such a hold which is for me a "cultural shift of the minds of male to see something as EQUALITY of the sexes"

women will continue to struggle and be poor and continue to work twice as hard, holding two jobs to make ends meet.

the same cannot be said for men.

[maplesyrup]

Well I am not so sure this is a left/right thing, as it is a prioirity thing. fixing the situation of poverty must become essential for every political party, for something to be achieved. however the question then becomes how do you fix the problem? It has been said that you cannot fix money problems with money and if this is true, then perhaps welfare is not the real answer to fixing the problem so much as it is a saftey net. Perhaps the key is not in welfare, and not in reaching a unatainable utopian society where their is more jobs then workers, but in trying to lower the cost of living for those who cannot afford to. A big chunk of our money is spent on housing a big chunk of our money is spent on food, in reality that is a huge burden that in situations the poor cannot handle. so perhpas instead of giving people money are best bet is to reduce the need for money by subsidizing housing

and food for the poor, perhpas it is a better policy to have a progressive subsidization system that decreases as income increases, as well as providing an adequate universal Job placement system.

One suggestion is to abolish tuition, etc. make education part of the general taxation system, so that the poorer elements of society will have complete access.

[maplesyrup]

RB....you make a lot of sense, so don't give up.

One good sign is that more women than men are attending and completing university now, so hopefullly this is going to eventually even out the playing field.

[Stoker]

One good sign is that more women than men are attending and completing university now, so hopefullly this is going to eventually even out the playing field.

Has the "playing field" been uneven recently?

[Guest eureka]

Income and wealth redistribution has been going on for a long time in Canada, MS. They are shifting towards the wealthier.

Incomes in Canada are now only slighter higher than they were twent five years ago in real terms. They peaked in 1977 and declined until they caught up again in the late 90's. However, the decline was concentrated in the lower and middle groups. The top ten percent or so continued to gain at their expense. The rest are still liiving at or below 1977 levels.

If memory serves me correctly (I am writing from memory of some research I did several years ago) in this, longer hours are also necessary to equal that 1977 peak.

The number of people living under the accepted measures of poverty in Canada increased by approximately 50% between 1989 and the present. The whole group also suffered declines in income in real terms. Even our Parliamentarians admit that in failing to carry out the 1989 pledge to eradicate poverty.

Interestingly, the largest increases in the numbers of poor ocurred in the 1990's under the Klein administration in Alberta and the Harris one in Ontario. These two in Canada's two wealthiest provinces were responsible for most of the numerical increase and the decline in the incomes of the poorest.

[August1991]

Incomes in Canada are now only slighter higher than they were twent five years ago in real terms. They peaked in 1977 and declined until they caught up again in the late 90's.

Do you mean that Canada was a richer country in 1977 than now (or the late 1990s?)

Well, true, there was no AIDS in 1977. But there was also no Internet and no DVD rental. (What do you mean by "income"?)

More important, how much did the poorest 20% of Canadians get on average after taxes in 1977 and how much did they get in 2002, in after inflation dollars?

IOW, forget about what the rich got. I want to know what the poor got. I've got my numbers. Let's see yours.

[Cartman]

No, they take maternity leave, and often choose to work part-time to raise children. So, on average, they earn less because they work less.

Do women freely "choose" to forsake a career in order to have children or is it a "pressured/expected" decision? This raises the question of whether women should be compensated for reproductive work (having children and raising them) since they lose in the paid labour force.

Nevertheless, even controlling for the reasons you mention above (which are good reasons), women still earn less. Women who remain single, unmarried, AND obtain a university degree still do not earn as much as men in most areas of employment according to StatsCan. Only 2% of Canadian CEO's are female. More women are called to the bar in Canada, but males still earn more.

This suggests blatant discrimination. If women experience such discrimination, then perhaps others do as well. Perhaps unequal opportunity explains the widening gap b/w rich and poor. Why do we always simplistically believe that poor people are lazy welfare bums?

[August1991]

This suggests blatant discrimination.

Discrimination? Blatant?

Illiterate hockey players earn millions while schoolteachers manage at best to pay their bills. Who is more important to society? Hockey players or schoolteachers?

So, why does our society pay these people differently? What kind of message does this send to young people? What kind of society will we have in the future?

Why do hockey players earn so much? Do schoolteachers earn too little?

[Cartman]

Illiterate hockey players earn millions while schoolteachers manage at best to pay their bills. Who is more important to society? Hockey players or schoolteachers?

I fail to see your point here. My answer is that hockey players are less important than teachers, yet the latter earn less. Does this not support the notion that society discriminates against teachers relative to hockey players?

Speaking of hockey though, why is it that free-market economics is fine when the owners are making bank, but a new collective agreement must be reached when the players are making bank? You might want to explain this to older CDN hockey legends.

[Michael Hardner]

I fail to see your point here. My answer is that hockey players are less important than teachers, yet the latter earn less.

Maybe because hockey players are more important after all.

Does this not support the notion that society discriminates against teachers relative to hockey players?

Or ...put another way... that society values hockey players above teachers ?

Only 2% of Canadian CEO's are female.

I would think that CEOs began their climb to the top in the heydey of sexism. We'll see that number go up in time.

[Hawk]

women will continue to struggle and be poor and continue to work twice as hard, holding two jobs to make ends meet.

the same cannot be said for men.

First off, here is a tissue for your poor overworked, underpaid, discriminated self. Secondly, get a life.

Women are NOT discriminated against, what you need to do is go live 50-60 years ago and then come back and judge the differences. Women today in many cases are PREFERED to men and paid far more, dont judge things on CEO's. Men are more for conquest, so heading up businesses are more their style. Some women get CEO because they too have a desire of conquest, but most of the time women get MARRIED and have KIDS and therefore they dont get the major careers they want. Should we then make mothers kill all their children for the sake of political correctness? Do ALL women feel as do you and WANT a career over a family? I dont agree, because I have talked to MANY women about this and 90% would prefer a good family with children to a career. This statistic would explain why so few women hold major careers in business, because they ARE in a major 'career' called motherhood. The most important thing there could be, the most important job

[noelandmero]

I am trying to put this debate in context for myself and would like to know what other people feel is rich, poor and middle class?

[Cartman]

Women who remain single, unmarried, AND obtain a university degree still do not earn as much as men in most areas of employment according to StatsCan.

The point here was that these women have not chosen marriage or to have children and they still earn less than men despite a university degree and a desire for a career. How do you explain why females now outnumber males in university? Are they just trying to look cute and get a guy? I would assume that they are seeking careers.

First off, here is a tissue for your poor overworked, underpaid, discriminated self.

Getting sarcastic and personal only reduces the credibility of your argument. But, as a MALE statistics prof. in my mid-thirties, holding almost no debt and earning a decent living along with five and a half months off a year (to publish), I am pretty happy. I never said I faced discrimination, but many women do. Why should their talents be wasted or devalued?

90% would prefer a good family with children to a career

90% of women eh? Wow.

BTW...why don't you go into "the most important" career? Men can help raise children.

Men are more for conquest, so heading up businesses are more their style.

Dude...you sound like Dr. Evil. He wasn't real.

Should we then make mothers kill all their children for the sake of political correctness?

For political correctness? Well...ok! We can place them in pools of water containing ill-tempered bass with "laser" beams on their heads. We will call it the Alan Parsons Project.

Whatever

[I miss Reagan]

I think there are some here who would appreciate this analogy of a likely scenario in Canada:

"Lets put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18; the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers, "he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59!

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that they got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are other good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean."

[maplesyrup]

Why don't you read "Repair of Taxation" by a guy named Tom Kent (I almost said Clark Kent, but then I could be accused of pushing it), and tell me what you think of his ideas?

I am no expert about our taxation system, like so many people here appear to be, but he is, so I curious to know if you think Kent makes sense and has some good suggestions.

Repair of Taxation

[Cartman]

Let us use another situation shall we? This time it will be realistic and there will be 10 people who shop at Wal-Mart (8 WORKING poor, 1 middle-class and 1 upper-class). Without the purchases of the working poor, the company goes under. The purchases of the latter two are far less important in a volume economy.

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and university professors, is how the economy works.

[noelandmero]

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18; the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

Love the analogy I Miss Regan but youre rich man must be an idiot because even our vaunted PM knows to hide his money some where other than Canada. A country which seems to be full of people who will say that working hard and doing well is dirty, instead of something to proud of.

[Guest eureka]

I have not found the source of the information that Personal Incomes peaked in 1977. I know it to be so because it was much written and analysed a few years ago. Most of the Statscan sites that might be relevant seem only to give the "User Guides."

One site did include percentage changes since 1961 and, from a run down the figures from 1977, it is clear that changes were below the inflation rate and, in some years were negative. I noticed that the changes were negative also in 1002 and 2003. However, the changes in the late 90's were probably enough to bring us back to those 1977 levels.

There are any number of sites on which the increased numbers in the lowest income groups can be found. It should hardly be necessary to argue the point since, in 1989, Parliament passed a resolution promising to "eradicate" poverty by 2000. The increase of 50% since then is common knowledge and can easily be found in the information of "Campaign 2000."

I did find one place that commented on the prospects of the food industry and stated that PDI decreased 1n the 90's although inflation rates were low. It also stated that now dual income families were the norm in compensation. I tried to paste those statements but only the slide number showed.

[RB]

Posted on Jul 12 2004, 04:40 PM

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

QUOTE 

women will continue to struggle and be poor and continue to work twice as hard, holding two jobs to make ends meet.

the same cannot be said for men.

First off, here is a tissue for your poor overworked, underpaid, discriminated self. Secondly, get a life.

Women are NOT discriminated against, what you need to do is go live 50-60 years ago and then come back and judge the differences. Women today in many cases are PREFERED to men and paid far more, dont judge things on CEO's. Men are more for conquest, so heading up businesses are more their style. Some women get CEO because they too have a desire of conquest, but most of the time women get MARRIED and have KIDS and therefore they dont get the major careers they want. Should we then make mothers kill all their children for the sake of political correctness? Do ALL women feel as do you and WANT a career over a family? I dont agree, because I have talked to MANY women about this and 90% would prefer a good family with children to a career. This statistic would explain why so few women hold major careers in business, because they ARE in a major 'career' called motherhood. The most important thing there could be, the most important job

here Hawk try to comprehend and internalise some stats

Women working full-time, full-year, earned $33,494 in 1997, compared to $45,841 for men. [ Survey of Consumer Finances, Income Trends in Canada, 1980-1997. ]

In 1998, less than 10 per cent of directors at Canada's top 200 industrial and service companies and top 100 financial institutions were women. [ Women Board Directors in Top Canadian Companies: The 1998 Corporate Women Directors International Report, November 23, 1998. -- (Ontario's Success Story, p. 8) ]

Women are severely under-represented in non-traditional apprenticeships that lead to well-paying jobs. They make up only 1.6% of the automotive workforce in this province. Only 10 per cent of registered apprentices in Ontario are female, and they are concentrated in lower-paying occupations, such as hairstyling, child and youth work, horticulture and cooking. [Ontario Ministry of Education, 1999.]

taken from this website

http://www.gov.on.ca/citizenship/owd/engli...ts/economic.htm

I don’t have the time to convince anyone that wage inequality exist and very overtly in some occupations I might add

But i can say that women don’t just enter the workforce because they simply want to contribute to household income, they are in dire-straits and in economic need.

They have to provide for all those additional family members that you want me to believe women are born to produce.

Here are some more facts for you

In May 1986, two-thirds of working mothers with children at home said that they worked to support their family.

Over half of all working women worked to support their family and/or themselves.

In 1992, 44% of women in the labor force were the sole supporters of their households:

Single - 24%

Divorced – 12%

Widowed – 4%

Separated – 4%

recap your arguments:

- first with the outrageous traditional family concept of predetermine role for the woman

- secondly women are not descrimated against. so it is okay that they are found in traditional “female” jobs – usually menial clerical with low wages

- thirdly when the women speaks up – she is ridicule into oblivion

It depresses me this denial and more denial. Number one priority should be, a way for women to have access to high wage jobs is demonstrated by the fact that nearly 45% of all family households maintained by women lived in poverty and are POOR

So it is common sense that women need to plan and determine their own paths, and YES they need to become career oriented and have contingencies:

get educated,

acquire new and up-to-date skills,

get retraining

become self-sufficient and

be reoriented to a psyche to provide for the family before they start live in your dream world

So number four don’t give us lip service about wage equality and in reality provide us gaps in wages and then covertly cover-up with some flimsy explanation alluding that women usually want to be at home and raise a family because in reality they are on their own @ 44% of the time struggling by themselves. No wonder the gods and man mock and mar them

But even when the labour force consist of 56% females they occupy low level, traditional women jobs.

Discrimination exists.

Well here is a simple task, give all your "many women" you have spoken with the opportunity for one-month spa treatment getaway to “get back into shape” immediately after giving birth – bonding with the baby anyone?

so much for family

The only difference between the sexes should be procreation and breast feeding.

The fundamental propose and wish would be for equality for all persons and paramount is wage equality and inclusion to the good ol buddy club so that women can experience some better standard of living

Here is some other stats on wage gaps

http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/myths.shtml

[Cartman]

Now I think that was a well articulated response...one of the best I have read. True enough, even if women's earnings were simply discretionary (which they usually are not), why would they choose to work in the pink ghetto? Without women's incomes, the poverty rate in Canada would be dramatically higher.

Hawk, I think you need to respond to RB's response.

[Cartman]

In May 1986, two-thirds of working mothers with children at home said that they worked to support their family.

Over half of all working women worked to support their family and/or themselves.

Actually, now that you mention it. I cannot wrap my head around how single women with children make it work without some form of affordable day care (unless they live near family willing to assist them). During the election, a woman on CBC claimed that in Van. she paid $1000. a month for the care of her two children and that there were terribly long waiting lists. Brutal.

[Bro]

We never used to have street people harassing you whereever you go.

lol.You're right,but after 40 tears of almost liberal majority rule,you sure do now.

Wonder why that is!High taxes,perhaps.

Some of the people the system supports is because they don't want to work to pay taxes to support somebody else.

As stated earlier,ei and welfare should be a temporary

benefit,not a career choice.And,before anybody gets on their high horse,people with illnesses and disabilities are most certainly welcome to these benefits.Problem is,they are not getting enough because of the career people who make public funds their sole source of income.

[Guest eureka]

The rate of increase in welfare recipients and those living in poverty in Canada accelarated under the Mulroney government, federally with its massive reduction in transfers to the provinces. Most of the increase can be layed at the dooe af that government and the "Conservative" provincial governments that dominated the wealthier provinces in the ninties. Foodbanks appeared first in Edmonton somewhat earlier again under a Conservative government in 1981.

Taxes in Canada are NOT high when compared to other developed countries. Canada is in the lower half of the G8 countries. They are also lower than in many American states. That is, the sum of all taxes. That is one fact that nobody brings up to bury the mew Neo-cons.