Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Pliny]

I don't have the time or energy these days to respond to a bunch of individual posts i've read, but a bunch of you people on here have your head seriously rammed so far up your ass when it comes to people labeled 'poor'. I would imagine most with these attitudes have never even come close to foodbank or a homeless shelter or trailer park or native reserve. The stereotypes on here are hilarious. Ahh yes, the ol' "poor people are lazy" nonsense. Let's see...

- The family-type with the highest poverty rate in Canada is single mothers (47%). Clearly they are lazy.

What percentage would you say are lazy then?

- Age group most likely to be poor: children (18% of all Canadian children are poor. That's 2 million kids). Also, 37% of all people who visit foodbanks in Canada are children. Damn lazy kids, get a job!

Would you suggest revoking child labour laws? What percentage of those children have single mothers?

- Women make less money than men and are more likely to be under the poverty line. Damn lazy women, work harder like us men!

What percentage make less? My business partner and I both make less than our wives. I think, in our case, that's more to do with being stupid than lazy.

- 17% of single female seniors in Canada live under the poverty line. That's also almost double the rate of single male seniors. Come on granny, work harder!

Are they the ones in their kids basement suite who thought their Canada pension would be sufficient for their retirement? It really is a pittance today, isn't it? It used to be more substantial but inflation makes it enough for coffees in the morning at Timmy's.

- More than half of First Nations people are unemployed. Damn lazy aboriginals, what do you have to complain about?!?

Their greatest success is in lobbying the government for more cash. Work? What for? If you really want to be successful at genocide just give that group everything they need. They will eventually feel worthless.

- Recent immigrants are more likely to be poor and unemployed. Stop watching tv Mohammad and get a job ya bum!

What for? I have never had it so good sitting around watching tv and getting my essentials covered.

- Visible minorities have higher poverty rates than Caucasians. Thems lazy negros i tells ya!

Who are visible minorities? We have covered, Mohammed, First Nations, immigrants (some from Africa no doubt). All of these things are adding up to 300% of Canadians.

- "Several studies have found that youth experiencing homelessness have disproportionately been involved in child protection services or foster care in their lives. This number ranges from close to 30% to 49%." link

Is there a relationship between child protection services and homelessness? What percentage of children do these comprise of total children in poverty?

- "Contrary to popular misconception, schizophrenia is only present in approximately 6% of Toronto’s homeless population" (above link). Must just be laziness then.

Only 6%? What's the misconception? The rest just haven't presented themselves to the experts for diagnosis, I suppose. These people have problems, most certainly and they probably have the most "help". Downtown Vancouver has a myriad of these advocacy groups fighting for a share of the homeless, and a lot of them are scarier than living on the street. Not dissimilar to the house of candy that Hansel and Gretel found in the woods. Now most of them would be affronted by that claim and are trying to "help". They need to ask thier clientele what they can do to contribute for their help instead of exploiting them by including them in a statistic they present to the government for grants.

But then the government wouldn't like them to benefit from any contribution their clientele might be able to provide. It's quite a vicious, and I mean vicious, circle. True victims are so valuable a resource.

(Apologies, if a stat above doesn't have a link it was taken from a 2010 book i have on social welfare in Canada)

Obviously advocating a greater welfare state....er...more compassionate society, I mean.

Yes, some poor people are indeed lazy and can suck the system, but most aren't.

What's the percentage? I don't think it is ever mentioned but it always claimed to be small.

While it is true there are people who need help, the number of helpless has increased. Whereas, as a society, we generally used to get people to do whatever they could to make a contribution to society we now expect nothing from them. They contribute nothing and feel like nothing. The prescription today is to provide for them the best we can through our taxes and surplus wealth. Trying to provide a modicum of dignity and respect for them in the form of handouts.

Is that the source of dignity and respect or is that the road to victimhood and a spiralling out of control life of dependency?

You can also work your butt off to become wealthy, yet you can also do jack-all but have wealthy parents and invest wisely.

Some people just don't understand the social and structural determinants of income. A good example of structural determinants would be that 99% of those living in Africa, Asia, and central/south America are dirt poor even relative to the Canadian poor. Is that because they are less hard-working or less intelligent? Or might it be something else?

It is something else. It is you making a comparison of apples and oranges between societies so economically diverse in nature, and so undeveloped in comparison it is ridiculous. It sounds like money is the most important factor in your consideration of the rich and poor. It might behoove you to consider that happiness is probably the greatest measure of the quality of life. Money and material wealth are irrelevant to happiness which is perhaps more elusive to the rich since they have the means to live in misery alone. It is despicable that the poor in order to receive are required to don a cloak of victimhood for their continued existence instead of realizing it is the degree of their contribution to society that returns them happiness, dignity, respect and wealth. But only if there is a government that can deliver justice instead of victimizing Paul by robbing him to pay Peter, who to the politician is a more valuable citizen to his purpose, and never intends for him to be anything but a victim.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Pliny

[CitizenX]

What I find interesting is a ron paul supporter throwing a pity party for the poor. All I can say is wow! \

Yes I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and yes I advocate personal responsibility. Ron Paul is a Libertarian Right so I don't agree with everything he stands for, but there is no doubt for me that he is the only honest politician with common sense that has not been bought out by corporate America that is running in the States.

I am not having a pity party for the poor. I'm just pointing out to some of the arrogant posters that hard work is only one factor of success in the monetary sense. Personally I am successful money wise, and really didn't have to work that hard to get here. It's just that I am thankful, and recognize that I had a good upbringing which allows me to have compassion for the less fortunate. I try not to be judgmental, and acknowledge that things are not black and white.

Yes you can be a Libertarian and have Compassion for your fellow man/woman.

Edited September 28, 2011 by CitizenX

[CitizenX]

I don't have the time or energy these days to respond to a bunch of individual posts i've read, but a bunch of you people on here have your head seriously rammed so far up your ass when it comes to people labeled 'poor'. I would imagine most with these attitudes have never even come close to foodbank or a homeless shelter or trailer park or native reserve. The stereotypes on here are hilarious. Ahh yes, the ol' "poor people are lazy" nonsense.

A lot of these people are member's of the Ayn Rand cult, and hypocritical Christians.

[Bonam]

I am not having a pity party for the poor. I'm just pointing out to some of the arrogant posters that hard work is only one factor of success in the monetary sense. Personally I am successful money wise, and really didn't have to work that hard to get here. It's just that I am thankful, and recognize that I had a good upbringing which allows me to have compassion for the less fortunate. I try not to be judgmental, and acknowledge that things are not black and white.

Yes you can be a Libertarian and have Compassion for your fellow man/woman.

If you got your wealth so easily and feel so compassionate, feel free to give it away. You can give it to charities, or if you feel like paying higher taxes, I'm sure the government won't mind if you send them an extra check with a note explaining that you are giving them a donation.

For the rest of us, that had to work to succeed, we don't feel like giving even more of the fruits of our labor to the moochers.

How is it that your idea of "compassion" is having the government take away someone's money so they can give it to someone else? If you want to be compassionate, be so with your own wealth and resources, and leave the rest of us out of it.

[Black Dog]

I'm glad you pointed that out because that's one of the major flaws of the socialist dream. Borrow money from China so that everyone can have a degree for 10 cents on the dollar, but now everyone is too "educated" to get their hands dirty, so let the Chinese manufacture stuff for us and borrow more money from them to pay for it too. Now that the lending to prop up this dream is drying up, it's time to start taking someone else's money... I know who we can target, the wealthy!!

Gee I wonder who the people are who are making the decisions to ship manufacturing and other jobs offshore to places where labour costs are lower? Must be those socialist college dropouts who are in charge of Fortune 500 companies. But it's the workers' fault for wanting a decent living when they should be putting their noses to the grindstone for slave wages.

[CitizenX]

If you got your wealth so easily and feel so compassionate, feel free to give it away. You can give it to charities, or if you feel like paying higher taxes, I'm sure the government won't mind if you send them an extra check with a note explaining that you are giving them a donation.

Point missed

[Moonlight Graham]

What percentage would you say are lazy then?

How would I know? You can't know such a thing without statistics. If you can find a research study that has properly operationalized and measured the concept of "laziness" in an empirical study on poverty/welfare then maybe we'd know. Seems a hard thing to operationalize, but if you can find such a study i'd be interested.

Would you suggest revoking child labour laws? What percentage of those children have single mothers?

Sarcasm.

What percentage make less?

Not sure. But 16.6% of women live under the poverty line in Canada (income of just under 20 grand a year i believe) compared to 14.4% of men.

My business partner and I both make less than our wives.

Statistically, you're in the minority then.

What for? I have never had it so good sitting around watching tv and getting my essentials covered.

You can't make near as much money on welfare as you can even with a minimum wage job. Monthly income for a single person on Ontario Works = $585, while monthly before-tax income for a person earning minimum wage in Ontario (35 hrs/week)= $1,555.

If you have a disability you get about double the $$ on Ontario Works than if you are able-bodied. I would think it would be extremely hard to afford cable tv if you are able-bodied and capable of working and living off Ontario Works, let alone even afford adequate basic needs like food/shelter/clothes.

Who are visible minorities?

People who don't look like Caucasians.

Is there a relationship between child protection services and homelessness? What percentage of children do these comprise of total children in poverty?

There is a clear relationship between child abuse/neglect, and thus child protection services/group homes/foster care, and homelessness. Dr. Gabor Mate, a physician who works at the onsite/insite facility in Vancouver's downtown eastside said in a

that of the hundreds of addicts he has treated there not single one that was not abused (either sexual, physical, neglect) as a child.

Obviously advocating a greater welfare state....er...more compassionate society, I mean.

It was a textbook from a university course in social work i took this summer, ie: peer-reviewed, not some book by a crackpot do-gooder.

It is something else. It is you making a comparison of apples and oranges between societies so economically diverse in nature, and so undeveloped in comparison it is ridiculous.

There's more in common than you think. All countries are incorporated into the world capitalist system, even the "communist" ones, virtually all are countries where a small minority control a disproportionate amount of the wealth compared to the masses.

It sounds like money is the most important factor in your consideration of the rich and poor.

The OP is talking about rich and poor in terms of economics, so when I (or the stats) refer to poverty in this thread i'm talking about income & wealth.

It might behoove you to consider that happiness is probably the greatest measure of the quality of life.

I fully agree 100%. I never once mentioned 'happiness' and i'm not talking about what makes people happy. But you say "money and material wealth are irrelevant to happiness", and i would say that money is certainly isn't #1 but it certainly is important to quality of life since it can greatly factor into your health, education, amount of time to spend with family etc

Edited September 28, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Gee I wonder who the people are who are making the decisions to ship manufacturing and other jobs offshore to places where labour costs are lower?

The people who are tasked with competing globally, not protecting an antiquated 20th century labor model.

Must be those socialist college dropouts who are in charge of Fortune 500 companies. But it's the workers' fault for wanting a decent living when they should be putting their noses to the grindstone for slave wages.

Decent wages are available where the jobs have been shipped. They can pack up and move if they refuse to retool their skills and attitude.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's just that I am thankful, and recognize that I had a good upbringing which allows me to have compassion for the less fortunate. I try not to be judgmental, and acknowledge that things are not black and white...

Great...then please be compassionate with your own money and stop worrying about somebody elses. As for "supporting" Ron Paul, he is a politician like any other in the United States and can't do much for your cause in/for Canada.

Edited September 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Shwa]

As for "supporting" Ron Paul, he is a politician like any other in the United States and can't do much for your cause in/for Canada.

Pfft. And I thought you had some insight into Canada and the various causes up here. So much for all those ex-Presidents showing up at the Empire club to speak at luncheons...

[GostHacked]

Gee I wonder who the people are who are making the decisions to ship manufacturing and other jobs offshore to places where labour costs are lower? Must be those socialist college dropouts who are in charge of Fortune 500 companies. But it's the workers' fault for wanting a decent living when they should be putting their noses to the grindstone for slave wages.

Along with government complicity. Rich lobby the gov to change the rules so it works in their benefit. The lines between Corporations and Government are so blurred, they seem to be one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pfft. And I thought you had some insight into Canada and the various causes up here. So much for all those ex-Presidents showing up at the Empire club to speak at luncheons...

Ron Paul isn't even close to being an ex-President. The poor souls in Canada who gaze upon him as their American Libertarian Savior are impotent and delusional. An American politician is not going to save anybody in the US, let alone some poor rubes in Canada.

[GostHacked]

The people who are tasked with competing globally, not protecting an antiquated 20th century labor model.

And it ends up to be the individual's fault when they can't find a decent paying job because these corporations want to compete globally and outsource their work?

Decent wages are available where the jobs have been shipped.

So, we should be moving to China to get those jobs then?

They can pack up and move if they refuse to retool their skills and attitude.

Who can afford to do that?

[Shwa]

Ron Paul isn't even close to being an ex-President. The poor souls in Canada who gaze upon him as their American Libertarian Savior are impotent and delusional. An American politician is not going to save anybody in the US, let alone some poor rubes in Canada.

Ex-Presidents, politicians, writers with aspiration... they are recruited for plenty of causes of your northern cousins on a regular basis. Ron Paul would have some of them creaming their jeans at the mere thought of speaking anywhere in The Great White North. Eh?

[Oleg Bach]

Bureaucrats - technocrats - governmental workers are now the elite - YET they generate no real material wealth - they are parasistes - just like in the old soviet union - 90% of the people who did nothing worked in the fantacy trades...finally the system became so top heavey with maggots that it toppled over. Same thing will happen here. You get a man who puts a roof on your house - which if very very hard work - he gets half of his money taken away if he is "legit" The underground economy is the only thing keeping the working guy afloat.

The parasistes at the top are now attempting to take the last few crumbs from those that actually work...when that happens- the economy will truely come to a grinding halt...When I see a tax jerk spend 20 thousand dollars on chasing down a man that supposedly owes 10 thousand dollars - then something is severly wrong with the system.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ex-Presidents, politicians, writers with aspiration... they are recruited for plenty of causes of your northern cousins on a regular basis. Ron Paul would have some of them creaming their jeans at the mere thought of speaking anywhere in The Great White North. Eh?

Maybe...look how much help Howard Dean provided to the Grits. Don't worry poor and downtrodden Canadians, an ex-US politician will fly in to save you (for a large speaking fee).

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe...look how much help Howard Dean provided to the Grits. Don't worry poor and downtrodden Canadians, an ex-US politician will fly in to save you (for a large speaking fee).

Send in your best - I will vacum the red carpet. We are not below excepting the idea of a reverse brain drain running north...send us your tired and down trodden rich - we will take them in and give them santuary. Apparently the beating up of Martha Stewart was just the beging of the great betrayal - as for the large speaking fee...no problem...someone has to take care of your ignored.

[CPCFTW]

Gee I wonder who the people are who are making the decisions to ship manufacturing and other jobs offshore to places where labour costs are lower? Must be those socialist college dropouts who are in charge of Fortune 500 companies. But it's the workers' fault for wanting a decent living when they should be putting their noses to the grindstone for slave wages.

And it ends up to be the individual's fault when they can't find a decent paying job because these corporations want to compete globally and outsource their work?

So, we should be moving to China to get those jobs then?

Who can afford to do that?

You both missed the point. The reason those jobs were shipped offshore is because of the socialist dream of everyone having a free degree and being too good to have dirty hands. Not only do university grads demand higher wages, but other socialist constructs like minimum wages, ei, welfare, universal health care, vacation pay, unionization, etc. ensure that even those who do not pursue a taxpayer funded arts degree are too expensive to be given an unskilled manufacturing job.

Want to fix the economy? Stop paying people $10/hr to pour me a coffee or bag my groceries, and automate those types of "service" jobs. Then let the people who are working these unskilled jobs manufacture products at a competitive low wage.

Mandate that any new refugee or unskilled immigrant must work full-time for at least a year in manufacturing. Their weekends are spent english language training on-site, developing a career plan, and being otherwise educated to assist with their career plan. On-site housing is also provided for. There, now new immigrants have no problem finding jobs, and we have a manufacturing industry again. After a year working for $5/hr they can apply for permanent residency and begin look for other jobs or try to move up in their own company.

If we're going to be giving the unemployed free housing, income, and services anyway, why not let them work for it to help rebuild an industry?

Non-violent, unemployed criminals can be sentenced to join the immigrants instead of being imprisoned.

Edited September 28, 2011 by CPCFTW

[GostHacked]

You both missed the point. The reason those jobs were shipped offshore is because of the socialist dream of everyone having a free degree and being too good to have dirty hands.

Actually you are the one missing the point. And I don't get how it is a socialist dream to ship jobs overseas while the people in your own country suffer?

Jobs shipped over seas.

People that were in that job, now have to settle for lower wages in whatever job they can find. (and hours are no longer guaranteed)

Some of these people end up on welfare, because they can't get another job in their field.

These people can no longer contribute back to the government in taxes as much as they used to.

These people cannot contribute back to the economy by buying items because now they cannot afford them.

Less taxes collected means socialistic government services will be cut.

Less social services means means more people are looking for help.

All while the cost of living is going up, and people are not able to save as much as they used to.

All while the government is increasing it's size, regardless of less taxes being collected to make the government run efficiently.

So no, I am not missing the point. And I suspect that point is not lost on Black Dog either.

The only way you can blame the people is that they have not been aware of the corporations and governments in bed with each other to screw you in the end. The rest of the blame is on the corps and government for screwing you in the end.

Not only do university grads demand higher wages,

Which demands higher tuition fees. And a university degree is not a guarantee of you getting higher wages.

Edited September 28, 2011 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Gee...why does "worker solidarity" disintigrate when the job security moves off shore? Aren't these the same brothers and sisters of the downtrodden labour class? What am I missing in this glorified unionized dream (nightmare)?

[CPCFTW]

Actually you are the one missing the point. And I don't get how it is a socialist dream to ship jobs overseas while the people in your own country suffer?

Jobs shipped over seas.

People that were in that job, now have to settle for lower wages in whatever job they can find. (and hours are no longer guaranteed)

Some of these people end up on welfare, because they can't get another job in their field.

These people can no longer contribute back to the government in taxes as much as they used to.

These people cannot contribute back to the economy by buying items because now they cannot afford them.

Less taxes collected means socialistic government services will be cut.

Less social services means means more people are looking for help.

All while the cost of living is going up, and people are not able to save as much as they used to.

All while the government is increasing it's size, regardless of less taxes being collected to make the government run efficiently.

So no, I am not missing the point. And I suspect that point is not lost on Black Dog either.

The only way you can blame the people is that they have not been aware of the corporations and governments in bed with each other to screw you in the end. The rest of the blame is on the corps and government for screwing you in the end.

Which demands higher tuition fees. And a university degree is not a guarantee of you getting higher wages.

Corporations exist neither to screw the people, nor to act as a job charity, but rather to make a profit.

If there are more people looking for work then there are jobs, then workers are going to get screwed. If the government encourages the creation of jobs, then suddenly it's the workers who can start screwing the corporations when there are more jobs than workers.

When governments make the mistake of trying to create some sort of utopian society where everyone is equally poor and miserable, everyone is screwed. It should all be about creating private sector jobs and a diversified economy. If it takes "corporate welfare" to bring those jobs in a globalized environment, then so be it.

There's nothing "compassionate" about letting able-bodied people be unemployed living on welfare because you have some moral aversion to the capital providers of corporations earning a profit.

Edited September 28, 2011 by CPCFTW

[GostHacked]

Corporations exist neither to screw the people, nor to act as a job charity, but rather to make a profit.

If profit and the bottom line is all that matters, then everything else is secondary. If screwing the people is a way to make money, guess what? It will be done.

If there are more people looking for work then there are jobs, then workers are going to get screwed.

Yes there are more people than jobs, machines take over a human job. Or the job is offshored because it helps the company's bottom line.

If the government encourages the creation of jobs, then suddenly it's the workers who can start screwing the corporations when there are more jobs than workers.

OH yeah, good freakin luck with that.

When governments make the mistake of trying to create some sort of utopian society where everyone is equally poor and miserable, everyone is screwed.

Look around you, that is what seems to be happening, and the point of this thread.

{quote]It should all be about creating private sector jobs and a diversified economy. If it takes "corporate welfare" to bring those jobs in a globalized environment, then so be it.

Globalization is part of the problem.

There's nothing "compassionate" about letting able-bodied people be unemployed living on welfare because you have some moral aversion to the capital providers of corporations earning a profit.

Explain?

[CPCFTW]

Globalization is part of the problem.

This is what it all boils down to. Globalization rewards those who work the hardest. You think that other societies/countries should foot the bill for your socialist paradise. I guess racism and worker exploitation is tolerable if it is outside of your country's borders.

[jacee]

What for? I have never had it so good sitting around watching tv and getting my essentials covered.

You can't make near as much money on welfare as you can even with a minimum wage job. Monthly income for a single person on Ontario Works = $585, while monthly before-tax income for a person earning minimum wage in Ontario (35 hrs/week)= $1,555.

I just want to underline what Moonlight is saying here for those who share Pliny's delusion that 'welfare' covers "essentials". It doesn't.

Not as most of us understand "essentials", not even close.

Think about yourself as a single male getting $585/mo to pay all of your "essentials". The way banks calculate it, we shouldn't pay more than 40% of income on shelter - $234/mo. Look in your local paper and see where you can live for that. Likely nowhere. Find the cheapest and take a drive by, (go in, pretend you are looking for your kid). Would you want your dog to live there? It's a crackhouse, right? If it's a student house, they won't rent to you. Realistically, you don't get a minimally decent room (share kitchen, bathroom) for under $400, and that's lucky. So you have $185 left for phone, tv, food, transportation ... getting the picture? You can't afford. Entertainment, maybe 1 or 2 bus fares a month (doctor, etc). Some months you can't afford a phone, no cabe tv, no internet ... and you eat spam (only the first half of the month), pasta or potatoes and canned vegs. So you sit in your room, watching your blurry over-the-air tv, looking forward to nothing but your next pasta-and-peas meal. Oh btw ... you have grade 3 literacy skills, can't do any job requiring reading/writing. (Dad was abusive, Mom ran from him and then from rent every two months, so you just never got into school very much and never had to with a new school every few months. This is a very typical story.)

These are the men who are chronic welfare recipients. They are unemployable. They don't live a joyful life of leisure. Still think you want their life?

They are about 20% of welfare recipients. Those who are alcoholics don't eat much. Those who smoke pick up butts on the street and re-roll them most of the month.Even those who don't drink/smoke become energy-drained due to poor nutrition, another chronic cause of being unemployable. Chronic malnutrition may well look like 'laziness', but try eating only kraft dinner for a week and see how energetic you feel: Try working an 8 hr shift carrying drywall. Or slugging beef carcasses in a meat cooler, some of the casual jobs occasionally available to men on welfare. They can't do it.

The other 80% of welfare recipients are single Mom's with pre-schoolers who spend, on average, 3 years on welfare - ie, until the kids are in school and they get help to find a min. wage job, or more likely 2 or 3 part-time ones, if you're lucky.Poor nutrition is chronic, and what kind of chance do kids have without energy for learning, or even playing?

Just had to get that out there. There's waaaaay too much misinformed jealousy among the wealthy for the illiterate, unemployable 'poor'.

Reminds me of one of Barbara Amiel's columns, written (years back) on a day when hubby (Conrad Black) was sick with the flu and whining and driving her nuts. , and she was whining that 'poor Connie ... he works so hard, and all those people on welfare just get a free living!'

I wonder if 'Connie' has changed his perspective on the 'poor', now that he's met some.

Seriously people, there is no easy life for the 'poor'. You don't want it, and you sure as heck have no reason to be jealous or resent them. You have all your faculties and likely won the genetic lottery. They lost, and most lost the childhood environment lottery too. It's not like kids can choose.

[jacee]

Dp

Edited September 28, 2011 by jacee