Occupy Toronto Protestors

jacee · November 12, 2011

Rob Ford is moving and talking very carefully, which is NOT his normal style AT ALL.

He knows he's up against something that has more support than he has.

I expect Chief Bill Blair will be cautious too, since he and his officers' reputation is in the toilet after their behaviour at the G20 last year.

I understand the protesters have been offered a couple of other sites. If they're private property, the city won't have as much say.

Shady · November 12, 2011

He knows he's up against something that has more support than he has.

Complete nonsense. The public has grown tired of the lawlessness of Occupy. Thankfully, we've already kicked the group of degenerates out of Victoria Park in London. And nobody said a peep.

Wild Bill · November 12, 2011

Complete nonsense. The public has grown tired of the lawlessness of Occupy. Thankfully, we've already kicked the group of degenerates out of Victoria Park in London. And nobody said a peep.

London, and now Halifax! It looks like the wave is starting...

MiddleClassCentrist · November 12, 2011

At what pay grade do you become 1%?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-income/index.html <- in Canada

Somewhere above 150k/year.

Boges · November 12, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-income/index.html <- in Canada

Somewhere above 150k/year.

Thanks for this.

I would never consider someone making, in the low 6 figure someone who's incredibly wealthy. What's shocking about that stat is about 40% of Canadians make $20,000 or less. I'm curious if that takes into account all workers or everyone. Like say a student who works part-time, retired people or stay-at-home moms with a side gig.

Also the more valuable statistic would be household income.

cybercoma · November 13, 2011

Why would household income be more valuable? Households don't get jobs, individuals do.

Keepitsimple · November 13, 2011

Thanks for this.

I would never consider someone making, in the low 6 figure someone who's incredibly wealthy. What's shocking about that stat is about 40% of Canadians make $20,000 or less. I'm curious if that takes into account all workers or everyone. Like say a student who works part-time, retired people or stay-at-home moms with a side gig.

Also the more valuable statistic would be household income.

Leave it to the CBC to muddle things - and it's hard to figure out how they came up with that graph. To put things in a little better perspective, StatsCan LICO (Low Income Cutoff) is a good measure. It uses after-tax income. This well-accepted measure shows that less than 10% of all Canadians fall below the LICO - which ranges from about $17,000 - $21,000 (as of 2005) depending on where you live. Even that number includes a large number of kids that are under 18. I think it's also reasonable to think that until you are at least 21, people are just starting out and a high percentage will have low earning power until they get some career traction.

Link to LICO for 2005-2009: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil19a-eng.htm

Link to LICO cutoff figures: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/tables/table-tableau-18-eng.cfm

jacee · November 13, 2011

Thanks for this.

I would never consider someone making, in the low 6 figure someone who's incredibly wealthy. What's shocking about that stat is about 40% of Canadians make $20,000 or less. I'm curious if that takes into account all workers or everyone. Like say a student who works part-time, retired people or stay-at-home moms with a side gig.

Also the more valuable statistic would be household income.

Statscan does provide household income too.

However judging who is the 1% is better defined by WEALTH, not income, because it's the wealthiest people who buy politicians and have the laws, regulations and policies written to suit them, appointments made to suit them, banks and the stock market at their command, etc.

It's about (corrupt) power, not just high income, and it's persistent wealth that wields that kind of power.

An athlete or actor, no matter what their income, doesn't have that kind of power.

Wealth of 'families'

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/11206/4096770-eng.htm

cybercoma · November 13, 2011

jacee, while you sit here continually trying to correct people about their misconceptions about the movement, I have resigned myself to the fact that they're not misconceptions. They're strawmen that are easier to knock-down, so they can sleep at night without having their ideological beliefs challenged. Seriously, it's as if you write in just about every single thread, "it's not about income!" How many times does it have to be said... really.

Shwa · November 13, 2011

jacee, while you sit here continually trying to correct people about their misconceptions about the movement, I have resigned myself to the fact that they're not misconceptions. They're strawmen that are easier to knock-down, so they can sleep at night without having their ideological beliefs challenged. Seriously, it's as if you write in just about every single thread, "it's not about income!" How many times does it have to be said... really.

They're not even strawmen, they're simple diversions.

Shady · November 13, 2011

They're not even strawmen, they're simple diversions.

Actually, they're reality.

Shwa · November 13, 2011

Actually, they're reality.

Which is as meaningless a thing that can be said in defence of reality.

jacee · November 13, 2011

jacee, while you sit here continually trying to correct people about their misconceptions about the movement, I have resigned myself to the fact that they're not misconceptions. They're strawmen that are easier to knock-down, so they can sleep at night without having their ideological beliefs challenged. Seriously, it's as if you write in just about every single thread, "it's not about income!" How many times does it have to be said... really.

Maybe I'll put it in my signature.

I think people are trying to figure out where they stand, income-wise. It's a natural curiosity. ^kve been looking but statscan just hasn't broken down income finely enough to see what the income cutoff is for the top 1%, only in quintiles (20% groupings), and the top 20% is $153,000 as you said, which isn't very helpful.

Ya think someone doesn't want us to know?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/t/4168848-eng.htm

This is the best I can do but it's 2004 data.

It says the top 1% started at $181k in 2004,

The really striking thing about this data, though, is the modest income gains of all groups, even the low end of the 1%'rs compared to the doubling of incomes of the top .1% (to $650k) and .01% (to $2.8m) between 1982 and 2004.

The deregulation and tax cuts of the 80's and 90's resulted in income stagnation for 75% of Canadians, and only modest gains for the next 24.9% of us, while the top .1 and particularly the top .01% made out like bandits.

No, the Occupiers are not making it up:

We are virtually all getting taken by about 1000 of the very highest income Canadians.

And that's before Harper.

And wealth and income are not the same, but both of interest.

There's a smaller subset that wields the power of wealth and pays the high incomes perhaps?

MiddleClassCentrist · November 13, 2011

Thanks for this.

I would never consider someone making, in the low 6 figure someone who's incredibly wealthy. What's shocking about that stat is about 40% of Canadians make $20,000 or less. I'm curious if that takes into account all workers or everyone. Like say a student who works part-time, retired people or stay-at-home moms with a side gig.

Also the more valuable statistic would be household income.

My wife is staying home with kids right now, she'd fall into that 20 or less category.

When I was in highschool working a part time job, I'd have fallen into that category as well.

Add in an aging population on basic pension working part time to supplement, people with small pensions.

I was a bit shocked by the 40% at first too.

I also found that my career salary was placed higher than I expected. In a few years I'll be very close (if not in) the top 5%.

My point of view, is that wealthy is when you can afford something beyond the majority's dreams. Six figure salaries are at the lower end of that spectrum, entry level million dollar homes

Edited November 13, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

jacee · November 13, 2011

Oh ... this is the Toronto thread and the news is ...

OccupyTO has moved ...

To the lawn of the provincial legislature that doesn't belong to Rob Ford, and is only used during protests.

:lol:

"We decided that we have definitely outgrown St. James Park. We have far too many people there, it's too popular. We have tourists coming in all the time and we need more space," he said."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/11/12/toronto-occupy-queens-park.html

Oops ... I guess I spoke too soon ... or not ... it's under discussion ... or something ... and the police seem to be quite courteous and helpful ...

When police arrived at the camp earlier Saturday, it appeared as if they would let protesters stay.

“We did not just order them to leave,” said Const. Geoff Henderson. The issues here are “very sensitive” and will be discussed with our superiors and Queen’s Park, he said.

There was some confusion for the protesters over who owns the area of the park they were occupying — the city o the province. The front lawn south of the legislature is provincial land — but the park north of the building, where they were set up, is city property.

...

Saturday, a YouTube video claiming be the work of the hacking group “Anoymous” threatened a cyber attack on the City of Toronto and Mayor Ford if the occupation is“interrupted.”

“You have said by next week, the occupiers shall be removed. And we say be next week if you do not change your mind, you shall be removed from the Internet. We have already planned for this,” says a computer-generated voice, addressing the city and the mayor. It’s not clear who posted the video.

At St. James Park, the threat of eviction is one of the subjects under discussion in a “working group.” Only two of the 20 participants are in favour of an all out move to another park but the idea of a “strategic spread,” to Queen’s Park was well received.

Numerous attributes made Queen’s Park attractive to protesters. It has a potentially sympathetic university population nearby, and plenty of space for a mobile kitchen, port-a-potties and even a Frisbee playing area. There are fewer businesses and residences that would be disturbed — a concern that stems from recent complaints by residents and business owners who say the St. James Park protest is hurting sales and making the area unpleasant.

“It’s time to expand,” said Paul, a volunteer at the Info Centre who declined to give his last name. St. James Park — home to about 300 tents — doesn’t have the space to accommodate the growing movement, he said.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/1086066--attempt-to-spread-occupy-protest-to-queen-s-park-fails

Edited November 13, 2011 by jacee

Wild Bill · November 13, 2011

You know, we can all chew on this bone all we want but the fact remains, I have never known a poor man to give someone a job!

MiddleClassCentrist · November 13, 2011

You know, we can all chew on this bone all we want but the fact remains, I have never known a poor man to give someone a job!

Wealthy people don't create jobs.

Market demand creates jobs.

cybercoma · November 13, 2011

Maybe I'll put it in my signature.

I think people are trying to figure out where they stand, income-wise. It's a natural curiosity. ^kve been looking but statscan just hasn't broken down income finely enough to see what the income cutoff is for the top 1%, only in quintiles (20% groupings), and the top 20% is $153,000 as you said, which isn't very helpful.

Ya think someone doesn't want us to know?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/t/4168848-eng.htm

This is the best I can do but it's 2004 data.

It says the top 1% started at $181k in 2004,

The really striking thing about this data, though, is the modest income gains of all groups, even the low end of the 1%'rs compared to the doubling of incomes of the top .1% (to $650k) and .01% (to $2.8m) between 1982 and 2004.

The deregulation and tax cuts of the 80's and 90's resulted in income stagnation for 75% of Canadians, and only modest gains for the next 24.9% of us, while the top .1 and particularly the top .01% made out like bandits.

No, the Occupiers are not making it up:

We are virtually all getting taken by about 1000 of the very highest income Canadians.

And that's before Harper.

And wealth and income are not the same, but both of interest.

There's a smaller subset that wields the power of wealth and pays the high incomes perhaps?

Anyone that known anything about income distribution will know that it's highly skewed. That's why we use median income to talk about "averages" because it's more useful to know the number where 50% of people fall above and below. The top 20% has a much, much wider distribution than the 20% below it, which is wider than the 20% below it and so on. While the top 1% may start at something like $153,000 (or is that where the top quintile is?), even the distribution within it will be heavily skewed, moreso than the other quintiles even.

Shady · November 13, 2011

Anyone that known anything about income distribution will know that it's highly skewed.

There's no such thing as income distribution. One earns their income, based on the industry they're in, and the job they do.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Shady

blueblood · November 13, 2011

Maybe I'll put it in my signature.

I think people are trying to figure out where they stand, income-wise. It's a natural curiosity. ^kve been looking but statscan just hasn't broken down income finely enough to see what the income cutoff is for the top 1%, only in quintiles (20% groupings), and the top 20% is $153,000 as you said, which isn't very helpful.

Ya think someone doesn't want us to know?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/t/4168848-eng.htm

This is the best I can do but it's 2004 data.

It says the top 1% started at $181k in 2004,

The really striking thing about this data, though, is the modest income gains of all groups, even the low end of the 1%'rs compared to the doubling of incomes of the top .1% (to $650k) and .01% (to $2.8m) between 1982 and 2004.

The deregulation and tax cuts of the 80's and 90's resulted in income stagnation for 75% of Canadians, and only modest gains for the next 24.9% of us, while the top .1 and particularly the top .01% made out like bandits.

No, the Occupiers are not making it up:

We are virtually all getting taken by about 1000 of the very highest income Canadians.

And that's before Harper.

And wealth and income are not the same, but both of interest.

There's a smaller subset that wields the power of wealth and pays the high incomes perhaps?

Nice to see we're back to income. Do you have wheels for those goal posts?

You do know that when you save your money it's easier to grow when you have a base instead of starting from zero. It's not a conspiracy, it's just math.

How is a middle class person supposed to provide a better living for their child when they don't pass on any wealth they accumulated to their children? Their kids basically start out from zero and they can only get up to what their parents make because of the labor market. If their parents wouldn't consume so much and passed down some of their savings, the middle income average would rise.

jacee · November 13, 2011

Nice to see we're back to income. Do you have wheels for those goal posts?

You do know that when you save your money it's easier to grow when you have a base instead of starting from zero. It's not a conspiracy, it's just math.

How is a middle class person supposed to provide a better living for their child when they don't pass on any wealth they accumulated to their children? Their kids basically start out from zero and they can only get up to what their parents make because of the labor market. If their parents wouldn't consume so much and passed down some of their savings, the middle income average would rise.

Ya, it's all so simple ... wealth begets wealth and gouges the rest of us for more.

Income-wise, 11,500 Canadian families doubled their high incomes due to deregulation and tax cuts of the late 20th century, while the rest of us saw virtually no income growth in the same period.

In other words ... a rising tide floats only the boats of the wealthiest, because corrupted politicians tied the rest of us to the docks. Some have capsized and we're all sinking as the wealthiest sail away.

There's no 'trickle down', but there's a flood of money going up.

The wealthiest have had their jollies imposing financial hardship on the rest of us for 3 decades and it's time to stop the bleeding, and stop the corrupt biasing of policy to benefit the wealthiest.

It's a unique moment in Canadian history, with a majority PM intent upon expanding and deepening the influence of the wealthy, at a time when 99% of the people are realizing that they've been taken.

Sparks will fly, for sure!

I think we've heard enough of the 'tightening our belts' rhetoric, bb. It is just a ploy to flow more of our money into the pockets of the wealthiest.

And every one of us, poor, middle class, wealthy, are just targets for the greed of the wealthiEST.

Edited November 13, 2011 by jacee