Free Trade Agreements

[Michael Hardner]

OK, but the lifestyle you are describing is middle to upper middle class and is not the living condition for the vast majority of people in the world.

I concur absolutely. And I'm careful not to moralize, or use terms like "good" or "bad" when it comes to trade issues. It's economics, which are cold hard numbers - cause and effect.

Overall, the economies of the cosignatory countries will be better but there are "winners" and "losers"... there's no morality in using those terms. Some will have more money in their pockets, and some will have less.

The thing is, nobody in power trumpets the fact that some will have less. To their credit, they have been cushioning the blow somewhat with extended unemployment benefits (in the US) and tax credits for continuing education. Is it enough ? I don't know, and I don't know if anybody does.

This is as it should be...nobody complained much about the spiraling debt that helped make such lavish lifestyles possible in the first place. "Benefits" have to be aligned with available resources. Some people just don't know how to be poor....time they learned.

I don't know if I would connect spiraling debt to lavish lifestyles, unless you're talking about bailout money. "Some people just don't know how to be poor....time they learned." - a great quote, but you won't find any politician admitting that.

There's a little thing called the vote which gets in the way of honesty in this regard. I haven't heard any candidates being honest about jobs. I DID see a scene in the film 'Primary Colours' where a presidential candidate (Bill Clinton, played by John Travolta) told a group of labourers that their jobs weren't coming back, but that his government would help them adjust. I imagine that Clinton may have actually said that at the time, but I don't know that he did.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes.

$20000/12 = $1450/mo after tax

$100/mo = transit pass

$500/mo = rent a room in a home, or a basement apartment

$500/mo = food

$50/mo = internet

$300/mo = discretionary spending

Have a kid? No problem, you get another $100 from the UCCB, and $400/mo from the CCTB:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cctb_clcltr-eng.html

You will also get back about $200/mo in taxes.

Want more? Get a 2nd job. There are more than 40 waking hours in a week. Or get a husband/wife/bf/gf/roommate to split costs.

That's about right.

[WWWTT]

Yes.

$20000/12 = $1450/mo after tax

$100/mo = transit pass

$500/mo = rent a room in a home, or a basement apartment

$500/mo = food

$50/mo = internet

$300/mo = discretionary spending

Have a kid? No problem, you get another $100 from the UCCB, and $400/mo from the CCTB:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/clcltr/cctb_clcltr-eng.html

You will also get back about $200/mo in taxes.

Want more? Get a 2nd job. There are more than 40 waking hours in a week. Or get a husband/wife/bf/gf/roommate to split costs.

Thanks for the best case scenario!

Ever heard of clothes?How about medication?What if you get sick?How about CPP and EI deductions?Whats going to happen in your 60's.

I could live without internet and with a lower food budget.But good luck on getting a decent accomadation for 500/mnth.

Or even better have you yourself actually tried living like this?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That's about right.

You sound like you have lived this lifestyle before.Let me ask how long and where?

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

You sound like you have lived this lifestyle before.Let me ask how long and where?

WWWTT

Well, I was a student... and I have been unemployed and living off $1400 per month. I didn't live that way for more than a short period of my life.

[WWWTT]

Well, I was a student... and I have been unemployed and living off $1400 per month. I didn't live that way for more than a short period of my life.

I believe you are sincere when you say this Mike.And yes I believe most of us have all bein there when we were younger.

It just ticks me off hearing some people claim that minimum wage is good enough to live on permanently.

Living like this in our society can leed to depression,despair and addiction.And God forbid something bad should happen such as health issues or a downturn in the economy.

Or maybe I'm getting the wrong impression here.

WWWTT

[dre]

A "living age" is determined by one's choice or expectation for what "living" means. Clearly it is possible to have a "living wage" being employed at such jobs, as millions do just that.

Sure but most of the people that make less than a living wage are on the dole one way or another. They live in subsidized housing, are allowed to pay no taxes, use food stamps, get free medicare/medicaid, and so on.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe you are sincere when you say this Mike.And yes I believe most of us have all bein there when we were younger.

It just ticks me off hearing some people claim that minimum wage is good enough to live on permanently.

Living like this in our society can leed to depression,despair and addiction.And God forbid something bad should happen such as health issues or a downturn in the economy.

Or maybe I'm getting the wrong impression here.

WWWTT

It's poverty, which isn't a fun way to live but you can live. And if you work a little at it, you can do much better than that. But this is beside the point. There will always be a minimum level of living, and there will be poverty as long as we have money and an open economy. Nobody seems to be suggesting changing that.

The point is that trade agreements result in changes, and that governments are responsible for managing economic change.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The thing is, nobody in power trumpets the fact that some will have less. To their credit, they have been cushioning the blow somewhat with extended unemployment benefits (in the US) and tax credits for continuing education. Is it enough ? I don't know, and I don't know if anybody does.

No...it is not enough and only delays the inevitable. Largess at all levels is about to get a haircut.

I don't know if I would connect spiraling debt to lavish lifestyles, unless you're talking about bailout money. "Some people just don't know how to be poor....time they learned." - a great quote, but you won't find any politician admitting that.

I'm serious...we have an entire generation that has grown up with never having to do without. Not everybody, but a large enough group to spawn spectacles like OWS. I remember people bitching during the 70's recession, but not nearly as much whining about lost entitlement.

There's a little thing called the vote which gets in the way of honesty in this regard. I haven't heard any candidates being honest about jobs. I DID see a scene in the film 'Primary Colours' where a presidential candidate (Bill Clinton, played by John Travolta) told a group of labourers that their jobs weren't coming back, but that his government would help them adjust. I imagine that Clinton may have actually said that at the time, but I don't know that he did.

Some have said it, like Ross Perot (famous for saying it was a "sucking sound"). They won't win with stark reality like that. Mondale and Dukakis promised to raise taxes, and they got nowhere as well. I don't even think Chretien-Martin were up front about the meat cleaver they took to federal spending on health care in the '90s.

[CPCFTW]

Thanks for the best case scenario!

Ever heard of clothes?How about medication?What if you get sick?How about CPP and EI deductions?Whats going to happen in your 60's.

I could live without internet and with a lower food budget.But good luck on getting a decent accomadation for 500/mnth.

Or even better have you yourself actually tried living like this?

WWWTT

Ei and cpp contributions are included in my take home pay numbers.

I left 300/mo in discretionary spending. That's more than enough for clothes and medicine.

Take a look at craigslist or kijiji. You can find hundreds of ads per day of accomodation at that price in toronto.

Yes I have lived like that. In fact I chose to live like that for 2 years while making 40-50k and paid off about 30k in debt and maxed out my rrsp and put some money in my tfsa.

In the next 2 years I plan on continuing to max out new RRSP contribution room, maxing out my TFSA, and buying a 2 bedroom condo and renting out 1 bedroom. Hopefully I will get a few more raises and promotions in the meantime. I will still be under 30.

I hope my wealth doesn't get seized by hippies later in life for making these personal lifestyle choices now.

Edited November 24, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

Yes I have lived like that. In fact I chose to live like that for 2 years while making 40-50k and paid off about 30k in debt and maxed out my rrsp and put some money in my tfsa.

In the next 2 years I plan on continuing to max out new RRSP contribution room, maxing out my TFSA, and buying a 2 bedroom condo and renting out 1 bedroom. Hopefully I will get a few more raises and promotions in the meantime. I will still be under 30.

Same here. Making 80k now but still living like a student on about 20k and saving the rest. Should have enough to buy a nice place in a few years. I do treat myself to some nice top of the line ski and mountaineering gear though once in a while That adds a few k per year extra.

The funny thing is the supposedly impoverished lifestyle of living on 20k or so is actually pretty nice. 700/mo for rent, 600/mo for food (I eat out for lunch most days), 100/mo transit, 100/mo phone (expensive 4g data plan), 50/mo internet, 100/mo entertainment (mostly gas to get to mountains on weekends). That's living in a pretty nice 1 bedroom apartment, eating out, and going on trips every weekend... Guess how much that adds up to? $1650/month or 20k/year. I was perfectly happy on that as a student for years and still am just fine with it now too, although I'm looking forward to buying a nice condo and owning it.

I never felt like I was living in poverty or missing out on anything. It felt perfectly middle-class.

I hope my wealth doesn't get seized by hippies later in life for making these personal lifestyle choices now.

Sadly, nothing stops the bums from hating the 5% just as much as they hate the 1%. Once you start accruing any meaningful wealth, better to keep it in a wide range of diversified mediums, at least some of which will hopefully be hard to seize. The government can too easily change the rules on TFSAs and RRSPs to effectively plunder them, if it so chose.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bonam

[WWWTT]

In fact I chose to live like that for 2 years

Thanks for being honest.

Try living like this for your entire life with a family and then well talk buddy

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Same here. Making 80k now but still living like a student on about 20k and saving the rest. Should have enough to buy a nice place in a few years. I do treat myself to some nice top of the line ski and mountaineering gear though once in a while That adds a few k per year extra.

The funny thing is the supposedly impoverished lifestyle of living on 20k or so is actually pretty nice. 700/mo for rent, 600/mo for food (I eat out for lunch most days), 100/mo transit, 100/mo phone (expensive 4g data plan), 50/mo internet, 100/mo entertainment (mostly gas to get to mountains on weekends). That's living in a pretty nice 1 bedroom apartment, eating out, and going on trips every weekend... Guess how much that adds up to? $1650/month or 20k/year. I was perfectly happy on that as a student for years and still am just fine with it now too, although I'm looking forward to buying a nice condo and owning it.

I never felt like I was living in poverty or missing out on anything. It felt perfectly middle-class.

Sadly, nothing stops the bums from hating the 5% just as much as they hate the 1%. Once you start accruing any meaningful wealth, better to keep it in a wide range of diversified mediums, at least some of which will hopefully be hard to seize. The government can too easily change the rules on TFSAs and RRSPs to effectively plunder them, if it so chose.

Actually your entire comment is somewhat insulting to child poverty

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I'm serious...we have an entire generation that has grown up with never having to do without. Not everybody, but a large enough group to spawn spectacles like OWS. I remember people bitching during the 70's recession, but not nearly as much whining about lost entitlement.

You must be talking about the baby-boomers because the current generation has done nothing if they haven't done without, since austerity has been the rallying cry of neo-cons since the early 80s. The bitching wasn't as bad in the 70s because the baby-boomers had everything handed to them on a silver platter and this generation continues to pay for their privileges, while those privileges continue to come under attack. We're looking at the Lost Generation 2.0, where kids are now being forced to pay for the baby boomers' retirements, medicare, etc., while those same baby boomers are arguing that cutbacks need to be made because the system is unsustainable. They want to close the door behind them. Future generations may be able to prepare better because they won't be paying for their parent's generations benefits once they are gone. The generation in between, however, is completely screwed. They can't save for themselves, as they pay for their parents benefits and their kids aren't going to pay for their benefits one they're gone.

[cybercoma]

Same here. Making 80k now but still living like a student on about 20k and saving the rest. Should have enough to buy a nice place in a few years. I do treat myself to some nice top of the line ski and mountaineering gear though once in a while That adds a few k per year extra.

The funny thing is the supposedly impoverished lifestyle of living on 20k or so is actually pretty nice. 700/mo for rent, 600/mo for food (I eat out for lunch most days), 100/mo transit, 100/mo phone (expensive 4g data plan), 50/mo internet, 100/mo entertainment (mostly gas to get to mountains on weekends). That's living in a pretty nice 1 bedroom apartment, eating out, and going on trips every weekend... Guess how much that adds up to? $1650/month or 20k/year. I was perfectly happy on that as a student for years and still am just fine with it now too, although I'm looking forward to buying a nice condo and owning it.

I never felt like I was living in poverty or missing out on anything. It felt perfectly middle-class.

Sadly, nothing stops the bums from hating the 5% just as much as they hate the 1%. Once you start accruing any meaningful wealth, better to keep it in a wide range of diversified mediums, at least some of which will hopefully be hard to seize. The government can too easily change the rules on TFSAs and RRSPs to effectively plunder them, if it so chose.

$20,000/year after taxes with absolutely no savings whatsoever. That would be pretty close to $25,000/year before taxes, which is about $12/hr. That's well above minimum wage in every province. Funny how you just kind of gloss over the ability to actually save money to improve your condition without stopping to think that people who don't earn enough to save are actually well behind the 8-ball with little prospect of improving their lot.

[Evening Star]

You must be talking about the baby-boomers because the current generation has done nothing if they haven't done without, since austerity has been the rallying cry of neo-cons since the early 80s. The bitching wasn't as bad in the 70s because the baby-boomers had everything handed to them on a silver platter and this generation continues to pay for their privileges, while those privileges continue to come under attack. We're looking at the Lost Generation 2.0, where kids are now being forced to pay for the baby boomers' retirements, medicare, etc., while those same baby boomers are arguing that cutbacks need to be made because the system is unsustainable. They want to close the door behind them. Future generations may be able to prepare better because they won't be paying for their parent's generations benefits once they are gone. The generation in between, however, is completely screwed. They can't save for themselves, as they pay for their parents benefits and their kids aren't going to pay for their benefits one they're gone.

Thanks, cybercoma. I also thought that comment was pretty rich coming from a boomer.

[Evening Star]

$20,000/year after taxes with absolutely no savings whatsoever. That would be pretty close to $25,000/year before taxes, which is about $12/hr. That's well above minimum wage in every province. Funny how you just kind of gloss over the ability to actually save money to improve your condition without stopping to think that people who don't earn enough to save are actually well behind the 8-ball with little prospect of improving their lot.

Tbf, if you're making that much, you probably won't be paying 20% in taxes, especially if you've ever paid tuition. I still do agree that Bonam and CPCFTW are presenting an absolute best-case scenario of the $20K lifestyle. (Medications/dental care and clothes and phone bills etc could come to over $300/mo for starters.)

Edited November 24, 2011 by Evening Star

[bush_cheney2004]

$20,000/year after taxes with absolutely no savings whatsoever.

See...this is exactly what I'm talking about. Here we have an expectation to leap frog over basic employment and graduate directly to wealth accumulation. They won't do jobs that I gladly did over 40 years ago for minimum wage, or that immigrants will do today. They don't want to pay their labor dues. Instead, they think it's a great idea to continue on to grad school and incur even more debt! Amazing....

[Evening Star]

See...this is exactly what I'm talking about. Here we have an expectation to leap frog over basic employment and graduate directly to wealth accumulation. They won't do jobs that I gladly did over 40 years ago for minimum wage, or that immigrants will do today. They don't want to pay their labor dues. Instead, they think it's a great idea to continue on to grad school and incur even more debt! Amazing....

But we're talking about being stuck at $20K (or close) for life, not as a temporary phase.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

Working fulltime for $20k per year in basic employment is going to get you where exactly? You're not going from Walmart into a $50k per year job. You're not flipping burgers, cleaning floors, or working security for $20k per year as a stepping block to anything. These people are stuck, unless they upgrade their skills. With no means for saving, how exactly are they going to pay for upgrading their skills without trying to get loans, which will probably be declined due to low income and the very likely scenario of bad credit. How can they do well in their studies, if they do manage to find a way in, when they're going to need to work at the same time? It's not impossible, but many of you here seem to have absolutely no regard for how much the odds are stacked against these people.

[Michael Hardner]

With no means for saving, how exactly are they going to pay for upgrading their skills without trying to get loans, which will probably be declined due to low income and the very likely scenario of bad credit.

There are student loans and other programs to help, but no it's not easy. This is why people should get their education while they're young.

[CPCFTW]

I'm sorry but what the hell are you guys arguing?

Are you now suggesting that saving and accumulating wealth is a fundamental human right?

We're talking about minimum wage here folks. It should be just enough to provide for all your needs but you can still also have a little discretionary income.

I can't believe I have to actually argue this... Should we pay lifelong burger flippers at mcdonald's 30k? Well you still can't save that much on 30k and what about haircuts and designer label clothes? You can't live without designer label clothes!! Raise min wage to 40k!! Ridiculous.

Besides, I already touched on being able to work more than 40hrs per week. Work 50hrs and you make 25k. Work 60hrs and you make 30k. It's not like people working in the private sector on salary punch in at 9 and punch out at 5 every day like government employees. People making over 50k, outside of unionized public sector jobs, are generally working more than 40hrs per week. Is 40hrs the lefty decried human limit to working?

Edited November 24, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bush_cheney2004]

.... How can they do well in their studies, if they do manage to find a way in, when they're going to need to work at the same time? It's not impossible, but many of you here seem to have absolutely no regard for how much the odds are stacked against these people.

Then those would be your losers....many have done it and find the experience builds "character". If it was easy everybody could do it.

Edited November 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

What do you suppose the "losers" do when there are no social supports available? Disappear?

[cybercoma]

Are you now suggesting that saving and accumulating wealth is a fundamental human right?

Where do you get this crap? I swear, your inability to grasp concepts, evidenced by your constant use of strawman arguments, makes me wonder if you're still a high school student.