Progressive

[Canuckistani]

You are making gross generalization. I don't argue that industries will often argue for subsidies because it is seen as a way to promote a business but that does not mean the business people arguing for such subsidies think they are good thing for society - all it means is they are looking after the best interests of their corporations. A good example because I plays right into the perception of fairness. Why should homeless people be given 500K homes (the price for social housing in downtown Vancouver) when poor and middle class people cannot hope to afford them? In fact, a government that routinely made 500K homes available to homeless would find that the homeless population increased as more people sought access to the free homes.

I think you've gone off the rails here. The rich are able to influence govt policies - not just direct subsidies but tax breaks, which means while they nominally pay a lot of tax, in fact they often don't. You're right they're looking after their own interests, but those often conflict with what's best for society. In effect cutting their own throats in the end. It's the modern version of Lennin's dictum about the capitalists selling the communists the rope with which the will be hanged.

You're way off on your social housing thing. I said supportive housing - that includes health and mental health people's salaries. It was found there's a savings of about $20k a year per homeless person to do it this way instead of letting them rot on the street and then trying to pick up the pieces. Their living quarters are quite modest.

I agree that a lot of social housing (ie for poor people) sounds way overpriced for what you get, that is an area where some proper management could see large savings, I think. I've never heard of homeless people being "given" any housing (ie ownership), let along 500k ones. More like a nice cardboard box.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Bonam]

I've never heard of homeless people being "given" any housing (ie ownership), let along 500k ones. More like a nice cardboard box.

$500k is about right for a modest single room condo in the downtown Vancouver area.

[Canuckistani]

$500k is about right for a modest single room condo in the downtown Vancouver area.

Sure. But no homeless are being "given" condos like that. Nor even housed in them. For the supportive housing study they took over an old hotel as well as putting some people in lower end rental accomodation. As I said, the study found it's actually cheaper to do that then leave them on the street and have the health and criminal system deal with them. These people were stablized by this supportive housing, and some even found work. Unfortunatley funding for this has come to an end.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

It's the modern version of Lennin's dictum about the capitalists selling the communists the rope with which the will be hanged.

And the best solution is a minimalist government that simply does not entertain the idea of picking 'winners' amoung industries. As long as you have a government that thinks it should be doing such things you will see crony capitalists fighting for a piece of the pie.

You're way off on your social housing thing. I said supportive housing - that includes health and mental health people's salaries.

Actually I am not way off. The cost of building social housing in downtown Vancouver is 500K+ per unit. Since only one person can be a resident at a time that means the cost per person is 500K+. Now if you wanted to look at an institutional setting then the housing costs would be lower and the health services could be delivered more effectively but institutions are considered to be bad. So governments really have no choice but to limit supply in the knowledge that plenty of people will slip through and end up living on the street - because those people living on the street are the disincentive that puts a limit on the demand for social housing. Make social housing easy to get and the demand will be unlimited. Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

And the best solution is a minimalist government that simply does not entertain the idea of picking 'winners' amoung industries. As long as you have a government that thinks it should be doing such things you will see crony capitalists fighting for a piece of the pie.

Actually I am not way off. The cost of building social housing in downtown Vancouver is 500K+ per unit. Since only one person can be a resident at a time that means the cost per person is 500K+. Now if you wanted to look at an institutional setting then the housing costs would be lower and the health services could be delivered more effectively but institutions are considered to be bad. So governments really have no choice but to limit supply in the knowledge that plenty of people will slip through and end up living on the street - because those people living on the street are the disincentive that puts a limit on the demand for social housing. Make social housing easy to get and the demand will be unlimited.

In a modern economy, the govt does seem to have a role to play in helping industry. There are investments than govt can make that do give more in return. They just need to be managed properly.

You're mixing up social housing - mostly for low income families and housing for the homeless. I'm just not aware of any 500k units being built for social housing. I did a quick google but couldn't find anything. Do you have some examples?

Edited February 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

In a modern economy, the govt does seem to have a role to play in helping industry. There are investments than govt can make that do give more in return. They just need to be managed properly.

An POV that is not without merit - but if you hold that POV you should not be surprised that it creates huge incentives for corporate cronyism and you should be willing to live with those consequences.

You're mixing up social housing - mostly for low income families and housing for the homeless. I'm just not aware of any 500k units being built for social housing. I did a quick google but couldn't find anything. Do you have some examples?

Social housing at Olympic Village to cost $595,000 per unit

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Social+housing+Olympic+Village+cost+unit/1318046/story.html

My point is it 'social housing' a huge trap for governments. If they provide enough to meet demand then the demand will increase as more low income people decide they want those benefits. If the governments provides a little then the units become like lottery tickets bestowed on a fortunate few.

The world is complicated. Government cannot and should not attempt to address every perceived injustice. It must focus on what it is uniquely able to provide.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

I don't think you need corporate cronyism with govt assisting industry where merited. It should be done in a businesslike fashion is all. Ie loans are actually repaid, tax exemptions are re-evaluated each year to see if they still have merit, etc.

You can't uphold the Olympic Village as an example. That was a complete mess made by successive city govts. Makes no sense to put social housing in one of the most desirable locations in Vancouver, nor to have it go green at huge expense. The number of units they could have built on cheaper land using lower cost building methods is just a real shame. I'm not talking about creating ghettos, but you don't put them in prime locations either. Actually in the end, they talked about housing firefighters and such there, at a subsidized but still high rent. There isn't a homeless person that's going to get within miles of those. Homeless people need to be housed in places where there are services to help them, not just a place to live. If they can be rehabilitated, then you can look at social housing - same as is provided for poor families and seniors. That doesn't have to cost top dollar either.

[TimG]

I don't think you need corporate cronyism with govt assisting industry where merited. It should be done in a businesslike fashion is all. Ie loans are actually repaid, tax exemptions are re-evaluated each year to see if they still have merit, etc.

First, governments only provide loans when there is a risk they won't be payed so saying they have to be repaid is the same as saying the government should not provide loans. Second, corporate cronyism is in the eye of the beholder - I see anything other than basic R&D into 'green' industries as pure cronyism. Others would argue that it is a necessary government investment. OTOH, I see the bank bailouts as a necessary evil to preserve the monetary system - others see it as corporate cronyism.

Given the range of views on the topic you need to be willing to accept a certain amount of what you define as 'corporate cronyism' as long as you advocate government subsidies for business.

Homeless people need to be housed in places where there are services to help them, not just a place to live. If they can be rehabilitated, then you can look at social housing - same as is provided for poor families and seniors. That doesn't have to cost top dollar either.

The prices are not any cheaper in the DTES. In the ideal world the homeless would be bundled up and shipped off to housing in Abbotsford or Chilliwack because that is where housing can be built cheap. But that is not going to happen so the government really only has no choice but to leave people on the street because the optics of providing 500K homes for people undermines the belief that the system is fair. Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

But that is not going to happen so the government really only has no choice but to leave people on the street because the optics of providing 500K homes for people undermines the belief that the system is fair.

What is there to undermine? Do you know anyone that believes that the "system is fair"?

[TimG]

What is there to undermine? Do you know anyone that believes that the "system is fair"?

The discussion started because someone started complaining about income inequality. I argued that what is necessary is a system which is generally considered to be fair - not income equality. Fairness is also not simply throwing money at poor people - it is about ensuring that the people paying for the services see that these services are delivered fairly to people who need them.

[Moonlight Graham]

T

That said, the prospect for a young person growing up in a poor country has never been better...

Have any stats to back this up?

[Moonlight Graham]

Please explain how anything has changed in the 70 years other than the developed world no longer has an exclusive claim on the top 20%?

Let put it another way: global GDP is is 70 trillion which puts the per capita GDP of 10K; This is about the standard of living for the Dominican Republic.

IOW - if we really had an equal society then everyone in Canada would have to live like people in the Dominican Republic. Are you sure this is what you want?

The world average GDP per capita is about $10,000 as you said, but the Dominican Republic has about $5,500 GDP-per-capita, so your point is inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Countries like Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Venuzuela, Lebanon etc. are close to the 10k average GDP per capita.

EDIT: sorry, my numbers were for nominal GDP-per-capital, but by PPP the DR is closer to the world average, but countries like Brzil, Costa Rica, and South Africa are much closer to the world average by PPP. But your point remains, most Canadians wouldn't want to live in a world where global income was equal. It just goes to show you how poor the vast majority of the world is, and how rich (and fortunate) Canadians are compared to most everyone else.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

Have any stats to back this up?

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

No argument. You're leaving out co-operation tho, which is neither total self-interest nor altruism. People want to feel a part of something and work together. They do this not only for selfish reasons. This is the reason societies need to find that middle way you talk about, where everybody feels they have a reasonably fair deal.

I think capitalism is very efficient and successful at creating wealth, but in some ways it is an anti-social economic system that has created a form of social organization that is very different than much of what has existed throughout human history. As the industrial revolution came, many people who were used to living in smaller towns/villages or rural areas in tight-knit communities abandoned this way of life to move work in big, urban cities that have become less and less socially cohesive with a sense of community, while individual become more and more isolated socially. How many people living in a city/suburbs today even converse with their neighbours?... and compare this to how people in smaller towns (or ie: an African village) live where people actually talk to each other, give a sh*t about each other, depend on each other etc. I think co-ops might be organized in a way that's closer to a economic/social system of what most humans been more used to living within for most of human history

[cybercoma]

Make no mistake about it. People that had ancestral rights to lands were kicked off them with the Enclosure, followed by technological changes on farms reducing the amount of labour needed, which were then followed by vagrancy laws. They didn't "give up" their lives. They were robbed of that life.

[Bonam]

I think capitalism is very efficient and successful at creating wealth, but in some ways it is an anti-social economic system that has created a form of social organization that is very different than much of what has existed throughout human history. As the industrial revolution came, many people who were used to living in smaller towns/villages or rural areas in tight-knit communities abandoned this way of life to move work in big, urban cities that have become less and less socially cohesive with a sense of community, while individual become more and more isolated socially. How many people living in a city/suburbs today even converse with their neighbours?... and compare this to how people in smaller towns (or ie: an African village) live where people actually talk to each other, give a sh*t about each other, depend on each other etc. I think co-ops might be organized in a way that's closer to a economic/social system of what most humans been more used to living within for most of human history

People still live in communities, being in communities is human nature. But those communities are not necessarily your physisal neighbours anymore. So you don't talk with the random guy across the hall in your apartment building, big deal. Instead, you talk to your friends, your coworkers, random people on an internet political forum, etc. Those are the communities you exist in. Nothing has changed in this regard, except that people can now choose what communities they are part of, rather than this being determined by location alone.

[Moonlight Graham]

People still live in communities, being in communities is human nature. But those communities are not necessarily your physisal neighbours anymore. So you don't talk with the random guy across the hall in your apartment building, big deal. Instead, you talk to your friends, your coworkers, random people on an internet political forum, etc. Those are the communities you exist in. Nothing has changed in this regard, except that people can now choose what communities they are part of, rather than this being determined by location alone.

Yes those are communities for sure, but they are also different beasts. There is a reason why so many people in modern society feel increasingly isolated and lonely. An internet message board and a softball team, and even a workplace, is no substitute for entire families living and working among other families almost all day everyday within the same physical space, everyone knowing & interacting with the same people. Many people in the West used to (and still do, in many societies, including "small-town" parts of the West) go to school, go to work, do business, go to church, and recreate etc. with the same relatively small group of people. That's a sense community that's extremely hard if not impossible to duplicate. Obviously cons and pros to this.

[Bonam]

Yes those are communities for sure, but they are also different beasts. There is a reason why so many people in modern society feel increasingly isolated and lonely. An internet message board and a softball team, and even a workplace, is no substitute for entire families living and working among other families almost all day everyday within the same physical space, everyone knowing & interacting with the same people.

What evidence do you have that people feel "increasingly isolated and lonely"? The only claims in this regard that I have seen are based on small unscientific surveys, and furthermore there is no good past data on this to compare to, so even if one collected extensive and well controlled data on people's feelings of isolation and loneliness today, one could not compare it with similar data at multiple points in time throughout the last century or several centuries. And such a comparison would be needed to give credence to your assertion.

Many people in the West used to (and still do, in many societies,

including "small-town" parts of the West) go to school, go to work, do

business, go to church, and recreate etc. with the same relatively small

group of people. That's a sense community that's extremely hard if not

impossible to duplicate. Obviously cons and pros to this.

Indeed there are pros and cons. And people that feel that the pros of being cloistered together in all aspects of one's life with one small group of people still have the option to live that lifestyle. As you say, they need only move to a "small town" community. But, they can also have a choice not to do that, and to associate more freely with their choice of a larger group of people. More choices in this regard are good in my opinion.

I see nothing to lament in the change that we have seen, and that we will continue to see as technology continues to transform society.

[GostHacked]

Make no mistake about it. People that had ancestral rights to lands were kicked off them with the Enclosure, followed by technological changes on farms reducing the amount of labour needed, which were then followed by vagrancy laws. They didn't "give up" their lives. They were robbed of that life.

This does seem the case.

[Moonlight Graham]

What evidence do you have that people feel "increasingly isolated and lonely"?

...

I see nothing to lament in the change that we have seen, and that we will continue to see as technology continues to transform society.

by Stephen Ilardi, Ph.D., psychologist & clinical researcher on depression:

Social Isolation: A Modern Plague

The best research confirms it: Americans are now perilously isolated. In a recent comprehensive study by scientists at Duke University, researchers have observed a sharp decline in social connectedness over the past 20 years.

Remarkably, 25% of Americans have no meaningful social support at all - not a single person they can confide in. And over half of all Americans report having no close confidants or friends outside their immediate family. The situation today is much worse today than it was when similar data were gathered in 1985. (At that time, only 10% of Americans were completely alone).

How could this happen? It's hundreds of little things. You can probably think of several off the top of your head: the longer work hours, the Internet, the ubiquitous iPod . . . and don't forget all the time spent sitting in traffic.

According to Robert Putnam, sociologist and author of the influential book, Bowling Alone, for every 10 minutes added to commute time, there's a roughly 10% decrease in social ties.

But we're truly not designed to live like this. For the great majority of human history, people resided in small, intimate hunter-gatherer communities. And anthropologists who spend time with modern-day hunter-gatherer bands report that social isolation and loneliness are largely unknown among them: group members spend the bulk of their time - virtually all day, every day - in the company of friends and loved ones.

Even Americans of a few generations ago used to benefit from a richness of community life that has all but disappeared, as we've witnessed a long, slow retreat into the hermetically sealed comfort of our fortress-like homes . . . deep friendships replaced by screens, gadgets, and exhausted couch-potato stupor.

The toll? Increased vulnerability to mental illness. Social isolation is a huge risk factor for the onset of major depression, which has more than doubled in prevalence over the past decade. And there's growing evidence that isolation increases vulnerability to various forms of addiction, as well.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-depression-cure/200907/social-isolation-modern-plague

[Bonam]

The link to the actual research is broken.

[Moonlight Graham]

The link to the actual research is broken.

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/3/353.short

[Canuckistani]

The idea that modern life is alienating has been around for a long time. I've heard it all my life, Marx and Seeman talked about it, Durkheim had his anomie. Pretty hard to question I think. But I also remember a study that found much more depression on remote farms in New Zealand. It said that people who voluntarily move to the country are happy there, but people who feel stuck there aren't. Still, just as our digestive system isn't adapted to the modern diet, it seems reasonable that our emotional system hasn't adapted to our modern way of life. Stress for instance. In hunter gather times, things were very relaxed with short, sharp moments of stress. Modern life has constant stress, not something our body is designed for.

[Bonam]

The idea that modern life is alienating has been around for a long time. I've heard it all my life, Marx and Seeman talked about it, Durkheim had his anomie. Pretty hard to question I think.

Just because an idea has been around for a long time doesn't mean that it is true or that it should be hard to question. Not saying it isn't true though, I'll take a read through that link MG, thanks.

Stress for instance. In hunter gather times, things were

very relaxed with short, sharp moments of stress. Modern life has

constant stress, not something our body is designed for.

Why should modern life involve constant stress? I'm not constantly stressed for one...

[Pliny]

Why should modern life involve constant stress? I'm not constantly stressed for one...

It would if you remained illiterate after your education, jobless after your search, driving cab after your PhD, on food stamps without hope, or otherwise made to feel a vicitim of circumstance where the final desperation ends in utter dependence upon "authority" directing your life and you remain lost in a drug-induced numbness.

I call this being helped to death - a very stressful and Orwellian future.