31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[dre]

Don't know what stats you are looking at (US data BC will be happy): https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

From 2002 to 2003, food and housing together took up about 45 percent of incomes, with 13 percent on food and about 33 percent on housing. About 4 percent was spent on clothing and 22 percent on transportation.

Sure but most homes have multiple incomes now. Both the mother and father works. So of course a lower percentage of their income is going to rent and food. If you got a working room mate you would now spend a lower percentage of income on housing as well.

A better measure is just real inflation adjusted incomes...

[TimG]

Sure but most homes have multiple incomes now.

In 1901 the non-working family members had full time jobs just keeping the household going with laundry, sewing, cooking et. al. None of that is necessary any more.

A better measure is just real inflation adjusted incomes...

Why would a cherry picked snapshot of a subset of the labour force mean anything? I could show you a graph of the income of farm workers which made up 40% of the workforce in 1901 but less than 1% today. It would not mean much because the trends affect so few people.

[cybercoma]

In 1901 the non-working family members had full time jobs just keeping the household going with laundry, sewing, cooking et. al.

What world are you living in where you don't have to clean your house, do laundry, cook, or do household maintenance? And besides that still doesn't do anything to challenge the point about dual vs single incomes. Edited August 12, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

. Why would a cherry picked snapshot of a subset of the labour force mean anything? I could show you a graph of the income of farm workers which made up 40% of the workforce in 1901 but less than 1% today. It would not mean much because the trends affect so few people.

dre showed change over time. YOU cherry picked 1901 as your reference year. Which is awfully convenient because it predates the collapse of the agricultural economy through to the 1940s. Edited August 12, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

What world are you living in where you don't have to clean your house, do laundry, cook, or do household maintenance? And besides that still doesn't do anything to challenge the point about dual vs single incomes.

You seem to have no understanding of the amount of work it required in the past. Something as simple as a load of laundry would be a 5 minute effort today took all day 100 years ago. People had to sew their own clothes because pre-made was much more expensive. Housework today is a task that can be done outside of other activities. More importantly, the link I quoted was talking about personal income - not household income. So the question of two people working is irrelevant.

dre showed change over time. YOU cherry picked 1901 as your reference year. Which is awfully convenient because it predates the collapse of the agricultural economy through to the 1940s.

You missed the entire point. You could show me a chart of how the income of buggy whip makers has declined over time and I would say it is irrelevant because no one works as a buggy whip maker anymore. The same can be said of farm workers or 'goods producing industries'. What matters is the median incomes no matter how people make the money. Cherry picking a group of workers who are declining as a share of the population is not useful stat. Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't know what stats you are looking at (US data BC will be happy): https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

No worries...everyone knows that U.S. data always applies to Canada as well. It's just easier that way.

[Argus]

Sure but most homes have multiple incomes now. Both the mother and father works. So of course a lower percentage of their income is going to rent and food. If you got a working room mate you would now spend a lower percentage of income on housing as well.

Are you seriously trying to argue that workers were as well-off a hundred years ago as they are now? There was no minimum wage, no pensions, no sick leave, and no other benefits like medical. You got the minimum the boss could get away with paying you and were glad to have it because the alternative was starvation. That didn't really start to change until after WW2.

[cybercoma]

Yes, let's cherry pick the era of child slavery and no labour laws. We wouldn't want to compare the baby boomer's economic climate to millennials. That would completely undermine your supposed point that people have it better today. Better than the industrial revolution with indentured servitude and child labour.....ya don't f'ing say?

[dre]

Are you seriously trying to argue that workers were as well-off a hundred years ago as they are now? There was no minimum wage, no pensions, no sick leave, and no other benefits like medical. You got the minimum the boss could get away with paying you and were glad to have it because the alternative was starvation. That didn't really start to change until after WW2.

No I wasnt trying to argue that. Clearly workers lives are way better now. Everyones lives are. This is due to technology, regulation, etc etc.

What I was trying to argue is that real wages have declined or been stagnant since 1975. Before that wages and productivity rose together. After Bretton Woods ended however wage growth immediately stopped even though productivity continued to increase. This cant be attributed to technology and mechanization alone because those things started 30 years before. THe main reason is because at Bretton Woods ended new money could be created by the billions with the stroke of a pen by loaning it into existence. Industry now had access to almost limited capital which they used to phase out workers, and chip away at their bargaining power. Increases in productivity are no longer shared with the worker but instead are split between shareholders.

[TimG]

What I was trying to argue is that real wages have declined or been stagnant since 1975.

No. You cherry picked a subset of workers that shows the trend that supports the argument you want to make. It is not a meaningful stat - especially since the size of the group has been declining steadily over time. Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

No I wasnt trying to argue that. Clearly workers lives are way better now. Everyones lives are. This is due to technology, regulation, etc etc.

What I was trying to argue is that real wages have declined or been stagnant since 1975. Before that wages and productivity rose together. After Bretton Woods ended however wage growth immediately stopped even though productivity continued to increase.

Okay, why? I mean, this chain of discussion arose from your statement:

Its important to note though that allowing companies to pay lower wages than a person needs to live is a subsidy to that company.

I pointed out that long ago companies paid virtually nothing, with no benefits. That was how things worked until government started to get involved to order them to provide things like a paid vacation, for example, and then imposed payments for pensions, pogey, and of course, minimum wages. I also pointed out the variance between what we consider poverty and actual poverty. Your suggestion business is responsible for elevating people out of poverty, and that if not ordered to do so that should be seen as some kind of a subsidy by the government flies in the face of history. it is not, after all, the job of a businessman to ensure people are able to live in comfort. They have no more responsibility for this than you or I. Their job is to run a business and an intrinsic part of that job is to keep input costs as low as possible in order to improve the health of that business.

[taxme]

Face it taxme:

Canada just doesn't work for you.

Time for you to emigrate.

BTW ... Where is your 'white nationalist' utopia?

.

Indeed, you are right, Canada is not working for me right now but there is always hope that the tables will turn one day in the near future. Personally, I would much rather that you thought about emigrating. Canada needs less Liberals around. The liberals have already shown us all just how easy it is to destroy a country and it's traditions, culture, heritage and religion. Bring in hundreds of thousands of third world immigrants every year and bingo there goes Caucasian Canada. This kind of immigration has been going on for decades, and it is starting to show in big cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal among others.

My "white nationalist utopia" could be just around the corner if sane white people wake up to what is happening to their country. The older ones need to especially think about their children and grandchildren who will have to face the third world immigration mess that the liberals have created.

But, unfortunately for you, I am not ready to go anywhere soon. Awwww.

[taxme]

That's just a pure statement of ideological creed. None of you have even done the first bit of research on the impact of immigration on our economy, and you are ignoring most of the factors.

Like the fact that immigrants are more likely to start more businesses than Canadians. Or the fact they are on average more educated. Or the fact that so much of our economy is in the real estate and real estate services and retail and leasing sectors and they need population growth to stay healthy.

If your concern is economics stopping immigration is the absolute worst thing you could ever do, and nobody (neither conservative or liberal) is ever going to do it, because businesses and politicians understand t his stuff a little better than you do (a lot actually).

If your concern IS economic here's what makes sense. Double the amount of ECONOMIC CLASS MIGRANTS.

Adding a hundred thousand refugees based on the current class rations would increase our real GDP by 2.3 percent. The problem is it would increase our population by about 2.6 percent so GDP per capita would slightly decline. But if you doubled the number of Economic Class Migrants it would raise the average immigrant wage by about 5 percent, and not only would our GDP increase but our per capita GDP would increase as well.

I think we SHOULD do that.

Also... we should work with other countries to harmonize more certifications and stop protectionism by Canadian professionals. For example Doctors from places like India, Thailand, and South Africa are highly skilled today. But we don't recognize their credentials. And even if they ace our exams (and most of the do) to become certified to practice, they still aren't allowed to practice without a two year residency. And guess who controls the residency slots? Canadian Medical Associations. Guess who negotiates for doctor wages and salaries? Canadian medical associations. So of course they dont want foreign doctors to practice. They want to create artificial scarcity to drive up the wages of their members (and the cost of medical care along with it).

The result? Almost half of the foreign doctors in this country are driving cab. Even the ones that ace our medical exams. Meanwhile we have a chronic shortage of family physicians, and half the country gets care at walk in clinics by doctors that done even know them.

Educate yourself on all these issues. Stop pretending that the economy is a fixed size pie and new participants will mean that you get a smaller piece. Its just not true.

We must agree to disagree.

[taxme]

Im surprised you're not happy that the Chinese are making Vancouver homeowners richer by making their properties worth more.

From my understanding, the Chinese are pricing the average working Vancouver taxpayer out of the market for them being able to afford a house in Vancouver. Indeed, the average Vancouver homeowner can get more for their homes if they sell but they have to go somewhere else to live in the Lower Mainland where it now costs more to buy a home, thanks to the Asians. And this is what some members here who thinks this kind of immigration is good for Canada. Ya, tell that to the people of BC if massive immigration is all that great for them?

[cybercoma]

Why do you care more about buyers than sellers? Chinese and immigrants are the buyers. White Canadians, particularly retirees, are the sellers.

[TimG]

Why do you care more about buyers than sellers? Chinese and immigrants are the buyers. White Canadians, particularly retirees, are the sellers.

You are one of the people always ranting about the gap between the "haves" and "have nots". The bubble has created two classes of citizens: those with property and those without. Those with property are largely trapped in whatever home they are in because the differential between what they have an even a modest upgrade is way beyond the means of a typical home owner. The only people able to realize the benefit are seniors who move to a different city.

The bubble is a problem from an economic perspective because any functional city needs to offer real estate that is affordable to the majority of people who work in the city. This could be accomplished by an effective mass transit network (which cities like NY have) but Vancouver does not have that. In the long term businesses that are not dedicated to servicing the super rich will move to other cities (which will be great for other cities). People in Vancouver have good reason to be concerned.

Now the economics textbox solution to this problem is to increase supply by building more and more condos and other lower cost developments. It also be helped by greatly expanding the subway network to include distant suburbs. This is not likely to happen fast enough.

That said, it is also reasonable for people in Vancouver to tell foreign investors to 'go way we don't want your money'.

Lastly: it is not just "white" Canadians feeling the pinch. I have middle income Chinese neighbors that complain about the flood of overseas money as much as anyone else. This is a question of class - not race.

Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Of course, I think the market is a problem. I don't believe housing should be a free market in the first place because I'm a radical. But I question your commitment to sparkle motion....I mean, white nationalism, if you would sell your aryan brothers and sisters up the river (ironic racist turn of phrase intentional) by supporting immigrant buyers and driving down the value of white people's homes.

[dre]

I pointed out that long ago companies paid virtually nothing, with no benefits.

Well if they paid less than what it cost for workers to get shelter, clothing and food, then there must have been some subsidies then as well. Unless workers showed up naked or just worked for a week until they died of starvation, or were homeless. Its true that people today expect more... a lot of people a hundred years ago lived in tents with no running water, everyone heated with firewood, etc. Today most people live in structures with running water, heat, electricity etc.

[Argus]

Well if they paid less than what it cost for workers to get shelter, clothing and food, then there must have been some subsidies then as well. Unless workers showed up naked or just worked for a week until they died of starvation, or were homeless. Its true that people today expect more... a lot of people a hundred years ago lived in tents with no running water, everyone heated with firewood, etc. Today most people live in structures with running water, heat, electricity etc.

And, as I pointed out, with cablevision, big screen TVs, nintendo, air conditioning, smartphones, high speed internet, etc. etc.

Are today's employers paying less than a living wage if 'living' means affording the rent on a crummy room, cheap clothes, and just enough to eat? Oh, you can't afford enough to feed your family? Well, in the old days, nobody would let their daughter marry you if you couldn't afford to pay for the food and shelter for a wife and kids. And if you had to work 80 or 100 hrs a week to do that, nobody thought that was shocking.

Note, I'm not suggesting this was better or that I want us to return to those days, but no, there was no subsidy.

[Argus]

Lastly: it is not just "white" Canadians feeling the pinch. I have middle income Chinese neighbors that complain about the flood of overseas money as much as anyone else. This is a question of class - not race.

I think it's a question of us (Canadians) vs them (foreigners). From what I've seen a lot of Chinese elites are squirreling away their stolen money in foreign countries like Canada. They put their money into a multi-million dollar home but have no intention of ever living there. They lie to avoid paying taxes, and keep the home as an investment or a bank.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think it's a question of us (Canadians) vs them (foreigners). From what I've seen a lot of Chinese elites are squirreling away their stolen money in foreign countries like Canada. They put their money into a multi-million dollar home but have no intention of ever living there. They lie to avoid paying taxes, and keep the home as an investment or a bank.

As per usual, this thread has denigrated from the original op. Why haven't the mods stepped in?

[jacee]

The liberals have already shown us all just how easy it is to destroy a country and it's traditions, culture, heritage and religion. Bring in hundreds of thousands of third world immigrants every year and bingo there goes Caucasian Canada. This kind of immigration has been going on for decades,

Centuries ...

[dre]

And, as I pointed out, with cablevision, big screen TVs, nintendo, air conditioning, smartphones, high speed internet, etc. etc.

Are today's employers paying less than a living wage if 'living' means affording the rent on a crummy room, cheap clothes, and just enough to eat? Oh, you can't afford enough to feed your family? Well, in the old days, nobody would let their daughter marry you if you couldn't afford to pay for the food and shelter for a wife and kids. And if you had to work 80 or 100 hrs a week to do that, nobody thought that was shocking.

Note, I'm not suggesting this was better or that I want us to return to those days, but no, there was no subsidy.

Well as far as all the perks you mentioned above... most minimum wage earners cant afford them.

We have something called the Market Basket Measure, that is built from a basket of basic living necessities. Shelter, Clothing, Food, and Footwear. The cost of the basic low income standard of life defined in the MBM depends on where you live in Canada but its somewhere around 1700 dollars per month in most places, and despite the fact that the MBM is lower than the "povery line", most minimum wage earners in Canada do not make enough to pay for their own basic necessities. Never mind cars, or cell phones, or Xboxes.

[Smallc]

Well as far as all the perks you mentioned above... most minimum wage earners cant afford them.

I agree - but they tend to have them anyway. Priorities are pretty out of whack for most people.

[cybercoma]

Have any of you tried applying for jobs today without the Internet or a cellphone?