Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Income in Canada 2009 published by Statistics Canada." showed a 17% real gain in income over 40+ plus years.  So your cherry-picked evidence doesn't measure up.

Actually a great find, thanks. In my calculation it would be close to 0.4% annually. And now please, two more:

1. MP basic salary in the same years. Guessing like 100% but let's see.

2. Average salary of federal minister and public hospital CEO same interval.

Now anyone with reasonable intelligence could guess where the wonderful GDP growth is coming from.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

OMG factual data is now called "anecdotal". OK. Trump calls it "alternative facts". There you go, the difference. Yawn.

You posted COL info from your and your friend's *personal* experience.  Your COL increases will be different than those who live elsewhere in Canada. You need a much larger data pool to draw any conclusions. That's why it's anecdotal and not factual.  

If you have proof that Canadians are less wealthy now than they were 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago, then post data - not your personal budget items.  If you have proof that it's more difficult for young people to get jobs, get raises, save money, buy a house - than post data, not your personal budget items.  

Your failure to move beyond your personal experience of COL increases simply demonstrates your inability to prove your point.  

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, myata said:

Actually a great find, thanks. In my calculation it would be close to 0.4% annually. And now please, two more:

1. MP basic salary in the same years. Guessing like 100% but let's see.

2. Average salary of federal minister and public hospital CEO same interval.

Now anyone with reasonable intelligence could guess where the wonderful GDP growth is coming from.

Maybe find the info yourself, instead of expecting others do it.  

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Actually a great find, thanks. In my calculation it would be close to 0.4% annually. And now please, two more:

2. MP basic salary in the same years. Guessing like 100% but let's see.

3. Average salary of federal minister and public hospital CEO same interval.

4. Now anyone with reasonable intelligence could guess where the wonderful GDP growth is coming from.

1. Please show your work.

2. Ok, sigh.  I did your research for you.  Looks like you are wrong.  This paper shows that MP salaries roughly keep up with inflation (1972-2011) and don't show any kind of big leap or even keeping up with 17% over 33 years as quoted in the Conference Board of Canada study from 1976-2000. ("Michael M. Atkinson Dustin Rogers Johnson‐Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy University of Saskatchewan")  

3. You can do this one.  Private corporate CEOs have famously been shooting up, though.

4. Yes, government salaries are indeed included in GDP calculations it seems; you are correct.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Maybe find the info yourself, instead of expecting others do it.  

I'm very nice and helpful.  Also time on my hands lately, of course...

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, myata said:

OMG factual data is now called "anecdotal". OK. Trump calls it "alternative facts". There you go, the difference. Yawn.

'Anecdotal' doesn't mean 'false'.  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal evidence

"evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them" 

Example:
"Puerto Rico has a high crime rate"
"Really.  Well, I went there and I was fine"
 

[myata]

You folks remind me of the character in a well-known joke from Eastern Germany before the fall of the iron wall. Look Hans I'm seeing this but the radio tells me it's getting better all the time. Do you think I should see the ophthalmologist or audiologist?

Joe started now job in 1999 Jack in 2021. Same position, same salary, 47 / 53 documented fact.

The rent is up 100% or more. Own house? taxes and municipal costs up close to 100%.

Gas? over 100% License sticker? up 60% Insurance, up. Transit? Close to 100%. Municipal services? Same.

Groceries? Up. Bread? Up over 100% before the pandemic.

Communications? $20 1999, $50 average cell plan, 2021.

Burger and restaurant? Don't even begin.

No Jack, but look here you have to be at least 17% wealthier! Paradox. The eye or the ear?

Anecdotal? OK. Where, what job has starting salary now double that of 20 years back? Except MP of course.

Funny, isn't it, the history parallels.

[myata]

"In 1972, the compensation for MPs could be divided into three categories: basic salary (sessional indemnity and incidental tax‐free expense allowance); salaries for additional responsibilities; and a pension plan. An MP’s basic sessional indemnity was set at $18,000 per year."

Basic MP salary, 2021 is $185,000. It does not include additional allowances and compensation for responsibilities. You can do the math, but sorry I have to be excused from further discussion. Please have it your way: life is getting ever better with $17 juice and Joe with Jill can have their 17% more wealth if only on paper in the report.

By the way, Joe in case you were wondering, this is what 1028% growth in prosperity looks like. Wonderful, no?

Edited June 30, 2021 by myata

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, myata said:

"In 1972, the compensation for MPs could be divided into three categories: basic salary (sessional indemnity and incidental tax‐free expense allowance); salaries for additional responsibilities; and a pension plan. An MP’s basic sessional indemnity was set at $18,000 per year."

Basic MP salary, 2021 is $185,000. It does not include additional allowances and compensation for responsibilities. You can do the math, but sorry I have to be excused from further discussion. Please have it your way: life is getting ever better with $17 juice and Joe with Jill can have their 17% more wealth if only on paper in the report.

Please do not disturb the sleep of the most privileged and entitled, white,, Canadians on this board.

[myata]

Think I'll be taking a break from Canadian federal politics, that is, will try real hard. Not that it isn't eventful but still boring like same vanilla ice cream under brightly sickening sugar coloring. The next time I may be back would be a systemic budget crisis, and we can already begin writing the headlines: Common sense revolution - 2, strong majority mandate, streamlining, cutting and downloading, sorry Joe the Constitution wouldn't allow us to do anything about MP salaries and 1-2 party system, but here's a reduction in services, $50 in the hand and look forward to even greater future.

Not to say I'm not curious how it's going to play out. 160 years and counting with zero accountability, wow! certainly an achievement. Of course there's that million year crab with zero evolution but we're talking intelligent politics of the 21st century. Hope to see it still, always something new in the nature to observe and learn.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. "In 1972, the compensation for MPs could be divided into three categories: basic salary (sessional indemnity and incidental tax‐free expense allowance); salaries for additional responsibilities; and a pension plan. An MP’s basic sessional indemnity was set at $18,000 per year."  1Basic MP salary, 2021 is $185,000. It does not include additional allowances and compensation for responsibilities. You can do the math, but sorry I have to be excused from further discussion.

2. Please have it your way: life is getting ever better with $17 juice and Joe with Jill can have their 17% more wealth if only on paper in the report.

 

1. Yes, the math works out when you take into account the added housing and expense allowance.  Thanks
2. Thanks.  The way I see it: life is so good that there is $17 juice now.  Most don't choose to buy it.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

 160 years and counting with zero accountability, wow! certainly an achievement.  

If your energy levels approach your level of personal outrage, I would recommend you start a project to enlighten people about how bad things are.  Charge $5/month to get your newsletter.  I will be your first client.

[Argus]

On 6/28/2021 at 5:41 PM, Michael Hardner said:

2. It's kind of a hard question because you are comparing it against a theoretical 22 million strong Canada in 2021. 

More like I'm comparing it to the real, not theoretical Canada that was. Do we have some reason to believe it would have been worse at 22 million now than it was then?

On 6/28/2021 at 5:41 PM, Michael Hardner said:

3. GDP has grown, though.  Wage distribution is about how wealth is distributed.  The country overall is wealthier.

How has that made my life any better? Or the lives of Canadians? 

“The size of the whole economy is not really what we care about. What we really care about is per capita income. We care about how much each one of us gets in income,” Green said in an interview.

“Think about whether you’d rather be living in India or living here, just in terms of your material wealth. India, in terms of GDP, is bigger than us. But in terms of GDP per capita we’re way ahead of them. So you’d rather be in a rich society than a big society.”  https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

On 6/28/2021 at 5:41 PM, Michael Hardner said:

4. How so ?  There are a lot of services you can get today that you could not before.  And, again, if it has deteriorated why is that about population growth and not government bureaucracy or other factors ?

Health care services have improved due to technology and scientific advance but we now have the longest wait-times in the OECD, and also have fewer doctors per capita, hospital beds per capita, and diagnostic machines per capita. We have increased the numbers of our population but many of the newcomers are poor and paying no taxes due to our progressive tax system. A number of studies have documented the deteriorating economic success of immigrants, and this group represents the majority of the additional population.

So we have millions of new citizens who need health care but aren't paying for it.

On 6/28/2021 at 5:41 PM, Michael Hardner said:

5. Back to my original (incorrect) point, though, you have enjoyed at least some advantages from immigration.  Even if overall it's been a net negative you have enjoyed some advantages somewhere.  

Not that I can see. My early life was one of working low paying jobs which were kept low paying by a steady stream of immigrants willing to work for cheap wages. My income now comes mostly from the US and UK. The roads I drive on are more crowded and less well-maintained, as are the sidewalks in winter. Even garbage pickup is worse. I can't offhand think of any improvements made due to a larger population. We have more tall buildings? Whoopee. We used to have more farmland and more affordable everything. Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, and growing the size of our domestic market has made no discernable difference, especially in an era of free trade.

 

[cougar]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

Overall standard of living has increased in Western countries.  We have the majority of world's wealth, which includes things like energy, abundant and fresh food and luxuries.  This doesn't include natural resources, as MH has already acknowledged.  

Can't disagree any more with that. 

If it was going to take you 25 years to buy a middle class detached house on one income with your wife staying at home and now it is impossible even over a 40 year period with two incomes, how are you better off?

If it took you 15 minutes to get to work; now you are stuck in traffic jams for an hour each way, how did your standard of life go up?

If you ate tasty domestic fruits and vegetables you could afford and now you are forced to buy hard tasteless almost inedible ones, how is this better?

If you could go to river and catch fish for dinner before, now you cannot because there are very few fish and fishing is closed, how are you better off?

If you had moderate temperatures and you could enjoy life and now you are stuck either in 49'C heat or with a hydro bill for your air conditioner which is higher than your winter bills, how are you better off?

No, it has been going down all this time.

[cougar]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Income in Canada 2009 published by Statistics Canada." showed a 17% real gain in income over 40+ plus years.  So your cherry-picked evidence doesn't measure up.
 

You are the signal jammer in the forum.  Your purpose obviously is to scramble the signal so no real message could be received.

So you are telling me that:

1. The homeless and impoverished saw a 17% real gain in income and everyone else saw the same 17% gain?

2. The homeless and impoverished saw a 30% real gain in income most middle class saw a 17% increase and the super rich saw a 25% decrease?  

3.  The homeless and impoverished saw a 75% real decrease in income, middle class saw a 50% decrease in income, the super rich saw a 250% increase in income.

Average for all of the above scenarios is a 17% increase.

Which of the above scenarios best represents the actual situation in Canada?

I hope you stop scrambling the signal with your meaningless posts.

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, cougar said:

If it was going to take you 25 years to buy a middle class detached house on one income with your wife staying at home and now it is impossible even over a 40 year period with two incomes, how are you better off?

I'm a boomer, and it took me more than 25 years to buy a house.  This is partly a result of my own choices, but also a result of societal attitudes that I was imbued with as a young girl growing up in Canada.   And, I ask you - why should a woman not work, but instead be supported by a man?   It's not easy being the sole breadwinner, and it's not easy being the one who stays at home to cook/clean/raise kids; I know, because I've done both.  Why should we have those roles imposed on us?

Also, and surprising to many people, is that almost half of people aged 25 to 45 have purchased their own home; its not like it's impossible to do.  Not denying that the purchasers may be more heavily weighted towards the 40+ year mark, but nonetheless this data point certainly contradicts your claim that even after 40 years and two incomes, its impossible to buy a home.  

42 minutes ago, cougar said:

If it took you 15 minutes to get to work; now you are stuck in traffic jams for an hour each way, how did your standard of life go up?

Takes me 40 minutes by bus, 20 minutes by car.  Even with traffic jams.  I live in the largest metro area in BC, but I selected my home and my job with an eye to reducing commute times.  People do make choices, and while I grant that such choices can be challenging, not everything is out of an individual's control.

42 minutes ago, cougar said:

If you ate tasty domestic fruits and vegetables you could afford and now you are forced to buy hard tasteless almost inedible ones, how is this better?

I grew up with really limited fruit/vegetable choices, so my selection now as an adult is much better.  I will grant you that I tend to avoid certain factory-farm grown as much as possible because it does not taste as rich as food grown more naturally.  Still, I'm not poorer for this; there are plenty of other foods that I never had access to even 30 years ago that I now am able to enjoy.

42 minutes ago, cougar said:

If you could go to river and catch fish for dinner before, now you cannot because there are very few fish and fishing is closed, how are you better off?

I've never been much of a fisherman, so this is not a 'loss' to  me, though I certainly get how this is a loss for others.  And, as I have already said, environmental losses are also a concern of mine - but currently they do not prove that Canada is 'poorer' than previously.  In a few years, that case could probably be made, but it's not yet true as far as I can tell.

42 minutes ago, cougar said:

If you had moderate temperatures and you could enjoy life and now you are stuck either in 49'C heat or with a hydro bill for your air conditioner which is higher than your winter bills, how are you better off?

Same answer as above.  Certainly, this is a concern for the future, I am sure we will be paying and we will be poorer - but it's not yet true.  That's the rub, though, isn't it?  Life is good for us and so the steps we need to take now to reduce our discomfort later are already too uncomfortable.  So, we don't do it.  We squabble about whether climate change is man-made/natural, about carbon taxes, about China and India vs. Western world.  So, yeah, we're all going to pay for this, eventually, and we'll all be poorer.

Edited June 30, 2021 by dialamah

[myata]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Most don't choose to buy it.

That's "bread and brioches" already, ne c'est pas?  Like, you get $185 plus allowances, or all expenses picked up no question asked has nothing to do with "choosing"?

Congrats you made it, too. And it always comes to that from "hard work and fair entitlements" in a system that controls itself and rewards itself, not so? Surprises.

Edited June 30, 2021 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. More like I'm comparing it to the real, not theoretical Canada that was. Do we have some reason to believe it would have been worse at 22 million now than it was then?

2. How has that made my life any better? Or the lives of Canadians?   “The size of the whole economy is not really what we care about. What we really care about is per capita income. We care about how much each one of us gets in income,” Green said in an interview.  “Think about whether you’d rather be living in India or living here, just in terms of your material wealth. India, in terms of GDP, is bigger than us. But in terms of GDP per capita we’re way ahead of them. So you’d rather be in a rich society than a big society.”  https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

3. Health care services have improved due to technology and scientific advances ... So we have millions of new citizens who need health care but aren't paying for it.

4. Not that I can see.  

 

1.  No.  It's prognostication.  Comparing it to back then, making assumptions about what-ifs is fine but very difficult and there's no way to be sure things would be better.

2. Yes, GDP per capita has grown and economic growth outstripped economic growth.

3. You answered my first question.  [EDITED TO REMOVE BAD STAT] I think it's a management problem in any case.

4. Well, I guess I'm the same boat as you if I try to guess what your net worth, job prospects, real estate holdings would be worth if Canada had embarked on some kind of isolationist tack over the past 50 years - or whatever you are proposing.

So, I can't say you're wrong exactly but the under reported news is that the economy is better than it used to be.   We would have always lost export power over this time, so trade deals would have been necessary anyway as well as foreign investment.   I guess I can imagine us being a kind of Switzerland of North America in that way.  It's interesting to think about.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

1. You are the signal jammer in the forum.  Your purpose obviously is to scramble the signal so no real message could be received.

2. The homeless and impoverished saw a 17% real gain in income and everyone else saw the same 17% gain?

3. The homeless and impoverished saw a 30% real gain in income most middle class saw a 17% increase and the super rich saw a 25% decrease?  

4.  The homeless and impoverished saw a 75% real decrease in income, middle class saw a 50% decrease in income, the super rich saw a 250% increase in income.

5. Average for all of the above scenarios is a 17% increase.

6. Which of the above scenarios best represents the actual situation in Canada?

7. I hope you stop scrambling the signal with your meaningless posts.

1. I just quoted economic stats and you call me a "signal jammer" whose purpose is to "scramble the signal" and obscure "real messages" ?  I am posting in good faith.  You may not believe that, but if I was trying to be devious wouldn't I post fakeness ?  

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Not saying that, no.  I looked back and you are right - my fault: I wasn't clear enough when I quoted that stat so here it is: "the average Canadian is better off than she or he was a generation ago. In 1976, average income was $51,100; by 2009, it was $59,700—an increase of 17 per cent over 33 years"

I believe the number is that the lowest earners saw only a small gain but the top 1% increased their incomes many times over.

 
7. If you think I'm lying or scamming, I suggest you block me.  I am talking to YOU because I think you are an honest poster.  

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, myata said:

1. That's "bread and brioches" already, ne c'est pas? 

2. Like, you get $185 plus allowances, or all expenses picked up no question asked has nothing to do with "choosing"?

1. No.  It would be if there was starvation and I was ignoring that I think.

2. You should be more worried about the 1% than MPs really. 

You haven't mentioned them yet, come to think of it.  This is a hallmark of alt-right thinking I have noticed, ie. they complain about the wages of anyone except the direct beneficiaries of global trade and such.  The 1% have more than doubled their earnings in this new climate of tax cuts and global investment.  The top .1% are making about 3.5X and this is in socialist Canada  

Not that I think you're alt-right btw.

 

[myata]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  It would be if there was starvation and I was ignoring that I think.

2. You should be more worried about the 1% than MPs really.

Right, because it's us who's setting arbitrary rules and criteria, and how else? And how would you know that there's no starvation? From statistics Canada or amazing ratings?

Why should we be worried more? No matter how many times you try to pull and divert attention this is nothing to do with the private market, except maybe in the part where it tries to influence entitled politicians (11 closed door meetings with "public" commission to rescind reduction in rates for everybody). This is about a caste that got unlimited, not controlled by anything or anybody hold of the public budget and debt. It's not their money they are owned by the citizens but it's been too long since anyone cared. And so it squeezes it, munches it gobbles, chews it and sucks it in all and any way possible, offices, inquiries, commissions who more. No lines or limits, way past that. Native children sure. Rapid Covid response but of course bring it on.

Chew, chew, gobble, 150K? 185K? not enough need another raise, chrum-chrum, chum-chum sound and smell for miles away disgusting but who cares don't even notice way past that. And why would anyone have anything to do with it?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

1.  And how would you know that there's no starvation? From statistics Canada or amazing ratings?

2. Why should we be worried more?

3. This is about a caste that got unlimited, not controlled by anything or anybody hold of the public budget and debt.

4. Chew, chew, gobble, 150K? 185K? 

1. I guess I could ask you what you think since you think you're a higher authority ?  FYI statscan does keep statistics and this is useful information.

2. Because you are worried about people who are getting away with making way more and they are.

3. That's hyperbole.

4.  About the same as 1970, I think.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  No.  It's prognostication.  Comparing it to back then, making assumptions about what-ifs is fine but very difficult and there's no way to be sure things would be better.

Okay but I'm still waiting for how adding millions of people has made it better.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Yes, GDP per capita has grown and economic growth outstripped economic growth.

There's no evidence that is associated with immigration or an increased population, though. Singapore accepts virtually no immigrants but it's GDP per capita is a third higher. Switzerland's is even higher. Both small countries with almost no immigration. Norway's GDP per capita is also greater than ours. You don't need numbers to have a high GDP per capita

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You answered my first question.  [EDITED TO REMOVE BAD STAT] I think it's a management problem in any case.

What is this bad stat?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well, I guess I'm the same boat as you if I try to guess what your net worth, job prospects, real estate holdings would be worth if Canada had embarked on some kind of isolationist tack over the past 50 years - or whatever you are proposing.

You're still ignoring the question. You call it isolationist not to want mass immigration? I'm not utterly opposed to immigration. If the immigrants are professionals who can speak the language well, adapt and assimilate well, and make a good enough living to pay more to the taxman than they get in return. But I see no need to import millions of people just to get bigger. Most of the best countries in the world in which to live have small populations. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So, I can't say you're wrong exactly but the under reported news is that the economy is better than it used to be.   

Is it really? In what way? In my father's day a man with a decent, not great job could afford to buy his own house and support a non-working wife and three children. My uncle was an armored car guard and did just that. That's impossible now. If you compare the average wage from 1971 to what it cost to buy a car, a house, or almost anything else including getting a college education, it's much, much harder now.

Average income was $18k in 1970 and the average cost of a house was $65k. Average cost of a car $3543. Cost of a year's tuition at university was about $534.

Average income today is $54,630 today. Average cost of a house is $716k. Average cost of a car is $40,941. University tuition for one year $6463

https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We would have always lost export power over this time, so trade deals would have been necessary anyway as well as foreign investment.   I guess I can imagine us being a kind of Switzerland of North America in that way.  It's interesting to think about.

Of the richest 20 countries in the world only the US and Germany are bigger than we are. Most have much smaller populations.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Argus

[cougar]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I just quoted economic stats and you call me a "signal jammer" whose purpose is to "scramble the signal" and obscure "real messages" ?  I am posting in good faith.  You may not believe that, but if I was trying to be devious wouldn't I post fakeness ?  

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Not saying that, no.  I looked back and you are right - my fault: I wasn't clear enough when I quoted that stat so here it is: "the average Canadian is better off than she or he was a generation ago. In 1976, average income was $51,100; by 2009, it was $59,700—an increase of 17 per cent over 33 years"

I believe the number is that the lowest earners saw only a small gain but the top 1% increased their incomes many times over.

My bad, you are posting the misinformation from Stats Canada , not trying to analyze it before you post.  It is deliberately general as to be misleading.  Posting it here serves to mislead the forum members.

I thought you were talking about REAL income gain.  Having a 17% increase in income between 1976 and 2009 would be like having a REAL income loss of at least 25%.   There is a thing called INFLATION.  I am not going to check what Stats Canada posts on inflation rates, again because I am smart enough to know their message is misleading.     If you need to buy food and it went up 100% and if you need to buy a car and it went up 20% and if you need to buy gas and it is up 30%  but you do not need certain electronics that went down in price 50% and so on, what is the actual inflation rate for YOU?  everyone is experiencing a different inflation rate based on what they buy.

Your last line indicates to me you seem to agree Canada is under scenario 3 of the three ones I posted above.

Edited July 1, 2021 by cougar

[myata]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Because you are worried about people who are getting away with making way more and they are.

By Freud's method, you thinking about what I'm worried about tells more about your ideas than about me. I'm not worried about people making a lot with their own money; I'm worried about people getting spoiled dirty with nothing of their money, no checks or controls. There's a difference and it's hard even to know it if one lives in a world where money come from a bottomless bucket that magically fills itself overnight no matter what.