‘Very concerning’: Canada’s standard of living is lagging behind its peers, report finds. What can be done? (poor gdp per capita)

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course i did. Showed the math and everything.    But - if you disagree then lets see your numbers proving it's insignificant  

If $1B = $1B counts as "math" for you, it's no wonder you have no perspective on these debates.  

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You havent'  looked THIS stupid since the last time we did math together   go on then.

 

Well that's the thing isn't it -  id don't have to tell you you're wrong. You very obviously know you're wrong.  What we're talking about here is how badly you handle being wrong.  

Swing and a moss big guy

If you don't have to tell me, then why are you...telling me?  ?

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If $1B = $1B counts as "math" for you, it's no wonder you have no perspective on these debates.  

if that's all you saw there then we'll add "can't read' to "can't count" for you

Quote

If you don't have to tell me, then why are you...telling me?  ? 

Nobody is.  I'm telling you how you handle it when you lose is pretty pathetic

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

if that's all you saw there then we'll add "can't read' to "can't count" for you

That's all there was.  Maybe you can cite the math you thought you did?  This isn't a very long thread.  It should be easy...

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody is.  I'm telling you how you handle it when you lose is pretty pathetic

You're not telling me I'm losing, you're just telling me how I handle it when I lose.  Wow.  ?

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't get a reply to my points...

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Any concern about growth has to be balanced with a discussion on equity.  Our real GDP is so much better than in the years a lot of boomers consider the 'good times'...

Actually our real GDP would look a lot worse if you took real estate out of the equation.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Actually our real GDP would look a lot worse if you took real estate out of the equation.

Ok - here's a graph showing GDP growth since 1960... quick Google search.  Shows 5X real growth.  Also I see real estate as 6.75% of GDP.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/gdp-gross-domestic-product

I have to say it... although my deeply conservative heart aches to admit... state investment in industry looks more and more viable when you look at such numbers.

 

@eyeball do you concur ?

[myata]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There's no reason to beleive a gov't won't cut back on expeditures. Many have. Hell, chretien did so it's not even just conservatives.  Harper tightened spending.

Of course. You need to show one cut that didn't come back with a vengeance

Edited July 26, 2023 by myata

[Moonbox]

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Actually our real GDP would look a lot worse if you took real estate out of the equation.

and that's one of the biggest problems we have with productivity.  When real-estate speculation is more profitable for people than business/enterprise investment, that's where the money goes.  If was all going to building new places, that would be one thing, but tying increasing amounts of money up into an existing residential market isn't doing anything for productivity.  

[myata]

35 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Actually our real GDP would look a lot worse if you took real estate out of the equation.

Indeed, and government spending too, where expenditure is no equivalent of delivered service, access and quality.

[myata]

It's grossly inadequate down to outright misleading to measure public system product in dollars. It means next to nothing. Money spent isn't the same as service provided, that easy.

In country A, $100 M (equivalent) paid for 2,000 hip replacements in a year and a modern lean and efficient coordination and control framework

In B, the same dollar equivalent paid for half of that in three years, and a trashload of unproductive bureaucracy managing desks.

Is it the same "product"? Same great addition to the GDP?

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

That's all there was. 

LOL - so there's nothing about how much per person of a tax break could be applied to all people working from home, nothing like that?  ROFLMAO   Well ok -  "Can't read"  It is

Quote

You're not telling me I'm losing, you're just telling me how I handle it when I lose.  Wow.  ? 

 

Yup.

You -  "WAAAAAAAHHHHHH I LOST! I LOST WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"

me - 'Dude - you always act badly like this when you lose. Why are you like this?"

You - " So what i hear you telling me is that i lost".

 

ROFLMAO!!!!!    oh - and by the way, you're doing it again

[Aristides]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - here's a graph showing GDP growth since 1960... quick Google search.  Shows 5X real growth.  Also I see real estate as 6.75% of GDP.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/gdp-gross-domestic-product

I have to say it... although my deeply conservative heart aches to admit... state investment in industry looks more and more viable when you look at such numbers.

W
@eyeball do you concur ?

Real estate is by far the largest segment of our GDP and by far the fastest growing, health care and social assistance is fifth and public administration is seventh. GDP is not a good indicator of our productivity.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/594293/gross-domestic-product-of-canada-by-industry-monthly/

Our per capita GDP is 25% lower than the US and 21% lower than Australia

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

It's grossly inadequate down to outright misleading to measure public system product in dollars. It means next to nothing. Money spent isn't the same as service provided, that easy.

In country A, $100 M (equivalent) paid for 2,000 hip replacements in a year and a modern lean and efficient coordination and control framework

In B, the same dollar equivalent paid for half of that in three years, and a trashload of unproductive bureaucracy managing desks.

Is it the same "product"? Same great addition to the GDP?

Well you're right insofar as it's not a sufficient indicator by itself, and it doesn't necessarily allow for deep drilling on a specific sector.

to get a more clear picture you'd also have to look at gov't debt increases at the same time.   IF the gov't is borrowing money to increase services and that increases the gdp then yes, that's a false economy.

But i would tend to argue that if they had the same deficits and the same gdp per capita then over all they would still be considered to be equally productive.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 Our per capita GDP is 25% lower than the US and 21% lower than Australia

Without factoring in equity, this doesn't matter.  We were far poorer in 1970 and yet 'good times'...

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Without factoring in equity, this doesn't matter.  We were far poorer in 1970 and yet 'good times'...

You need $100K a year to afford the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in Vancouver or Burnaby. In 1969 I was renting a one bedroom apartment in Vancouver for $95 a month. You will have a tough time convincing people they are better off now.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.   https://www.oecd.org/economy/canada-economic-snapshot/#:~:text=Economic Outlook Note - Canada,run potential rate at 1.4%.
"Real GDP growth will decline to 1.4% in 2023. Higher borrowing costs will weigh on activity. Lower commodity prices have unwound last year’s terms of trade gains. Demand will strengthen through 2024, but annual output growth will remain below the economy’s long-run potential rate at 1.4%."
 

Yes i'm afraid - i can't see your link, it just goes to a blank page but here you go:

https://financialpost.com/news/canada-standard-of-living-falling-behind

On the world stage, Canada is one of the few advanced economies that has not recovered its pre-pandemic standard of living, measured by real gross domestic product per capita.

This measure has contracted over the past three quarters, and TD forecasts it will continue to shrink until the end of 2024. More alarming, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts that Canada will place last among OECD members in real GDP per capita growth until 2060.

So i'm afraid you're wrong.  We are in the negative right now, we'll remain there for 2024, and we'll have very sluggish growht after taht.

Quote

2. I already pointed out that GDP size is only one part of it.  You seem to agree that the 1970s were a good standard and yet we were far less wealthy then.  That is because of equity.

I did not agree with that and it's an incorrect statement.

 

Quote

3. Not a Liberal.  That's another fact you have wrong.  You would leap fathoms in my appreciation if you acknowledged/corrected as I would do in this situation.

You are very clearly a liberal.   I get that it's fashionable these days for liberals to pretend they either aren't or 'would be if Mike Chong was leader" but  you're a liberal.  You're fooling no one, and i know i'm not the only one to say it to you.

 

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You will have a tough time convincing people they are better off now.

They get an allowance. Why wouldn't they buy brioches?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You need $100K a year to afford the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in Vancouver or Burnaby. In 1969 I was renting a one bedroom apartment in Vancouver for $95 a month. You will have a tough time convincing people they are better off now.

well they very clearly are not.  Our standard of living has decreased, and worse it's decreased in comparison to the rest of the world.  A person in many us cities can still rent a nice place for a third of their income.  In vancouver as an example you'd be lucky to share a place with someone for that kind of a percent, and many would be a lot closer to half their income even with sharing.

But what's even more concerning is that if the forecasts are accurate, unless something changes we will continue to radically lose ground and the kids being born today will have a far lower standard of living than even the millenials do and THEY feel it's unacceptable at this level.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

had the same deficits and the same gdp per capita then

and the same, or superior product, the output?

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

and the same, or superior product, the output?

That's not really germaine to the conversation.  What we're talking about is the value and indirectly the buying power of individuals.  So if an individual is worth x - they can afford the kind of lifestyle X will buy them. 

And productivity measures that in a general overall sense.  If you can do an hour's work and create 100 dollars in value (goods or services),  then you can be paid more money  than a guy who only produces 50 dollars in value for the same amount of work.

It doesn't matter what the work or product is, or it's quality. If it's value is x then x is what they're worth.

I get what you were saying that gov't spending doesn't really follow the same rules, and gov'ts can spend money wastefully in a manner the free market wouldn't allow for and that can skew the GDPPC results.

But what i'm saying is that if that happens it'll show up in the form of deficits. So you can take that into account and create a more accurate picture.

[Aristides]

This article is six years old but if anything it is worse today.

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

[Aristides]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well they very clearly are not.  Our standard of living has decreased, and worse it's decreased in comparison to the rest of the world.  A person in many us cities can still rent a nice place for a third of their income.  In vancouver as an example you'd be lucky to share a place with someone for that kind of a percent, and many would be a lot closer to half their income even with sharing.

But what's even more concerning is that if the forecasts are accurate, unless something changes we will continue to radically lose ground and the kids being born today will have a far lower standard of living than even the millenials do and THEY feel it's unacceptable at this level.

As recently as the eighties a home in the burbs on one income and stay at home moms were the norm, not the exception.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Any concern about growth has to be balanced with a discussion on equity.  Our real GDP is so much better than in the years a lot of boomers consider the 'good times'...

Is it? Our quality of life isn't. 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I already pointed out that GDP size is only one part of it.  You seem to agree that the 1970s were a good standard and yet we were far less wealthy then.  That is because of equity.

Based on what? Cars were cheap. Houses were cheap. Food was cheap. Education was cheap. You don't need to be as wealthy when so much stuff costs so little. There were no homeless encampments, healthcare worked really well, street crime seemed way lower, practically unnoticeable. There were no drive-bys, no swarmings.  Life was pretty good.

Edited July 26, 2023 by I am Groot

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except the article talks about 'growth' being slow.  So "down" isn't what they are talking about.

Equity is very much a concern, even the WTO says so.

Equity is equality of outcome no matter what qualifications a person may or may not have. That produces crap.