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

[ExFlyer]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL Genious    And why is your AI always apologizing to me?  It seems that it really feels bad about having to work for you  

It sounds like it's annoyed it keeps having to explain to you it doesn't work the way you think it does   LOL even your AI thinks you're an embarrassment

"As an AI language model, I don't have feelings, emotions, or personal opinions, so I don't experience annoyance or embarrassment. My primary function is to provide helpful and informative responses to the best of my abilities.

The reason you might see apologies or disclaimers in my responses is that it's a programmed behavior to be polite and respectful. I apologize if my responses are not up to your expectations or if I can't fully understand or address certain requests. My goal is to assist users and provide accurate information, but I have limitations due to the nature of AI and the data I was trained on."

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"As an AI language model, I don't have feelings, emotions, or personal opinions, so I don't experience annoyance or embarrassment. My primary function is to provide helpful and informative responses to the best of my abilities.

The reason you might see apologies or disclaimers in my responses is that it's a programmed behavior to be polite and respectful. I apologize if my responses are not up to your expectations or if I can't fully understand or address certain requests. My goal is to assist users and provide accurate information, but I have limitations due to the nature of AI and the data I was trained on."

Your AI may not experience emotions or have feelings but it's pretty clear that YOU are pretty enraged and your feeings are hurt

And your AI may not have feelings but it's sounding more and more like it's sick of having to explain the basics to you   ROFLMAO!!!!

 Keep it up kiddo - you've got 7 more to go  

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your AI may not experience emotions or have feelings but it's pretty clear that YOU are pretty enraged and your feeings are hurt

And your AI may not have feelings but it's sounding more and more like it's sick of having to explain the basics to you   ROFLMAO!!!!

 Keep it up kiddo - you've got 7 more to go  

Boo Hoo, AI calls you a fool and you don't like it Boo Hoo

[I am Groot]

In 1980 Canada and the US were both $4,000 per year ahead of all our peers in GDP per capita. But those were the 'glory days'. 

Canada's real GDP per person is now $52k. Australia's is $65k

Guess which of us has embraced our national resource industry and worked hard to develop export markets and build LNG terminals, pipelines and build mines? 

The US is now at $80k

And Canada falls further behind every year with a government that has been laser-focused on DEI and culture issues, native reconciliation, and climate change for eight years.

And by the way, managed to spend tens of billions of dollars while not making any improvement in any of them.

Whatever your political stripe that ought to be very damned worrying.

Edited July 30, 2023 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

Once again I point out that GDP per capita MUST be considered with equity.  If your share of GDP increases to take mine, and my share stays the same - well GDP per capita has increased but I am not doing better.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Once again I point out that GDP per capita MUST be considered with equity.  If your share of GDP increases to take mine, and my share stays the same - well GDP per capita has increased but I am not doing better.

No, it really doesn't.  that's not a relevant issue. to thisi discussion  "Equity" is utterly meaningless Not to mention a very inappropriate term given that we're talking about fiscal activity within a period.  And you're waiving the word around like some sort of mantra.

regardless of division of wealth, it is still true that a lower gdp per person means a lower quality of life per person.  You can only divvy up the total amount of wealth created in a year - you can't divvy up more (unless you're the liberals and can print money )

 So regardless of how the division of wealth goes - EVERYONE has less  with a shrinking gdp per capita.   Whether your share is 10 percent or sinks to 9 percent,  if it's a share of a much smaller pie it's less than it should be either way

Yeash,

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Boo Hoo, AI calls you a fool and you don't like it Boo Hoo

6 more! You're getting there! LOL

The AI says i'm right - YOU'RE the one it keeps apologizing for and having to explain how it works over and over again

Poor little fella - you thought AI was smarter than you so it might help you look better to use it..,,   but it thinks you're dumb as well  

[ExFlyer]

Just now, CdnFox said:

6 more! You're getting there! LOL

The AI says i'm right - YOU'RE the one it keeps apologizing for and having to explain how it works over and over again

Poor little fella - you thought AI was smarter than you so it might help you look better to use it..,,   but it thinks you're dumb as well  

Hello again.

AI enes and zeros getting. to you... especially the zeros?? LOL

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Hello again.

AI enes and zeros getting. to you... especially the zeros?? LOL

Right ... right.....  these "Zeros"..  are they there in the room with you right now?

[Moonbox]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

regardless of division of wealth, it is still true that a lower gdp per person means a lower quality of life per person.  You can only divvy up the total amount of wealth created in a year - you can't divvy up more (unless you're the liberals and can print money )

This is so unbelievably wrong, and so completely clueless, it's laughable.  Standard of living is not a GDP per capita measurement, nor is quality of life.  If wealth is too heavily concentrated at the top, you can have an increasing gdp per capita and a declining standard of living. 

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 So regardless of how the division of wealth goes - EVERYONE has less  with a shrinking gdp per capita.   Whether your share is 10 percent or sinks to 9 percent,  if it's a share of a much smaller pie it's less than it should be either way

Yeash,

Yeesh indeed. You once again demonstrate the comical disconnect between your actual level of knowledge and your confidence level in it. 

I don't even agree with Michael on this topic, and would argue that equity doesn't have much to do with productivity, but when we're talking about average economic well-being, what you're saying is utterly ridiculous.  

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is so unbelievably wrong, and so completely clueless, it's laughable.  Standard of living is not a GDP per capita measurement,

Sigh.'  I see you're back proving that you can't read or follow an argument.

The article explained this,  Clearly you didn't/can't  read it

While it is not a direct measure it IS a measure of productivity - and productivity is directly associated with quality of life.  If people can only produce 10 dollars an hour in value - that means they can't be paid more than 10 dollars an hour.  If they can produce 20 dollars an hour then they can earn more.

Also - it impacts the gov't services.  GDP is related to how much money the gpov't brings in and therefore how much it can spend - but the more people there are the more it has to spend to provide the same level of service to those people.  So if the ratio of gdp per person goes down, there's a similar drop in how much per person the gov't is going to have to spend on them.

 

Seriously - fack you're stupid.  It was all there before. THat was one of your most pathetic childish attacks and it was up against some pretty stiff competition  

 

Let me guess -you came running to help your buddy again becasue he was looking stupid?  The "Fox-made-me-cry" support group strikes again ':) LOLOL

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

While it is not a direct measure it IS a measure of productivity - and productivity is directly associated with quality of life.  If people can only produce 10 dollars an hour in value - that means they can't be paid more than 10 dollars an hour.  If they can produce 20 dollars an hour then they can earn more.

Congratulations on once again arguing with yourself. 

Nobody anywhere here, at any moment, suggested that GDP per capita isn't a measure of productivity.  ?

 

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a numeric example.

In my country of two, you and I each contributed $50K to the GDP for a total TDP of $100K - in 2022.  

This year, though, you will contribute $100K and I will contribute $50K making for a 50% increase in GDP per capita but 0% increase for me.

This math brought to you by me.  I could well be wrong - tell me if I am as I love being corrected.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a numeric example.

In my country of two, you and I each contributed $50K to the GDP for a total TDP of $100K - in 2022.  

This year, though, you will contribute $100K and I will contribute $50K making for a 50% increase in GDP per capita but 0% increase for me.

This math brought to you by me.  I could well be wrong - tell me if I am as I love being corrected.

These topics are better discussed in a macro sense.  Like...if productivity per employee in Canada went up 10%, but real wages stayed the same and all of the new earnings from that only went to the very top 1%, it would contribute next to nothing to the overall standard of living. 

Situations like you suggest where one person drags the average up are good....as long as they're being rewarded for it.  

Edited July 30, 2023 by Moonbox

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

This is so unbelievably wrong, and so completely clueless, it's laughable.  Standard of living is not a GDP per capita measurement, nor is quality of life.  If wealth is too heavily concentrated at the top, you can have an increasing gdp per capita and a declining standard of living. 

I think this is somewhat pedantic. Yes, if there is a huge shift in the allocation of income from the poor/middle class to the rich it's conceivable that a larger GDP per capita would not be an appropriate measure of wealth or standard of living. But it's certainly less likely than having growing inequality and ALSO a falling GDP per capita.

[Michael Hardner]

Didn't we already established that GDP per capita is not falling? Honest question.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

...if there is a huge shift in the allocation of income from the poor/middle class to the rich

What do you mean if? ? 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Congratulations on once again arguing with yourself. 

Nobody anywhere here, at any moment, suggested that GDP per capita isn't a measure of productivity.  ?

 

Congratualtions on once again proving you're a m0ron who hates to admit when he's wrong.

YOU directly claimed that GDP per capita doesn't reflect standards of living. 

I CORRECTLY pointed out that in fact it does, because it is a reflection of productivity and productivity directly affects standards of living.  AS NOTED IN THE ARTICLE YOU DIDN"T BOTHER TO READ.

 

Now you're trying to backpeddal because once again you've realized you're wrong and haven't got the balls to be a man about it.

Pathetic.

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Didn't we already established that GDP per capita is not falling? Honest question.

No, we did establish it IS falling at the moment. And is expected to throughout 2024.  That is the truth.

But even when it starts to increase again it will be at such a slow rate that our standards of living will fall radically against everyone else's.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's a numeric example.

In my country of two, you and I each contributed $50K to the GDP for a total TDP of $100K - in 2022.  

This year, though, you will contribute $100K and I will contribute $50K making for a 50% increase in GDP per capita but 0% increase for me.

This math brought to you by me.  I could well be wrong - tell me if I am as I love being corrected.

Here's an even better one.

The next year the gdp falls to 50 k.

You're both worse off. See how that works?

 Of course anything that looks at quality of life in general is not going to be applicable on a one to one basis.  But if gdp per capita rises,  generally it means people have been more productive and have earned (or can earn) more money.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I think this is somewhat pedantic. Yes, if there is a huge shift in the allocation of income from the poor/middle class to the rich it's conceivable that a larger GDP per capita would not be an appropriate measure of wealth or standard of living. But it's certainly less likely than having growing inequality and ALSO a falling GDP per capita.

Well exactly.

Although honestly i think he just looks for any opportunity to disagree with me without thinking too much about it, especially if Exflyer is having a bad day.

While individual cases may of course vary - if people are more productive they are worth more money.     Gdp per capita rises when people are more productive and creating more wealth.

While gdp per capita is not the ONLY indicator to watch, it's certainly a very important one if we're looking at how much gov't services we're going to be able to afford and the potential for income and quality of life.

 

[I am Groot]

Canadian household disposable income falling.

Even if the measure was falling, the aggregate can rise by just adding more people than the decline. The issue at the highest level should be obvious at this point—annual growth for the population (+3%) is higher than disposable income (+2.8%). 

Adjusting for population, household disposable income showed a 0.5% decline over the past year. Add inflation for Q1 into the mix, and disposable income dropped 4.8% on a per capita basis.  

https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-households-get-left-behind-as-real-disposable-income-falls/#google_vignette

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

YOU directly claimed that GDP per capita doesn't reflect standards of living. 

No I didn't.  That's just you making shit up again.  Here's what I contested:

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

regardless of division of wealth, it is still true that a lower gdp per person means a lower quality of life per person.  You can only divvy up the total amount of wealth created in a year - you can't divvy up more (unless you're the liberals and can print money )

The magic of the quotation system is I can go back and directly point at your ignorant bullshitting. 

You need only look at places with much higher GDP like the USA falling regularly below places like Canada in quality of life and standard of living. 

So once again here you are, arguing with yourself and carrying on like the angry assclown that you are.  

Edited July 31, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

No I didn't.  That's just you making shit up again.  Here's what I contested:

Well you did - but as we've seen even if we just look at the part you selected you're wrong. 

I'm not sure what kind of !diot says "No - i demand i wasn't stupid THAT way, i was stupid THIS way", but  whatever floats your boat.

Quote

The magic of the quotation system is I can go back and directly point at your ignorant bullshitting. 

Sure -you can quote something different if you feel like.  But here's what you really said:

Quote

Standard of living is not a GDP per capita measurement, nor is quality of life. 

That's what you complained about.  That i said standard of living and gdp per capita are connected.

That's what you said. Quoted and everything.  YOUR bolding btw.

And as the article proves and as I have show - it is in fact linked. GDP per capita and people's quality of life are strongly linked. If GDP per capita is low - people's lifestyle will suffer all else being equal.

So you were wrong.  And once again here you are throwing a hissy fit and trying to backpeddal and find another point to try to pretend you were arguing about.

Pathetic.

How's that "magic quotation system" working for you now loser ROFLMAO!!!!

 

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's what you complained about. 

No, I quoted what I disagreed with, TWICE.  

This:

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

regardless of division of wealth, it is still true that a lower gdp per person means a lower quality of life per person.

Is not:

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That i said standard of living and gdp per capita are connected.

The former is another clueless gem from CdnFox that's categorically false.  The latter is something nobody ever argued against, but here you are trying to debate with yourself on it anyways.  ?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, I quoted what I disagreed with, TWICE.  

And i posted your actual words claiming what you complained about.

You even BOLDED it.

Now you realize you were wrong, and you're trying to claim that you were REALLY complaning about something else.

But we both know it's not true.

 

Quote

Is not:

Of course it is.  A child can see it.  And I thought you just said that's NOT what you were complaining about.  Seems like you're having a tough time keeping your story straight.

Quote

The former is another clueless gem from CdnFox that's categorically false.  The latter is something nobody ever argued against,

Ummmm - there was no 'former' and latter', it was just one statement     

 

ANNNND  - it was the same statement that you just made AGAIN and the ORIGINAL one you complained about which you insist is not what you're arguing about despite the fact you keep arguing about it.

 

Sigh - every time.  Every time you say something stupid and then you backpeddal like hell trying to claim you didn't say it in the first place, while saying it again anyway    

Have you considered NOT saying stupid things in the first place? LOLOL!!!