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

[Moonbox]

This is what you said:

23 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. 

A profoundly foolish statement that can be disproven with grade 5 math. 

This is what I said:

21 hours ago, Moonbox said:

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. 

This is what you decided it meant:

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

Which never happened, but here you are again, arguing with yourself.  ?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is what you said:

A profoundly foolish statement that can be disproven with grade 5 math. 

So why can't you  show the math then? Still in grade 4 are you?

Quote

This is what I said:

 

So  I said that gdp per capita falling affects standards of living and quality of life.

you said:

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

You even bolded it. Your entire complaint was that i equated gdp per capita with standard of living and quality of life

 

And once again you're so embarrased by what you said that you have to pretend you didn't really say it.  it's right there bud.

And as we've seen, it was a very stupid thing to say on your part.  So i get why you're embarrassed.

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So why can't you  show the math then? Still in grade 4 are you?

Sure, let's consider:

Just now, 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. 

45% of 110 is less than 50% of 100, right?  

Right there you have mathematical proof that the above conclusion is wrong.  Hyper-concentrated wealth at the top doesn't do much to improve quality of life for the population.  Elon Musk isn't going to live 400,000x longer than the average millionaire, nor is he 400,000x healthier. 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You even bolded it. Your entire complaint was that i equated gdp per capita with standard of living and quality of life

Yes, because they're not the same thing.  How are you still not getting this?  ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Sure, let's consider:

45% of 110 is less than 50% of 100, right?  

Sure  but either percent of 50 is even less than that

 

Quote

Right there you have mathematical proof that the above conclusion is wrong.  Hyper-concentrated wealth at the top doesn't do much to improve quality of life for the population. 

Ahhh no. No, and i can see i'm stuck explaining basic math to you again.

It doesn't matter what the divsion is.  The percent is how you divvy up the pie. But  - if the pie shrinks EVERYONE gets less.

This is simplified to make it easier for you - but lets say it is 45-55 out of 100. IF that falls to 50 - then quality of life and our ability to pay for services decreases for all parties. 

Does that make it easier for you?  You're talking about how to cut the pie up -  i'm talking about how big the pie is in the first place.  Whatever the ratio works out to be, if the pie is smaller it's a smaller amount for everyone.

Sigh.  Hopefully that sinks in.

 

So if that was your proof, all you've proven is you don't really get what we're talking about.

 

Quote

Elon Musk isn't going to live 400,000x longer than the average millionaire, nor is he 400,000x healthier. 

Sooooo ... you think quality of life is the same as longevity? 

Don't tell me i broke your brain THIS early.

 

Quote

Yes, because they're not the same thing.  How are you still not getting this?  

Nobody suggested they're the same thing.  Post where i claimed they're "the same".  They are, however, connected.

But of course - you have to lie and pretend i said something else to try to defend your poor thinking don't you    Honestly it was funny the first few dozen times but now it's just predictable.

[Michael Hardner]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

X4

[I am Groot]

Standard of living is measured by the human development index. HDI is not entirely about wealth. It also encompasses things like education, child poverty, infant mortality level,  clean water, economic security, etc. Generally, those are strongly correlated with wealth.

Canada's HDI is 16th best in the world. Interestingly, of the 15 nations with a higher HDI, all but Germany have much lower populations than Canada does. Which makes the Trudeau government's obsession with increasing our population as rapidly as possible, regardless of costs even more puzzling. It's even getting in the way of one of their other obsessions - carbon reductions. Since obviously bringing in millions of people is going to make it much harder to reduce emissions from an arbitrary level. The estimated cost of achieving their carbon reduction goals by 2035 is $1.7 TRILLION dollars (Conference Board of Canada)

There's also Quality of Life. By that measure we're in 27th place

Japan, which everyone seems to think is in woeful shape due to its aging workforce and lack of immigration, is in 13th place.

Edited July 31, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

X4

I have replied to this several times.  And posted the latest figures showing that it is in fact going DOWN at the moment and is expected to for all of 2024.

AND i've explained why even if it WAS going up if it's losnig ground relative to other countries then it might as well be going down anyway - and it's expected to be very poor for decades

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Standard of living is measured by the human development index. HDI is not entirely about wealth. It also encompasses things like education, child poverty, infant mortality level,  clean water, economic security, etc. Generally, those are strongly correlated with wealth.

Precisely.   Unless we borrow tonnes of money then how much we can afford to pay for healthcare per person is directly impacted by how much "wealth" per person we create.   In a broad sense You can't pay someone  15  dollars an hour to produce 10 dollars of goods/services, and your tax base is going to be dependent on the company's profit and employee wages.

So  gov't services, medical services, all that is impacted, along with affordability issues such as what quality of food on average people can afford and whether they get vacations etc etc.

Some of the more 'left sympathetic' people here want to pretend it doesn't matter.   But it does.  GDP Per Person is an important indicator and as it falls or even loses ground to other countries our life quality will tend to drop as well.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It doesn't matter what the divsion is.  The percent is how you divvy up the pie. But  - if the pie shrinks EVERYONE gets less.

The overall size of the pie matters.  Nobody is arguing against that.  

To say how it's divided doesn't matter is spectacularly dumb. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sooooo ... you think quality of life is the same as longevity? 

It's part of it.  ?  If you die as child of starvation or malnourishment, your quality of life wasn't so hot, was it?  Longevity, health, education, leisure time, safety, etc...these are all factors in quality of life.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The overall size of the pie matters.  Nobody is arguing against that.  

You literally argued against that.  Perhaps you were arguing with yourself? You seem fixated on that'

And in the end that was all i said.  When our gdp per capita drops, then our ability to maintain a high standard of living drops with it because no matter how you split it up, the pie is only as big as it is.

Quote

To say how it's divided doesn't matter is spectacularly dumb. 

No, you just don't have much of a brain, so it seems overly complicated to you.  Slower people often see more complex issues as 'dumb'.   I'll try to scale it  down for you  -

IN the context of this conversation, how the pie is divided doesn't matter a bit.  It's going to be divided however it's going to be divided.  no matter how that division looks, people will have more if the pie is bigger. And less if the pie is smaller.

So - whether it's  20-80 or 80-20,   both benefit if the pie gets bigger and both lose if the pie gets smaller.  It doesn't matter what the split is when we're looking at the issue at hand.

Quote

It's part of it. 

Sigh.  It isn't.

Quote

If you die as child of starvation or malnourishment, your quality of life wasn't so hot, was it? 

And?  What's that got to do with anything?  If the child died of undernourishment then presumably if the pie was bigger and they had more resources then their lives would have been better and longer.  If they have less resources then they'll die sooner.

So  -  the statement that a decreasing gdp per person ratio impacts quality of life remains the same either way.  Your statement just shows you don't understand what we're talking about.

Regardless of the fate of any one child, overall if gdp per person is higher - then no matter how crappy or wonderful their life it will be better.  And if it goes down, then no matter how good their lives are it COULD have been better otherwise.

 

Do you see how that works yet?  I'm not sure i can get much more simple than this.

 

[Moonbox]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You literally argued against that.  Perhaps you were arguing with yourself? You seem fixated on that'

Naw dog, that's just you making up what you want to argue with again (the whole arguing with yourself thing you've mastered).  For every spastic, longwinded rant you pound out on your keyboard insisting otherwise, I can take 5 seconds to requote this, which is what I was actually arguing about:

42 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. 

The fact that so many countries rank higher on the quality of life indices than the United States should hint that this relationship isn't as straightforward as you say...

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So - whether it's  20-80 or 80-20,   both benefit if the pie gets bigger and both lose if the pie gets smaller.  It doesn't matter what the split is when we're looking at the issue at hand.

That's only true if the proportions stay the same, which...has not been the case in places like the USA.  ?

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And?  What's that got to do with anything?  If the child died of undernourishment then presumably if the pie was bigger and they had more resources then their lives would have been better and longer.  If they have less resources then they'll die sooner.

Why is life expectancy lower in the United States than so many other places in the world, with their higher level of resources?  How many different ways does this have to be spelled out to you?  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Naw dog, that's just you making up what you want to argue with again (the whole arguing with yourself thing you've mastered).  For every spastic, longwinded rant you pound out on your keyboard insisting otherwise, I can take 5 seconds to requote this, which is what I was actually arguing about:

If  lying to yourself gets you through the night - then you go ahead and do what you gotta do    It's there in black and white.

Quote

The fact that so many countries rank higher on the quality of life indices than the United States should hint that this relationship isn't as straightforward as you say...

Not really.  What would their placement tell us about how an increase or decrease in their GDP per person affect their lifestyle?

You really don't seem to understand how math works in this regard.  An individual country's placement in regards to other countries would mean nothing in this regard - if their gpp ratio goes up they can enjoy a better life, if it nosedives they will have less.

Quote

That's only true if the proportions stay the same, which...has not been the case in places like the USA.  ?

 

NO - jezus how are you not getting this? NO MATTER WHAT THEY CHANGE T0 - IF THE PIE IS BIGGER OR SMALLER THEY"RE STILL BETTER OR WORSE OFF!!!!

Look - lets say this year the - pie is 200 dollars and the ratio is 20 -80 and next year the ratio is 80-20.  Even tho the ratio's changed, both parties will have more than they would have had if the pie goes up to 300.  20 percent is what they got - 20 percent if 300 is still higher than 20 percent of 200.   Like wise  if it drops to 100 both parties will have LESS than they would have.

This is so simple - the ratios do  not matter, the size of the pie is independent of that.

Quote

Why is life expectancy lower in the United States than so many other places in the world, with their higher level of resources? 

Probably due to criminal violence.  But - it's NOT RELEVANT.  IF the us suddenly has a big dip in GPP - then they will have less money to maintain the lifestyles they have currently.  IF it goes way up then their people will enjoy more prosperity.   It doesn't matter if they're number one or number 100.

 

Seriously - you are not the brightest guy on this board by any means but you are far from the dumbest - how the hell are you not getting this basic grade 5 level concept?!? - All else being equal if a country's people are creating more wealth and value than before then they will have more money to spend on services benefits and luxuries!   Get your head out of your butt.

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If  lying to yourself gets you through the night - then you go ahead and do what you gotta do    It's there in black and white.

Yes, it is, and I quoted the same thing for you half a dozen times to tell you exactly what I was disputing.  You've now spent several pages and pounded out numerous spastic essays (that I doubt anybody reads) insisting that I'm arguing per GDP declines aren't bad, or something.  Wait...yup, that's actually what you're doing:   

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Look - lets say this year the - pie is 200 dollars and the ratio is 20 -80 and next year the ratio is 80-20.  Even tho the ratio's changed, both parties will have more than they would have had if the pie goes up to 300. 

???

So you're telling me that 100% of 200 is less than 100% of 300?  200<300?  Mon Dieu!

Let's look at your smooth-brain scenario though:

Ratio is 20-80 @ 200.  

Party 1 gets 40

Party 2 gets 160

Ratio flips 80-20, but GDP goes up to 300

Party 1 gets 240

Party 2 gets 60

Both parties have more?

?

Edited August 1, 2023 by Moonbox