Canada Kicks Ass
A state of constant dread - Poverty Today

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Banff @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:34 pm

Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
It is when we feel most anonymous that our true selves are revealed.

Not really I'm the same on a forum and in person. But that is probably true for some people.

   



Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:00 pm

$1:
But anti-poverty activists note Statistics Canada defines low income in the GTA as below $32,500 a month for a family of four.
lily lily:
Wow... I'm a lot poorer than I thought. 8O
And Banff - I agree. Sometimes after reading one SJ's posts, I remember why I'm a liberal.

I have changed my understanding of wealth and poverty quite a bit since I came across the website called 'Global Rich List' Here is where you can find it:

Click here to get a world perspective

For instance as Lily said, a person with a family of four, reading the above and earning, say $31,000 in Toronto would feel entitled to our sympathy. But put that amount on global rich list calculator and see what that money is! Here's what is says:

Your rich list position = 507,571,782 i.e.
You are the 507,571,782richest person in the world!

You're in the TOP 8.45% richest people in the world!

I think we need to think in terms of what exactly is wrong with the cost of living, if the Canadian economy lifts a person to be richer than 91 out of a hundred human beings, and he still cries of hunger and poverty in feeding a family of four!

(By the way, it would be incorrect to divide that 31,000 into four to use the calculator, since costs do not go up by 100% when people live in a household. Remember the old saying 'Two can live as cheaply as one'.)

Something is badly wrong in our way of living.

   



Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:08 pm

Here is another interesting angle to the poverty question:

-> Click here: National Post attacks the Toronto Star

While I do not agree with the political attitudes of the National Post, I have found the Toronto Star series on poverty disturbing for its lack of statistical honesty.

As a Liberal, I believe in reason and accurate reporting and while both Star and Post are biased, in this case, I think the Post is justified in criticising the quality of David Olive and also the mental competence of the Editorial Board of 'The Toronto Star' in giving his shabby work such prominence.

   



Always4Iggy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:11 pm

lily lily:
Actually, the income is listed as monthly. ;)


Point well taken, Lily, I did not notice that mistake this person made.

   



Motorcycleboy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:35 pm

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Here is another interesting angle to the poverty question:

-> Click here: National Post attacks the Toronto Star

While I do not agree with the political attitudes of the National Post, I have found the Toronto Star series on poverty disturbing for its lack of statistical honesty.

As a Liberal, I believe in reason and accurate reporting and while both Star and Post are biased, in this case, I think the Post is justified in criticising the quality of David Olive and also the mental competence of the Editorial Board of 'The Toronto Star' in giving his shabby work such prominence.


Good point Iggy. It's hard to argue with the logic of the National Post editorial when it actually delves through the Star's sensationalistic headlines and crunches the numbers.

Let's face it. In Canada, even "poor" people have DVD players. Poverty is relative. Very few people in this country are truly starving. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could have a trip to Florida every March, and a steak dinner at The Keg on Saturdays, but the fact is, life's not like that.

I pay half my salary in taxes already. There's no need for further income re-distribution in this country. Don't ask me to further subsidize the bad decisions of single mothers, drug addicts or ex-cons.

   



Bruce_the_vii @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:14 pm

Sometimes people point to the rest of the world when discussing poverty. Forget the rest of the world, the only thing is our standards.

But don't forget that MotorcycleBoy has a good point, taxes are very high already.

   



Bruce_the_vii @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:27 pm

I read that there are 420,000 principles on welfare in Ontario. This does not include dependants, children. The cost is $3 billion a year. Anyone have any idea who these people are, given that jobs are available? I have no information on this key bit.

   



Firecat @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:27 pm

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
$1:
But anti-poverty activists note Statistics Canada defines low income in the GTA as below $32,500 a month for a family of four.
lily lily:
Wow... I'm a lot poorer than I thought. 8O
And Banff - I agree. Sometimes after reading one SJ's posts, I remember why I'm a liberal.

I have changed my understanding of wealth and poverty quite a bit since I came across the website called 'Global Rich List' Here is where you can find it:

Click here to get a world perspective

For instance as Lily said, a person with a family of four, reading the above and earning, say $31,000 in Toronto would feel entitled to our sympathy. But put that amount on global rich list calculator and see what that money is! Here's what is says:

Your rich list position = 507,571,782 i.e.
You are the 507,571,782richest person in the world!

You're in the TOP 8.45% richest people in the world!

I think we need to think in terms of what exactly is wrong with the cost of living, if the Canadian economy lifts a person to be richer than 91 out of a hundred human beings, and he still cries of hunger and poverty in feeding a family of four!

(By the way, it would be incorrect to divide that 31,000 into four to use the calculator, since costs do not go up by 100% when people live in a household. Remember the old saying 'Two can live as cheaply as one'.)

Something is badly wrong in our way of living.


You make a fallacious comparison. The fact is in Canada it costs more to support a family of four than it does in, say, Djakarta.

   



Bruce_the_vii @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:31 pm

I note that the $3 billion seems to be higher than the 1989 $1.5 billion. My idea is that you could probably save a billion a year by getting these people back to work.

Also I read a statistic that in the face of the long economic recovery single mothers income has doubled. It used to be $10,000 or something and it's gone up to $!9,000. This is because single mothers would rather a $10 an hour job than the mean conditions of welfare. That's just the way it is.

   



Banff @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:35 pm

I sure hope it took the sting out of the fact you were highly underpaid for being a supervisor of 1000 people. Man, knowing that has to really smart! :lol:[/quote]

yes of course BTW I'm not miserable and I can bounce back and prevail ...but I still think you're an ignorant little ... :P :D
Peace

   



ridenrain @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:04 pm

One of the pundits did point out that being on welfare is not supposed to be enjoyable. It's a temporary thing so you can survive, not go boarding on the hill in winter, or foreward you're checks to Mexico.
I definately don't want to hear more about importing foreign workers while we still have folks on welfare. "Jobs that no one else wants" are good enough if you currently have no job.

   



Motorcycleboy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:40 pm

Firecat Firecat:
You make a fallacious comparison. The fact is in Canada it costs more to support a family of four than it does in, say, Djakarta.


Yet you have made an equally fallacious comparison. Wages in Djarkarta are barely a fraction of those enjoyed in a prosperous western country like Canada.

There's a reason that educated, upwardly-mobile, people from the Third World are willing to move to countries like Canada and become taxi drivers.

   



SJ-24 @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:44 pm

Banff Banff:
I sure hope it took the sting out of the fact you were highly underpaid for being a supervisor of 1000 people. Man, knowing that has to really smart! :lol:


yes of course BTW I'm not miserable and I can bounce back and prevail ...but I still think you're an ignorant little ... :P :D
Peace[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY67cYJDc9s

:lol: .....Enjoy!

   



Motorcycleboy @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:47 pm

Always4Iggy:

$1:
I think we need to think in terms of what exactly is wrong with the cost of living, if the Canadian economy lifts a person to be richer than 91 out of a hundred human beings, and he still cries of hunger and poverty in feeding a family of four!

(By the way, it would be incorrect to divide that 31,000 into four to use the calculator, since costs do not go up by 100% when people live in a household. Remember the old saying 'Two can live as cheaply as one'.)

Something is badly wrong in our way of living.


Or maybe we could step back, stop the reflexive, white guilt, hand-wringing for a moment, and accept the fact that maybe we're doing something right!

Maybe western civilization and all it's trappings aren't totally wrong-headed, racist, murderous, injust, etc.

After all, our society has achieved the goal of feeding most of our people most of the time. In the long term view of human history, that's no small feat.

   



Banff @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:18 pm

SJ-24 SJ-24:
Banff Banff:
I sure hope it took the sting out of the fact you were highly underpaid for being a supervisor of 1000 people. Man, knowing that has to really smart! :lol:


yes of course BTW I'm not miserable and I can bounce back and prevail ...but I still think you're an ignorant little ... :P :D
Peace

SJ WROTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY67cYJDc9s

:lol: .....Enjoy![/quote]

:lol: now thats was good I liked it , I even sang along ...catchy tune too , you asshole now shutup and sing along ....everybody sing ...I'm an .....

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next