And we are taking in 25k unemployed Syrians , 1800 to BC.. yet we can’t take care of our own. Good one Libs.

Agreed PG101. Difference is the refugees will be GIVEN food ,clothing,blankets, housing etc while our own just have to do without.

I can’t help noticing in the article above the emphasis on ‘social programs’ as a means to help end poverty. And I guess they will. For all those employed to ADMINISTER those ‘social programs’. Who’ll no doubt do far better out of the deal than those they’re supposed to be helping.

old schooler:- “Difference is the refugees will be GIVEN food ,clothing,blankets, housing etc while our own just have to do without.”
————————————————————————-

I think the real difference is the refugees come here to re-establish themselves as productive members of society. If they can. And past experience with refugees from other areas of the world we’ve taken in generally indicates they’ll do just that. We’ll hear of the ‘bad eggs’ amongst them, and no doubt there were some in all past refugee groups, and will be some again with these one. But most are not in that category. They’re just people that want a chance to live their lives in peace, and make their own way forward under their own steam. They’re not looking to be kept forever in the lap of limited luxury courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. Many of them, to start with, will end up doing jobs no Canadian really wants to do. That’s not just another indictment of Canadian would-be-but-don’t-want-to-be workers ~ many of those jobs do not pay a wage high enough to support anyone here in the kind of lifestyle our society, and our government, now dictates we’ll live in. That same society and government will turn a blind eye when non-mainstream immigrants do the very things we are not permitted to do to try to get ahead. We have a double-standard here, and our current economic set-up encourages it, because ‘financially’ it can not otherwise function. Sadly, those who are often seemingly the most well-intentioned, like those mentioned in the article above, are also the greatest impediments towards making the changes that are needed.

So what are you doing to VOLUNTEER your ADMINSTRATION expertise to this or any other similar cause, Socredible?

We are all of us doing our part to help . Even those that don’t want to help and those whom are indifferent to the suffering . Every time you fill up your tank . Every time you buy something that is taxable . Every time you file your taxes . You are helping to maintain our civil society . This bs about ” what are you doing to help ” is a ……. Question .

Ataloss, that is all good and well, but it is not solving the problem, is it? There are many other countries, other than the one to the immediate south of us, who have done much better with using those tax dollars

In the “developed” countries, the ones with the lowest child poverty rates (which are actually also family poverty rates in the case of children living with a family that is either natural or adopted) the only one which has less than 5% of children between 0-17 living in poverty (incomes below 50% of national median) is Finland.

There are 14 countries, all European, which are between 5 and 10%.

There are 6 countries between 10 and 15%. 5 of them are European. The 6th and final one is CANADA.

There are 5 countries between 15 and 20%. All of those are European as well.

There are 3 countries between 20 and25%, 2 European Countries plus the USA.

Those figures are based on the system used by UNICEF.

The more typical world definition is a family living on less than $1.25 or $2.00 per day.

Source = washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th

“….one in five children still live in poverty and for those people who are in a single parent family, the percentage is much, much higher.”

The first is a ratio of 1:5. The percentage is 20%. Take all the children together whether rich or poor, that is what the figure is.

One can take hundreds of subsets; some will have less than 20% in poverty, some will have more.

The subset which will likely have very close to 100% living in poverty are the abandoned, homeless children and youth without families. People seem to forget about that subset far too often.

Here is some info from Covenant House in Toronto.

• It is estimated that there are at least 10,000 homeless youth in Toronto during any given year and as many as 2,000 on a given night.
• It is estimated that the mortality rate of homeless youth is up to 40 times the mortality rate of housed youth with primary causes of death identified as suicide and drug overdose.
• Abuse and neglect are the two major reasons why youth leave home. Studies show 70 percent of homeless youth have suffered some form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse.
• 50 percent of homeless youth come from middle- and upper-income familes.
• 65 percent of homeless youth have failed to complete high school.
• 77 percent of homeless youth are unemployed.
• About 43 percent of homeless youth have been involved in the child welfare system.
• Some 30 percent of homeless youth have been involved in some form of the sex trade.
• In Toronto, about half of street youth surveyed said they had stolen food and eaten food that had been thrown out. 23 percent of the young women and 11 percent of the men said they’d resort to trading sex for food.

source = covenanthousetoronto.ca/homeless-youth/facts-and-stats

Does PG have homeless children/youth? The report does not mention that category.

I know this stuff gopg . I’m not the one not wanting liveable minimum for those single mothers . I’m not against social safety net that lets no one fall through the cracks . I’m not like the farmers in Alberta railing against including farm workers in the canada labour code . Canada has been great for me but it leaves far too many behind . I think we could and should do better . I voted . That the only thing I can do about any of it , same as you . So now all I can do is watch the show . I can hardly wait for 3:30 Wednesday .

gopg2015:-“So what are you doing to VOLUNTEER your ADMINSTRATION expertise to this or any other similar cause, Socredible? ”
———————————————————————–
Aside from the things ataloss mentioned we all do, simply advising anyone reading here what I’m certain will NOT work to alleviate poverty. And may very well have a hand in increasing it. Like raising the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour. How much poverty was alleviated when the minimum wage was raised to its current level from where it was before? And at other times, previous to that? Do we have FEWER poor nowadays, or MORE? Why do the advocates of a higher minimum wage only ever address ‘half’ the problem? Do they not realise what’s issued in wages as ‘costs’ HAVE TO BE taken back in ‘PRICES’? Which then can not help but rise, too? If everything were completely proportional all that would happen would be everyone would get to work with bigger figures. But everything is NOT completely proportional, and for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with supposed ‘corporate greed’, PRICES will invariably rise faster than incomes can to meet them. The difference will be made up through exponentially expanding debt. While it CAN be. Which is getting harder and harder to do.

Look at the REAL issue concerning poverty. Is it a physical construct here in Canada? A case where there is a genuine shortage of actual ‘wealth’ ~ all the material things we actually need to live? And there’s no way in which this shortage can be overcome? Short of those who have ‘too much’ sharing with those who have ‘too little’? Something, by the way, that would be completely justified under those circumstances, IF they were the actual state of affairs. But are they? Or do we have a poverty in the midst of plenty? With an ability, a REAL ability, to produce more than enough ‘wealth’ for all, and doing so without having to take anything away from anybody who’s said to have ‘too much’? Poverty, in this country at least, is often talked about in terms of employment. The poor are often un-employed or at least under-employed. Being so they are un-emPAYed, too. But consider this. If anyone’s continued ‘production’ is of no material advantage to himself or his fellow man, than how can the same person’s ‘consumption’ be of any material dis-advantage? If it WAS of any advantage, materially speaking, wouldn’t he be employed? And if it isn’t, why should he be?

“Or do we have a poverty in the midst of plenty?”

We most certainly do. One only has to look at the data I posted to come to that realization. Of course, based on the thumbs down, many do not agree. Therein lies the problem.

“With an ability, a REAL ability, to produce more than enough ‘wealth’ for all, and doing so without having to take anything away from anybody who’s said to have ‘too much’?”

It is the last part of that sentence which points to the problem. It points to socialism …. socialism rather than compassion … socialism rather than taking care of the whole, not just of oneself. We are seeing an increase in the wealth of the top 10% and a decrease in the bottom of society.

There are countries on that list where unemployment rates are consistently lower than ours over the last 20+ years, yet they have a lower poverty rate than we do, using the identical UNICEF definition of poverty. Obviously jobs are not as important a way in those countries to spread the wealth of a nation. There is a total difference in the mindset of the people in those countries.

I remember many decades ago when a significant number of people in Canada and the USA were saying the Scandinavian countries’ welfare state would not last because people would be disinterested in working when mother state would take care of them. Those people simply did not understand the mindset of the population of those countries.

gopg2015:-” (socredible)“With an ability, a REAL ability, to produce more than enough ‘wealth’ for all, and doing so without having to take anything away from anybody who’s said to have ‘too much’?”

It is the last part of that sentence which points to the problem. It points to socialism …. socialism rather than compassion … socialism rather than taking care of the whole, not just of oneself. We are seeing an increase in the wealth of the top 10% and a decrease in the bottom of society.
————————————————————————-
Yes, we are seeing that. But you continue to miss the point. The “poor” are NOT poor because the “rich” are rich. That could only be the case physically if wealth itself ~ all the REAL things we need and desire, food, clothing , shelter and everything else that leads to our well-being ~ were scarce or limited. And they are NOT. We don’t even use all the present capacity we have to produce. Not even, on average, in a period of economic boom. What IS scarce and limited is ‘money’. Or, more correctly, ‘purchasing power’. You cannot correct that by making the “rich” poorer, because they do not hold their wealth in ‘money’. They hold it in assets VALUED in ‘money’. And to convert those assets into the ‘money’ many would like to remove from them in taxation means the control of those assets will then be transferred to those who actually have the (monopoly) power of literally making ‘money’ itself. Money they’ll need to pay those taxes.

From the linked Bloomberg site come these observations

Productivity growth and wages rose together from 1948 to 1973. So, during the lifetime of many posting on this site, things worked as many believe they should.

Since then, productivity is up 80.4 percent, while median hourly compensation has risen a mere 10.7 percent. Why is that? What happened? If we knew that, perhaps we could reverse that trend.

According to the article the bottom half of society needs a pay raise. What kind of bold action might best hike worker paychecks? There is no easy answer, no simple solution, but relying on market forces alone won’t do if we look at the pre-1973 situation and compare that to the post 1973 reality.

We also have to keep in mind that raising the minimum wage will not solve the problem for those who have no work and those who cannot work.

The fundamental insight of advocates like Friedman, apparently shared by most economists, is that cash directed at the poor, the working poor, the near-poor, and the financially brittle is far more cost efficient and cost effective than handing out billions in means-tested programs, such as food stamps.

A typical reaction by those reading such words = “Baloney! Nobody should get more out of the tax system than they put in. Re-distribute the wealth some other way.”

bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-08-08/its-time-for-a-negative-income-tax

I do not think I am missing the point. I just consider it esoteric and thus of no real help to begin to solve the problem at hand.

I totally understand that SOME of the “rich” hold assets rather than money. SOME of them actually hold “money” in various financial institutes who, in turn, do hold assets purchased with that money.

The “poor” also have assets, even if it is only the clothes on their back and the old junker they might have been able to purchase. They simply have fewer assets. Both rich and poor also have money, just a considerable order of magnitude difference.

As you can see from the above post, whether it is assets or money, the acquisition rate has not been the same since 1973 as it was in the post war years pre 1973.

Differentiating assets from money does not solve the issue at hand – sharing assets/money with the structurally “poor”.

Well once again we have all the arguments pro and con about poverty, however as usual no specific plans to alleviate the situation.

We use the same education system, the same government system, and the same corporate system, all run by the same like minded people, and as a result we come up with the same answers to these problems, none of which solves anything. In other words **verbal diarrhea**

Lets consider that people who are at or near the poverty level obviously have an income problem. When you consider that they pay a much higher percentage of their income for the basics, than those who enjoy high wages, you begin to see where the problem lies.

As an example bringing in a carbon tax that increases the price of gas at the pump by 8 cents a litre is a monetary blow to a low income person while it is much less of a blow to a high earner. Furthermore the high earner can reclaim some of this money through the reduction in income tax, while the low income earner cant.

Then we have to look at the effect that a carbon tax has on the transportation industry. The first effect because of a raise in the cost of fuel is a raise in the cost of transportation of goods, which means a raise in the cost of consumer goods, food, etc;.

So the price of a loaf of bread goes up which again is felt much more by low income people than those who make in excess of $50,000.00 per year.

We can then look at the increases in BC Hydro, ICBC, BC Ferries, BC medical premiums, BC Gas (Sanctioned by BCUC) etc; and relate these increases to the increases that those close to or at the poverty level get, in salaries, or pension increases, etc; and we begin to see where the problem lies. Those people on the lower income scale do not have anything in place to negotiate better incomes for them, like the Unions, and professional people do.

We then look at the yearly increase in Municipal taxes, house insurance, etc; etc;, and once again we see that the people in the lower income brackets are held hostage to a system that basically runs roughshod over them, with a **who gives a s..t attitude**.

So we end up with a situation where lower income people/pensioners/and people approaching the poverty level are paying higher taxes, so that those people in the upper incomes who work for the Government, Universities, Colleges, and Municipalities, and Regional Districts, can continue to get salary and benefit increases every year.

So you can see that there is a correlation between Government employee, and manager salaries, high paid union salaries, Government taxes, and corporate greed, and poverty. So **no mystery** here.

The solution in the short term. would be to freeze the salaries of anyone making in excess of $50,000.00 per year net for five years. For those making less they should get an increase at least equal to the cost of living increases. In addition the Government needs to find someway to collect revenue other that at the gas pumps. The carbon tax is nothing more than a tax grab and should be scrapped.

Governments should reduce all costs Ie; Hydro, ICBC, Medical premiums, BC Gas, BC Ferries, and make up for any lost revenues through downsizing, and being fiscally responsible.

There is part of the solution. Whats the chances of it ever happening??

We realize the system is run on greed, then the chances of the above happening are NIL.

gopg2015:-“Productivity growth and wages rose together from 1948 to 1973. So, during the lifetime of many posting on this site, things worked as many believe they should.

Since then, productivity is up 80.4 percent, while median hourly compensation has risen a mere 10.7 percent. Why is that? What happened? If we knew that, perhaps we could reverse that trend.”
=======================================================================

What’s happened is what could be described as generic ‘labour displacement’. Both through ever more rapidly advancing technology and also outsourcing employment to lowest waged countries. While this has resulted in lower costs of manufacture ‘physically’ it has not done so to the same degree ‘financially’. Nor can it. To put it briefly, CAPITAL costs have risen in ever greater ratio to LABOR COSTS, which latter are CURRENT distributed incomes. Whereas the former are PAST distributed incomes, but are also costs which have been carried forward into prices. While the incomes represented by them themselves, in ‘money’, has been for the most part spent as received. This spending at times past, BEFORE more consumer goods enabled by the making of more capital goods have come ‘on the market’, pushed up the prices of consumer goods that then were on the market. We got an inflation, in other words. And our brilliant governments tried to counteract that by making it worse. And the one we’ve just elected is poised to do the same again.

We can very easily “reverse the trend”. When we buy any product we are not only paying for the product itself but also for the factory that made that product. Because as a component of every price are charges for Capital Depreciation. These are ALLOCATED charges, necessary for every business to include and recover through the prices it charges for its wares. But we know, as a matter of practical observation, that if Capital ~ tools, plant, equipment, machines, etc.~ taken collectively, were actually depreciating faster than new plant is being made and installed to replace them, we would be going backwards ‘physically’ in our overall ability to produce. And we are NOT. Our actual productivity is increasing, just as you’ve mentioned quoting the Bloomberg figures above. So in total our Capital APPRECIATION is always, except in times of war or some natural disaster that actually destroys our ability to produce, GREATER than Capital Depreciation. We are fully charged in prices with this latter. Why can we not also be fully credited in prices with the former? This is not hard to do at all.

Palopu wrote:-“The solution in the short term. would be to freeze the salaries of anyone making in excess of $50,000.00 per year net for five years. For those making less they should get an increase at least equal to the cost of living increases. In addition the Government needs to find someway to collect revenue other that at the gas pumps. The carbon tax is nothing more than a tax grab and should be scrapped.

Governments should reduce all costs Ie; Hydro, ICBC, Medical premiums, BC Gas, BC Ferries, and make up for any lost revenues through downsizing, and being fiscally responsible.

There is part of the solution. Whats the chances of it ever happening??”
———————————————————————–
None, I’d say. But even if it had a chance of happening it’s unlikely it would do very much. For one thing, you can’t give those making less an increase in wages, even at some previously ascertained cost of living, without also raising prices at least an equivalent amount to recover the increase. And when that happens, what then? Similarly, if government were to reduce all the costs (to us) of all the services and agencies you list above, how then does it meet what it has to pay out in salaries and wages and fixed payments of those enterprises? Salaries and wages could be reduced, but then we’re just working with smaller figures instead of ones that are the same or larger. Fixed payments represent to a large amount cost that have already been incurred and can’t be recovered. The answers, I’m afraid, lie elsewhere.

gopg2015:-“The fundamental insight of advocates like Friedman, apparently shared by most economists, is that cash directed at the poor, the working poor, the near-poor, and the financially brittle is far more cost efficient and cost effective than handing out billions in means-tested programs, such as food stamps.

A typical reaction by those reading such words = “Baloney! Nobody should get more out of the tax system than they put in. Re-distribute the wealth some other way.””
————————————————————————
I would tend to agree with Friedman, but I do not know whether he is advocating something that is ‘re-distributive’, which would have no benefit at all because it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem, or simply ‘distributive’, which would, if it was done correctly.

Lets look at some facts.
We ‘produce’ to ‘consume’.
Consumer demand is the only sane origin of all economic activity, in the simplest one person Robinson Crusoe type economy, or the most populous, modern, industrial one in existence now, or imaginable.

Consumer demand in a modern economy, when it actually exists, and most often it does, is dependent on there being a way to make that demand EFFECTIVE. That way is to have enough ‘money’ to pay the price of what’s needed or desired.

We currently are able to ‘produce’ far more than what we are able to ‘consume’. Of virtually anything.
We don’t ever even use all our existing productive capacity. Yet we constantly add to it.

When esteemed government advising ‘think tanks’ bemoan that Canadians must become more ‘productive’ they mean we must generate more product output for less labor input.

Less labor input can only mean less employment for producing the same amount of goods, or the same employment for producing more goods.

Most people still derive the largest part of their incomes from employment.

If people, in total, can not now buy ALL they are producing over any given period of time now with the total amount they are receiving in incomes, how then can they buy more if they become more productive?

Unit costs are indeed a function of volume. But it is still the TOTAL cost of ALL the units that has to be met. And we’ve just made more of them. So how do we do that? CAN’T BE DONE. NOT from employment incomes ALONE.

Personal consumption at final retail ‘liquidates’ all costs through prices.
Business consumption ‘transfers’ costs, carrying them forward into future prices.

Economists of old postulated that in total Costs=Incomes=Spending from Incomes and what was initially issued in bank credit to a business and paid out as its ‘costs’ would be fully recovered and repaid from ‘prices’.
This would be roughly so in a primitive, labor intensive economy, where most goods were for personal consumption.
It is NOT true, and increasingly ever the less true, in a modern, capital intensive industrial economy with ongoing labor displacement in all its forms.
Full employment will NOT cure poverty.