# Poverty



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*From Poverty to Power - How should a post-2015 agreement measure poverty? *










...a poverty measure must identify people who cannot fulfil their basic needs defined globally, i.e. absolute deprivation. Several contributions – Martin Ravallion, Stephan Klasen and Lant Pritchett – make clear that poverty is relative as well as absolute, and that a societal reference point is needed. People should be able to live not only free from starvation and disease, but in accordance with social norms – what Adam Smith labelled centuries ago the ability to appear in public without shame.​One major strand of debate arises between advocates of an income poverty measure (Ravallion, Pritchett, Klasen) and those of a complementary multidimensional ‘MPI 2.0’ index (Alkire). Pointing to little correlation between measures of extreme income poverty and other types of deprivation, Alkire argues for also focusing directly on multiple dimensions of illbeing – for instance, the lack of adequate housing, improved sanitation, education, and, in extreme cases, the likelihood of survival.​
(Oxfam)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

A good friend of mine defined poverty as not being able to afford to own a home and raise a family. This was in Vancouver, and at the time, he figured the 'poverty line' was about $80k/year. This is when he quit science, went into the pizza business, made a fortune, and is now retired.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I used to know someone that was making $50Gs, some how lived in CO-OP housing.. 
recently - met someone who is collecting welfare and doing side jobs as well not in cash, but receiving a cheque for the side job.. not sure how any one is able to pull this off?

In Canada, there is no reason to live on the streets when they basically will feed you, provide housing and a pay cheque..


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I used to know someone that was making $50Gs, some how lived in CO-OP housing..
> recently - met someone who is collecting welfare and doing side jobs as well not in cash, but receiving a cheque for the side job.. not sure how any one is able to pull this off?
> 
> In Canada, there is no reason to live on the streets when they basically will feed you, provide housing and a pay cheque..


What's wrong with living in a co-op? Plenty of people with real jobs live in them.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Co-op housing is not necessarily subsidized or low-income housing..... depends on the co-op's rules and mandate.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

A co-op only works if people actually pitch in and do stuff. I've seen many co-ops that were very dysfunctional. Too many people want to at king and no one wanted to actually, you know; do work...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

John Clay said:


> What's wrong with living in a co-op? Plenty of people with real jobs live in them.


maybe I used the term co - op incorrect.. meant to public housing.. [ as in the government gave them housing, when they had a half decent paying job. ]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> maybe I used the term co - op incorrect.. meant to public housing.. [ as in the government gave them housing, when they had a half decent paying job. ]


Kind of depends on the setup, since there are lots of different ways in which government funds housing.... in some cases, it's possible to live in such a building but pay full market rent.

Likewise, depending on the setup, you can live in 'regular' housing and have your rent subsidized by the government. 

Hard to know what the deal is unless you actually know who pays what for their rent.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Very true. Wasn't there the often incorrect assertion that jack Layton and Olivia Chris were living in subsidized housing, but it turned out they were paying market value?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> maybe I used the term co - op incorrect.. meant to public housing.. [ as in the government gave them housing, when they had a half decent paying job. ]


Indeed.

But there are many people with real jobs living in public housing, as others have mentioned, paying market rent.

There's a new public housing building downtown that's actually quite nice, and was designed to be a mixed income residence, with a certain percentage at minimum (I think 30ish?) paying market rent.

It helps to offset the stigma of living in public housing, and also helps to reduce the criminal element that comes with subsidized housing.

60 Richmond is Toronto’s best new co-op: Christopher Hume | Toronto Star


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

John Clay said:


> Indeed.
> 
> But there are many people with real jobs living in public housing, as others have mentioned, paying market rent.
> 
> ...


your correct..
when I was young and flush with cash, full head of hair [before marriage and kids ] - long long time ago.. 
i was looking to invest in a condo.. i could never wrap my mind over myself paying hundreds of thousands in the same building while others got it for free.. I guess I am old school..


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> your correct..
> when I was young and flush with cash, full head of hair [before marriage and kids ] - long time ago..
> i was looking to invest in a condo.. i could never wrap my mind over myself paying hundreds of thousands in the same building while others got it for free.. I guess I am old school..


Others may live there for free, but don't get a chance to build wealth through equity.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Sonal said:


> Others may live there for free, but don't get a chance to build wealth through equity.


Equity - is the key. If you own you care, if it is free you use and abuse, hense was my issue at the time.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> Equity - is the key. If you own you care, if it is free you use and abuse, hense was my issue at the time.


In my experience, that's not so much an issue of people on assistance as it is an issue of renters in general.... even people paying a very high rent.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Sonal said:


> In my experience, that's not so much an issue of people on assistance as it is an issue of renters in general.... even people paying a very high rent.


Agreed.. by far I am speechless at some rental homes I have seen, some have no care for others property.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

The OP article makes some good points in that what people define as poverty is different depending on where you live.

Disclosure: my family has spend a great deal of time helping out people in other nations. Five years living in the jungle in Papua New Guinea building clean water and electricity systems for the remote aboriginal tribes, as well as raising money, delivering goods, and building schools and dormitories for sick orphans in Kenya. That's not to say "look what we did" or to try to claim any credit, LOTS of people have done far more than we ever could.

All I'm saying is, I've seen what real poverty is, and we simply don't have anything close to it in Canada. Our poverty line here is an unbelievable level of wealth compared to the rest of the world. Even when I go on vacation, I see poverty that most Canadian couldn't comprehend. If you have a roof over your head, ANY regular source of food and/or money, clean running water, electricity, etc, YOU ARE RICH. Canadians on welfare are RICH.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

while I wouldn't disagree that our definition of poverty is a much different than in those other countries, I have to say that I'm very glad our definition of poverty is much different and and would be considered 'rich' by other standards.

Dumbing down how we define poverty isn't an excuse to wave one's hands and consider the betterment of it a waste of time.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I agree, being poor in Canada is a lot better than being poor in many other countries. But we are wealthy country. We measure things by different standards here. Basic education, for example, means a very different thing here than in other countries. Healthy means a different thing here. It's not surprising that poverty also means a different thing here.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> while I wouldn't disagree that our definition of poverty is a much different than in those other countries, I have to say that I'm very glad our definition of poverty is much different and and would be considered 'rich' by other standards.
> 
> Dumbing down how we define poverty isn't an excuse to wave one's hands and consider the betterment of it a waste of time.


I understand what you're saying, but what I mean is, under any definition, we don't really have poverty in Canada. What we have are people with differing priorities. When I see people on welfare with cellphones and big screen TVs (and I HAVE seen many of them), those same people better not tell me they live in "poverty".

I'm not saying that we should not take care of those in need, quite the opposite. I'm saying he absolutely should, and we already do far above and beyond what is needed. We should pat ourselves on the back in Canada for the tremendous job we have already done here in eliminating poverty, and instead focus on helping people who have trouble prioritizing the abundance they've been offered.

The sad part is, the kids who do go hungry because their parents can't (or won't) make them a priority. That's where things get really tricky. How do you make someone be responsible?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> I understand what you're saying, but what I mean is, under any definition, we don't really have poverty in Canada. What we have are people with differing priorities. When I see people on welfare with cellphones and big screen TVs (and I HAVE seen many of them), those same people better not tell me they live in "poverty".
> 
> I'm not saying that we should not take care of those in need, quite the opposite. I'm saying he absolutely should, and we already do far above and beyond what is needed. We should pat ourselves on the back in Canada for the tremendous job we have already done here in eliminating poverty, and instead focus on helping people who have trouble prioritizing the abundance they've been offered.
> 
> The sad part is, the kids who do go hungry because their parents can't (or won't) make them a priority. That's where things get really tricky. *How do you make someone be responsible?*


That's a good question.

On the subject of welfare recipients with cellphones, sure. I do know what you mean, but don't paint all on welfare with that brush. As with anything, people will take and get what they can. This isn't by any means, limited to welfare recipients. Corporate welfare, is just as bad, but on a far, far lager, and much more damaging scale.

While we concern ourselves with a very small part of the budget, we seem to let the 'bigger fish' go completely un-noticed.

The issue of poverty goes far beyond, what the welfare cheque amounts are.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

On a note about cellphones... in some cases, you see people on welfare with cellphones (and sometimes fancy cellphones) because the upfront cost is lower than a computer, internet access, landline, etc. (Especially with all those sign up for a 3-year contract and get a free phone deals.) So the cellphone becomes a primary source of phone and internet access.

Is that always the case? Probably not.

But I do believe that you can't make adults do anything. You can't force someone to be responsible. The best you can do is take care of the basics, and then offer opportunities and hope they run with them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

In the Canadian context, you have no shortage of people who have worked, have purchased items like TVs, cars, etc., and then were victims of downsizing or for whatever reason have lost their employment. Selling off these things (if they were paid off in the first place - more likely they're on payments to credit card companies or store cards) will give no more then very short-term gain, if that. Appearances can be deceiving... which is why social scientists have methodologies that go beyond what many critics of the poor use to assess (or more to the point, "judge") their situation.

In any case - the Oxfam blog post above has more to do with global poverty figures... the really, truly poor of this planet who have neither the resources nor the opportunity to improve their own lot in life.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> In any case - the Oxfam blog post above has more to do with global poverty figures... the really, truly poor of this planet who have neither the resources nor the opportunity to improve their own lot in life.


Absolutely. That's why I never hesitate to contribute to organizations that I know do tremendous work helping the _situation_ of the poverty in underdeveloped countries -- actually personally building infrastructure, rather supplying their governments with money. 

That said, It's amazing how much opportunity that people have to improve on their own that they don't see. On his last trip to Kenya, my Dad told me about how much work the village he was helping out did just to get water. They'd spend hours and hours a day digging in a dry river bed until they got a small pail of water to seep up. meanwhile, an actual river was only a few miles away. It never occurred to these people to get the water from there or to move closer to it.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

heavyall said:


> They'd spend hours and hours a day digging in a dry river bed until they got a small pail of water to seep up. meanwhile, an actual river was only a few miles away. It never occurred to these people to get the water from there or to move closer to it.


Can't help but chuckle at that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Or they can do like they did in las vegas. Just pipe it in... :lmao::lmao:


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> maybe I used the term co - op incorrect.. meant to public housing.. [ as in the government gave them housing, when they had a half decent paying job. ]


I live in public, subsidized housing. There are several folks in this building that pay full market rent. Some moved in years ago when the vacancy rate was high and stayed because te building is well maintained and the vacancy rate all over the city is low or non-existent.

Public housing (here) can't really discriminate based on income. They do a means test and subsidize accordingly. I suspect it's the same most places.

Having said that, I know af a couple of tenants who have either hidden assets or lied about their income. I'm guessing that's th kind o fraud you were referring to.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Is there not an anonymous fraud line that you can call for this situation?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

heavyall said:


> I understand what you're saying, but what I mean is, under any definition, we don't really have poverty in Canada. What we have are people with differing priorities. When I see people on welfare with cellphones and big screen TVs (and I HAVE seen many of them), those same people better not tell me they live in "poverty".
> 
> I'm not saying that we should not take care of those in need, quite the opposite. I'm saying he absolutely should, and we already do far above and beyond what is needed. We should pat ourselves on the back in Canada for the tremendous job we have already done here in eliminating poverty, and instead focus on helping people who have trouble prioritizing the abundance they've been offered.
> 
> The sad part is, the kids who do go hungry because their parents can't (or won't) make them a priority. That's where things get really tricky. How do you make someone be responsible?


The situation in Canada is we transfer much public money to the wealthy via paying slum land lords. People rent at the price point they can afford to pay, but live in squalid conditions as result of poorly maintained buildings.

There still are people in the Maritimes, that do not receive welfare and are living in poverty.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

BigDL said:


> There still are people in the Maritimes, that do not receive welfare and are living in poverty.


By choice?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

who lives in poverty by choice?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> who lives in poverty by choice?


There are a lot of ways that different people do it:

•not applying for available jobs
•continually getting fired from jobs
•insisting on living in a place where there are no jobs
•not getting trained for jobs that are available
•not applying for assistance programs that they may be eligible for
•not prioritizing what they spend money on
•not finding alternative ways to supplement their income
•wasting money they can't afford on vices and/or addictions


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

But, but, you're restricting their freedom of expression, and self-determination.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

heavyall said:


> There are a lot of ways that different people do it:
> 
> •not applying for available jobs
> •continually getting fired from jobs
> ...


Pretty much described most of Canada LOL
Or should I say North America


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> There are a lot of ways that different people do it:
> 
> •not applying for available jobs
> •continually getting fired from jobs
> ...


The question wasn't, how do people end up in poverty, it was who wants to live in poverty, by choice.

There's a big difference.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

But the essential question is what is the definition of poverty.

As has been said earlier, what we call poverty is a joke World-wide.

No wonder some people in this country are satisfied with living at our level of poverty.

Try the World's definition on them and you would see action like never before.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> The question wasn't, how do people end up in poverty, it was who wants to live in poverty, by choice.
> 
> There's a big difference.


There's no difference.

I listed the CHOICES people make that have them living in poverty. It doesn't make sense, but many people do make those choices.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The situation in Canada is we transfer much public money to the wealthy via paying slum land lords. People rent at the price point they can afford to pay, but live in squalid conditions as result of poorly maintained buildings.
> 
> There still are people in the Maritimes, that do not receive welfare and are living in poverty.





heavyall said:


> By choice?


Yes, that's why EI benefits are so important to them.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

heavyall said:


> There's no difference.
> 
> I listed the CHOICES people make that have them living in poverty. It doesn't make sense, but many people do make those choices.


I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread because I feel an argument coming on. I have some ideas and more than a little first hand experience in this matter, but I know in advance you won't listen.

There are people who are born on third base and think they hit a home run - that's where you are.

You have no idea what it's like to be born on the wrong side of the tracks.

Your accusations of what boils down to laziness do nothing to lift and encourage, your list heaps abuse on folks who already bear a heavy burden.

Walk a mile in our shoes and then rethink what puts and keeps people in poverty.

By "you" I mean all of you that have spoken on this subject.

Now start flinging abuse at me, I'm out of here


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

winwintoo said:


> I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread because I feel an argument coming on. I have some ideas and more than a little first hand experience in this matter, but I know in advance you won't listen.
> 
> There are people who are born on third base and think they hit a home run - that's where you are.
> 
> ...


I fully agree with you wintintoo, so don't lump me in with heavyall's opinion.

I tend to tune out when anyone lists reasons that attribute poverty to things like laziness and stupidity, because I know different as well. I believe people have those opinions because it helps them deal with accepting how people are treated.



heavyall said:


> There's no difference.
> 
> I listed the CHOICES people make that have them living in poverty. It doesn't make sense, but many people do make those choices.


You've completely missed the point. There is a very large difference, but one can't see it if they believe poverty is the fault of those in it.

I cannot agree with that idea whatsoever.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

winwintoo said:


> I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread because I feel an argument coming on. I have some ideas and more than a little first hand experience in this matter, but I know in advance you won't listen.
> 
> There are people who are born on third base and think they hit a home run - that's where you are.
> 
> ...


Not taking any sides on this (though I have a lot of experience with friends and family members in these situations, and do have a strong fact based opinion) but what I find odd is I always see a lot of "you don't know what it's like" and "walk a mile in my shoes" but never a "this is why you're wrong 1- 2- 3-" response. 

I do find it ironic that those claiming not to be lazy appear to be too lazy to properly defend the reasons for their situation. Just an observation.

A7


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a7mc said:


> Not taking any sides on this (though I have a lot of experience with friends and family members in these situations, and do have a strong fact based opinion) but what I find odd is I always see a lot of "you don't know what it's like" and "walk a mile in my shoes" but never a "this is why you're wrong 1- 2- 3-" response.
> 
> I do find it ironic that those claiming not to be lazy appear to be too lazy to properly defend the reasons for their situation. Just an observation.
> 
> A7


and why should they?

Honestly, it doesn't take much to look around. There are many many people who are born into poverty, had a major health incident, a death in the family, mental disease, the list is very long.

And add to that the pervasive attitude that anyone can raise a family on what passes for minimum wage. 

If you're in poverty, or find yourself there for many of the reasons out there, it isn't an easy path back out for most. Just because a small minority either get lucky, find a path etc., doesn't mean it will happen for all.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

There is a large portion of the population that mistake their cynicism for common sense. They of the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' variety who believe everyone on social assistance is somehow cheating the system and think the poor have brought their plight upon themselves. Sink or swim is their motto.

These people are very lucky to have never suffered from the kind of affliction that sidelines you from the rat race. The sort leaves you vulnerable. Our 'systems' are less than perfect and nothing illustrates this better than those who fall between the cracks. In their desperation to defend these systems, they blame the marginalized, or worse, ignore. 

Sadly, it's usually the ones who do exploit the system that 'get all the press' and perpetuate these inaccurate stereotypes. It's far easier to hold onto that than it is to get close to the truth of this very complex issue.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> There is a large portion of the population that mistake their cynicism for common sense. They of the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' variety who believe everyone on social assistance is somehow cheating the system and think the poor have brought their plight upon themselves. Sink or swim is their motto.
> 
> These people are very lucky to have never suffered from the kind of affliction that sidelines you from the rat race. The sort leaves you vulnerable. Our 'systems' are less than perfect and nothing illustrates this better than those who fall between the cracks. In their desperation to defend these systems, they blame the marginalized, or worse, ignore.
> 
> Sadly, it's usually the ones who do exploit the system that 'get all the press' and perpetuate these inaccurate stereotypes. It's far easier to hold onto that than it is to get close to the truth of this very complex issue.


:clap::clap::clap: +1 Like very much


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

a7mc said:


> I do find it ironic that those claiming not to be lazy appear to be too lazy to properly defend the reasons for their situation. Just an observation.


Especially since she took even greater liberties in assuming what I do and do not know, what I have and have not lived through, and was too lazy to even read what I wrote earlier in this same thread about helping people truly in need.

It's not a binary answer. There are people who life hands a bad lot through no fault of their own. There are people who end up where they are specifically through their own choices. There are also people who had no hand in how they got where they are, but who are not doing themselves any favours in the choices they make that are keeping them there.

This may be material for a different thread, but I absolutely do know first hand what living in poverty is like, it's a huge part of the reason why so much of me and my family's lives are spend helping other people get out from under it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> There is a large portion of the population that mistake their cynicism for common sense. They of the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' variety who believe everyone on social assistance is somehow cheating the system and think the poor have brought their plight upon themselves. Sink or swim is their motto.
> 
> These people are very lucky to have never suffered from the kind of affliction that sidelines you from the rat race. The sort leaves you vulnerable. Our 'systems' are less than perfect and nothing illustrates this better than those who fall between the cracks. In their desperation to defend these systems, they blame the marginalized, or worse, ignore.
> 
> Sadly, it's usually the ones who do exploit the system that 'get all the press' and perpetuate these inaccurate stereotypes. It's far easier to hold onto that than it is to get close to the truth of this very complex issue.


yes, very well put. :clap:


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

mrjimmy said:


> There is a large portion of the population that mistake their cynicism for common sense. They of the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' variety who believe everyone on social assistance is somehow cheating the system and think the poor have brought their plight upon themselves. Sink or swim is their motto.
> 
> These people are very lucky to have never suffered from the kind of affliction that sidelines you from the rat race. The sort leaves you vulnerable. Our 'systems' are less than perfect and nothing illustrates this better than those who fall between the cracks. In their desperation to defend these systems, they blame the marginalized, or worse, ignore.
> 
> Sadly, it's usually the ones who do exploit the system that 'get all the press' and perpetuate these inaccurate stereotypes. It's far easier to hold onto that than it is to get close to the truth of this very complex issue.


That's a very shallow and wholly inaccurate take. Like Wintootoo, you're assuming what a given critic has lived through, and what they are doing right now. 

You're also assuming that critic doesn't have direct personal knowledge of how our welfare system works here at home, and just how many people are gaming the system in the most creative ways.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

heavyall said:


> That's a very shallow and wholly inaccurate take. Like Wintootoo, you're assuming what a given critic has lived through, and what they are doing right now.
> 
> You're also assuming that critic doesn't have direct personal knowledge of how our welfare system works here at home, and just how many people are gaming the system in the most creative ways.


I'm generalizing yes. But it also is coming from a place of knowledge and experience. Your 'list' fits nicely within that generalization. 

Shallow? I wouldn't say so. I find it telling that you feel as though this is a personal attack against you enough for you to call me a name. I think you doth protest too much.

Inaccurate? Take a look around. Listen to the chatter. Nothing inaccurate about it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I didn't think mrjimmy's post had any bearing on anyone's personal experience at all, but a rather accurate take on attitudes towards those in poverty.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

heavyall said:


> It's not a binary answer. There are people who life hands a bad lot through no fault of their own. There are people who end up where they are specifically through their own choices.


I agree that it's no binary, and certainly, some people's poor choices have played a very major role in their winding up in poverty (or visa versa). But no one winds up where they are exclusively as a result of their choices; chance plays an enormous role in everyone's life, which is why the claims of the "self-made" wealthy ring hollow. Certainly many have succeeded by dint of their own hard work, but only if other circumstances that they had no control over allowed it. Work, discipline, perseverance, etc. are all laudable characteristics, but while they may play an important role, they are not sufficient for success. Luck is necessary, and often sufficient for success. And bad luck can undo all one's efforts in a heartbeat.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm generalizing yes. But it also is coming from a place of knowledge and experience. Your 'list' fits nicely within that generalization.
> 
> Shallow? I wouldn't say so. I find it telling that you feel as though this is a personal attack against you enough for you to call me a name. I think you doth protest too much.
> 
> Inaccurate? Take a look around. Listen to the chatter. Nothing inaccurate about it.


I'm the only one in this thread who compiled such a list or even brought forth such an argument. If it wasn't directed at me, who were you talking to?

People don't make lists like mine in a vacuum. They are complied through many real world experiences of knowing real people who live their lives exactly like that. Also through regular conversations with front line social workers. 

It's a position of direct knowledge that I speak from. Inside and out of the system(s), at home and abroad. You?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

heavyall said:


> I'm the only one in this thread who compiled such a list or even brought forth such an argument. If it wasn't directed at me, who were you talking to?
> 
> People don't make lists like mine in a vacuum. They are complied through many real world experiences of knowing real people who live their lives exactly like that. Also through regular conversations with front line social workers.
> 
> It's a position of direct knowledge that I speak from. Inside and out of the system(s), at home and abroad. You?


Same. Do you need to see my Driver's license? 

If you can poke legitimate holes in my assertion I welcome it. Calling me shallow because you feel personally attacked immediately discredits you in my eyes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Same. Do you need to see my Driver's license?
> 
> If you can poke legitimate holes in my assertion I welcome it. Calling me shallow because you feel personally attacked immediately discredits you in my eyes.


Apparently one shouldn't make assumptions about someone, but it's seems perfectly acceptable to make those same assumptions about someone else and call them shallow?

Hard to keep track.

Anyway, back on track, I'd like to see arguments that the things I described that could put someone into poverty instead be a choice.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Same. Do you need to see my Driver's license?
> 
> If you can poke legitimate holes in my assertion I welcome it. Calling me shallow because you feel personally attacked immediately discredits you in my eyes.


Apparently if a person frames their comments in manner as if a person is speaking to a the third party and how any person can interpret these remarks are personally directed to an individual, is truly mind boggling.

Very sad! 

An attempted derail, to have a train of thought, knock into a muddy ditch. 

Good on you mrjimmy, with your stalwart resolve to stay on the highroad, not to be dragged off into foolishness where another converses and may feel most comfortable. :clap:


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

mrjimmy said:


> Same. Do you need to see my Driver's license?
> 
> If you can poke legitimate holes in my assertion I welcome it. Calling me shallow because you feel personally attacked immediately discredits you in my eyes.


What would your drivers license tell me that's in any way germane to this discussion?

I didn't call YOU shallow, I called your analysis shallow, and it is. The assumptions it makes are ridiculous. You spent most of it equating poverty with social assistance. Most poor people are not on assistance. You created a strawman out of a fictitious person who has never faced adversity, and called them "a large portion of the population", when the people that label could apply to are virtually non-existant.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> What would your drivers license tell me that's in any way germane to this discussion?
> 
> I didn't call YOU shallow, I called your analysis shallow, and it is. The assumptions it makes are ridiculous. You spent most of it equating poverty with social assistance. Most poor people are not on assistance. You created a strawman out of a fictitious person who has never faced adversity, and called them "a large portion of the population", when the people that label could apply to are virtually non-existant.


not so fast.

Your list:


> •not applying for available jobs
> •continually getting fired from jobs
> •insisting on living in a place where there are no jobs
> •not getting trained for jobs that are available
> ...


clearly describes people who, don't have a job, aren't applying for a job, continually getting fired if they did have one, aren't willing to move if they can't find a job, to start with.

So you've described someone who isn't likely gainfully employed, can't hold a job, and doesn't seem to want one.

Sounds like someone getting government benefits of some sort, unless they're living on the street (which is a whole other discussion) or they're doing something illegal.

While there are probably quite a few people in this country like that, as mrjimmy said, you can't generalize those reasons as being why we have people in poverty. 

And you conveniently sidestepped my post about people who find themselves in poverty through no fault of their own. Because if you really, understood poverty, you would know those reasons too.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

My list was a response to _your_ question of who lives in poverty by choice. It was not the comprehensive catalogue of the only reasons anyone ends up in poverty. There's a huge difference.

Absolutely, people find themselves in poverty through no fault of their own. Life can absolutely blindside you sometimes. I wasn't sidestepping that at all, it's just not what I was specifically addressing. I did quite clearly discuss helping those truly in need in several posts prior to that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> My list was a response to _your_ question of who lives in poverty by choice. It was not the comprehensive catalogue of the only reasons anyone ends up in poverty. There's a huge difference.
> 
> Absolutely, people find themselves in poverty through no fault of their own. Life can absolutely blindside you sometimes. I wasn't sidestepping that at all, it's just not what I was specifically addressing. I did quite clearly discuss helping those truly in need in several posts prior to that.


WHile I wouldn't disagree a very small number of people may actually choose poverty, even with people who may fall within the definitions on your list, I will still strongly disagree that all of those represent 'choice', and shows a true lack of understanding of how people stay in poverty in my opinion.

It's one thing to have some compassion, and donate one's time and or money to help, but quite another to truly understand.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> WHile I wouldn't disagree a very small number of people may actually choose poverty, even with people who may fall within the definitions on your list, I will still strongly disagree that all of those represent 'choice', and shows a true lack of understanding of how people stay in poverty in my opinion.
> 
> It's one thing to have some compassion, and donate one's time and or money to help, but quite another to truly understand.


It's several different things though, right? How they GOT there, and how they stay there. Those who got there by choice are probably the smaller group, but those who stay there by choice are the largest. It's not a question of blame -- people are free to live however they want-- it's just a matter of _if you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting._

Most of the people who need help, primarily need help in understanding what it is that they are doing (or not doing) that's causing them to stay in the situation that they're in. I gave the example of the village in Kenya earlier. They didn't choose to be born in a place with scarce water, but they did choose to _continue not to have water_.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Somebody (I'm paraphrasing here) asked me to defend my position. The truth is I can't.

In order for me to defend my position, I would need intimate knowledge of both sides. I don't have it and I'm guessing that whoever made the "lazy" list (I know....) doesn't know both sides either.

l spent some interesting time today watching "America's Got Talent" on YouTube. I saw some very talented people. For example there was a big strong black man with a deep speaking voice yet he sang opera in a soprano range.

To carry forward your argument that I was lazy because I didn't do as well as you and any reasons I might put forward would be excuses, I want to ask why you don't sing opera like a soprano (I'm assuming you don't, if you do, let me know and I'll try to find a different analogy)

So, tell me why you don't sing opera like a soprano. And I'm going to tell you that whatever reason you give is just an excuse.

How is that helping you?

How does your listing reasons for failure as excuses help your fellow Canadians who live in poverty?

It doesn't help.

I find it deplorable that anyone would travel to the ends of the earth to help disadvantaged people and come back with such a low opinion of his fellow Canadians who have not met the dream.

I would love to explain how I ended up on the poverty line, but the truth is that I started life there and conditions were such that nobody appeared from the other side of the world to show me how to get out.

Oprah Winfrey credits a teacher for showing her how to get out of the distressing situation she was born into. No such teacher showed up in my life.

If you think you did it all on your own, please spent some time reflecting on who walked beside you on your way to the top whispering in your ear and guiding you around the minefield.

You had someone like that whether you realize it or not. I hope you remember them in your prayers every night.

So my excuse is that nobody showed enough interest in me to help me on the right path. Add to that I was surrounded by mental illness, bore the brunt of various kinds of abuse both verbal from people charged with teaching me, physical abuse from parents, other abuse from trusted relatives.

I'm lucky I'm alive.

Excuses? Ok, you didn't use that exact word, but I can read between the lines.

I deleted the rest of what I want to say, but I'm going to assume that you can read between the lines too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

heavyall said:


> It's several different things though, right? How they GOT there, and how they stay there. Those who got there by choice are probably the smaller group, but those who stay there by choice are the largest. It's not a question of blame -- people are free to live however they want-- it's just a matter of _if you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting._
> 
> *Most of the people who need help, primarily need help in understanding what it is that they are doing (or not doing) that's causing them to stay in the situation that they're in.* I gave the example of the village in Kenya earlier. They didn't choose to be born in a place with scarce water, but they did choose to _continue not to have water_.


That sentence right there, as an example (though I would have worded it a little differently that sounds less like we're blaming the person in poverty...) demonstrates why I feel the vast majority of people in poverty, don't really choose, to be there. That sentence is one of many things that contribute to people being in poverty and not getting out. There are many more reasons that have even less to do with the person in poverty.

It's easy to stand over people, with an outside perspective, and judge them.

Winwintoo said it best, walk a mile in their shoes.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Winwintoo,

That wasn't a list of excuses, and they certainly had nothing to do with laziness. You missed the point entirely. It's about the choices we make, often when we aren't even aware we're making them.

bad choices: I didn't choose to have my car break down last month. I didn't choose to be stranded on the side of the road with my wife and daughter, waiting for a tow truck. But I did choose to ignore the fact that it had been having overheating issues. 

good choices: I didn't choose to be homeless and on my own in the middle of high school, but I did choose to work three jobs, get an apartment, finish high school, and go to college. I didn't specifically choose each of those things consciously. I just kept on keeping on, it never occurred to me to just accept the hand I was dealt.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow. Those examples really have very little to do with the poverty issue.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> wow. Those examples really have very little to do with the poverty issue.


Really. A homeless teenager has nothing to do with poverty?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

um, ok, wow.

I don't think this is really going anywhere, so there's not much for me to really add here.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Interesting thread. Heavyall has made some real world observations I've seen many times myself. Although I feel there truly are people in poverty that are poor by no fault of their own, its naive to believe that everyone thats living in poverty fits that mould and are beyond criticism. Wintoo may very well be justified in her "walk a day in my shoes" comment but where I feel her argument is in error is assuming all people in poverty are in the same boat as her.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

heavyall said:


> What would your drivers license tell me that's in any way germane to this discussion?


You were ostensibly (and absurdly) asking for credentials. I responded in kind.



> I didn't call YOU shallow, I called your analysis shallow, and it is. The assumptions it makes are ridiculous. You spent most of it equating poverty with social assistance. Most poor people are not on assistance. You created a strawman out of a fictitious person who has never faced adversity, and called them "a large portion of the population", when the people that label could apply to are virtually non-existant.


I find this response to be curiously naive. 

In Western society, where social assistance for the impoverished is common, there are many (in Toronto, we call then Ford Nation) who decry this practice because of the perceived abuse(s) of this system. Welfare bum. Get a job. You get the picture.

You wrote:



> good choices: I didn't choose to be homeless and on my own in the middle of high school, but I did choose to work three jobs, get an apartment, finish high school, and go to college. I didn't specifically choose each of those things consciously. I just kept on keeping on, it never occurred to me to just accept the hand I was dealt.


Pull yourself up by your bootstraps much? I did it, why can't they?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Interesting thread. Heavyall has made some real world observations I've seen many times myself. Although I feel there truly are people in poverty that are poor by no fault of their own, its naive to believe that everyone thats living in poverty fits that mould and are beyond criticism. *Wintoo may very well be justified in her "walk a day in my shoes" comment but where I feel her argument is in error is assuming all people in poverty are in the same boat as her.*


I'm curious as to how you would make such a judgement. I never would have gotten that from her posts. That seemed rather harsh.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Wintoo may very well be justified in her "walk a day in my shoes" comment but where I feel her argument is in error is assuming all people in poverty are in the same boat as her.


Really hesitant to wade into this, particularly as it's gone a bit off the rails as to my original intent... but.... I'll give Winwintoo the benefit of the doubt, that she doesn't assume *all* people in poverty are in the same boat as her. She's a deeper thinker than that!

However... the opposite may very well be true... that the majority of people assume a great deal of things about people who are poor, typically disparaging characteristics....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> You were ostensibly (and absurdly) asking for credentials. I responded in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The high school student story was the one to me that showed a lack understanding.

I was someone who did pull up my bootstraps. But I didn't do it all by myself.

I'd never assume pulling 'one's bootstraps up' was any kind of a real solution.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

mrjimmy said:


> Pull yourself up by your bootstraps much? I did it, why can't they?


The argument here has been "I don't understand". I have been there, I _do_ understand. I know how life can kick you in the teeth, and I know what it takes to get back up. Funny how you think having first hand knowledge of what it's like and what it takes somehow disqualifies me from understanding. How does that logic work in your world?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> Really hesitant to wade into this, particularly as it's gone a bit off the rails as to my original intent... but.... I'll give Winwintoo the benefit of the doubt, that she doesn't assume *all* people in poverty are in the same boat as her. She's a deeper thinker than that!


When she made this statement it seemed she was collectively defending all people living in poverty. Since heavyall hadn't been directing his statement at her directly it seems she was generalizing about people in poverty based on her own situation.



> Walk a mile in *our* shoes and then rethink what puts and keeps people in poverty. By "you" I mean all of you that have spoken on this subject.


If I've misinterpreted her intent I apologize.



> However... the opposite may very well be true... that the majority of people assume a great deal of things about people who are poor, typically disparaging characteristics....


For me, not at all. The circumstances and reasons for peoples poverty are not a one size fits all excuse with a one size fits all solution. You have a range from the truly hard working innocent, the incapacitated innocent to the downright lazy and criminal in the poverty spectrum. Its not a this or that issue. Some deserve our sympathy and support, others our criticism.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think the problem here, is people often spend more time talking about 'welfare bums' and people cheating the system, as if that only occurs at the poverty level, and not nearly as much time about real solutions beyond, well pick up yer bootstraps' kinda uselessness stuff. WHat ends up happening is far too many good people get painted with the same brush, and too many well meaning people simply don't really understand what it is to be in a position like that.

It's always easy to judge from a position of power isn't it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> You had someone like that whether you realize it or not.


:clap:

I'd go further than that and say that it may not have just been "someone" who provided you with opportunities, advice, support, and the security to know you could take some risks to achieve your potential, knowing that if you weren't successful on the first try, you and/or your family wouldn't die in the streets as a result. Our whole country is behind you; we have government-funded safety nets for exactly this purpose. Similarly, our socialized education system, our socialized healthcare system, and other 'evil government wealth-redistribution programs' that the Rightwingers are constantly complaining about are what allow Canadians to achieve the high standard of living that the poor in other parts of the world can only dream of. It is precisely this that makes Canada great.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

As we discuss, this article appears in the star that makes me shake my head, and say seriously !?!
For many reasons. 
The Star

Homeless in the GTA: Finding affordable housing especially tough for women
Homeless in the GTA: Finding affordable housing especially tough for women | Toronto Star

One reason is if you can't afford the cost of life do you need a second child?
My wife and i decided that two is plenty for us to offord them a half decent life and for ourselves.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Oh boy.

Has this tread officially jumped the shark now?

Stay tuned.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

groovetube said:


> I think the problem here, is people often spend more time talking about 'welfare bums' and people cheating the system, as if that only occurs at the poverty level, and not nearly as much time about real solutions beyond, well pick up yer bootstraps' kinda uselessness stuff. WHat ends up happening is far too many good people get painted with the same brush, and too many well meaning people simply don't really understand what it is to be in a position like that.
> 
> It's always easy to judge from a position of power isn't it.


This has little to do with judging and power. People spend time talking about welfare bums because those are the ones we _should_ be talking about. 

If someone is truly deserving of welfare, there's nothing to talk about. They need it, and deserve it; end of discussion.

But the ones who abuse welfare, or stay on it by choice (which in my personal circle of experience sits around 30-40% of welfare recipients) _should_ be discussed. What _do_ we do about them? In the end, that's what the discussion is about, and why the topic takes most of the "press". I highly doubt anyone (in this thread or otherwise) would begrudge someone who used welfare because they were truly stuck and needed it. But of those who may not be deserving, what can we do to make the system better?

A7


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Winner, winner, chicken dinner: A7mc gets it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Yeah he does. What I don't get is the "everyone critical of some welfare recipients is a big meanie pants and should just shut up and support them" attitude we see repeated here. Living in the real world, there are people milking the system. Denying that happens or wanting to do nothing to address it seems like burying ones head in the sand.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

ignoring the problem is worse then the problem of abuse itself..Because we are all paying for it..
so we should stand up for it.. or we will be next in that hand out line - for it will become too costly to support the welfare abusers soon.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'd like to see some data; I'm not under the impression that our social welfare system is labouring under a heavy load of parasites, but it's not my field, so I may simply be uninformed. I know conservatives are always ranting about welfare bums and throwing around anecdotes about people abusing the system, but that's their time-honoured narrative, and I don't believe it has any more to do with reality than their other stories. I'm sure the professionals in the field have access to more objective data. Does anyone here have access to data from rigorous studies on welfare abuse in Canada?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah he does. What I don't get is the "everyone critical of some welfare recipients is a big meanie pants and should just shut up and support them" attitude we see repeated here. Living in the real world, there are people milking the system. Denying that happens or wanting to do nothing to address it seems like burying ones head in the sand.


Wow. Bravo guys, you've managed to turn a thread about poverty, a much much larger and complex issue, to your own personal bellyache session on welfare bums. I don't think anyone thinks it's ok to 'milk the system', and I thought Mike Harris would have turfed a major amount of them out and changed the eligibility rules.

Good stuff!



bryanc said:


> I'd like to see some data; I'm not under the impression that our social welfare system is labouring under a heavy load of parasites, but it's not my field, so I may simply be uninformed. I know conservatives are always ranting about welfare bums and throwing around anecdotes about people abusing the system, but that's their time-honoured narrative, and I don't believe it has any more to do with reality than their other stories. I'm sure the professionals in the field have access to more objective data. Does anyone here have access to data from rigorous studies on welfare abuse in Canada?


It's generally where they turn, sans any data really when discussing poverty. It seems they simply see the poverty issue as something you can fix by 'kicking the bums off of welfare'. That's what we saw under Harris, and we're just hearing the same regurgitation nonsense here.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah he does.
> 
> What I don't get is the "everyone critical of some welfare recipients is a big meanie pants, and should just shut up and support them" attitude we see repeated here.


Because they all get tarred with the same brush as the 30%-50% he mentions.

Clean those free-loader out of there, and the stigma of Welfare will be *MUCH* reduced.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

bryanc said:


> I'd like to see some data; I'm not under the impression that our social welfare system is labouring under a heavy load of parasites, but it's not my field, so I may simply be uninformed. I know conservatives are always ranting about welfare bums and throwing around anecdotes about people abusing the system, but that's their time-honoured narrative, and I don't believe it has any more to do with reality than their other stories. I'm sure the professionals in the field have access to more objective data. Does anyone here have access to data from rigorous studies on welfare abuse in Canada?


not going to say what part of Canada, but will say while on vacation I was at a grocery store and this drunk person shows up with a roll of 50s.. during the day - maybe 1 PM.. 

buys cigarettes and lottos and chips.. then stumbled in to me and asks Do you you know where I am ? could you Please call a Cab for me, since you have a phone.. 

when I asked the store clerk, he replied its pay check day today, here is the address call the cab company for him.. [ then the clerk smirked 'this will happen all day long "]

when I was a younger, worked for my father.. every other friday we used to stand outside his shop, watch all the lined up cabs with the meters running, I asked my dad and later the beer store, whats this all about.. they replied its pay check day..

interesting how they referred to assistance program as pay check day? :yikes:

so if the conservatives want to fight it with or without data to back it, why not? at least it will catch a few of the bad apples..


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I'd like to see some data; I'm not under the impression that our social welfare system is labouring under a heavy load of parasites, but it's not my field, so I may simply be uninformed. I know conservatives are always ranting about welfare bums and throwing around anecdotes about people abusing the system, but that's their time-honoured narrative, and I don't believe it has any more to do with reality than their other stories. I'm sure the professionals in the field have access to more objective data. Does anyone here have access to data from rigorous studies on welfare abuse in Canada?


Winner, winner, chicken dinner: bryanc gets it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

First, because even people "deserving" of welfare have a number of problems with the system.... so why ignore those problems for the sake of some individuals who game the system (and will game any system)? 

Second, because in trying to deal with those "undeserving" of welfare, we end up penalizing those that are "deserving".

Third, because "deserving" and "undeserving" are highly subjective terms, which seldom take into account the entirety of the a person's situation, how they got there, why they are stuck there, and what supports they may actually need.

Fourth, because in a wealthy country such as Canada, I find it unconscionable to consider whether or not another person in this country is 'deserving' or 'undeserving' of basic food, shelter, health and education.

Fifth, because no matter what a person tells themselves about how they did it themselves, they had supports along the way.... Elizabeth Warren had a good quote about that in relation to business which I believe is applicable here. As a small example, I don't know many landlords that would rent to a teenager no matter how many jobs they had... someone took a chance there.

And yes, I do have experience with people on various forms of assistance, the working poor, etc. I know people who are working the system and people who are struggling on it.

Housing is a great example. In Toronto--a place where there are more jobs and community supports than in many cities--there are over 86,000 people on the affordable housing wait list. TCHC manages 164,000 (poorly maintained) units. Market rent is going up, and very little new affordable housing is being built. Even if, as m7mc says, many of these are "undeserving", that still leaves a huge portion who are "deserving" and not adequately served by the system.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> ...while on vacation I was at a grocery store and this drunk person shows up...




Before anyone else chimes in with charming anecdotes, let me remind you that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Another perspective that might be worth considering is what is the relative rate of welfare fraud in comparison to tax fraud; how much do social assistance cheaters cost Canadian society as compared to how much Tax evasion costs society? I don't have the facts, but my bet is that the latter is a much bigger problem. So focusing on "those welfare bums" cheating the system for a few grand while turning a blind eye to the suit in the mercedes who cheats us for millions is rather short-sighted.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Another perspective that might be worth considering is what is the relative rate of welfare fraud in comparison to tax fraud; how much do social assistance cheaters cost Canadian society as compared to how much Tax evasion costs society? I don't have the facts, but my bet is that the latter is a much bigger problem. So focusing on "those welfare bums" cheating the system for a few grand while turning a blind eye to the suit in the mercedes who cheats us for millions is rather short-sighted.


Why does it have to be either or? I don't particularly care for tax cheats either and both are draining on the system. Get serious about both.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Before anyone else chimes in with charming anecdotes, let me remind you that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'


Well, by your own admission your view on the topic is also anecdotal since you admitted earlier you've seen no data on the subject.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

To be clear, just because I feel someone is underserving of welfare, I'm not saying they're underserving of _help_. I just don't believe all help needs to come in the form of a lifetime of free money with no proper support on how to get out of the system.

I believe in welfare, just not how it is today. I believe in helping people, not giving handouts. I believe in self-betterment, and assisting those who need support to achieve it.

A7

P.S. There will NEVER be accurate data. By definition, those gaming the system are gaming the data. Anecdotal is likely more accurate than any data we think we may have.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

a7mc said:


> To be clear, just because I feel someone is underserving of welfare, I'm not saying they're underserving of _help_. I just don't believe all help needs to come in the form of a lifetime of free money with no proper support on how to get out of the system.
> 
> I believe in welfare, just not how it is today. I believe in helping people, not giving handouts. I believe in self-betterment, and assisting those who need support to achieve it.
> 
> ...


Help and support already does come in the form of things that are not free money, but such things still cost taxpayer money and are inadequate to serve the demands on the system. 

And no, anecdotal data will never be more accurate than any other data. It's already skewed by the perspective of people observing the anecdote. That is not to say that it cannot be helpful is illustrating some of the larger or more ephemeral issues that are no always made clear in statistics, or that it cannot lead to further areas of study, but by definition it's not more accurate.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

And that brings us around to Workfare.

Now there's a loaded issue.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Why does it have to be either or? I don't particularly care for tax cheats either and both are draining on the system. Get serious about both.


It doesn't (and shouldn't be) either or. But we have limited resources and we should allocate our investments in efforts to curb welfare fraud and tax cheats according to their relative importance. From what I can glean from google, tax evasion probably costs us about 20 to 50 times what welfare fraud does, so we should be allocating at least an order of magnitude more effort towards cracking down on the wealthy evading taxes than we do on preventing the poor from collecting more welfare.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> It doesn't (and shouldn't be) either or. But we have limited resources and we should allocate our investments in efforts to curb welfare fraud and tax cheats according to their relative importance. From what I can glean from google, tax evasion probably costs us about 20 to 50 times what welfare fraud does, so we should be allocating at least an order of magnitude more effort towards cracking down on the wealthy evading taxes than we do on preventing the poor from collecting more welfare.


Perhaps its not an issue of resources and more a matter of policy that allows the abuses in either situation. Fixing the problem or improving it may not require more government or expense. Just some simple policy changes that can be handled easily by the existing infrastructure.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's interesting that the discussion still centers around government money cheats.

But, not poverty. I see the distraction still works!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Good point, groove.

It's worth wondering how western society, with it's combined trillions of GDP, still has a poverty problem? How is it that we can justify the valuation of one person's labour as being worth so many orders of magnitude less than another person's labour? Consider the value of the compensation received by the CEO of a major multinational corporation, and that of the sweat-shop worker employed making t-shirts in Bangalor for that corporation to ship halfway around the world and sell.

I'm not at all religious, and I don't believe that different people are equal (although I should add that I think it's important for our legal system to operate on this assumption), but even I can't concoct a defence for such wildly disproportionate allocations of wealth.

{edit to add: When natural systems generate such astonishing dichotomies, we are prompted to wonder and investigate the underlying mechanisms, but there is no ethical question; nature has no intention, so there can be no "good" or "evil." But when our own creations, such as our economy, generate such wildly inequitable wealth distributions, we have to ask wether such inequality is ethically justifiable, and if not, how the system that generates it can be adjusted to better serve the interests of society.}


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it's interesting that the discussion still centers around government money cheats.
> 
> But, not poverty. I see the distraction still works!


Exactly my original point. It will, in many cases, always find this lowest common denominator. Despite claims of the opposite.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

a7mc said:


> To be clear, just because I feel someone is underserving of welfare, I'm not saying they're underserving of _help_. I just don't believe all help needs to come in the form of a lifetime of free money with no proper support on how to get out of the system.
> 
> I believe in welfare, just not how it is today. I believe in helping people, not giving handouts. I believe in self-betterment, and assisting those who need support to achieve it.
> 
> ...


Agreed



iMouse said:


> And that brings us around to Workfare.
> 
> Now there's a loaded issue.


That's whole other thread. Chain gangs comes back to the forefront for me. 
Instead of free food and room and drugs and sodomy. Lets get them to work for it LOL


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Are there no workhouses, are there no prisons?

If we could only return to the good old days. 

If we could only get more temporary foreign workers to lessen the pressure for higher wages and better benefits. Then the go getters can acquire a second and/or third job.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Droll, very droll.

But hardly a solution in today's World.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

I suppose I had my chance to be poor and collect welfare, but somehow I didn't recognize it and missed out.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> Are there no workhouses, are there no prisons?
> 
> If we could only return to the good old days.
> 
> If we could only get more temporary foreign workers to take the pressure for higher wages and better benefits. Then the go getters can acquire a second and/or third job.


We wouldn't need foreign workers if we worked our prisons to their potential.. 
Province gets them to work hard for the crime and everyone wins.

The reason we have foreign labour, because no one wants to plant strawberries in the heat for min wage, that's our problem.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

um. We have foreign workers doing far, far more than planting strawberries I hate to say.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> We wouldn't need foreign workers if we worked our prisons to their potential..
> Province gets them to work hard for the crime and everyone wins.
> 
> The reason we have foreign labour, because no one wants to plant strawberries in the heat for min wage, that's our problem.


Strawberries are planted long before the heat, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oj6Ol0m6RU]How to Grow Strawberries: Planting A Strawberry Bed - YouTube[/ame] harvesting that's during the heat and that's why we get free labour from u-picks. Well except for those lazy bas..kets (yeah that's it) that want to buy strawberries from the store.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Children's Aid Society removes son of Whitby homeless woman
Children's Aid Society removes son of Whitby homeless woman | Toronto Star


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> not going to say what part of Canada, but will say while on vacation I was at a grocery store and this drunk person shows up with a roll of 50s.. during the day - maybe 1 PM..
> 
> buys cigarettes and lottos and chips.. then stumbled in to me and asks Do you you know where I am ? could you Please call a Cab for me, since you have a phone..
> 
> ...


I remember a liquor store in my area years ago. A delivery service would distribute flyers offering to cash the welfare cheques and deliver booze to your door for a fee.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Elizabeth Warren had a good quote about that in relation to business which I believe is applicable here..


Elizabeth Warren's quotes on this matter were incorrect. Infrastructure would have been built regardless of government hijacking and centralizing the process.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Perhaps its not an issue of resources and more a matter of policy that allows the abuses in either situation. Fixing the problem or improving it may not require more government or expense. Just some simple policy changes that can be handled easily by the existing infrastructure.


Yes. We need to decide exactly what represents the poverty line and then ensure that all levels of government--federal, provincial and municipal--add it all up so there is no duplication. And no moving the goal line every time benefits are increased.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I remember a liquor store in my area years ago. A delivery service would distribute flyers offering to cash the welfare cheques and deliver booze to your door for a fee.


Now they have store-fronts that cash cheques ....... for a fee.

Yet no one in politics has the balls to institute debit cards, to replace cheques.

The cheaters don't want the government learning how they spend their 'social assistance'.

And enough bleeding-hearts abound to block any such move.

Rinse and repeat.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

iMouse said:


> Now they have store-fronts that cash cheques ....... for a fee.
> 
> Yet no one in politics has the balls to institute debit cards, to replace cheques.
> 
> ...


That would be amazing if they did LOL
Imagine, the statements 
LCBO, brewers retail, runway 66 LOL
Would match most of the senate statements. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Now they have store-fronts that cash cheques ....... for a fee.
> 
> Yet no one in politics has the balls to institute debit cards, to replace cheques.
> 
> ...


The problem with the debit cards is then the banks would get right in there with nice fees to snatch some of that government money.

Sounds like a few backroom handshakes away...


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm sure the government in power at the time would amend The Bank Act to prohibit such fees.

What bank would be involved, except at a processing level, paid for under agreement with said government.

Whenever they paid for some groceries or necessary items their card would be updated immediately. 

Any founds available since the last use of the card would be added at that time.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Now they have store-fronts that cash cheques ....... for a fee.
> 
> Yet no one in politics has the balls to institute debit cards, to replace cheques.


First, wrong.

Goodbye welfare cheque, hello debit card | Toronto Star



groovetube said:


> The problem with the debit cards is then the banks would get right in there with nice fees to snatch some of that government money.


Second, debit cards save cheque cashing fees (see above article) but there is still a problem of paying rent, since many landlords (aside of the big management companies) don't take debit.... options are direct payment to the landlord from the government, or paying cash, both of which have some issues.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Sonal said:


> First, wrong.


Thank you.

First, 1 in 4, of 22,000, doesn't solve the problem of abuse, even if they all opt in. It just solves the problem of money being bled-off by cheque-cashers.

Second, 3 in 4 still get direct deposit, which prevents the government from knowing just how they spend OUR money. 

Third, what about the balance of recipients above 22,000?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

iMouse said:


> Thank you.
> 
> First, 1 in 4, of 22,000, doesn't solve the problem of abuse, even if they all opt in. It just solves the problem of money being bled-off by cheque-cashers.
> 
> ...


soon as brewers retail becomes public or franchise.. I am buying one and calling it..
cash your cheques and drink.. or maybe 'we cash your cheques for fluid results" :lmao:
maybe even offer home delivery service so they dont waste any money on taxis ..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Thank you.
> 
> First, 1 in 4, of 22,000, doesn't solve the problem of abuse, even if they all opt in. It just solves the problem of money being bled-off by cheque-cashers.
> 
> ...


well, they are doing it, so someone 'had the balls' to do it. 

Well now that we've established that welfare recipients are boozers who cash their cheques at liquor stores, I'm wondering how far we've gotten on the discussion of poverty in general.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I remember a liquor store in my area years ago. A delivery service would distribute flyers offering to cash the welfare cheques and deliver booze to your door for a fee.


Another example of the free market at its finest. Not that I think profit motivated companies should be expected not to take advantage of a lucrative market like that. It's just a good illustration of how the market can be trusted to maximize profit without regard to the social, environmental, or any other considerations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Another example of the free market at its finest. Not that I think profit motivated companies should be expected not to take advantage of a lucrative market like that. It's just a good illustration of how the market can be trusted to maximize profit without regard to the social, environmental, or any other considerations.


I don't think it was even a company, I think it was another guy collecting welfare.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Attempting to micromanage what people spend their welfare cheques on is a losing proposition. Policy needs to focus on the basket of staples money can buy in that area. If the recipient chooses to spend it on beer, cigarettes, cable TV and lottery tickets, that isn't really my business. However, these choices should not be highlighted as a reason why all recipients need to receive more (or less) money.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> If the recipient chooses to spend it on beer, cigarettes, cable TV and lottery tickets, that isn't really my business.


Could I change that opinion if Children are involved, as they often are?

I thought so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Could I change that opinion if Children are involved, as they often are?
> 
> I thought so.


No, you can't change that opinion. At the point where children are not taken care of, the issue isn't that the person is spending their welfare money on beer and ciggies, it's that they're neglecting their children. You can't force them to be good parents.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

True, but you *can* cut them off from their government-paid vices.

Your return I believe?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> True, but you *can* cut them off from their government-paid vices.
> 
> Your return I believe?


And cutting off their money will help the kids?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Rejecting the debit card at P.O.S. for booze and smokes would not hurt the kids at all.

Your service.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

With debut cards there's no cheques to try and cash. They go to an ATM and there's no need for that.

I don't think there is a way to stop anyone from spending their welfare cheque how they want to.

But truthfully, I think the issue of poverty goes far beyond this though.

I don't disagree with others that there's nothing wrong with revising policy to prevent fraud etc. though, last time I checked the penalties are pretty severe.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> With debut cards there's no cheques to try and cash. They go to an ATM and there's no need for that.
> 
> I don't think there is a way to stop anyone from spending their welfare cheque how they want to.
> 
> ...


Have you been on welfare recently?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

groovetube said:


> With debut cards there's no cheques to try and cash. They go to an ATM and there's no need for that.


With debit cards, there is virtually no end to the way using them can be controlled.

Banks, or any cash dispenser, could be rejected by the software.

Think gift cards from major retailers. Can you get cash from them at an ATM? 

This is the 21st Century, right Tim?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Have you been on welfare recently?


why would I need to be on welfare to know that? I wouldn't be eligible for welfare.

I sat in court one day for someone I knew, and saw a pile of fraudulent ei claimants all get jail time. I don't recall if there were welfare ones. But a quick look finds this:
Newsroom : Thousands caught through Harris government's tough welfare fraud measures

Didn't see jail time there, but repeat offenders, probably.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> With debit cards, there is virtually no end to the way using them can be controlled.
> 
> Banks, or any cash dispenser, could be rejected by the software.
> 
> ...


I don't know what you're suggesting here. Preventing them from getting cash at the atm with their welfare debit card? That doesn't make sense.

All I mean is, if in fact they were cashing their cheques at liquor stores, (does the LCBO actually do this??) why would they need to use their debit cards at the liquor store? Why not hit an atm get cash as they are allowed to do and then go to the LCBO. If they use drugs, same thing.

This whole issue is a dead end in regulating how they spend. We found that out with food stamps. Remember those?

Isn't it better to simply revise policy to prevent fraud, and deal with the poverty issue that's greater than simply narrowing our focus (like conservative governments love to do...) to welfare cheats?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

You are assuming that the cards issued will operate as they do now.

This need not be the case.

Every retailer has a card reader, and a modem of some description.

It's not rocket science to extrapolate that no cash need ever be seen via these 'cards', and these people will still be able to get what they need.

OK, not what they want, but then you and I have to actually work for that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> You are assuming that the cards issued will operate as they do now.
> 
> This need not be the case.
> 
> ...


rent? There's lots of things you need cash for. That's not going to work.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

groovetube said:


> rent? There's lots of things you need cash for. That's not going to work.


Who pays rent in cash? That's what cheques or EMT are for. I can't remember the last time I used cash for anything.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lots of people do. When I rented my basement, it was always cash and I gave a receipt.

Cheques and EMT works for people who have bank accounts. Remember, the idea was to address the many welfare recipients who didn't have bank accounts, so how would they write a cheque?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Direct Deposit to the rentor's bank would work.

This could be supported by the staff savings of checking-up of scofflaws.

Suspicious patterns with the card's use could be flagged via an exception program, as is done now to catch CC fraud.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't know. Knowing the rental market in to, not sure how that would be feasible.

It isnt as though many welfare recipients can afford above board rental units. They want cash.

Good luck with that.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Ah, a bonus.

You catch slumlords who are evading income taxes.

Veddy interesting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah, I guess that could be an attempt. But all you're going to do is cause rents to go up on a lot of welfare recipients.

Why do you think illegal apartments are everywhere here?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Red Tory Senator Hugh Segal on addressing poverty in Manitoba with a version of the Guaranteed Annual Income strategy:*

*Crushing poverty: Manitoba pilot project blazed trail*



> For over 40 years, starting at a Tory policy conference under Robert Stanfield’s federal leadership, I have been campaigning for the kind of economic framework that deals with the worst scourge and most serious social and economic threat — the plague of poverty. Poverty is what makes a strong community weak or a coherent society divided. And here in Canada, we can do much better than we have.





> The percentage of Canadians living beneath the Low Income Cut Off — not enough to pay for shelter, heat, clothing, transportation or food, is between nine and 15 per cent. Three million Canadians are trapped in poverty. And the social and economic repercussions affect us all.
> 
> Poor families face an increased risk of illness, dropping out of school, having more to do with the police or prison system. It means illiteracy, substance abuse or family violence.
> 
> To those who argue “the poor will always be with us,” I say there is no bigotry more cruel than that of lowered expectations.





> Welfare has more rules to keep people in poverty than staircases out of poverty. A single mother cannot go to college or university — double dipping. If she finds a job and earns minimum wage, the lost benefits like assisted housing, or dental and drugs for her children, effectively taxes her at the rate of 100 per cent.





> In Dauphin, Manitoba, in the mid-1970s, the governments of Manitoba and Canada undertook an experiment called MINCOME, in which residents were guaranteed that, if crop prices fell, any resident family could be “topped up” in the fall.





> In the MINCOME period, hospital visits, including work-related injuries, domestic abuse and mental health visits dropped by more than eight per cent. Such a drop by today’s standards would save taxpayers $4 billion annually. She also found teens stayed in school longer and education enrolment surged. Teens no longer dropped out of school to contribute to the family finances.
> 
> We should learn from Dauphin and take poverty elimination to heart in the same way we take universal free education or health insurance to heart.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I was thinking earlier today about a radio broadcast I heard this spring CBC Radio One's "Rewind." The show re-visited a broadcast from just after the second world war (WWII) and people on the show were discussing the concept of annual guaranteed wage.

I think if many of the programs, private and public not limited to, child tax credits, short term/long disability, welfare, workers compensation (payment), EI OAS, CPP etc. were funded as they are today with a single payer system, I think there should be significant savings in administration and significant improvements in benefits to our society.

The money is already being spent to fund them, the benefits are being paid out today and problems ensue when people move from one system to another scheme.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

John Clay said:


> Who pays rent in cash? That's what cheques or EMT are for. I can't remember the last time I used cash for anything.


You'd be surprised. 

Definitely, though, the lower income the tenants, the more likely they pay in cash....


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

To get a sense of poverty in Canada we should look at the rise of Food Banks.



Wikipedia said:


> The first food bank in Canada opened its doors in 1981 in the city of Edmonton, Alberta.[3] In 1987, the Canadian food bank community created the Canadian Association of Food Banks to represent food banks nationally.[4]
> There are now over 700 food banks and 3,000 food programs available in Canada.[5]
> In 2008, HungerCount reported that on average, 704,414 individuals used a food bank per month. Other HungerCount 2008 numbers include:
> 37% of those assisted are children under the age of 18
> ...


Food Banks Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Food Banks Canada said:


> Research
> 
> Each year, we conduct original research on the subject of hunger and low income in Canada.
> 
> ...













> Hunger Count 2011
> 
> Food Banks Canada - Research
> 
> ...


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Food banks provide food for people who misspend their welfare funds on other things.

They can, and are, abused as well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMouse said:


> Food banks provide food for people who misspend their welfare funds on other things.
> 
> They can, and are, abused as well.


They also provide food for those in true need, many who do not receive any sort of social assistance. I volunteered at a local food bank and saw the true need and sincere appreciation from those who were able to get some food, especially if they had children.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> They also provide food for those in true need, many who do not receive any sort of social assistance. I volunteered at a local food bank and saw the true need and sincere appreciation from those who were able to get some food, especially if they had children.


This is just another scheme that the leechers use. 

To whit ...



BigDL said:


> The money is already being spent to fund them, the benefits are being paid out today and *problems ensue when people move from one system to another scheme.*


Don't for a minute think that I decry legitimate use of Food Banks!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMouse said:


> This is just another scheme that the leechers use.
> 
> To whit ...
> 
> ...


I know some of these persons who you might call "leechers", and they are far from that in that they are part of the working poor. I have actually hired one of them to do some work around my home to help me and to help him when he was laid off for two weeks.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Food banks provide food for people who misspend their welfare funds on other things.


Like housing? Clothing? Heat?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Do you seriously consider that "misspent"?

Very sad response. The good ol' black & white reply.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Like housing? Clothing? Heat?


Sadly, many of the working poor here in St.John's find that rents are getting so high that they have to cut back on either food or heat, with clothing not a priority. I have donated many of my fairly new winter clothes to my wife's organization which helps these people go out and get/keep employment. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Do you seriously consider that "misspent"?
> 
> Very sad response. The good ol' black & white reply.


No I don't.

I was responding to your allegation that welfare recipients using food banks are misspending their funds on what I assume you meant as drugs or booze.

My contention is that they use food banks because they have very little left after paying for all the other necessities and that's why they use food banks.

Comprende?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

groovetube said:


> I don't disagree with others that there's nothing wrong with revising policy to prevent fraud etc. though, last time I checked the penalties are pretty severe.


Talk to people who work on the front lines with assistance recipients. Especially ones that actually have to write up the fraud reports, and go to the hearings. 

Here in Manitoba at least, not only is fraud rampant, but the vast majority of the offenders get off completely scott free. Never mind not getting charged, very few even get their benefits cut off.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

John Clay said:


> Who pays rent in cash? That's what cheques or EMT are for. I can't remember the last time I used cash for anything.


Many welfare recipients in Manitoba have their rent paid directly -- they never see that money, so they can't "accidentally" misspend it. It's a good policy, IMO. 

A debit card only benefit policy could really help people who really have trouble budgeting. Workers would be able to sit down with he client with an itemized list of all spending, and pinpoint the problem areas that either need to be re-proritized, or might need some other kind of help that was overlooked.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

A good idea, but labour intensive when we would prefer less costly government.

A better one would be a quarterly(?) statement, produced by table-driven software, to highlight areas of concern.

Production and mailing facilities already exist within the Federal Government.

Exception reports could pop out to the bureaucrats in the event of someone not even trying.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Taking this back to the (original, intended) world stage focus:_

*ENDING POVERTY*

The Economist recently used World Bank figures showing that 1.1 billion people today live in absolute poverty, a reduction of almost a billion since 1980. “Take a bow, capitalism,” The Economist said.

In a previous blog I showed how the Bank’s statistics on absolute poverty have been manipulated over the years, consistently raising the 1980 base number to as much as 1.9 billion, and then claiming success in lowering it to a figure that has in reality remained stubbornly persistent over three decades. According to contemporaneous World Bank data, 1.1 billion people lived in absolute, grinding poverty in 1980, and the number is the same today.​
(Ottawa Citizen)


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

You won't agree, but we should take care of our own first, *THEN* help the rest of the World.

They are living in areas that cannot possibly sustain continued population growth.

That has to be a part of the solution.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> According to contemporaneous World Bank data, 1.1 billion people lived in absolute, grinding poverty in 1980, and the number is the same today.[/INDENT]
> 
> (Ottawa Citizen)


This is a remarkable improvement, since the world's population has increased dramatically since then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> You won't agree, but we should take care of our own first, *THEN* help the rest of the World.
> 
> They are living in areas that cannot possibly sustain continued population growth.
> 
> That has to be a part of the solution.


Amen.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> You won't agree, but we should take care of our own first, *THEN* help the rest of the World.
> 
> They are living in areas that cannot possibly sustain continued population growth.
> 
> That has to be a part of the solution.


Nice. No consideration given for the fact that the West's economic, political and military policies are at the root of much of the poverty and ungovernability that exists in the "developing world", then? 

You know - things like the U.S. overthrowing the democratically elected government in Guatemala when it attempted to redistribute unused land (nationalized from the United Fruit Company) so that Guatemalans could make their own living. Read up on the Dulles brothers - one the head of the CIA, the other on the board of United Fruit - who helped organize that little coup.

Whenever a government has attempted to follow a path the USA didn't like, the saboteurs, mercenaries, troops and "aid" arrives to show them the "proper" way to go. The U.S. and its allies continue to keep the borders open to trade for their corporations, stifling local production and self-sufficiency, all the while decrying the savages for their inability to learn how to be democratic. It is to laugh.

Our wealth is based on their poverty. Just like the poverty of Canadians is the basis for the wealth of the 1%. The pie can only be sliced so many ways, and guess who's holding the knife?

I'm actually opposed to much of what is considered "aid" to the developing world in any case. Food aid often undermines the local market (why break your butt growing food when sacks of Monsanto USA grain are handed out freely?). Ever-more the local economy's ability to provide for its citizens is destroyed, "globalizing" the supply. On top of that add the cultural programming that makes anything with a USA or western logo on it so much more valuable than local products.

I'd be in favour of eliminating all forms of international aid. IF the global trade regime was scrapped and countries were able to compete / trade without coercion and with the ability to protect local industry without penalty from the WTO, etc.

Solidarity, not charity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Nice. No consideration given for the fact that the West's economic, political and military policies are at the root of much of the poverty and ungovernability that exists in the "developing world", then?
> 
> You know - things like the U.S. overthrowing the democratically elected government in Guatemala when it attempted to redistribute unused land (nationalized from the United Fruit Company) so that Guatemalans could make their own living. Read up on the Dulles brothers - one the head of the CIA, the other on the board of United Fruit - who helped organize that little coup.
> 
> ...


CubaMark, what I am referring to, though I can't speak for iMouse, is living on land that can't support an individual because it is not arable.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> CubaMark, what I am referring to, though I can't speak for iMouse, is living on land that can't support an individual because it is not arable.


And historically, the land that is arable is forcibly taken from its original occupants, who are turned into rural-urban refugees. This isn't something that happens once in awhile - it's a massive, decades-long process of thievery and often murder to displace / dispossess peasants from their productive lands. 

The scale of it is astounding, as is the total ignorance of those in the North who benefit from the massive expansion of economies of scale by global agribusiness. Companies work hand-in-hand with local elites and militaries to obtain the land, then, if they haven't outright slaughtered the former occupants or driven them to the cities, they hire them at poverty wages to work the land that used to belong to them, generating enormous profits for the foreign company.

But hey, they should all just learn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right? Except most of 'em have nothing more than sandals made of old car tires... if they have that much luxury...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> They are living in areas that cannot possibly sustain continued population growth.


That, by the way, is an old and discredited assertion. There is the argument that when looking at consumption, it is the growth of populations in the North (though with declining birthrates, this occurs more today via immigration) that lead to a greater strain on the earth's resources, in terms of consumption of raw materials and the generation of pollutants and waste (the latter of which - particularly in the consumer electronics sector - is shipped back to the south much to the detriment of those populations).

Large families in the South are by and large a survival strategy, given mortality rates of children... parents want to ensure that at least some of their kids reach the age where they're able to labour and help support the family, and the parents in their old age.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*We are no longer a prosperous country*



> _A homeless man eats breakfast on the street in Vancouver_





> A staggering 14 per cent of the population is now considered low-income, according to Statistics Canada. A closer look reveals that this includes one out of every six children (16.3 per cent). Many are single-parent families, usually headed by women. And among seniors living alone, close to 30 per cent of them are low-income.
> 
> Clearly, this poverty is widespread.
> 
> ...





> To get the economy back on the path to sustained growth, here are six policy proposals:
> 
> 1) The government must adopt a policy of full employment. .....
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The definition of poverty is constantly altered to present a crisis. Just keep moving the goal posts! Most of the definitions of poverty no longer include the contribution of government programs. 



> 1) The government must adopt a policy of full employment. .....


Welfare...



> 2) The government must adopt more infrastructure spending. ......


Why--so the construction market can get more overheated?



> 3) The Bank of Canada must hold off on talks of raising interest rates well into 2016 or maybe 2017. .......


Why?



> 4) The Canadian dollar is overvalued, and we must allow the Canadian dollar to sink lower, and settle closer to $0.80. ........


Doing that on its own. But why target it at 80 cents--at best this is a floating figure.



> 5) We must adopt stricter bank lending regulations. While this has not been as much of an issue in Canada, we must put these regulations in place now. In the U.S., loose........


Stricter lending regulations and low interest rates (above) that nobody can take advantage of because of stricter regulations--got it.



> 6) Finally, we must also address the elephant in the room: income inequality. ......


"Progressives" are great at equalizing income--by making sure we all earn less.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

""Progressives" are great at equalizing income--by making sure we all earn less. " Macfury, there shall never be an "equalizing" of income, just as there shall not be an equalizing of hunger, or the lack thereof. I would like to see a social safety net where there is no true hunger ........ even if it means paying more in taxes. I especially want this social safety net directed to pre-natal and post-natal care of infants. It is shocking to live in a country where there is so much childhood poverty and hunger.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's already there. The great thing about a social safety net is that it is designed with massive holes, so that its operation is self-perpetuating.



Dr.G. said:


> I especially want this social safety net directed to pre-natal and post-natal care of infants. It is shocking to live in a country where there is so much childhood poverty and hunger.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *We are no longer a prosperous country*
> 
> (CBC)


So what political, social, economic and cultural engineering do you propose to address the issues that you raise that would not bankrupt the country and still keep us compliant with a multitude of international trade agreements, treaty agreements, rules, regulations, the WTO, etc. etc. etc.?

The thing about being in Opposition is that it is all too easy to complain to make headlines. But when it comes to creating actual substantive policy that is not "pie in the sky" thinking that would stand up to a "litmus" test of real world pragmatism, there is precious little.

So how would you propose to "fix" things CM in a manner that would allow us to be compliant with our international obligations and not bankrupt us in the process?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That photo looks like it was taken in 1977.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> That photo looks like it was taken in 1977.


Like Fien Wine, 77 was a good year for Rolls!


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

A certain percentage will always be considered low income, no matter how much they make, because it's always relative to how much the high incomes are. It's a meaningless statistic. If 80% of the country were billionaires, the ones who are "only" millionaires would considered low income.

The truth is, Canadians have no idea what poverty is. Given the time you've spent in third world countries, Mark, you of all people should be fully aware of this.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Wealth and poverty live side by side. Throughout the world places with the most billionaires are loaded with homeless and downtrodden disadvantaged people. Canada is loaded with an unacceptable amount of working poor and other people who would love to get out of their situations but have no idea what to do.

Canada faces a 'crisis' on aboriginal reserves: UN investigator | CTV News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, what should we do about it? How much money do you want to give the poor?



MazterCBlazter said:


> Canada is loaded with an unacceptable amount of working poor and other people who would love to get out of their situations but have no idea what to do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> *Wealth and poverty live side by side.* Throughout the world places with the most billionaires are loaded with homeless and downtrodden disadvantaged people. Canada is loaded with an unacceptable amount of working poor and other people who would love to get out of their situations but have no idea what to do.
> 
> Canada faces a 'crisis' on aboriginal reserves: UN investigator | CTV News


No they don't, actually in general they live quite some distance from one another. That is why poverty for the affluent is easy to ignore because they aren't reminded of it every day.

Where we live it is a neighbourhood of mixed incomes that formed organically over time so we have a mix of well to do people living along side those who are less well to do, but it is the exception and not the rule.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Well, what should we do about it? How much money do you want to give the poor?


We have parasitic businesses throughout Canada and the USA owned by billionaires that have their workforce needing tax funded and charity handouts just to survive. 

If those businesses paid their workers a living wage we would have a lot less working poor. 

Canadians especially need to seek out Canadian made products and services that employ Canadians and boycott the rest of them, wherever possible. Good quality products are available at fair prices and easy enough to find with a quick online search. Take less vacations outside of the country and more within the borders. 

If we keep closing our factories, getting our stuff made in overseas sweatshops, using overseas call centres, and bringing in TFWs, pretty hard to place unemployed and underemployed people into decent lines of work. 

Don't like people being on welfare? Stop buying crap made overseas you can buy made within the borders by your countrymen, and boycott those places full of TFWs that throw Canadians resume's into the garbage.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Take less vacations outside of the country and more within the borders.


I'd like to address this one point.

I typically don't do much as far as organized holidays are concerned. If I have a break in work for a couple days or longer I'll jump on the back of the bike & head out. Loves me some twisty roads so that rules out anything local & east of here. That means I head to the mountains, either north or south of the border.

If I head into BC I get nailed with PST on top of already premium prices for food, fuel, repairs, campgrounds, hotels, beer, groceries. The service in many places is mediocre at best.

If I head into Montana there is no sales tax, I can get a great burger & fries for 6 bucks, fuel is 30-40% cheaper, campgrounds are dirt cheap & every bit as nice, many hotels are significantly less, excellent craft beer is half what fizzy yellow swill is in Canada and all of this despite an exchange rate that can sometimes be 20%. I find the service in Montana is usually head & shoulders above what I typically get in BC. The people are friendly, helpful & kindred spirits.

If my holiday is simply easier in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho or Washington and 40% less expensive, why would I go anywhere else?

And, no, it isn't all about the money, although that is a big part of the equation. Especially if we pack up everyone & hit the road in the 'Burb for 10 days or two weeks.

I'll run into BC on the bike but before I hit the border I'll fuel up, get groceries & buy beer in Alberta & then keep my purchases to a minimum after I cross.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Vacationing inside the country seems like an odd idea to me. Why would you want more of what you already have? Same businesses, same products, same culture, same taxes, etc...

Then there's the weather. When I want a mid-winter break, I want sunshine, beaches, palm trees. etc. I also want a place that is largely unstained by western commercialization. I want to see how those people really live, eat what they really eat.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

FeXL said:


> I'd like to address this one point.
> 
> I typically don't do much as far as organized holidays are concerned. If I have a break in work for a couple days or longer I'll jump on the back of the bike & head out. Loves me some twisty roads so that rules out anything local & east of here. That means I head to the mountains, either north or south of the border.
> 
> ...


I understand what you mean. You found that when you go elsewhere and your dollars go further and you have a better time with people more like yourself that you connect with better than BC. 

To many folks BC stands for Bring Cash and Bitchy Columbia, and probably a few other negative expletives. 

I patronize local businesses and spend cash when possible. However, sometimes it is just ridiculous. For example: outfitting for an expedition this spring. Some equipment is needed that is made in Seattle has a BC distributor. Direct from the manufacturer one of the items cost $130K US, the BC distributors price for the same item is $225K CDN not including taxes and having a crew pick it up with the Hiab. The base price of the same thing shipped from Edmonton including all fees was under $200K CDN. 

In the end, all the equipment ordered from Edmonton cost $310K CDN total cost right to the door and it got probably got here faster than the BC distributor could get it ready for pick up. The cost in BC for the same damned thing if I sent the crew to pick it up was half a million! One item that needed custom mods was ordered from Seattle, before the Edmonton order was made. It's still tied up in customs.

Other equipment we were checking out for this, cost of one item: $12K US in Seattle, and $25K CDN in BC, not carried in Edmonton, another item: $270K US Seattle, $380K CDN, $300K CDN Edmonton.

When I was into the motorcycle scene in Vancouver I found it less expensive and worth my time to buy parts and get my bikes serviced in Washington state than at the local dealerships despite any border fees.

I am no longer into motorcycling, don't know what things cost comparing Canada vs the USA anymore. If I got back into the scene, as my outlook has changed a bit on this sort of thing, I would try to support locally. But I do recall a lot of parts costing less than half shipped from the USA than the same thing at the local bike shops.

I don't mind paying a little more to support Canadian businesses to keep fellow Canucks employed, but when the price differences hit the ridiculous zone it can be hard to do.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

heavyall said:


> Vacationing inside the country seems like an odd idea to me. Why would you want more of what you already have? Same businesses, same products, same culture, same taxes, etc...
> 
> Then there's the weather. When I want a mid-winter break, I want sunshine, beaches, palm trees. etc. I also want a place that is largely unstained by western commercialization. I want to see how those people really live, eat what they really eat.


Coast to Coast I see big differences in culture and geography etc. When I used travel and work around Haida Gwaii, used to be called the Queen Charlotte Islands, very few Canadians went there. Lots of German tourists, around 75%, in second place were Japanese tourists, after that other Europeans. Far more American went there than Canadians for the awesome fishing, beaches, and scuba diving etc. They loved the place.

I think that most Canadians could not be bothered to check out or learn about parts of Canada they have never been to. I think Canada has excellent untapped potential to really expand winter and cold weather recreation and vacation possibilities, as well as other seasons that could be developed and expanded on Coast to Coast.

When I talk not just to Americans, but people from other countries they seem to know a lot about all the fun places to check out within their borders, the history etc. By contrast, Canadians generally seem to know very little about and have very little interest in learning about and checking out their own country. Too many seem to just want to go somewhere cheap during their vacation to get drunk at night and sleep on a warm sandy beach during the day.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All it needed was some violin music.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hey Mark,

Your cartoon makes a good point. Privilege/affluence can be an undeniable advantage for anyone trying to make it in this world. 
As long as people don't fall for the stereotype that everyone that is successful in worldly terms got there because they were Richard and everyone struggling is there because they were Paula.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Perhaps if Paula's parents weren't paying through the nose for the rising cost of electricity due to increased overhead caused by the implementation of renewables unable to survive in the free market, and if Paula's parents weren't wasting cash to cover subsidies given to their electrical supplier for uncompetitive renewable energy via their taxes, and if Paula's parents weren't hemorrhaging money on taxes frittered away chasing imaginary social issues like anthropogenic global warming, and if Paula's parents' land was being used to grow foodstuffs instead of filling gas tanks Paula's mom wouldn't have to work a second job to keep the family budget in the black.

The end.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The rich folk DO remind me of the public service employees and academics who have guaranteed jobs and are grossly overpaid. Let's start by slashing their wages and evening things up, then helping Paula's parents with the savings.



FeXL said:


> Perhaps if Paula's parents weren't paying through the nose for the rising cost of electricity due to increased overhead caused by the implementation of renewables unable to survive in the free market, and if Paula's parents weren't wasting cash to cover subsidies given to their electrical supplier for uncompetitive renewable energy via their taxes, and if Paula's parents weren't hemorrhaging money on taxes frittered away chasing imaginary social issues like anthropogenic global warming, and if Paula's parents' land was being used to grow foodstuffs instead of filling gas tanks Paula's mom wouldn't have to work a second job to keep the family budget in the black.
> 
> The end.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Perhaps if Paula's parents weren't paying through the nose for the rising cost of electricity due to increased overhead caused by the implementation of renewables unable to survive in the free market, and if Paula's parents weren't wasting cash to cover subsidies given to their electrical supplier for uncompetitive renewable energy via their taxes, and if Paula's parents weren't hemorrhaging money on taxes frittered away chasing imaginary social issues like anthropogenic global warming, and if Paula's parents' land was being used to grow foodstuffs instead of filling gas tanks Paula's mom wouldn't have to work a second job to keep the family budget in the black.
> 
> The end.


Indeed. Because all of those issues have always been with us, as far back in history as there have been poor people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not the "progressive" blight that has infected the world in recent decades.



CubaMark said:


> Indeed. Because all of those issues have always been with us, as far back in history as there have been poor people.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yes. Just like this generations' poverty is caused by the selfsame factors as every preceding one.

Rolling eyes, indeed.

Instead of throwing some trite, off the cuff comment like that, why not try to defend the hundreds of billions spent on global warming & the further tens of trillions wanted? How does all of that factor into Paula's education? 

How many university degrees does $89,000,000,000,000 buy these days, CM? Tell ya what, I'll even do the math. At $50,000 per, that's about 1.78 billion university degrees, about 1/4 of the worlds population.

Any of this opening your eyes yet? No? Let me throw a few more numbers at you then. 

I just visited this site for some population stats. I added up all the males & females aged 18-40. Not many people getting university degrees outside of that demographic, would you agree?

Total is 2.5 billion people on the planet of university age. And, according to the numbers above, 1.78 billion of them would have their degrees paid for with what the UN wants for climate change. I'm betting not all of them want university degrees in the first place, either. The world needs ditch diggers, too. Husbands, wives, waiters, waitresses, whatever. The point is, everyone who wanted a university degree could probably have it.

And, this is only one example (admittedly a rather flagrant one).

You want to know where the money for Paula's education went? Ask the socialists...



CubaMark said:


> Indeed. Because all of those issues have always been with us, as far back in history as there have been poor people.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Hey Mark,
> 
> Your cartoon makes a good point. Privilege/affluence can be an undeniable advantage for anyone trying to make it in this world.
> As long as people don't fall for the stereotype that everyone that is successful in worldly terms got there because they were Richard and everyone struggling is there because they were Paula.


I think I see your point. 

Of course people born with a "gold" spoon in their mouth are going to do better in life at least in material terms. That goes without saying... As will the beautiful, the talented, the lucky, etc. 

This is nothing new... same as it ever was... IMO despite human interventions to try and create some sort of "new world order" where everyone is "equal" it will never be successful, we can try to narrow the gap but there will always be "winners" and losers".

We are not all created equal or exist in an egalitarian society, there will always be privileged classes in human society, just like the rest of nature.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In "progressive" nirvana, government employees and academics are the elite.



screature said:


> I think I see your point.
> 
> Of course people born with a "gold" spoon in their mouth are going to do better in life at least in material terms. That goes without saying... As will the beautiful, the talented, the lucky, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canada experiencing alarming growth in child homelessness*

On any given night, there are about 35,000 homeless people across Canada, and the number of families and children among them is growing at an alarming rate, a new report reveals.

One in every seven users of homeless shelters is a child, according to Putting an End to Child & Family Homelessness, being published Monday by the advocacy group Raising the Roof.

The report shows that family use of shelters has jumped 50 per cent in the past decade, and their length of stay has increased markedly in recent years to an average of more than 50 days.

Further, nightly shelter use is just the tip of the iceberg. About 235,000 people used homeless shelters at some point last year, and that doesn’t include the “hidden homeless” who crash with family and friends, or live in their cars.

All told, about 3.1 million Canadians are precariously housed, living in crowded, sub-standard housing or in unaffordable housing (meaning more than 30 per cent of their income goes to housing costs), and many of them are one rent payment away from homelessness.​







(Globe & Mail)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And yet we waste billions on refugees (and with them likely terrorists) as our own are forgotten. Shame on us all for putting others ahead of our own and especially on The Walking Hair.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> And yet we waste billions on refugees (and with them likely terrorists) as our own are forgotten. Shame on us all for putting others ahead of our own and especially on The Walking Hair.


There is zero connection between refugees and domestic poverty, except in the minds of people who have a major hate-on for refugees. I cannot understand the mindset.

Poverty in Canada existed before we agreed to accept a large block of Syrian refugees. And yet across social media and right-leaning media, they are excoriated for a problem they did not create.

Decades of Liberal and Conservative governments have been in power. The problem of domestic poverty lies at their feet, not at the feet of people who are fleeing persecution, terror and/or war - including wars in which Canadian military forces are participating.

We drop bombs on their homes. They are homeless. Do we bear no responsibility for their welfare in that scenario?

Whatever - move any answers to that discussion to the Refugees thread please.

But if you want to comment on Canadian poverty & homelessness, be mindful of the causes and the lack of responses historically, don't cast blame on the innocent and vulnerable who are seeking a better life.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> There is zero connection between refugees and domestic poverty, except in the minds of people who have a major hate-on for refugees. I cannot understand the mindset.
> 
> Poverty in Canada existed before we agreed to accept a large block of Syrian refugees. And yet across social media and right-leaning media, they are excoriated for a problem they did not create.
> 
> ...


The blame is squarely where I laid it. On we who put less value on our own than the victims of their own governments in foreign lands. Put ourselves first with our own money, then help others. How many destitute Canadians get a couple hundred grand each spent on them?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> The blame is squarely where I laid it. On we who put less value on our own than the victims of their own governments in foreign lands. Put ourselves first with our own money, then help others. How many destitute Canadians get a couple hundred grand each spent on them?


I repeat: Poverty existed before the current refugee crisis.

Where were all the hand-wringing "Oh! Please help our poor and downtrodden!" folks then?

Why are you only being vocal now?

"....victims of their own governments in foreign lands...." You conveniently sidestepped the question: Does Canada have a moral obligation to help the people it has had a hand in displacing?

Obviously I am all for helping our homeless; supporting our veterans; combatting poverty. But as you complain about refugees being given a chance to find a new life on Canadian soil, given your Conservative credentials, just how much complaining would you be doing if Trudeau announced a national low-income housing scheme; a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians; other anti-poverty measures?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Gov't guaranteed annual income schemes and other "anti-poverty measures" are nothing more than welfare programs which ensure the poor stay dependent on handouts and, poor.

Take money from the Globull Warming budget and the Renewable Energy budget and provide education. Create a landscape welcoming to private investment and jobs will result. Give people a hand up, not handouts. There is far more pride & responsibility in one who has their own job than one who is living on some sort of welfare.



CubaMark said:


> ...just how much complaining would you be doing if Trudeau announced a national low-income housing scheme; a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians; other anti-poverty measures?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Why are you only being vocal now?


Because we are spending $billions on strangers and zero on our own? Ever consider that? Must we follow Europe's mistake?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Thousands to receive basic income in Finland: a trial that could lead to the greatest societal transformation of our time*

Finland is about to launch an experiment in which a randomly selected group of 2,000–3,000 citizens already on unemployment benefits will begin to receive a monthly basic income of 560 euros (approx. $600). That basic income will replace their existing benefits. The amount is the same as the current guaranteed minimum level of Finnish social security support. The pilot study, running for two years in 2017-2018, aims to assess whether basic income can help reduce poverty, social exclusion, and bureaucracy, while increasing the employment rate.

The Finnish government introduced its legislative bill for the experiment on 25 August. Originally, the scope of the basic income experiment was much more ambitious. Many experts have criticized the government’s experiment for its small sample size and for the setup of the trial, which will be performed within just one experimental condition. This implies that the experiment can provide insights on only one issue, namely whether the removal of the disincentives embedded in social security will encourage those now unemployed to return to the workforce or not. 

Still, the world’s largest national basic income experiment represents a big leap towards experimental governance, a transformation that has been given strong emphasis in the current government program of the Finnish state. Additionally, the Finnish trial sets the agenda for the future of universal basic income at large.​
(More at the link: Business Insider)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Already being tested in Ontario.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Because we are spending $billions on strangers and zero on our own? Ever consider that? Must we follow Europe's mistake?



Funny, but spending money on "our own" homeless and jobless citizens sounds an awful lot like socialism. Funny that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Funny, but spending money on "our own" homeless and jobless citizens sounds an awful lot like socialism. Funny that.


It is socialism. But if you're going to confiscate other people's, it may as well be spent on other citizens. Doesn't mean you support confiscation.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It is socialism. But if you're going to confiscate other people's, it may as well be spent on other citizens. Doesn't mean you support confiscation.



As CubaMark said, I don't recall any anti-progressive folks advocating this view before the Syrian refugees started immigrating here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have always advocated it.



fjnmusic said:


> As CubaMark said, I don't recall any anti-progressive folks advocating this view before the Syrian refugees started immigrating here.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I have always advocated it.


As have I. The only difference now is how much mass immigration has thrown it into sharp relief.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I have always advocated it.



So you're saying you've always advocated socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> So you're saying you've always advocated socialism.


No, I have always advocated minimizing socialism. But when money is confiscated, I would prefer it be spent on citizens. It did not take some recent news item to make me want to see the money spent that way.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No, I have always advocated minimizing socialism. But when money is confiscated, I would prefer it be spent on citizens. It did not take some recent news item to make me want to see the money spent that way.



If you advocate that a certain amount of "confiscated" money be spent on citizens less fortunate than yourself, then you support socialism, even in a limited way. Never pictured you as a bleeding heart before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't support the confiscation. I have a hierarchy for how confiscated money is best spent.



fjnmusic said:


> If you advocate that a certain amount of "confiscated" money be spent on citizens less fortunate than yourself, then you support socialism, even in a limited way. Never pictured you as a bleeding heart before.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I don't support the confiscation. I have a hierarchy for how confiscated money is best spent.



If you don't support the "confiscation," you'd think you'd be against some kind of a hierarchy for how "confiscated" money is spent or rather redistributed among members of a society—you know, that thing the rest of us call socialism. You'd thing you'd be advocating for "confiscated" money to be returned to the confiscees. And yet, here you are, advocating for a redistribution hierarchy. Congrats, Macfury. I always knew you had it in you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do. Haven't seen much money returned though.

.


fjnmusic said:


> You'd thing you'd be advocating for "confiscated" money to be returned to the confiscees.k


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> If you don't support the "confiscation," you'd think you'd be against some kind of a hierarchy for how "confiscated" money is spent or rather redistributed among members of a society—you know, that thing the rest of us call socialism. You'd thing you'd be advocating for "confiscated" money to be returned to the confiscees. And yet, here you are, advocating for a redistribution hierarchy. Congrats, Macfury. I always knew you had it in you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Macfury said:


> I do. Haven't seen much money returned though.
> 
> .


Good for Macfury ............... he has seen the light of progressivism. Welcome to the Club, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Good for Macfury ............... he has seen the light of progressivism. Welcome to the Club, mon ami.



Indeed! Blessed be. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Indeed! Blessed be.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Praise the Lord ........ he has seen the light. As Tiny Tim once said, "God bless us, everyone."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Getting money from the government is never cool. Neither is being forced to give it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

<cough>Elon Musk<cough>...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> <cough>Elon Musk<cough>...


He's a <money grubbing> visionary <on the dole>!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Who is Ana Samways and why is she important enough to have her own thread? Just asking.

Ah yes, Google solves everything, yet another member of the intelligent prog left Aussie media. Impressive.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He's a <money grubbing> visionary <on the dole>!


Too kind by half.

He's an f'ing subisdy farmer, getting rich on the backs of taxpayers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Too kind by half.
> 
> He's an f'ing subisdy farmer, getting rich on the backs of taxpayers.


It's fascinating to me to watch the "little people" fawning over Musk and his pre-ordered non-deliverables. Do they not understand the structure of a Ponzi scheme?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Do they not understand the structure of a Ponzi scheme?


That's precisely why so many Ponzi schemes are successful. An old saw about suckers born every minute comes to mind.


----------

