# Incomes & Recession



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Before reading what follows, take a guess what the percentage of Canadians living in poverty is...*

*Incomes and the Recession*



> Today’s Statscan release “Incomes of Canadians” provides data for 2009 and a partial reading on the impacts of the recession. (I say partial because the 2008 annual average data were impacted by the onset of the recession in the last quarter of the year, and since these impacts continued well into 2010.)
> 
> The data give some sense of the devastating impact of the recession upon working families, and also underline the importance of income support programs like Employment Insurance.





> Despite the increase in EI and other income transfers, the poverty rate for all persons rose from 9.4% to 9.6% in 2009 compared to 2008, and the child poverty rate rose from 9.1% to 9.5%.
> 
> This increase in poverty is disturbing since the 2009 reading really takes us only to the mid point of the recession, which continued into 2010. Even today, we are far from where we were before the recession in terms of the number of workers in steady full-time jobs.


(BehindTheNumbers.ca)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Poverty levels will continue to rise regardless of any social policy because the definition of poverty is constantly revised upwards.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Poverty levels will continue to rise regardless of any social policy because the definition of poverty is constantly revised upwards.


In part, true, Macfury. The expression "harder to make ends meet" is facing more and more people these days. Luckily, there are social safety nets for those truly in need. Still, the middle class is shrinking more and more these days as well.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

One can reasonably argue that people living in poverty today have access to necessities and even luxuries that the Kings and Pharos of antiquity could never have dreamed of. However, it is also clearly the case that the difference in between the wealthiest and poorest in our society is greater than ever before in human history, and that we are seeing increases in both the absolute numbers and the proportion of our citizens who are struggling to survive.

While I do not want to promote unnecessary limitations on personal freedoms, it strikes me that the pursuit and lionization of extreme wealth (i.e. multibillionaires), while allowing ever greater numbers of people to become trapped in abject poverty is a recipe for social unrest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There aren't greater numbers of people falling into abject poverty. The definition of poverty is rising to encompass more and more members of society.

However, if your premise is correct, then the provision of social programs over almost 80 years with massive cost to taxpayers has bordered on complete disaster. Time to disband them and try something else, eh?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Poverty levels will continue to rise regardless of any social policy because the definition of poverty is constantly revised upwards.


Yes given the population explosion it needs constant revision. You are so right number 1.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes given the population explosion it needs constant revision. You are so right number 1.


umm what population explosion... our biggest problem in terms of supporting our social safety net is the aging of the baby boomers, the problem is that the subsequent generation is not "big enough" to be able to support the pension and health care costs that that population bulge is about to impose on the system, from a demographic and actuarial perspective its that "gen X" is not big enough. "Ggen Y" (sometimes called the echo boom) would appear to be but we are still at least 10 years away from our peak earning years for the most part...

As for the poverty rate, yes in absolute dollars the LICO is also being revised upwards but that's because the overall income distribution is widening, ie; the rich getting richer actually drives up where the cut off point ends up being.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Paul82 said:


> umm what population explosion... our biggest problem in terms of supporting our social safety net is the aging of the baby boomers, the problem is that the subsequent generation is not "big enough" to be able to support the pension and health care costs that that population bulge is about to impose on the system, from a demographic and actuarial perspective its that "gen X" is not big enough. "Ggen Y" (sometimes called the echo boom) would appear to be but we are still at least 10 years away from our peak earning years for the most part...
> 
> As for the poverty rate, yes in absolute dollars the LICO is also being revised upwards but that's because the overall income distribution is widening, ie; the rich getting richer actually drives up where the cut off point ends up being.


I guess you don't see poverty on the rise and the correlation of population growth.

Hint 1960 3 Billion people - 2011 7 Billion people.

Too many consumers! Too many **** sapiens to provide clothing, shelter and food.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> I guess you don't see poverty on the rise and the correlation of population growth.
> 
> Hint 1960 3 Billion people - 2011 7 Billion people.
> 
> Too many consumers! Too many **** sapiens to provide clothing, shelter and food.


We're not living in a shortage economy in Canada. You're hearkening to some sort of Malthusian scenario that never happened.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> We're not living in a shortage economy in Canada. You're hearkening to some sort of Malthusian scenario that never happened.


Yes number 1. You are a free man.

The population hasn't doubled in 50 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes number 1. You are a free man.
> 
> The population hasn't doubled in 50 years.


Wealth has more than doubled.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There aren't greater numbers of people falling into abject poverty. The definition of poverty is rising to encompass more and more members of society.
> 
> However, if your premise is correct, then the provision of social programs over almost 80 years with massive cost to taxpayers has bordered on complete disaster. Time to disband them and try something else, eh?


it appears someone has little understand of what poverty means anymore.

For if you have a tv, or a case of beer, you deserve your lot in life then.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Wealth has more than doubled.


Yes number 1. You are not a number. You area a free man.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

It's always bothered me that 'poverty' is defined relative to 'median income' rather than 'cost of necessities of life'. As the median income level goes up, so does the level of 'poverty', irrelevant to the actual relative cost of the necessities of life. 

Of course, then we'd have to define 'necessities', and that's another discussion altogether.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> It's always bothered me that 'poverty' is defined relative to 'median income' rather than 'cost of necessities of life'. As the median income level goes up, so does the level of 'poverty', irrelevant to the actual relative cost of the necessities of life.
> 
> Of course, then we'd have to define 'necessities', and that's another discussion altogether.


has median income outpaced the cost of living?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> has median income outpaced the cost of living?


From the Chief Statistician at Statistics Canada: On Poverty and Low Income


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> One can reasonably argue that people living in poverty today have access to necessities and even luxuries that the Kings and Pharos of antiquity could never have dreamed of. *However, it is also clearly the case that the difference in between the wealthiest and poorest in our society is greater than ever before in human history, and that we are seeing increases in both the absolute numbers and the proportion of our citizens who are struggling to survive.*
> 
> While I do not want to promote unnecessary limitations on personal freedoms, it strikes me that the pursuit and lionization of extreme wealth (i.e. multibillionaires), while allowing ever greater numbers of people to become trapped in abject poverty is a recipe for social unrest.


Source? If it is so *clearly* the case.

Luxury and wealth is relative to the times/society/country in which one lives. There are obviously multiple times more people today than in ancient times, but where is the evidence to indicate that on a per capita basis more people are "poor" now relative to other periods in history.... please provide the evidence.

Income is also not necessarily an indicator of poverty or standard of living... some people live very well with less stuff and less income because they know how to live according to their means and are self sufficient in areas that others have to pay someone else to provide the service or product. Income alone is a very, very poor indicator of "poverty" both in relative and absolute terms.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> In part, true, Macfury. The expression "harder to make ends meet" is facing more and more people these days. Luckily, there are social safety nets for those truly in need. *Still, the middle class is shrinking more and more these days as well.*


Source?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> From the Chief Statistician at Statistics Canada: On Poverty and Low Income


Exactly... good link MLeh.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There aren't greater numbers of people falling into abject poverty. The definition of poverty is rising to encompass more and more members of society.


Hmm. My friend makes $20 above the poverty line, his income has been stable last year to this.

His rent just went up from $700 to $750, tax on services and restaurant meals went from 5% to 12%, a loaf of bread increased by 20% and gas to get to work went up from $1.00 to $1.30. By your reasoning though, the definition of poverty should *not *be adjusted, so my friend is no more poor than he was last year. He'll be glad to know when he is overdrawn by $100 a month this year that at least Macfury doesn't think he is in poverty.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CanadaRAM said:


> Hmm. My friend makes $20 above the poverty line, his income has been stable last year to this.
> 
> His rent just went up from $700 to $750, tax on services and restaurant meals went from 5% to 12%, a loaf of bread increased by 20% and gas to get to work went up from $1.00 to $1.30. By your reasoning though, the definition of poverty should *not *be adjusted, so my friend is no more poor than he was last year. He'll be glad to know when he is overdrawn by $100 a month this year that at least Macfury doesn't think he is in poverty.


Nope. Your friend is definitely doing badly. You can adjust the "poverty line"--but I don't support adjusting the line upward to mask real improvements in relative wealth.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> From the Chief Statistician at Statistics Canada: On Poverty and Low Income


thanks for a link... but a simple answer to the question would suffice


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> thanks for a link... but a simple answer to the question would suffice


Okay ... here's a simple answer: THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Is this like that sterling declaration that there are no absolutes?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Okay ... here's a simple answer: THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER.


I'll read the link when I have some time, and I'm quite certain there are many factors giving different insights to the question. However, I find it hard to believe that understanding whether median income keeps pace with the cost of living to be such rocket science.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Wealth has more than doubled.



Incorrect. Wealth has tripled... 

...for the top 1% of income earners.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

What this country needs is to shed more manufacturing jobs and if the unionized positions are eliminated first more the better.

We can have retail jobs replace the better paying jobs in manufacturing. Part-time full time who the cares as long as the executives and shareholders have a happy retirement. Really that's all that matters. 

Retail jobs can provide economic activity selling us the goods made in offshore factories so we can have a race to the bottom.

Poverty is for those who will not strive above the entry level position and those who will not compete for less, but lots more work for it, thereby to make the grade above poverty. 

Our resident rugged individualist has the *right idea* adjust the yard sticks to have the poverty bound just think they're doing ok. Thought is a powerful tool.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> What this country needs is to shed more manufacturing jobs and if the unionized positions are eliminated first more the better.


Since these jobs require little skill, they are being shipped to the uneducated elsewhere.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> Incorrect. Wealth has tripled...
> 
> ...for the top 1% of income earners.


great time to be rich!!

not so much for everyone else...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Since these jobs require little skill, they are being shipped to the uneducated elsewhere.


While the affluent of the few grows. 

In St. John's NL in the 1970's that city had the most millionaires per capita of anywhere in North America. All the while the overwhelming majority of the population of that province were under employed or unemployed. Some may wish "if we could only return to that reality for the country today." It would meet the approval of the few because they got theirs. And after all that's all that really matters.

Gotta love the "I'm OK Jack" crowd.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> While the affluent of the few grows.
> 
> In St. John's NL in the 1970's that city had the most millionaires per capita of anywhere in North America. All the while the overwhelming majority of the population of that province were under employed or unemployed. Some may wish "if we could only return to that reality for the country today." It would meet the approval of the few because they got theirs. And after all that's all that really matters.
> 
> Gotta love the "I'm OK Jack" crowd.


Oh those greedy-greedies. Trying to keep the money they earned! If only they would give their money to those who haven't earned it, things would be grand!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oh those greedy-greedies. Trying to keep the money they earned! If only they would give their money to those who haven't earned it, things would be grand!


Of course Jack's missed the point.

A society where the majority of the wealth is concentrated with so few is a society that is not well functioning even for the well to do. The more a dollar is spent in a community the greater the economy of the community. 

Get say a Walmart to vacuum the dollars out of community skim off the thick cream and then spend the dollars where and how Jack's certified approval. 

Jack's got his, to heck with the rest, more of the poor to lord over, the better to get cheap labour. Then If they can be uneducated and powerless Jack's a happy camper.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oh those greedy-greedies. Trying to keep the money they earned! If only they would give their money to those who haven't earned it, things would be grand!


yes we all know one human being surely deserves 1000/hour while the next father of 4 busts his back for 10/hr.

Earned. Only an idiot would buy that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Of course Jack's missed the point.
> 
> A society where the majority of the wealth is concentrated with so few is a society that is not well functioning even for the well to do. The more a dollar is spent in a community the greater the economy of the community.


This is the embarrassing reasoning of the Tommy Douglas crowd. Take all the wealth from Canada's "top income earners" and give it to the poor and it will last a few weeks. Health has been restored to the community!

This sort of jealousy is unhealthy, but certainly gets a bug up the asses of socialists.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's the sort of thinking that can only really be paid for.

And BTW, no one has suggested "taking ALL the wealth". But you needed to get it in there. Spice it up. 

Soldier on for the few! You're fighting the good fight there brother macfury!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Wealth has more than doubled.


For some definitions of wealth. What is necessary for our economy to be healthy is for us to recognize that all true wealth is biological. Good food, clean water, clean air, personal security, families, and freedom from disease are all of *real* value. Cars, computers, fancy clothes, etc. are largely ornaments we distract ourselves with, often to our great detriment.

When our economy not only allows, but demands that a very small percentage of the population increase their consumption of unsustainable ornaments (sports cars, personal jets, huge sprawling mansions, etc.) at the expense of many people's ability to obtain things of real value (water, air, security, etc.), we have to recognize that the economy is fundamentally broken.

It is also crucial for us to recognize that the economy is not some force of nature that we cannot control. It is an emergent property of our choices and behaviour. We create the economy, and we should ensure that it serves us, not the other way around.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> And BTW, no one has suggested "taking ALL the wealth". But you needed to get it in there. Spice it up.


Read it again, crazy cat. I said *IF* you took all of it, it wouldn't amount to much. Probably better to let them keep it, so the lefties can use it as propaganda.




bryanc said:


> When our economy not only allows, but demands that a very small percentage of the population increase their consumption of unsustainable ornaments (sports cars, personal jets, huge sprawling mansions, etc.) at the expense of many people's ability to obtain things of real value (water, air, security, etc.), we have to recognize that the economy is fundamentally broken.


No, we only need to recognize that people wish to acquire that which bryanc sees as unnecessary.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

WRT the growing divide between the rich and the poor, screature asked



screature said:


> Source? If it is so *clearly* the case.


It actually surprised me that you would ask for this, as I thought it was 'common knowledge', but very well. 0.2 seconds on Google yields 82 million results of this sort of nature:










The reason for this is that our society (especially during the emergence of neo-concervatisim over the past few decades) facilitates the concentration of financial resources among the richest, while maximizing the ability of the rich to extract money from the poor.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I see the discussion has shifted from 'income' to 'wealth'. I wonder if anyone noticed but me?

There is a subtle yet important difference between the two.

The topic started with income. Income is what you make. Wealth is what you have.

Many people have little income, but manage to end up with wealth because of their personal choices in how to spend that income.

Many people have high incomes, but manage to end up with little wealth because of their personal choices in how to spend their income.

It's interesting ...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> WRT the growing divide between the rich and the poor, screature asked
> 
> It actually surprised me that you would ask for this, as I thought it was 'common knowledge', but very well. 0.2 seconds on Google yields 82 million results of this sort of nature:


Would all Canadians be in that top 5th compared to the population of the rest of the planet?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> WRT the growing divide between the rich and the poor, screature asked
> 
> It actually surprised me that you would ask for this, as I thought it was 'common knowledge', but very well. 0.2 seconds on Google yields 82 million results of this sort of nature:
> 
> The reason for this is that our society (especially during the emergence of neo-concervatisim over the past few decades) facilitates the concentration of financial resources among the richest, while maximizing the ability of the rich to extract money from the poor.


No I know this,  I asked about your historical reference... *this has nothing to do with it.* Read the post! and your own statement;



bryanc said:


> ...it is also clearly the case that the difference in between the wealthiest and poorest in our society is greater *than ever before in human history*,





screature said:


> Luxury and wealth is relative to the times/society/country in which one lives. There are obviously multiple times more people today than in ancient times, but *where is the evidence to indicate that on a per capita basis more people are "poorer" now relative to other periods in history.... please provide the evidence*...
> 
> Income is also not necessarily an indicator of poverty or standard of living... some people live very well with less stuff and less income because they know how to live according to their means and are self sufficient in areas that others have to pay someone else to provide the service or product. Income alone is a very, very poor indicator of "poverty" both in relative and absolute terms.


This shows no historical context whatsoever. Geesh.

Do your really think the Pharaohs of Egypt had less concentration of wealth compared to the slaves that built the Pyramids than what we see today??

This is the second time in as many posts that you have only given a cursory reading of my posts to you. If you don't have the time to actually read and think before posting then please don't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The reason for this is that our society (especially during the emergence of neo-concervatisim over the past few decades) facilitates the concentration of financial resources among the richest, while maximizing the ability of the rich to extract money from the poor.


Large governments of every sort may attempt to do that. Once you grow dependent on them to look after you and give them the power to do that, they pretty much have all of the power they need to do anything else.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I see the discussion has shifted from 'income' to 'wealth'. I wonder if anyone noticed but me?


I get it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Large governments of every sort may attempt to do that. Once you grow dependent on them to look after you and give them the power to do that, they pretty much have all of the power they need to do anything else.


It is also laughable to think that the wealthy today have more power to extract money from the public than monarchies, oligarchies and aristocracies did in more ancient times.

Not only that but the poor today for the most part are not slaves having to do the bidding of their masters and if they perform poorly are whipped or killed. To say that we are in the period of the greatest disparity between the rich and poor in the history of human kind is to have a very poor knowledge of just how bad things were for the poor and dispossessed in the past.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It is also laughable to think that the wealthy today have more power to extract money from the poor than the monarchy and aristocracy did in more ancient times.
> 
> Not only that but the poor today for the most part are not slaves having to do the bidding of their masters and if they perform poorly are whipped or killed. To say that we are in the period of the greatest disparity between the rich and poor in the history of human kind is to have a very poor knowledge of just how bad things we for the poor and disposed in the past.


The left often has a hard time with historical perspective. Would love to see byranc making this point while working as a clay baker on the Eqyptian pyramid project at Cheops, or as a muleskinner in the Old West. Ahh, the good old days!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

groovetube said:


> I'll read the link when I have some time, and I'm quite certain there are many factors giving different insights to the question. However, I find it hard to believe that understanding whether median income keeps pace with the cost of living to be such rocket science.


Basically the link says that Statistics Canada does not measure the level of poverty in Canada because there is no international or Canadian agreed upon standard of measure to measure poverty. Statistics Canada goes on to say that someone in the government is working on developing a standard of measure to measure poverty based on the basket of market items and services approach, and Statistics Canada will use that and provide statistics on poverty when the standard of measure is created.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> It is also laughable to think that the wealthy today have more power to extract money from the public than monarchies, oligarchies and aristocracies did in more ancient times.


Okay, I may have overstated my point. I certainly don't think the world of the past was more egalitarian or better for most people than the modern world. My point was that even the kings and emperors of the past suffered short and uncomfortable lives because of the primitive conditions under which they lived. So it's not that the poor of today have it so much worse than the poor of the past, but that the top of the scale has moved up so far that the disparity is greater.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Okay, I may have overstated my point. I certainly don't think the world of the past was more egalitarian or better for most people than the modern world. My point was that even the kings and emperors of the past suffered short and uncomfortable lives because of the primitive conditions under which they lived. So it's not that the poor of today have it so much worse than the poor of the past, but that the top of the scale has moved up so far that the disparity is greater.


And the bottom of the scale in general has moved up as well, so I don't think the disparity is in fact that much greater if at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> And the bottom of the scale in general has moved up as well...


Particularly in North America, where the poorest citizens lead lives considered enviable by three-quarters of the world.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Particularly in North America, where the poorest citizens lead lives considered enviable by three-quarters of the world.


And Europe and much of Asia.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> And the bottom of the scale in general has moved up as well, so I don't think the disparity is in fact that much greater if at all.


look at the graph I posted above; the disparity has grown by almost a factor of 3 in the past 20 years alone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> look at the graph I posted above; the disparity has grown by almost a factor of 3 in the past 20 years alone.


I don't know what you are seeing but there is no indicator of time in the* graphic* your presented... it isn't a graph at all.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I don't know what you are seeing but there is no indicator of time in the* graphic* your presented... it isn't a graph at all.


this one:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> this one:


Still nothing to see....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't see anything either. It's open to interpretation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is the embarrassing reasoning of the Tommy Douglas crowd. Take all the wealth from Canada's "top income earners" and give it to the poor and it will last a few weeks. Health has been restored to the community!
> 
> This sort of jealousy is unhealthy, but certainly gets a bug up the asses of socialists.





Macfury said:


> Large governments of every sort may attempt to do that. Once you grow dependent on them to look after you and give them the power to do that, they pretty much have all of the power they need to do anything else.


We understand the preference for an oligarchy in Jack's world.

Like Harper the Trailer Park Boys Income Distribution Plan (TPBIDP) is preferred? 

Government largess and focus to address the TPBIDP spent on the buddies of government only. Like the Muskoka Fox's oligarchy funding scheme.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Government largess and focus to address the TPBIDP spent on the buddies of government only. Like the Muskoka Fox's oligarchy funding scheme.


Government largesse is the result of giving over one's personal security to a large bureaucracy. Once the citizenry becomes dependent on government for its health care, retirement and sustenance, it's a game changer. Government becomes too powerful. You can't expect it to do one and not expect it to do the other.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Still nothing to see....





Macfury said:


> I don't see anything either. It's open to interpretation.


lol

you don't see the gap widening?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> you don't see the gap widening?


It's an infinite abyss!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Read it again, crazy cat. I said *IF* you took all of it, it wouldn't amount to much. Probably better to let them keep it, so the lefties can use it as propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Macfury said:


> This is the embarrassing reasoning of the Tommy Douglas crowd. *Take all the wealth from Canada's "top income earners" *and give it to the poor and it will last a few weeks. Health has been restored to the community!
> 
> This sort of jealousy is unhealthy, but certainly gets a bug up the asses of socialists.


In case it wasn't clear what you said.

Always the extreme lunacy to make whatever irrational point....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> In case it wasn't clear what you said.
> 
> Always the extreme lunacy to make whatever irrational point....


Still don't get it? Let it pass.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The left often has a hard time with historical perspective.


That you can make this statement with a straight face, leaves me rather flabbergasted.

The _Left_ is all about historical perspective... the _Right_, in contrast, seems to be all about historical revisionism...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Still don't get it? Let it pass.


yes it was clear. You need to see things in extremes. So whatever you were trying say was moot before you ever hit post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> That you can make this statement with a straight face, leaves me rather flabbergasted.
> 
> The _Left_ is all about historical perspective... the _Right_, in contrast, seems to be all about historical revisionism...


The left is certainly about a _particular_ perspective.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> That you can make this statement with a straight face, leaves me rather flabbergasted.
> 
> The _Left_ is all about historical perspective... the _Right_, in contrast, seems to be all about historical revisionism...


+1 (Like)

...and then there's Jack's revisionism, enter into discussion points made by no one other than the author trying to justify the unjustifiable and indefensible. Jack's right view.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> +1 (Like)
> 
> ...and then there's Jack's revisionism, enter into discussion points made by no one other than the author trying to justify the unjustifiable and indefensible. Jack's right view.


Jack and his ilk view history from the perspective of perpetual victimhood. Not a particularly empowering or ennobling viewpoint, but there you have it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Jack and his ilk view history from the perspective of perpetual victimhood. Not a particularly empowering or ennobling viewpoint, but there you have it.


I think anyone who looks at the victimization that has occurred throughout history, and tries to implement means to prevent such occurrences in the future, is indeed empowering their fellow citizens and undertaking a very noble task. Unfortunately, like most noble callings, it often fails because of the greed and cowardice of the people opposing desirable changes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think anyone who looks at the victimization that has occurred throughout history, and tries to implement means to prevent such occurrences in the future, is indeed empowering their fellow citizens and undertaking a very noble task. Unfortunately, like most noble callings, it often fails because of the greed and cowardice of the people opposing desirable changes.


+1(like)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think anyone who looks at the victimization that has occurred throughout history, and tries to implement means to prevent such occurrences in the future, is indeed empowering their fellow citizens and undertaking a very noble task. Unfortunately, like most noble callings, it often fails because of the greed and cowardice of the people opposing desirable changes.


exactly.

(like)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I think anyone who looks at the victimization that has occurred throughout history, and tries to implement means to prevent such occurrences in the future, is indeed empowering their fellow citizens and undertaking a very noble task. Unfortunately, like most noble callings, it often fails because of the greed and cowardice of the people opposing desirable changes.


Well, if hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you is empowering, more power to ya!

It fails simply because the task of running the lives of others effectively is largely impossible.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Well, if hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you is empowering, more power to ya!
> 
> It fails simply because the task of running the lives of others effectively is largely impossible.


who said anything about "hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you" or "running the lives of others"??

where are you getting this delusional rhetoric?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, if hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you is empowering, more power to ya!
> 
> It fails simply because the task of running the lives of others effectively is largely impossible.


macfury. You have to get your story straight. It's either, hiding behind someone's skirts, or actively doing something about the few with the most power and money who are controlling things to keep it that way.

Throwing out these vague missives of "victimization", "hiding behind skirts" blah blah, they don't have any meaning at all in this context.

But one thing seems abundantly clear, you're very -for- the status quo.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> who said anything about "hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you" or "running the lives of others"??
> 
> where are you getting this delusional rhetoric?


I once knew a marxist-leninist who oddly enough, sounded hilariously similar to macfury.

Funny that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

stick to the doctrine~
protect the script, guard it well
let no logic in


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I often wonder how much of the right winger's fear of social programs stems from the fear that, given a decent chance, those poor folks that are currently begging for my table scraps would be eating my lunch.


----------



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

groovetube said:


> I once knew a marxist-leninist who oddly enough, sounded hilariously similar to macfury.
> 
> Funny that.


In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Antony describes the wound given to Caesar by his close friend Brutus as the “most unkindest cut of all.” I fear, gt, that what you have said of our friend, Macfury, is far worse. For shame. I would support his demand for an apology ........... or pistols at 20 paces.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Duel!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I often wonder how much of the right winger's fear of social programs stems from the fear that, given a decent chance, those poor folks that are currently begging for my table scraps would be eating my lunch.


None at all. The only thing I worry about is the big mama whose skirts they hide behind.


----------



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

groovetube said:


> Duel!


Yes, and I shall be his second, if he shall have me. "Death before Dishonor".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I once knew a marxist-leninist who oddly enough, sounded hilariously similar to macfury.
> 
> Funny that.


I once knew a drummer with fried brain cells who sounded very similar to ...oh, never mind.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're right dr. G, it was pretty bad wasn't it...


----------



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

groovetube said:


> you're right dr. G, it was pretty bad wasn't it...


Yes. An apology should be forthcoming from you ASAP.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, if hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you is empowering, more power to ya!
> 
> It fails simply because the task of running the lives of others effectively is largely impossible.





i-rui said:


> who said anything about "hiding behind someone's skirts and allowing them to make decisions for you" or "running the lives of others"??
> 
> where are you getting this delusional rhetoric?


In...Jack's world all that is penned is truth, the correct reply to thoughts never expressed and everything to guide your life even if it is your own.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> stick to the doctrine~
> protect the script, guard it well
> let no logic in


Nice one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> you don't see the gap widening?


I don't see any evidence for it presented by bryanc which is what we are talking about...
Late night and just get up now, i.e. not following along?

So if you see the gap widening relative to what has been the case in the past maybe you could present some evidence, as thus far bryanc seems to be experiencing "technical difficulties".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I often wonder how much of the right winger's fear of social programs stems from the fear that, given a decent chance, those poor folks that are currently begging for my table scraps would be eating my lunch.


You know I worry about that constantly.... for that matter so should you.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> So if you see the gap widening relative to what has been the case in the past maybe you could present some evidence, as thus far bryanc seems to be experiencing "technical difficulties".


I'm not sure we're looking at the same data. The graph I posted showed the salaries of the CEOs increasing almost 300% over the past couple of decades, while the salaries of production workers increased only a few percent, and the minimum wage actually went down (i.e. the rich got richer and the poor got poorer). How can this be construed as anything but evidence that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> stick to the doctrine~
> protect the script, guard it well
> let no logic in


Yet another trite and thinly veiled piece of self congratulatory poetry Max?

Why don't you call your poems f**you instead of haiku... it would really be much more truthful/accurate and to the point.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> You know I worry about that constantly.... for that matter so should you.


Actually, I'm fairly confident in my ability to make a valuable contribution to society, and I don't worry about the possibility that the people I help get a leg up in life will turn around and victimize me.

Occasionally this turns out to be an error, but I'd far prefer to go through life thinking well of my fellow humans and occasionally be wrong than to live in fear of others and occasionally be right.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'm not sure we're looking at the same data. The graph I posted showed the salaries of the CEOs increasing almost 300% over the past couple of decades, while the salaries of production workers increased only a few percent, and the minimum wage actually went down (i.e. the rich got richer and the poor got poorer). How can this be construed as anything but evidence that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening?


The problem is you posted no graph... listen to what others are telling you it isn't showing up...!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The problem is you posted no graph... listen to what others are telling you it isn't showing up...!


Damn.  And here I thought you were just being intentionally obtuse... sorry.

Here's the link as plain text:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Damn.  And here I thought you were just being intentionally obtuse... sorry.
> 
> Here's the link as plain text:
> 
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif


It says:



> Forbidden
> 
> You don't have permission to access /whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif on this server.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Damn.  And here I thought you were just being intentionally obtuse... sorry.
> 
> Here's the link as plain text:
> 
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif


Sorry dude but your data must be so esoteric as to be too sensitive for viewing by the "common man"... Conspiracy theory anyone...?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Yet another trite and thinly veiled piece of self congratulatory poetry Max?
> 
> Why don't you call your poems f**you instead of haiku... it would really be much more truthful/accurate and to the point.


keep up the good work!
but where is your badge, my friend?
well, whatever, eh


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Sorry dude but your data must be so esoteric as to be too sensitive for viewing by the "common man"... Conspiracy theory anyone...?
> 
> View attachment 20358



What will he find there? His destiny...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Actually, I'm fairly confident in my ability to make a valuable contribution to society, and I don't worry about the possibility that the people I help get a leg up in life will turn around and victimize me.
> 
> Occasionally this turns out to be an error, but I'd far prefer to go through life thinking well of my fellow humans and occasionally be wrong than to live in fear of others and occasionally be right.


that's pretty much what I'm reading into this fear being expressed by a few here.

My god, you mean there'll be more at the table eating the same food as me?

The horror!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> keep up the good work!
> but where is your badge, my friend?
> well, whatever, eh


No badge.... just eyes to see and a brain to think with.... despite your allusions to the contrary.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

a jolly riposte~
and uncommonly light, too!
one can always hope.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Actually, I'm fairly confident in my ability to make a valuable contribution to society, and I don't worry about the possibility that the people I help get a leg up in life will turn around and victimize me.


Then you should make these decisions personally instead of attmpting to collectivize the risk.



bryanc said:


> Occasionally this turns out to be an error, but I'd far prefer to go through life thinking well of my fellow humans and occasionally be wrong than to live in fear of others and occasionally be right.





> Thidwick, a moose who lives in a herd "about sixty or more" , accepts a bug living on his antlers for free, who tells a spider of the free housing, and both accept a "Zinn-a-zu" bird. The herd rejects Thidwick after the Zinnazu bird's wife, a woodpecker, and four squirrels move in. After a bobcat and turtle settle, winter moves in, and although food is scarce, they refuse to let him travel to the other side of the lake. Thidwick realizes that he has lost his autonomy and that the collective in his antlers has forced him to support them. Pressure hits the poor moose after three mice, a fox, a bear, and 362 bees move in on his antlers, but trouble switches thoughts fast after seeing hunters who "must get his head for the Harvard Club wall". When Thidwick is trapped after an attempt to escape, he suddenly remembers that antler-shedding season has arrived. He bucks the antlers off, leaves the freeloaders at the mercy of the hunters and swims to the other side of the lake to rejoin his herd. His antlers, and the former squatters, are stuffed and mounted.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> a jolly *riposte*~
> and uncommonly light, too!
> one can always hope.


Keep 'em commin'... the more you post the more you prove my point....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Then you should make these decisions personally instead of attmpting to collectivize the risk.


you mean like how the wealthy do it in government.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max seeing as you have demonstrated an unwillingness to appreciate plain language...

You say I'm a cop
You seem to see yourself a judge
Who claims to have authority


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you mean like how the wealthy do it in government.


Do you understand collectivism?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Max...
> 
> You say I'm a cop
> You seem to see yourself a judge
> Who claims to have authority


You tread in my shoes
but your feet surely must smart!
to each his own, yes?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Cronyism more like it


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

lol...


a little modifying the haiku rulz....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> You tread in my shoes
> but your feet surely must smart!
> to each his own, yes?


No not according to Max
We all must abide what is Max
Else we suffer his scorn


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> lol...
> 
> 
> a little modifying the haiku rulz....


No the rulz are not according to haiku... they are according to f**kyou...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Sorry dude but your data must be so esoteric as to be too sensitive for viewing by the "common man"... Conspiracy theory anyone...?
> 
> View attachment 20358


That is bizarre. It works fine for me.

But feel free to google "growing divide between rich and poor" and pick any of the millions of other results. There simply is no question that this has and is occurring, which is why it surprised me that you wanted a link in the first place.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bryanc said:


> That is bizarre. It works fine for me.
> 
> But feel free to google "growing divide between rich and poor" and pick any of the millions of other results. There simply is no question that this has and is occurring, which is why it surprised me that you wanted a link in the first place.


i also can easily see the graph, although it briefly went offline just now. seems to be fine again...

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Do you understand collectivism?


It appears you'd prefer a different definition


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

@#$%, don't any of you work for a living?


----------



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

kps said:


> @#$%, don't any of you work for a living?


I do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I did every day of my life since grade school and still do, albeit more modest now on a web site at four hours a day to supplement my pension.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> @#$%, don't any of you work for a living?


Some days it would seem
that working is all I do~
playing's zestier

And for Screature:

scorn, you would call it!
I wonder how your skin is?
thickness is preferred.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

too many posts
overloads the mind
back to work


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not me! I am done work so I'm free to continue. Alas, dinner beckons. Dinner and a beer. And it's payday and it's one day closer to the blessed weekend. Small miracles, as they say.

Threads like these I call zombie threads. They never really die.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i also can easily see the graph, although it briefly went offline just now. seems to be fine again.../QUOTE]
> 
> To what does it refer? We don't have a federal minimum wage.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i also can easily see the graph, although it briefly went offline just now. seems to be fine again...
> 
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif


Still a link fail here...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Some days it would seem
> that working is all I do~
> playing's zestier
> 
> ...


ahh yes thick of skin
alas so feeble of mind and substance
oh bliss and such joy


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

now that's the spirit!
learn to flow along, babbling brook~
you will soon loose ire


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> @#$%, don't any of you work for a living?


only the ones giving the quick posts. The others screeching for proof and off googlin'. Not so much I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> only the ones giving the quick posts. The others screeching for proof and off googlin'. Not so much I guess.


You're the one "screechin' fer pruf" though you're not much at Googling.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You're the one "screechin' fer pruf" though you're not much at Googling.


maybe you should have another crack at that.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*Too many Canadians live in poverty.*



CubaMark said:


> *[I... take a guess what the percentage of Canadians living in poverty is...[...)*


*

Too many Canadians live in poverty. 

When I take advantage of public transit in the Big City (as we villagers call Victoria), I often witness individuals and couples who struggle to pay the bus fare. A lot of people rely on the thrift stores for basics like clothing. The food banks are overwhelmed by hungry people. There are disabled people panhandling. Even in the downtown of affluent Vancouver, I have witnessed people lining up patiently and politely for free bread. I have lots more observations of poverty in Canada, but i am sure all of you do, too. I offer this as is empirical evidence of poverty in our country.*


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> i-rui said:
> 
> 
> > i also can easily see the graph, although it briefly went offline just now. seems to be fine again.../QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> for the truly ignorant citizen
> minimum wages paid in federally regulated workplaces
> no longer a singular rate
> 
> Part III Divsion II Section 178Canada Labour Code


Why use that as a proxy for a national minimum wage? The "federal minimum wage" is the same as the provincial minimum wage in each province. That is a "truly ignorant" statistical choice.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*Poverty in Canada*



Macfury said:


> Why use that as a proxy for a national minimum wage? The "federal minimum wage" is the same as the provincial minimum wage in each province. That is a "truly ignorant" statistical choice.


Have I misread the subject thread? I thought it was about the very real crisis of poverty in our country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> Have I misread the subject thread? I thought it was about the very real crisis of poverty in our country.


You have not read the thread fully. bryanc posted a chart regarding distribution of income using the "federal minimum wage" as a value. I don't believe the chart refers to Canada because we have no single federal minimum wage.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> To what does it refer? We don't have a federal minimum wage.


the graph is specific to US CEO's, but the trend would be echoed in Canada as well.



screature said:


> Still a link fail here...


you still couldn't see the graph even after i attached the gif in the post?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Too many Canadians live in poverty.
> 
> When I take advantage of public transit in the Big City (as we villagers call Victoria), I often witness individuals and couples who struggle to pay the bus fare. A lot of people rely on the thrift stores for basics like clothing. The food banks are overwhelmed by hungry people. There are disabled people panhandling. Even in the downtown of affluent Vancouver, I have witnessed people lining up patiently and politely for free bread. I have lots more observations of poverty in Canada, but i am sure all of you do, too. I offer this as is empirical evidence of poverty in our country.


Here are my observations on this "crisis" you speak of. Each summer, I see the intersections of Toronto swell with the presence of panhandlers and "squeegee kids" from all over the place who intimidate and threaten people into giving them money. Probably make more in 4mo. than I make in a year. I used to witness people park their late model cars and walk to the food bank to collect their goods. Street people are on the streets because they want to be, some others suffer from mental illness and should be treated. I have witnessed people line up for sh** because it was free and not because they needed it. Just like the gluttons at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

This is a free country, with freedom of movement. There are jobs to be had for those willing to work and/or move. There are plenty of government programmes that train and place those willing to work and there is social assistance for those who fell on hard times and need a little temporary help.

What you're perceiving as a crisis is nothing more than pure BS. Have we really come to the point where people can no longer take care of them selves? They need others to do it for them?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why use that as a proxy for a national minimum wage? The "federal minimum wage" is the same as the provincial minimum wage in each province. That is a "truly ignorant" statistical choice.


The federal minimum wage at one time was uniform across this country. The federal minimum wage today as a result of all the pi$$ and moaning and at the behest of those rugged individuals now reflects the provincial minimum wage.

You got your way so don't whine to me that is no longer uniform, but it exists just as you claimed it did not in your statement of I guess feelings or expression of emotion but not based on any provable fact.

PHD information Pilled Higher and Deeper ain't my problem.



Macfury said:


> To what does it refer? We don't have a federal minimum wage.


We do like it or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Here are my observations on this "crisis" you speak of.


I agree completely. I've met a few people who were either ill or mentally ill who required more than bridging assistance.

I have first-hand experience with people on social assistance living down the street from where I used to live. They didn't work and had lots of kids. They smoked like chimneys. They ate fast food, delivered to them each night. They took a taxi to the nearest department store and came back with reams of goods. They invited their boyfriends over for parties several nights per week.

They met the criteria for "living in poverty."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

More of ...Jack's PHD?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The federal minimum wage at one time was uniform across this country. The federal minimum wage today as a result of all the pi$$ and moaning and at the behest of those rugged individuals now reflects the provincial minimum wage.
> 
> You got your way so don't whine to me that is no longer uniform, but it exists just as you claimed it did not in your statement of I guess feelings or expression of emotion but not based on any provable fact.


No, we have a minimum wage applied to federal workers--not a federal minimum wage. And it is not uniform. Therefore that chart refers to some other country.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

anecdotal evidence is always best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> anecdotal evidence is always best.


Anecdotal evidence is an excellent method to prick holes in contentions. If the individual case is true, then the premise does not hold.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> More of ...Jack's PHD?


What on Earth are you talking about?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

kps said:


> ...
> What you're perceiving as a crisis is nothing more than pure BS....


Thank you for this explanation. I will post no more Bull **** in this thread.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Thank you for this explanation. I will post no more Bull **** in this thread.


Oh man....never said your post was bull. What I meant was that the bull is skewing your perception on the so called crisis.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No, we have a minimum wage applied to federal workers--not a federal minimum wage. And it is not uniform. Therefore that chart refers to some other country.


Yes, if you follow the link, you can see that that particular chart is based on US data. Do you have any doubt that the trends are similar in other western countries? And, as I said, that is simply one of literally millions of bits of evidence one could use to support the contention that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.

I don't want to play link-tennis. If you or screature, or anyone else want's to make the case that the gap between the rich and poor is *not* widening, I'm certainly open to evidence, but I'm honestly surprised this is even a topic of disagreement. It seems very well established to me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Yes, if you follow the link, you can see that that particular chart is based on US data. Do you have any doubt that the trends are similar in other western countries? And, as I said, that is simply one of literally millions of bits of evidence one could use to support the contention that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.
> 
> I don't want to play link-tennis. If you or screature, or anyone else want's to make the case that the gap between the rich and poor is *not* widening, I'm certainly open to evidence, but I'm honestly surprised this is even a topic of disagreement. It seems very well established to me.


but that won't stop them from shrill cries for more google links. It could be the most well known thing you could imagine, but unless you sepnd 10 pages of link wars, they're not interested.

en guarde!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If you or screature, or anyone else want's to make the case that the gap between the rich and poor is *not* widening, I'm certainly open to evidence, but I'm honestly surprised this is even a topic of disagreement. It seems very well established to me.


Personally, I would find it irrelevant if all that was happening was that the gap was widening. The gap isn't important to me. I would hope with all of the billions spent on supporting the poor that the money is not so badly wasted that the poor are actually doing worse, relative to what they were doing the previous year or decade. If their level of comfort/wealth remained relatively stable, why would it matter if those in higher income brackets did better? 

Pease don't say "class envy."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Actually the gap is the most important because if it weren't widening so much there would be less need to spend on the problem.

Funny how this works eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Actually the gap is the most important because if it weren't widening so much there would be less need to spend on the problem.


Not at all. You miss the point entirely.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Yes, if you follow the link, you can see that that particular chart is based on US data. Do you have any doubt that the trends are similar in other western countries? And, as I said, that is simply one of literally millions of bits of evidence one could use to support the contention that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.
> 
> I don't want to play link-tennis. If you or screature, or anyone else want's to make the case that the gap between the rich and poor is *not* widening, I'm certainly open to evidence, but I'm honestly surprised this is even a topic of disagreement. * It seems very well established to me*.


It seems well established to me that in first world countries the middle class make up the vast majority of the population, by far. Compare this to previous times in human history and it it is obvious that in general there are more people better off now than at any other time in the history of the world. Sure there are vast discrepancies between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, but the middle is now far better off and larger in numbers than at any other time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Personally, I would find it irrelevant if all that was happening was that the gap was widening.


That's a position I can understand. I don't agree, but that's fine. What I don't understand is arguing that the gap isn't widening.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> It seems well established to me that in first world countries the middle class make up the vast majority of the population, by far. Compare this to previous times in human history and it it is obvious that in general there are more people better off now than at any other time in the history of the world. Sure there are vast discrepancies between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, but the middle is now far better off and larger in numbers than at any other time.


the middle class is shrinking. that's the point. as the gap widens the top end and bottom end are pulling from the middle. for every 1 or 2 that may be lucky enough to "move on up", hundreds of other will sink down.

Bridging the Income Gap: The shrinking of the Canadian middle class



> In 2004, 47.3 per cent of families were middle class, as defined by income, from 52.1 per cent in 1989 — a drop of 4.8 percentage points.
> 
> Canada sits in the middle level of Western countries in terms of income inequality, Statscan said, citing a 2005 study. Moreover, income inequality grew in most industrialized countries such as the Finland, Germany, Sweden and the U.K. in the nineties. The gap widened more significantly in the U.S. in that time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> It seems well established to me that in first world countries the middle class make up the vast majority of the population, by far.


I don't dispute that. And I think that's a good thing. However, current economic policies are eroding that desirable situation by punishing the middle class and poor while further privileging the rich.



> but the middle is now far better off and larger in numbers than at any other time.


Except possibly in absolute terms I think the data does not support this. The (proportionate) decline of the middle class is a phenomenon that is widely perceived as a problem, and it is my contention that this decline is the consequence of the implementation of neo-conservative economic principles (i.e. tax breaks for corporations and the rich) since the 1980's.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Anecdotal evidence is an excellent method to prick holes in contentions. If the individual case is true, then the premise does not hold.


i'm going to have to remember this the next time anyone goes on about unregulated free market industries.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Except possibly in absolute terms I think the data does not support this. The (proportionate) decline of the middle class is a phenomenon that is widely perceived as a problem, and it is my contention that this decline is the consequence of the implementation of neo-conservative economic principles (i.e. tax breaks for corporations and the rich) since the 1980's.


If the contention were true, then you could narrow the gap by hobbling the rich. That would do next to nothing for the poor, but the gap would decrease.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

From my own observations of neighbours on my street and elsewhere in the east end of this town, there's a subset of people whose dependence on welfare and subsidized housing is systemic and highly problematic. I fear that these dependencies and attitudes toward government assistance are being passed down to successive generations. I know of one large extended family, all living under one roof, whose work-capable kids are apparently not seeking work so as to avoid reductions of monthly stipends from the government - who also fear that, should they become too successful in their employment, they might well lose their assisted housing gig.

Some of these houses are in terrible disrepair and their occupants seem indifferent, or, at best, content to wait for government-appointed contractors to eventually get around to fixing their various structural household problems. Yet I know of another family who do their utmost to keep their house spotless and in good repair. They may be on assistance but they appear not to take it for granted and have a measure of pride in how they keep up their home - both inside and out.

Soon the city will sell off these individual detached home properties…. meaning their current occupants will be displaced. The more affirmative, realistic ones will act accordingly; while others will idly wait and see what the government next decides to do with them. It's a strangely passive and altogether unhealthy stance to adopt - yet for some it's the default stance.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> the middle class is shrinking. that's the point. as the gap widens the top end and bottom end are pulling from the middle. for every 1 or 2 that may be lucky enough to "move on up", hundreds of other will sink down.
> 
> Bridging the Income Gap: The shrinking of the Canadian middle class


Pretty old data would like to see something more current, but again as has been indicated by Stats can and many others income alone is an inadequate indicator of standard of living.

But in and of itself if the middle class is continuing to shrink that is obviously not a good thing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here is something that I just found that is much newer and is really a very interesting read as it points out the complexities of the issue.

The secrets of Canada's world-leading middle-class success
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
August 4, 2007 at 12:00 AM EDT



> Herein lies the paradox of the modern middle class: Its existence is reliant on a thriving and open market economy, but its size and sustainability are equally dependent on the tax-and-spend mechanisms of the modern welfare state – which, it turns out, are even more important in globalized, high-competition economies.
> 
> The countries that are doing best are those that spend serious money on cultivating and maintaining a middle class. Many poor countries, despite having developed booming economies during the past 15 years, fail to join the middle-class club because they can't afford to erect government-supported stepladders to success. And countries such as Canada, which can and do spend that money, have done the best at surviving the social turmoil of our age.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. You miss the point entirely.


right, which according to you, seems to be let's not deal with the reasons for the gap and resulting needs for funding, but let's perpetuate the problem and call them "victims".

Please macfury pretend you have great insights on this some more k?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

i-rui said:


> the middle class is shrinking. that's the point. as the gap widens the top end and bottom end are pulling from the middle.


I hate to be picky, but this part is factual, as pulled from your link.



i-rui said:


> for every 1 or 2 that may be lucky enough to "move on up", hundreds of other will sink down.


But this part I don't think is as true. According to the Stats Can report linked to from your link:


> The trend away from the middle-income families was both towards lower-income and higher-income families. The share of people in families with after-tax income below 75% of the median rose by 2.6 percentage points. The share with income above 150% of the median rose by 2.0 percentage points.


The Daily, Friday, May 11, 2007. Study: Income inequality and redistribution

The increase to the lower-income families is 2.6% and to the higher-income families is 2.0%. That hardly describes 1 or 2 to be lucky to move up for ever 100 moving down.

I'm not saying 0.6% is a small problem, it is still a big problem. But I think you made it appear bigger.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Kosh said:


> The increase to the lower-income families is 2.6% and to the higher-income families is 2.0%. That hardly describes 1 or 2 to be lucky to move up for ever 100 moving down.
> 
> I'm not saying 0.6% is a small problem, it is still a big problem. But I think you made it appear bigger.


what you're missing is the lower income bracket greatly outnumbers the high income bracket. so a single percent of the lower bracket represents much more people than a single percent of the "rich".

It may not be 1:100+, i don't know the exact ratio, but it would be grossly imbalanced.



screature said:


> Here is something that I just found that is much newer and is really a very interesting read as it points out the complexities of the issue.
> 
> The secrets of Canada's world-leading middle-class success
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> ...


it's not really "much newer" at all. both articles are from 2007. The stats can link is from may, the article you posted is from august.

To be frank, i don't believe the premise from the article you posted. It doesn't jive that in a couple of months the author would be privy to new data that usurps the data from statcan. In fact i think it's the exact same data, it's just the author is trying to interpret the data to mean something, instead of just looking at the raw numbers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even the notion that the middle class is a creation of government, as suggested by the Globe article, is a rather bizarre contention. The middle class contributes the lion's share of tax money to the government and receives less of it back in any sort of payment/benefit. How does that create a larger middle class?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> right, which according to you, seems to be let's not deal with the reasons for the gap and resulting needs for funding, but let's perpetuate the problem and call them "victims".
> 
> Please macfury pretend you have great insights on this some more k?


I'm not hungry for word salad this morning. Thanks anyway.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Anecdotal evidence is an excellent method to prick holes in contentions.


Not often. Anecdotal evidence can be used as an existence proof if - is someone claims "all of X are Y" and you have met an X that was not Y, then it's something you can use to refute their argument. But if, as is almost always true, the contention is that such and such a principle exists, then anecdotal evidence to the contrary is of no use at all. Just because you may know one or even many individuals that smoked and did not get cancer does not prove that smoking does not cause cancer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> what you're missing is the lower income bracket greatly outnumbers the high income bracket. so a single percent of the lower bracket represents much more people than a single percent of the "rich".
> 
> *It may not be 1:100*+, i don't know the exact ratio, but it would be grossly imbalanced.
> 
> ...


Sorry my bad I was referring to the dates in the article itself I couldn't see the publication date, I see it now. Either way the data is 7 years old would still like to see newer data.

Actually it is 1:2 If you read the article and not just come up with numbers from your imagination.



> Were all these people disappearing from the middle class because they got rich? Or had they failed to find a place on the economic escalator and slipped to the ground floor?
> 
> “There was both upward and downward mobility,” Mr. Pressman told me, “but *downward mobility exceeded upward mobility by around two to one*.”


I am sure that even at this level you consider it grossly imbalanced.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Not often. Anecdotal evidence can be used as an existence proof if - is someone claims "all of X are Y" and you have met an X that was not Y, then it's something you can use to refute their argument. But if, as is almost always true, the contention is that such and such a principle exists, then anecdotal evidence to the contrary is of no use at all. Just because you may know one or even many individuals that smoked and did not get cancer does not prove that smoking does not cause cancer.


Exactly. But if the contention is that all who live below the poverty line are struggling, then this case of conspicuous consumption pricks a hole in that contention.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. But if the contention is that all who live below the poverty line are struggling, then this case of conspicuous consumption pricks a hole in that contention.


Certainly does. Too bad no one was making that claim.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

screature said:


> Sorry my bad I was referring to the dates in the article itself I couldn't see the publication date, I see it now. Either way the data is 7 years old would still like to see newer data.


 
Me too. But that data probably won't be published until next year as Stats Can is probably waiting for the results of this year's census.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Certainly does. Too bad no one was making that claim.


If they are not struggling, then why would it even matter if they lived below some imaginary poverty line? 

A new invention--poverty without pain!

A statistical line, for certain, but one that denotes no particular difficulties for at least some people who live below it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If they are not struggling, then why would it even matter if they lived below some imaginary poverty line?


You seem frequently to have trouble with the few/some/most/all distinction.

No one is claiming that *all* people living in poverty are hard-working descent folk who have been unfairly prevented from succeeding and are suffering unduly, but it is obviously true that many, if not most, are suffering significantly due to their financial situation, and are stuck in that situation at least partly due to circumstances beyond their control.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Actually it is 1:2 If you read the article and not just come up with numbers from your imagination.
> 
> I am sure that even at this level you consider it grossly imbalanced.


1:2 is the worldwide percentage of people changing class. i.e. the upperclass is growing by one percent, and the lower class is growing by 2 percent. *THEY DO NOT REPRESENT AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.* if 100 people = 1% of the rich, it does not mean 2% of the poor = 200 people. That is the ratio i'm talking about. that is the ratio that is grossly imbalanced.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm not hungry for word salad this morning. Thanks anyway.


Predictable response from you macfury. I'm not hungry for your nonsense either.

Grow up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> No one is claiming that *all* people living in poverty are hard-working descent folk who have been unfairly prevented from succeeding and are suffering unduly, but it is obviously true that many, if not most, are suffering significantly due to their financial situation, and are stuck in that situation at least partly due to circumstances beyond their control.


I never made a contention that they were either *all* hard-working, or *all* not hard-working. What I am saying is that one can exist below the poverty line without suffering, then the definition of poverty is off kilter--unless it is just a statistical line below which one is automatically considered "poor" regardless of quality of life.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> You seem frequently to have trouble with the few/some/most/all distinction.
> 
> No one is claiming that *all* people living in poverty are hard-working descent folk who have been unfairly prevented from succeeding and are suffering unduly, but it is obviously true that many, if not most, are suffering significantly due to their financial situation, and are stuck in that situation at least partly due to circumstances beyond their control.


The trouble is, the macfurys of the world can only really see the problem as a big weight on those who clearly deserve such obscenely high salaries and compensation, because they worked for it goddamit!

The poor should learn to live without, and be happy with their lot in life, because afterall, money can't buy happiness, as we all know. And more inportantly, those with less should bloody well stop playing the victim, because it's the obscenely rich who are being attacked, and are clearly the victim!

There's no need for any statistics for this clear line of logic. Though a few snippets from a bit of google link warz couldn't hurt.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> 1:2 is the worldwide percentage of people changing class. i.e. the upperclass is growing by one percent, and the lower class is growing by 2 percent. *THEY DO NOT REPRESENT AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.* if 100 people = 1% of the rich, it does not mean 2% of the poor = 200 people. That is the ratio i'm talking about. that is the ratio that is grossly imbalanced.


Right on queue...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What I am saying is that *if* one can exist below the poverty line without suffering, then the definition of poverty is off kilter.


I inserted the bold 'if' above, because I think that's what you meant. Let me know if you had intended something else.

Again, I think you're mistaken because you're applying binary logic. You're essentially saying that if *some* people can live comfortably in state X, then *all* people can live comfortably in state X. That is not logically consistent. Individuals have different needs.

I have a friend who won a prestigious and lucrative scholarship as a graduate student, and every year he'd take his cheque and invest every last dime of it in the stock market. He said he didn't need money to live on; he lived in a lean-to or tree fort in the forest on campus (except during the winter, when he'd couch surf), got around on a bike he built out of parts he scavenged from dumpsters, wore clothing that had been given to him (which he modified in various idiosyncratic ways) and lived on food he'd obtain by various means (such as cooking for others and ensuring he got a serving, going to the Hare Krishnas' free kitchen, etc.). So living in poverty was not a terrible hardship for this guy (and he did very well with his investments - all green technology stocks). But how many people do you think would find living in a lean-to in the forest anything other than a hardship?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I inserted the bold 'if' above, because I think that's what you meant. Let me know if you had intended something else.
> 
> Again, I think you're mistaken because you're applying binary logic. You're essentially saying that if *some* people can live comfortably in state X, then *all* people can live comfortably in state X. That is not logically consistent. Individuals have different needs.


Getting closer. What I'm saying is that if some can live comfortably, even well, while living below the poverty line, then the line itself needs re-examining. What are we measuring here? Income? Ability to purchase? Some nebulous quality of life? 

I take issue with the poverty line moving around with abandon, always encompassing a larger and larger percentage of the population, or encompassing a group of people with lives remarkably better than those below the poverty line 10, 20, or 50 years ago. 

Without accurate metrics, effective public policy is not possible.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Don't you just hate (or that too strong a word) it, when reality crashes in on top of ideology?

In the ideological world everything fits into boxes, little boxes, all the same.

Don't let facts get in the way of a ripping good yarn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Don't you just hate (or that too strong a word) it, when reality crashes in on top of ideology?
> 
> In the ideological world everything fits into boxes, little boxes, all the same.
> 
> Don't let facts get in the way of a ripping good yarn.


The "war on poverty" is an ideological battle--of some sort. The notion that we can spend billions upon billions of dollars that had never been spent before to combat it, then be told that the numbers have actually increased due to a moving poverty line? That's a ripping good yarn alright!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Could the same about say the "War on Drugs" an ideological battle--of some sort. The notion that we can spend billions upon billions of dollars that had never been spent before to combat it, then be told that the numbers have actually increased due to a moving line an increase of the use of drugs? That's a ripping good yarn alright!

Just saying.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Right on queue...


as in... what exactly? He simply explained what he meant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Could the same about say the "War on Drugs" an ideological battle--of some sort. The notion that we can spend billions upon billions of dollars that had never been spent before to combat it, then be told that the numbers have actually increased due to a moving line an increase of the use of drugs? That's a ripping good yarn alright!
> 
> Just saying.


You could say exactly that and you would be correct.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

groovetube said:


> The poor should learn to live without, and be happy with their lot in life, because afterall, money can't buy happiness, as we all know.


Damn, you haven't finished one debate and now your starting a second!! 

How about you stick to the first one. Then we can discuss the topic of whether money can buy you happiness or not. beejacon


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Right on queue...




to expand on that :

Profile - Population Income

Canadians earning more than $150,000 - 0.54%

Canadians earning less that $999 - 3.76%.

If we add up the breakdown of those earning below $20,000 it works out to be 40.37%

so 0.54% vs 40.37%. or roughly 75:1. 

Would you not categorize that as grossly imbalanced?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Would you not categorize that as grossly imbalanced?


Let's flip it around. Why don't you create an ideal scenario where you believe it would be balanced and then put the figures up in your next post.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah i-rui, "pruf" it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Let's flip it around. Why don't you create ...


No, let's really flip it around, and instead of your interminable sniping at the thoughts of others, let's have _you_ post your thoughts on what the ideal society might look like, and how we might get there from here, and the rest of us can tell _you_ why you're wrong.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Let's flip it around. Why don't you create an ideal scenario where you believe it would be balanced and then put the figures up in your next post.


it's far beyond me to create a utopian society....but an old guy named Plato once said that the richest paid men should only make *5 times* what the poorest ones do.

Obviously times have changed, and i'm actually not against people making good money. Japans's CEO's make less than 20 times the average worker. That seems more reasonable, but i don't think that limit should be legislated or anything. But what is clear is that CEOs shouldn't be making 100+ times what the average worker makes. That is ridiculous. 

And our government shouldn't be rigging the system so the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer. If anything the government should be protecting the middleclass.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> No, let's really flip it around, and instead of your interminable sniping at the thoughts of others, let's have _you_ post your thoughts on what the ideal society might look like, and how we might get there from here, and the rest of us can tell _you_ why you're wrong.


A little oversensitive are we? 

I'm asking a reasonable question of i-rui, not sniping. If i-rui considers that distribution of earnings imbalanced, then I would like i-rui to show us how it would look if it were "balanced." It would go a long way to understanding the type of income/earning balance people are hoping to achieve.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Obviously times have changed, and i'm actually not against people making good money. Japans's CEO's make less than 20 times the average worker. That seems more reasonable, but i don't think that limit should be legislated or anything. But what is clear is that CEOs shouldn't be making 100+ times what the average worker makes. That is ridiculous.


Why is 100 times ridiculous? Why would 1,000 times be ridiculous? Why should anybody's salaries be pegged to anybody else's?

Suppose I pegged worker salaries to CEO salaries and declared that no worker should make more than 1/20th the salary of a CEO. Is that fair?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A little oversensitive are we?


Not at all. I'm just hoping for a more substantiantive contribution to the conversation from you. You routinely jest and ridicule the suggestions of others, and while frequently valid, or at least funny, yor postings rarely make positive contributions. So I'm asking you, rather than just sooting down what others are suggesting might be positive changes that could be made to society, make your own proposals; how do you think we should be improving Canada?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Macfury
> ...


+1

never a smidgeon of supported thought....just tired repetitious sound bites from the failed meme of the market uber alle .XX)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why is 100 times ridiculous? Why would 1,000 times be ridiculous? Why should anybody's salaries be pegged to anybody else's?
> 
> Suppose I pegged worker salaries to CEO salaries and declared that no worker should make more than 1/20th the salary of a CEO. Is that fair?


Why is having far more than anyone person, couple or family would require in a lifetime preferable acceptable?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I'm just hoping for a more substantiantive contribution to the conversation from you. You routinely jest and ridicule the suggestions of others, and while frequently valid, or at least funny, yor postings rarely make positive contributions. So I'm asking you, rather than just sooting down what others are suggesting might be positive changes that could be made to society, make your own proposals; how do you think we should be improving Canada?


I don't believe that any government policy should address income, so asking this question of me is a moot point. In my estimation, income distribution is neither fair nor unfair--it doesn't have those attributes. It's like asking if weather dominated by a north wind is more fair than weather dominated by a south wind.

So I'm politely asking someone to show me a model of a "fair" distribution of income.


----------



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

Some interesting stats here from the Conference Board of Canada. Was looking for some stats on child poverty and education, and stumbled upon this site.

Income inequality


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> +1
> 
> never a smidgeon of supported thought....just tired repetitious sound bites from the failed meme of the market uber alle .XX)


You will find paradise in Australia!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> to expand on that :
> 
> Profile - Population Income
> 
> ...



15+ years of age dude... there is no indication of how many people fall into which category by age, also no indication of how many wage earns per household, what region of the the country where those incomes are being made etc. etc... This no statistical analysis it is only raw data and your "analysis" of it because of the data's limitations is less than meaningful.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why is 100 times ridiculous? Why would 1,000 times be ridiculous?


because it's greedy.



Macfury said:


> Suppose I pegged worker salaries to CEO salaries and declared that no worker should make more than 1/20th the salary of a CEO. Is that fair?


I already said i wouldn't want to see a pay ratio legislated, simply that i'd like to see that pay gap decrease to a reasonable level.

i'm not saying greed should be made illegal, simply that it shouldn't be facilitated by our government with corporate welfare and tax breaks, and more tax credits aimed at the rich.

Why shouldn't the rich pay more in tax if living in our country/society directly benefits them?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> it's far beyond me to create a utopian society....but an old guy named Plato once said that the richest paid men should only make *5 times* what the poorest ones do.
> 
> Obviously times have changed, and i'm actually not against people making good money. Japans's CEO's make less than 20 times the average worker. That seems more reasonable, but i don't think that limit should be legislated or anything. But what is clear is that CEOs shouldn't be making 100+ times what the average worker makes. That is ridiculous.
> 
> And our government shouldn't be rigging the system so the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer. If anything the government should be protecting the middleclass.


Plato.... Oh the guy who advocated dictatorships, you know philosopher kings.... who lived over 2300 years ago... now he is really relevant to this discussion in a world he could never have even imagined...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Plato.... Oh the guy who advocated dictatorships, you know philosopher kings.... who lived over 2300 years ago... now he is really relevant to this discussion in a world he could never have even imagined...


way to gloss over the rest of the post. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> because it's greedy.


Why is it greedy to take the money you are offered to do a job? Why is it greedy to spend the profits of a company you own on yourself?



i-rui said:


> I already said i wouldn't want to see a pay ratio legislated, simply that i'd like to see that pay gap decrease to a reasonable level.


What is reasonable?



i-rui said:


> 'm not saying greed should be made illegal, simply that it shouldn't be facilitated by our government with corporate welfare and tax breaks, and more tax credits aimed at the rich.


I agree that corporate welfare should be abolished. However, I disagree about tax breaks. The money we earn belongs to each of us, individuals, and those who make up the ownership of corporations. So taxes should be as low as possible for individuals and corporations.



i-rui said:


> 'Why shouldn't the rich pay more in tax if living in our country/society directly benefits them?


We all benefit from living in this country, so we should all pay the same rate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> because it's greedy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well first of all you need to qualify and quantify what it means to be "rich" and secondly this system is already in place in Canada. The higher your income the higher your tax rate.... surprised you didn't know this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> way to gloss over the rest of the post. :clap:


It has already been pointed out to you in post #154 that governments do protect the middle class, you just failed to read it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> What is reasonable?
> .


IMO about 20 times the average worker. I think the US president makes 25 times the average pay, so thats a reasonable benchmark of what the "elite" should be paid. but like i said twice before, it's not something i think should be legislated.



Macfury said:


> We all benefit from living in this country, so we should all pay the same rate..


because clearly people aren't benefiting *equally*. those who reap more should pay more.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Well first of all you need to qualify and quantify what it means to be "rich" and secondly this system is already in place in Canada. The higher your income the higher your tax rate.... surprised you didn't know this.


i did know this. my point is what our government (and others around the world) are trending towards (corporate tax cuts and tax credits aimed at the rich)



screature said:


> It has already been pointed out to you in post #154 that governments do protect the middle class, you just failed to read it.


i did read it, and i already said i disagree with the premise. even macfury expressed doubt with the article.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i did know this. my point is what our government (and others around the world) are trending towards (corporate tax cuts and tax credits aimed at the rich)
> 
> 
> 
> i did read it, and i already said i disagree with the premise. even macfury expressed doubt with the article.


I doubt very much you read it becuase it was sympathetic to the notion of a certain amount of state welfare to maintain the middle class... something which based on your previous posts I would think you would be supportive of... 

MacFury's rejection was predictable as he has made his position very clear and I knew he would refute the argument being made... It is far less understandable on your part if in fact you did actually read it other than the quoted bit.... Worse yet it would seem you only read the headline....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ok.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I'm just hoping for a more substantiantive contribution to the conversation from you. You routinely jest and ridicule the suggestions of others, and while frequently valid, or at least funny, yor postings rarely make positive contributions. So I'm asking you, rather than just sooting down what others are suggesting might be positive changes that could be made to society, make your own proposals; how do you think we should be improving Canada?


I'd be interested in this as well, beyond the usual waving of the dismissive hand peppered with a few anecdotes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Why is having far more than anyone person, couple or family would require in a lifetime preferable acceptable?





groovetube said:


> I'd be interested in this as well, beyond the usual waving of the dismissive hand peppered with a few anecdotes.





bryanc said:


> Not at all. I'm just hoping for a more substantiantive contribution to the conversation from you. You routinely jest and ridicule the suggestions of others, and while frequently valid, or at least funny, yor postings rarely make positive contributions. So I'm asking you, rather than just sooting down what others are suggesting might be positive changes that could be made to society, make your own proposals; how do you think we should be improving Canada?


I wish you luck with finding substantive positions from some posters when a simple straightforward question like the one I posed and linked herein is so successfully dodged thus far.

No gut, no glory, lads and lasses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh I'm not holding my breath. Far easier to be in opposition as they say.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I wish you luck with finding substantive positions from some posters when a simple straightforward question like the one I posed and linked herein is so successfully dodged thus far.


I've stated my position already. To me the income gap is not a problem. It requires no "solution" or redistribution.

But if somebody states that the current distribution of income is unfair, I would like to know what they consider fair.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I've stated my position already. To me the income gap is not a problem. It requires no "solution" or redistribution.
> 
> But if somebody states that the current distribution of income is unfair, I would like to know what they consider fair.


That's what I thought. All hotair, no substance whatsoever.

So if you thnk it's not a problem, then you have no problem with any of it currently, including all spending etc.

Funny position, for a libertarian if you ask me.

More to the point. You're too chicken crap to put it all out there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> That's what I thought. All hotair, no substance whatsoever.
> 
> So if you thnk it's not a problem, then you have no problem with any of it currently, including all spending etc.
> 
> ...


What does the topic under discussion--the income gap--have to do with "any of it currently including all spending etc."? 

Are you having a "flashback" to another thread?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It could be because it's been brought up, by even you. 

So either you're full of it, or you enlighten us all to macfurys world of perfection.

Unless that really only entails running in circles. Which is what I suspect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I've stated my position already. To me the income gap is not a problem. It requires no "solution" or redistribution.
> 
> But if somebody states that the current distribution of income is unfair, I would like to know what they consider fair.


So is the purely libertarian position one that proposes that we have no common interests whatsoever? While I think I know what you might say to that, "help others if you want, but don't compel ME to", it seems to me that even if you ignore the idea of wanting to do something about say, child poverty, on purely humanitarian grounds, the libertarian is also ignoring his own self-interest by letting his neighbours and their children go to the dogs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So is the purely libertarian position one that proposes that we have no common interests whatsoever? While I think I know what you might say to that, "help others if you want, but don't compel ME to", it seems to me that even if you ignore the idea of wanting to do something about say, child poverty, on purely humanitarian grounds, the libertarian is also ignoring his own self-interest by letting his neighbours and their children go to the dogs.


Many libertarians, including me, believe in enlightened self-interest. Through taxation, however, I am often compelled against my will to assist people who do not deserve my consideration. I would far rather use that money to back people who I think have had a truly raw deal. So when I am compelled to assist others, I am often not acting according to my self interest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> It could be because it's been brought up, by even you.
> 
> So either you're full of it, or you enlighten us all to macfurys world of perfection.
> 
> Unless that really only entails running in circles. Which is what I suspect.


round and round ya go, 'eh groove?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Many libertarians, including me, believe in enlightened self-interest. Through taxation, however, I am often compelled against my will to assist people who do not deserve my consideration. I would far rather use that money to back people who I think have had a truly raw deal. So when I am compelled to assist others, I am often not acting according to my self interest.


you drop these little notes of Utopia, but you never really spell out what sort of system you would envision. I call you on it, and all you can offer is some kind of brainless response.

I have to assume macfury, that you haven;t thought any of your beliefs through to any real degree. Unfortunately, there is a real world out there, and your little nuggets tossed by what you hold out to be some great golden plan isn't cutting it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you drop these little notes of Utopia, but you never really spell out what sort of system you would envision. I call you on it, and all you can offer is some kind of brainless response.
> 
> I have to assume macfury, that you haven;t thought any of your beliefs through to any real degree. Unfortunately, there is a real world out there, and your little nuggets tossed by what you hold out to be some great golden plan isn't cutting it.


'groove. I will say this once and then leave it alone. I enjoy sparring. I enjoy a debate. I enjoy discussing issues. But I don't have time to deal with dozens of off-topic comments from someone flailing their arms doing windmill punches from the sidelines hoping to land a jab. The topic here is the income gap between rich and poor, not party politics, not "the spending and all," not Utopia, and not "the great golden plan" that "isn't cutting it" 

_Neither is the topic at hand MacFury._

You can continue to make posts which contain nothing on topic, just your confidence that I must be wrong. That I know nothing. That I have never experienced the real world. 

You can continue to harangue me on the thoughtlessness of my posts, but you appear to be the only one doing that. I put a great deal of thought into what I say as do many of the people here into their own, even though I disagree in large part with some of them. 

Is this sort of haranguing, catcalling and personal attack the best you have to offer us?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You've been asked by others to further explain what you consider to be better. So no it isn't just me. Sorry.

You can throw around off topic comments, flailing around, all you like. But you've dodged what several have asked you to explain. Personally, I think your libertarian stance is a hollow egg, it's a convenient position you quickly ditch to apologize for a government that has shown very clearly that they love your tax dollars and spreading it around all they wish just like the liberals. Whom you apparently despise for those very reasons.

This whole sniping with your personal choice nonsense is meaningless without any further explanation. And that, seems to be the best you can muster. As I said earlier, you make no more sense than the marxist leninist spouting one liners as some sort of grand enlightenment for us all to see the errors of our ways.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank you for your contribution. That's all from me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well I doubt anyone expected much more.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> 'groove. I will say this once and then leave it alone. I enjoy sparring. I enjoy a debate. I enjoy discussing issues. But I don't have time to deal with dozens of off-topic comments from someone flailing their arms doing windmill punches from the sidelines hoping to land a jab. The topic here is the income gap between rich and poor, not party politics, not "the spending and all," not Utopia, and not "the great golden plan" that "isn't cutting it"
> 
> _Neither is the topic at hand MacFury._
> 
> ...


A very thoughtful post MF. You have made your position clear, i.e., in your opinion no social engineering/change in policy is necessary. I don't *completely* agree (to a large extent I do), but I certainly believe you have made your position well known. 

Others simply don't want to accept it and that is fine, but to pretend that you haven't made your position known or that you don't put thought into it is pure rubbish.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I don't agree with it, but I understand Macfury's position completely. It's a little too libertarian for my tastes, but I can comprehend where he's coming from: no formalized taxation, everyone just contributing as they see fit. It comes down to 'choice' versus 'legislation'. (see also: "Why should I sell your wheat?" from PM PET.) 

Some people cannot easily perceive a perspective other than their own, or the status quo of 'enforced participation in society through legislated taxation'. 

Enlightened self interest is a bit different than myopic self interest. It's the difference between short term and long term thinking. Things like roads are in one's self interest if one wishes to travel elsewhere, or have others travel to him to bring him things. But, if one is truly self sustaining, is a road necessary, and is it necessary to contribute to the roads if one will not be using them? Hospitals are generally considered to be in the best interests of all in society, but if one chooses not to avail oneself of it, is it necessary to contribute so others may? 

Is it necessary to tax the 'rich' more so that the 'poor' can get 'more than they have contributed' out of the system?

In all things there are gradients. Too much black and white thinking leads to 'all taxes' or 'no taxes'.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I don't agree with it, but I understand Macfury's position completely. It's a little too libertarian for my tastes, but I can comprehend where he's coming from: no formalized taxation, everyone just contributing as they see fit. It comes down to 'choice' versus 'legislation'. (see also: "Why should I sell your wheat?" from PM PET.)
> 
> Some people cannot easily perceive a perspective other than their own, or the status quo of 'enforced participation in society through legislated taxation'.
> 
> ...


Another thoughtful and *polite* post MLeh.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh scripture has declared it so.

Well I think I was looking for a little more past simple wavings of the hand making declarations that no social programs are needed. We've already heard this countless times before, but I'd like to more on how the problems we face will be solved, or, at least made better. Unfortunately, past all this declaring what should, or shouldn't be, there's a real world out there, and it's far more complicated than that.

I find it rather ironic that macfurys would make such a fuss to me that there is more to this issue than simple questions, only to cut and run when asked himself for more on what he believes, is a better system. But we've been here several times before. And each and every time this occurs, this is precisely the result. And it hasn't always been me doing the asking.

Little surprise here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I don't agree with it, but I understand Macfury's position completely. It's a little too libertarian for my tastes, but I can comprehend where he's coming from: no formalized taxation, everyone just contributing as they see fit. It comes down to 'choice' versus 'legislation'. (see also: "Why should I sell your wheat?" from PM PET.)
> 
> Some people cannot easily perceive a perspective other than their own, or the status quo of 'enforced participation in society through legislated taxation'.
> 
> ...


I agree with you to some degree as well. I agree entirely with enlightened self-interest. I tend to volunteer to support local endeavours, rather than those far outside my sphere.

I think that we can work toward a system that doesn't necessarily use the blunt tool of government force to enforce participation in a massive range of programs that are all enacted on the feeble premise that they all contribute to the common good.

I think it can be reasonably well documented that public schools can do a reasonable job of educating the populace, and that some sort of public hospital care for traumatic illnesses and injury, or debilitating birth defects are things that many of us can agree on. 

When the government attempts to do a million things, it tends to do none of them well. So I open the debate to limiting government to those things that it can do effectively and well, and suggest where it can let go of those things it does not do well. I Would never argue for a privately contracted military force, for example (the fall of Rome, anyone?) or for a privately contracted judicial system.

I suspect that if we whittled down the list to a manageable level--including an end to corporate welfare--the government could do very well at those items, while freeing citizens to make their own plans and enact their own ideas with their own money. 

I believe that a healthy middle class is desirable, but it is not a creation of the government. It forms organically, but can't be engineered. Ours was created on the back of a vibrant post-war economy. Yes, public schooling obviously allows people the basic ability to grow up to participate in society on a strong footing, so some things the government does might prepare people to enter the middle class, or better. 

I see the government currently doing very little to promote a healthy economy, although it occasionally removes a barrier put into place by the government itself. Some of our wages are declining simply because people all over the world are doing what we once did with the same expertise, but charging less money to do so. The gap between _their_ poor and us is declining.

When GM lurched on the brink of bankruptcy it was an indication that we had too many car companies and that people in other countries were beating us at our own game. The issue was framed instead as: "If we let GM go, we will lose well paying manufacturing jobs and erode the middle class." GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Those middle class jobs cost $250,000 apiece to temporarily save. The government backed a loser here. Those jobs can't be permanently saved at any price.

Only a vibrant economy that allows companies to move nimbly and effectively and apply capital where it's needed will create the next phase of economic development. That will fuel a healthy middle class.

Allowing the issue to be framed as a failure to tax the rich artificially limits the debate to public policy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, it was like pulling teeth, but it's a start.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree with you to some degree as well. I agree entirely with enlightened self-interest. I tend to volunteer to support local endeavours, rather than those far outside my sphere.
> 
> I think that we can work toward a system that doesn't necessarily use the blunt tool of government force to enforce participation in a massive range of programs that are all enacted on the feeble premise that they all contribute to the common good.
> 
> ...


so, you're not really, a libertarian macfury. Reading through this, I sense you are not against social programs, you're against the excess waste that is inevitable as too many hands get involved and there is far less accountability.

Personally, I think the government has been detrimental to the middle class, I don't see them as having engineered it at all. The shift of the tax burden from the very rich/corporations to the middle class is becoming worse, have a look at the way Harper has handled tax breaks in the latest scam, all to corporations, and well, the middle class can wait until they've had their turn at the trough, with some feeble promise that some day, they'll balance the budget.

I've always believed that simply giving out free money will only create more who want it, it's human nature! Just as greed, is human nature. Which is why the far left, and, the far right are always wrong in their idealistic thinking that their schemes will resolve our problems. Both seem to forget the greed component.

There is always an argument for cutting social programs because they're wasteful, and face a bottomless pit of recipients. But rare is the argument ever made to actually streamline and place limits, sane limits on these programs.

I'm surprised no one seemed to take seriously Jack Layton's suggestion seriously that corporations be rewarded with tax breaks if they're creating jobs. Isn't this in line with responsibility, the sort of responsibility you speak of? Because certainly, because of greed, no one is -that- altruistic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks screature and MLeh for giving me something thoughtful to respond to.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess the first line hit a little too hard.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

...or your reality is rejected and insert the *right* one therefore.


----------

