Toronto child poverty rate at "epidemic levels"

[DarnDirtyApe]

That's a popular talking point, but there's little actual empirical evidence that shows that the welfare state encourages extra children.

Any studies that show the contrary? It seems pretty obvious that children cost money, and without money you cannot support children.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Why do you care if downtowners think they are morally superior to start with? Don't suburbanites feel they enjoy a superior lifestyle because they have their large house, deck and yard, not the 575sf "shoeboxes" in the sky?

Downtowners mostly rely on transit, walk to places, consume much less energy, cause less pollution and GHG, and are not chained to their car, why can't they feel good about their lifestyle?

As to financially superior, do some basic research and find how many of Toronto's top 1%, or even top 5% live south of Bloor. The prices in downtown's condos can't start to compare with prices in midtown and north Toronto.

Calm down, okay? I was talking about how those suburbanites supposedly perceive people who live downtown.

 

[King of Kensington]

Any studies that show the contrary? It seems pretty obvious that children cost money, and without money you cannot support children.

A lot of things that seem obvious aren't borne out empirically. For example it seems obvious that minimum wage increases leads to job losses, but the empirical evidence doesn't show that. The same is true for this:

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp877.pdf

Larry Summers also did some research in the 80s on this and he did not find AFDC benefits led to more out of wedlock births.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Did you actually read that? Results varied by state, and each state had various other changes going on at the same time. Benefits in the US are also much lower to begin with. It didn't take housing into account (a big deal in an expensive city like Toronto, not so much in Arkansas). In the end, all they did was fail to confirm the hypothesis; this is different than actually proving anything. It was also done 10 years ago based on data from the 90's...

Empirical studies like that are limited by the inability to hold other factors constant, and so have little predictive power when evaluating potential policy changes.

 

[King of Kensington]

Who said it "proved" anything? When the evidence is murky at best, how can you say with such confidence that the welfare state gives women an incentive to have children out of wedlock?

When presented with US data, you discount it doesn't have as advanced a welfare state so it doesn't apply here. And Sweden has a different "culture" so that is discounted as well.

If good Canadian data is lacking, how can you already say you "know" that the problem is we have too many people taking advantage of state benefits?

 

[salsa]

And what exactly is wrong with "sipping lattes"? What makes latte so special compared with the coffee almost all white suburban Canadians drink every day?

Similarly, what's wrong with riding a bicycle, or being a tree hugger. It's funny how right wingers resort to lame insults like "bike riding pinko", as if that's supposed to be a bad thing. Heck, I'd wear that as a badge of honour. Better than being a SUV-driving blowhard.

 

[King of Kensington]

One thing to note is that income inequality and the "two Torontos" has very much become a mainstream issue that's being talked about. John Tory won mostly with the votes of the affluent and is himself very much a part of the Establishment and is an unlikely figure to take this on. On the other hand, if he's serious about One Toronto and reaching out across the city, he will have to address this in some way.

 

[Torontovibe]

Sweden is actually a very socially conservative country - only about 3% of children are born to single mothers because there is a huge social stigma against it. Along similar lines, it's still a very ethnically and socially homogeneous country with about 80% of the population being ethnic swedes.

Here's a blog post that's not directly related to the topic, but does illustrate some of the differences between (in this case) the US and Sweden that aren't captured by a surface reading of the issues:

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/krugman-misunderstands-sweden.html

So obviously, there is more then just generous social programs that play a part in it, which is exactly my point.

Seeing the way the world has been going for the last 30 years and the effects of globalization on all of us, I think worrying about how welfare mothers are ruining society is pretty messed up. I think the real problems facing the world is income inequality and how the middle class seems to be disappearing, along with manual work. I actually see dark days ahead if things continue this way. (which I'm sure they will) It's not the poor who are the problem, it's the rich.

 

[Torontovibe]

Similarly, what's wrong with riding a bicycle, or being a tree hugger. It's funny how right wingers resort to lame insults like "bike riding pinko", as if that's supposed to be a bad thing. Heck, I'd wear that as a badge of honour. Better than being a SUV-driving blowhard.

View attachment 36834

I've never understood how terms like tree hugger or being a bleeding heart are a bad thing. Since when is being a good person and caring about the planet/people something to be ashamed of? What kind of twisted upbringing do you have to have, to think like that? I don't think I'll ever understand how the brains of right wingers work.

 

[themarc]

One thing to note is that income inequality and the "two Torontos" has very much become a mainstream issue that's being talked about. John Tory won mostly with the votes of the affluent and is himself very much a part of the Establishment and is an unlikely figure to take this on. On the other hand, if he's serious about One Toronto and reaching out across the city, he will have to address this in some way.

This is where he puts Olivia Chow to use. He has already asked her to "join in". She will probably be a more effective person on this agenda as a private citizen as she would be as mayor managing the beast with 9 heads (CH).

 

[diminutive]

One thing to note is that income inequality and the "two Torontos" has very much become a mainstream issue that's being talked about. John Tory won mostly with the votes of the affluent and is himself very much a part of the Establishment and is an unlikely figure to take this on. On the other hand, if he's serious about One Toronto and reaching out across the city, he will have to address this in some way.

It's one thing for richer, older, whiter parts of the City to vote for the richer, older, white candidate (John Tory). The more puzzling thing is why the poorer, younger, less-white parts of the City didn't go for Chow. It's bizarre that, despite all this talk of income inequality and the 'Orange Tide' federally, the main race was between Tory and Ford. Even the earlier candidates like Stintz and Soknacki seemed to skew center-right.

OTOH, if municipalities in Canada are relatively insignificant in terms of the main social welfare programs, maybe the income cleavage isn't as salient for voters? Or maybe anti-Ford bandwagoning/strategic voting?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Who said it "proved" anything? When the evidence is murky at best, how can you say with such confidence that the welfare state gives women an incentive to have children out of wedlock?

When presented with US data, you discount it doesn't have as advanced a welfare state so it doesn't apply here. And Sweden has a different "culture" so that is discounted as well.

If good Canadian data is lacking, how can you already say you "know" that the problem is we have too many people taking advantage of state benefits?

Please don't put words in my mouth... my position was that our welfare system cuts people off at the knees via clawbacks when their working income increases. At certain thresholds, people (particularly single mothers with young children) are financial better off not working. It is a factually correct statement.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Seeing the way the world has been going for the last 30 years and the effects of globalization on all of us, I think worrying about how welfare mothers are ruining society is pretty messed up. I think the real problems facing the world is income inequality and how the middle class seems to be disappearing, along with manual work. I actually see dark days ahead if things continue this way. (which I'm sure they will) It's not the poor who are the problem, it's the rich.

The middle class isn't disappearing, but it is shrinking. I am not worried that "welfare mothers" are ruining society, I am worried that we are not actually helping people to build job skills that are valued in a globalized world. Housing and day care subsidies won't change the fact that many people are being left behind because of changes in the nature of work.

 

[NorthYorkEd]

Any studies that show the contrary? It seems pretty obvious that children cost money, and without money you cannot support children.

Nothing rustles my jimmies faster than parents looking for handouts or pity because they can't afford the kids they consciously chose to have. Suck it up, buttercup. You're not entitled to anything in this life.

Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

 

[am29]

Nothing rustles my jimmies faster than parents looking for handouts or pity because they can't afford the kids they consciously chose to have. Suck it up, buttercup. You're not entitled to anything in this life.

Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

Thats probably the dumbest thing I have heard on the internet. At the very least closest to the dumbest.