Toronto child poverty rate at "epidemic levels"

[pman]

Ok. I'll bite. You do realize race is entirely a social construct? That being "white" not even 30-40 years ago meant being Anglo-Celtic or Northern European in origin. White, black, brown, yellow etc. mean literally nothing. Races shrink and grow dependent upon the culture of a period and are never static. Seriously, you're spouting utter bullshit. You might be polite about it but that's all I can really offer in your defense.

If race is a meaningless construct, does it mean that when KWT and Olivia Chow drone on and on about "racialized" communities, they too are spouting utter bullshit? I mean, it sounds like complete bullshit to me, but it is a term used by a lot of self-styled progressives.

 

[wolfewood]

If race is a meaningless construct, does it mean that when KWT and Olivia Chow drone on and on about "racialized" communities, they too are spouting utter bullshit? I mean, it sounds like complete bullshit to me, but it is a term used by a lot of self-styled progressives.

Well basically, because race doesn't exist, you're finding progressives are trying to avoid using racial terms to refer to people. "Chinese," "Black" or "White" do not exist as set-in-stone groups, nor are they homogeneous. For example, there are people of Chinese descent from northern China and southern China who can be further subdivided into various ethnic groups (like Hakka or Min or Yue) and then there are also those who are of Singaporean, Hong Kong, American, European etc. descent who we would label Chinese traditionally but who may themselves not feel it. Thus, by referring to all of these people as "Chinese," you are racializing them by turning a number of distinct cultures, ethnicities and communities into one, oversized group. This applies to just about every racial group out there. When progressives refer to "racialized" communities, they are acknowledging the wide variety of communities that are within this overly broad banner without wasting time discussing the intricate and mundane realities and concerns of each individual group (which, in terms of a political setting, are far too many to deal with in a short speech).

 

[wolfewood]

No matter how you frame the issue, most developed Western nations with white majorities don't have natural population growth anymore. It's all immigrants. We don't really see this phenomenon anywhere else in the world though most other places have fewer economic resources to support population growth.

If this sounds ancient, it's because it goes to our nature. We're supposed to have lots of kids if we can get the resources to raise that life. But it's like we've outsourced that to the 3rd world. Keep the pleasure; forgo the cost of raising kids. But someone has to have kids.

Don't forget that when you criticize poor immigrants or people in the developing world for having many children. We're supposed to have kids. We're supposed to allocate resources towards that end. It's part of being a heterosexual man or woman. The economy should always be growing, and the population should always be growing until we reach the maximum sustainable numbers in any area.

Again, why does this matter? You're not necessarily wrong, nor are you being rude but why do you care that "white" population growth is declining? I mean, there's no reason to worry unless you're harbouring some Klan-like nativist beliefs that foreigners somehow can't get "our" culture (which, as I've already said, has changed its definition of "white" dramatically in just the last 30-40 years). Seriously, the colour of a child's skin doesn't matter at all.

And for the record, I don't criticize poor immigrants for having kids. The reality is that a variety of issues are causing this demographic explosion in countries we regard as underdeveloped and none of them are the fault of the people having kids themselves.

 

[am29]

What if I said "cars" instead of children? Or "houses"? Still dumb?

Bottom line is you should be able to afford the children you want to have, and not expect everyone else to fork out for it. Sorry if you disagree.

Its not dumb. if you can;t afford to make mortgage payments a bank will not lend you money. i think most people think babies are free, especially when they are young because if they are breastfed at least for the first 6 mths, that is free milk. There are diapers but I think people are not aware for the first 6 mnths how many diapers per day babies go through. Then when babies start to eat at 6 mths, its not much at the beginning and then they eat way smaller portions when they start to eat what the family starts to eat at the dinner table. So ya, it seems like babies do not cost so much. But if one decides to return to work after 1 year then yes there is daycare and that is expensive. Then its all the activities they are put in, swimming, skating, skiing, soccer, ballet, etc, summer camps. Thats when the costs start to mount. if there is free daycare such as with grandparents who are able to look after them, then of course costs are lower as there will be no daycare costs. So I to think there is not much thought put into costs. They say there is never a right time to have kids and if one keeps waiting for the right time they may never have them,

If what you guys are saying is true, having children would be a privilege only the rich could have. If you were born into a poor family you would not be able to have kids, pass on your genes, and fulfill your biological existence.

Saying if you can't afford to have kids so don't have them is completely unethical.

One could argue that people who are not having children and not fulfilling their biological responsibility of maintaining/growing the human population and should be taxed extra. People who don't have babies have an economic and social advantage because they would not have to spend time and income on offspring and at the same time put a load on population growth. Due to the fact that they are at an economic advantage and others would have to make up for them bringing the population growth down which then would warrant others having more children thus putting them at a higher economic disadvantage.

 

[kbdid]

If what you guys are saying is true, having children would be a privilege only the rich could have. If you were born into a poor family you would not be able to have kids, pass on your genes, and fulfill your biological existence.

Saying if you can't afford to have kids so don't have them is completely unethical.

One could argue that people who are not having children and not fulfilling their biological responsibility of maintaining/growing the human population and should be taxed extra. People who don't have babies have an economic and social advantage because they would not have to spend time and income on offspring and at the same time put a load on population growth. Due to the fact that they are at an economic advantage and others would have to make up for them bringing the population growth down which then would warrant others having more children thus putting them at a higher economic disadvantage.

It is also unethical to expect/require people to reproduce. People who are childfree/less also pay taxes and are not afforded the tax credits those who have children receive; ridiculous to think anyone has a responsibility to reproduce.

What we are talking about is child poverty; poverty that not only exists in the immigrant community but also among working families/single income families. People who work full time, have mortgages etc are also turning to foodbanks etc once expenses are paid and there's nothing left to put food on the table.

 

[NorthYorkEd]

Saying if you can't afford to have kids so don't have them is completely unethical.

I would argue it is unethical to have children when you can't afford to feed or raise them. And my point was made specifically against parents who already have kids and are struggling, but decide to have more because they object to birth control, or have an emotional addiction to child-rearing, or feel that they are entitled to have as many as they want, with the rest of society being responsible for the bill. That's where my beef lies. It is much more ethical to make decisions that are in balance with a personal sense of responsibility and your means.

One could argue that people who are not having children and not fulfilling their biological responsibility of maintaining/growing the human population and should be taxed extra.

My biological responsibility is only to survive, and to care and provide for those I love. You don't get to assign any others to me. Reproducing is not a responsibility or an obligation, unless you choose to make it so. And what about those who can't reproduce, such as the disabled, infertile, or those of a different sexual orientation? Are they written off as shirking their "biological responsibility", too? And should they be taxed extra and required to carry an extra burden?

Again, I want to be clear -- my issue isn't with those who face hardships due to circumstances beyond their control, but with those who live their lives free from the constraints of personal accountability and responsibility, not only to themselves but to the children they bring into the world. If having more kids than you can afford is your "right", or "biological responsibility", then it is also your right and responsibility to find the means to pay for them. Your choice, your consequence. Being financially-challenged and choosing to have a kid every year or so is not being biologically responsible, it is being selfish and completely irresponsible. And yes, it is also unethical, when you consider the challenges that those children will likely face.

 

[jkerim1]

I wonder if it is even worth my weighing in on this issue.

I see a few comments blaming the poor for being poor and having offspring, The amount of ignorance that exists out there, I don't know if I should even bother speaking up.

But what I will never ever forget are all the panhandlers and squeegee kids I had to step over, the surge and flood of poverty I witnessed in this city right when Michael Harris came to power. But at that time so many parts of Canadian governance were cutting the poor loose, to freeze to death on the streets among other things, or the establishment of the "Tent City" that emerged around Cherry and Lakeshore.

We have made some recovery since all the government slashing and burning from the late 1980s through the 1990s, but only with partial recovery.

But again all this chatter on this thread concerning the profile of these lower income individuals, I don't know what to think of it.

I would say that any affordable housing built before the emergence of non profit housing in the mid 1970s should be torn down and replaced with mixed income non profit housing, but of course there is A LOT of affordable housing that was built right after the second world war.

And of course pushing forward with an aggressive push to initiate work on the Scarbrough LRT, Sheppard LRT and Finch LRT to bring better transit to more lower income transit users would be a very good thing too, also since I have been having difficulty understanding political minded individuals who advocate for the public sector to save money and then fight for a far greater more expensive transit infrastructure investment like more heavy rail rapid transit expansion.

But of course given that another Progressive Conservative politician is our new mayor and council seems fit to appoint someone as harsh spoken a person as Frances Nunziata as our council speaker, I would say that a good number of Torontonians are okay with just keeping things in a more mean hearted spirit of tone. That would probably leave me in the far back corner of the Ontario Legislative assembly with the five other new democrat MPPs, but that's okay, I guess.

But still I am suprised to see such earnest debate over the personal profiles of whom we determine in Toronto as being lower income. And yes if lower income peoples wish to have and make new life that is always a special thing. And I would say the first thing that should be done is restore the purchasing power of Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Clients at least back to where their purchasing power once stood around say 1994 before all the many cuts and erosions from inflation. And I would tell anyone interested in listening to me to look no further than Denmark or the Netherlands to see how so many of their more marginalized peoples are treated, especially compared to the way marginalized peoples are treated here in Canada or worse yet in les Etats Unis.

Why is it that we choose to blame the poor for being poor? I honestly do not know why. I fully support the completion of the Transit City Light Rail plan and then some. I support seeing so many inner suburban communities begin the transformative process of becoming more friendly and urban. I see places like Jane and Finch becoming dare I say a sort of European style light rail transit hub that would greatly improve the quality of life for the many lower income peoples of that neighbourhood and of course for many others, for the many lower income inviduals, inclding of course for the benefit of their little ones. Better quality affordable homes for all and the lower income and better transit along with urban renewal all go hand in hand for bettering the lives of all regardless of their income. I support that kind of thinking going forward as we head deeper into this newer era of city living. And Light Rail is this city's future, regardless of whether one chooses to believe it or not, it is the transportation tool for this city that has the greatest potential, will you not join me?

~ Jordan "DredWolf" Scott Kerim

 

[NorthYorkEd]

But what I will never ever forget are all the panhandlers and squeegee kids I had to step over, the surge and flood of poverty I witnessed in this city right when Michael Harris came to power. But at that time so many parts of Canadian governance were cutting the poor loose, to freeze to death on the streets among other things, or the establishment of the "Tent City" that emerged around Cherry and Lakeshore.

In this context, when you say "the poor", are you referring to people of limited resources/financial means, addicts, or the mentally ill? In my opinion, these are important distinctions when discussing these types of issues.

You can't fix or cure poverty. Some people are always going to sink to the bottom, for whatever reason. Some due to circumstance, some due to bad decisions and/or lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they often take casualties with them (i.e. children). In my opinion, society can only go so far as to provide the opportunity for someone to get a leg up or a helping hand and to be treated with dignity. It is often the suppression (or absence) of opportunity that leads many to poverty and the inability to achieve their potential.

 

[aquateam]

Ok. I'll bite. You do realize race is entirely a social construct? That being "white" not even 30-40 years ago meant being Anglo-Celtic or Northern European in origin. White, black, brown, yellow etc. mean literally nothing. Races shrink and grow dependent upon the culture of a period and are never static. Seriously, you're spouting utter bullshit. You might be polite about it but that's all I can really offer in your defense.

You do realize that everything is a social construct, right? Shapes, species, colours, language, smells. A big part of cognition is dividing things in to categories based on properties.

Just like you said about races, the same thing could be said about colours. What is orange? You can subdivide orange any which ways. Two people may disagree as to whether a colour is more red or orange. Some people (colour blind) can't even distinguish it at all. That doesn't mean it's not a useful concept, and that you can run a red light because red and green are constructs.

Your race affects many objective, quantitative things. By sequencing DNA, you can effectively trace a human family tree in the same way that evolution shows the common origins of different genuses. The wet/dry earwax is one example of physical traits that are different between races, but some medications are only effective on some races and not on others. Being black isn't just a hereditary tan.

Well basically, because race doesn't exist, you're finding progressives are trying to avoid using racial terms to refer to people. "Chinese," "Black" or "White" do not exist as set-in-stone groups, nor are they homogeneous. For example, there are people of Chinese descent from northern China and southern China who can be further subdivided into various ethnic groups (like Hakka or Min or Yue) and then there are also those who are of Singaporean, Hong Kong, American, European etc. descent who we would label Chinese traditionally but who may themselves not feel it. Thus, by referring to all of these people as "Chinese," you are racializing them by turning a number of distinct cultures, ethnicities and communities into one, oversized group.

By this definition whites would be the most racialized group. At least people try to distinguish between Chinese and Korean.

My point is that with race, just like colours you can subdivide as much as you'd like, but that doesn't mean the categories don't exist or aren't meaningful.