grey
Senior Member
Occupy Clarence Square!
|
|
|
St. James Park Re-Sodded By Volunteers
- Thread starter hawc
- Start date
adma
Superstar
Occupy Douglas Ford Park!
kkgg7
Banned
I am amazed by people's tendency to blame the rich for everything. And now after the "occupiers" are done with their free camping, outdoor sex and recreational drug consumption and left a mess for the city to clean up, not only they are not punished for violating the law, but also the rich should pay for the damage, as apparently the rich screws up the world in the first place!
One thing that amuses me is what exactly do the "occupiers" want, except to vent their anger for being completely losers in the competitive society? Do they have a plan to make things "right"? Do they have a specific agenda regarding what steps should be taken? Are they interested in politics? Are they interested in or capable of managing the economy? Yes I understand you are mad that you are poor and others live comfortable lives, but what's the plan? Tax the rich more? Tell banks "you are forbidden to make profits"?
Everyone seems to hate banks. If so, why didn't they abandon the banks completely? Stop depositing money in them, stop using credit cards and consume with cash, and stop asking for mortgages/car loans. It is not that a difficult thing to do after all. No banks forced anyone to use their service and get a profit from it. You go to them voluntarily.
One thing that amuses me is what exactly do the "occupiers" want, except to vent their anger for being completely losers in the competitive society? Do they have a plan to make things "right"? Do they have a specific agenda regarding what steps should be taken? Are they interested in politics? Are they interested in or capable of managing the economy? Yes I understand you are mad that you are poor and others live comfortable lives, but what's the plan? Tax the rich more? Tell banks "you are forbidden to make profits"?
Everyone seems to hate banks. If so, why didn't they abandon the banks completely? Stop depositing money in them, stop using credit cards and consume with cash, and stop asking for mortgages/car loans. It is not that a difficult thing to do after all. No banks forced anyone to use their service and get a profit from it. You go to them voluntarily.
Last edited:
doug
Active Member
Why do you hate Carribana?
greenleaf
Senior Member
kkgg7, out of curiosity, where do you get your news or information? Did you grow up in Canada? I am genuinely curious how you have developed your views and opinions.
Your comments are extreme and completely unrealistic. People will use banks. They have to in today's society. It doesn't mean they have to agree with what they do. No one is saying that the banks can't make profits. They are saying that there needs to be a better balance and ratio between the top 1% of income earners and everyone else. The Occupy movement (and thus re-sodding the park) would have been unnecessary had there not been such a huge discrepancy in income inequality. In Canada, things aren't as bad as in the US, but that shouldn't mean that we should ignore what is happening or have a discussion about it.
"In 1980 the average 1-percenter made 12.5 times the median income, but in 2006 (the latest year for which data is available) the average income of our richest 1 percent was a whopping 36 times greater than that of the median household. " Source
kkgg7
Banned
We have to be realistic about the world we live in. Moderate income gap is not only reasonable, but also necessary. You can't expect an outstanding executive managing a big corporation to make only two or three times the income of a bus driver. I don't call that fair. You have to reward people for their skills and education.
Sure, income gap in increasing, but in Canada situation is a lot better (I was only talking about Canada in my previous comment. the US is a completely different story as the reckless banks had to be bailed out)
CRA numbers (2009) shows that if you 150K a year, you are already in the top 2% income bracket, which is only 5 times as the 50% income (median) and 3 times as the top 25%. It is NOT bad at all. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/rank-your-income-where-do-you-stand-compared-to-the-rest-of-canada/
I don't have complete statistics to support my claim, but I think the income gap situation is quite good (or less "unfair") from a global perspective.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
An increase from 12x to 36x is moderate, necessary and healthy? Plus - I wonder just how much of that difference is attribute to skills and education (not to mention that the access to both is far less equitable than one'd think it is)
And funnily enough, that's only because of among other things, our social safety net, relatively large middle class and well-paid blue collar positions, which are all under increasing pressure. The trends are troubling, to say the least. I don't know about you, but one shouldn't have to wait till they become Burkina Faso before they do something about it.
AoD
Last edited:
kkgg7
Banned
1) 12-36x is the US, while I was commenting on Canada. We do know these are two very different countries, right?
2) care to elaborate how our middle class is under pressure? Not to question you, but it would be more helpful if you have some stats showing that trend.
From the stats, I don't think the 2% top income earner make 5 times of the medium income folks should be considered "unfair" at all. What do you think is reasonable? TD CEO makes only twice the income as an automobile worker?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
AoD, regardless of the actual spread ratio, how to do propose reducing it? Regressive taxation? Trade barriers to ensure manufacturing jobs can't be exported? Rules to stop foreign ownership of Canadian manufacturers, such as steel plants? What's your solution?
It's one thing to hold up a placard and shout about the 1%, but you need real and feasible means to achieve what you want.
It's one thing to hold up a placard and shout about the 1%, but you need real and feasible means to achieve what you want.
fouronesix
Active Member
1) While not as high as the US, Canada ranks 12th out of 17 peer countries for income inequality. Between 1980 and 2005 the median income of the bottom 20% decreased by 20.6% in inflation adjust terms whereas during the same period the median income of the top 20% increased by 16.4%. Although these are not precisely comparable with stats offered for the US above, they nevertheless paint a similar picture. From the Conference Board of Canada.
2) See charts one and two from this Centre for Urban and Community Studies pdf on income distributions in Toronto and GTA.
js97
Senior Member
Is that rhetoric or actual fact? Do you consider all the yuppies filling up Liberty village and harbourfront to be the 1% or middle class?
Also, why are blue-collar 'GRUNTS' the champion of the left for equality of pay? Aren't we supposed to be a PROGRESSIVE society, leveraging our intellectual abilities and thus, differentiating us from the chimps?
Yes, you can't get a well paying grunt job out of highschool anymore, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Our technology sector has exploded and provide plenty of opportunity, but it has also eliminated the need for those 'grunt jobs' that are so sought after by the unions and some of the left. It's quite REGRESSIVE if you ask me.
Keep in mind SKILLED manual labour, like trades (electrician, carpenters, bricklayers) still are well paid due to the low supply. Are plumbers, electricians and brick layers considered the 1%?
From where I stand, it seems to me that the middle class, at least in Toronto , are thriving. Yes, it's become more competitive, and not as 'easy', but considering the growth of population, the middle class is doing alright. Maybe those unable, or unwilling to change with the times should re-tool their skills to fit the demand?
How many of these so called 'occupiers' would be willing to study for their GMAT or MCATS? Go through a few semesters as an engineering student, instead of a liberal arts?
Nothing good comes easy, but it seems like the mantra of many of the occupiers to want it to come easy.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
What does "income inequality" mean? What is not equal? Are some being paid more for the same work? Now that would be income inequality. I would not define the spread in income distribution as income inequality, no more than the spread in age between young and old could be defined as "age inequality".
kkgg7
Banned
Many probably don't even have a Bachelor's degree, not to mention a Master's, yet somehow think it is unfair because those with advanced degree (because of much harder work) make 2 or 3 times as much.
G
gabe
Guest
Work as hard you want, but the sad reality is corporations are relocating to China where they can get away with paying slave wages. Having advanced degrees in engineering in 2011 gets you contract jobs, because it's cheaper for the company.
shareholder greed and CEO/board bonuses are the cause of most exported jobs. I know this from experience, having worked at 2 different companies that closed due to outsourcing. Neither was union.
Last edited by a moderator:
kkgg7
Banned
Good point.
What is equality? If each citizen in a country makes $40,000 exactly, irrespective of his education, skills and experience, then I suppose by every standard used by international organization, this country has perfect income equality?
Equality means you are compensated based on your personal ability. Human lahour is like any consumer product. Its price is determined by demand and supply. Nobody requires a MBA/lawyer/doctor to be paid $100,000 while a bus driver $30,000. Yet can a bus driver give you legal advice, performs surgery or knows to how run a company? Probably not. Does a MBA/lawyer/doctor know how to drive a truck from A to B, or assemble auto parts? Give them a few weeks of training, they will. that's the difference.
When no one is willing to pay mor than $10 an hour for your labour and your life is miserable, it doesn't mean it is not fair, it only means your labour is in abundant supply and is only worth $10 an hour and no more. The right attitude is to learn some more skills and become more valuable to potential employees, instead of whining about unfairness. Envy those banks who make tons? Why not submit your resume to see if you qualify? A bank will be more than willing to pay $10 an hour to its executives too to save cost, but the fact is, when supply is scarce, the price goes up.
So in the past 30 years the bottom 20% make less money and the top 20% make more. Is it defined as "inequality"? The past 30 years have seen vast changes in terms of techological advancement. 30 years ago, most people have never used a computer before. When techology improves, computers and machines replace many low skilled workers, making their skills obsolete. So if someone today still possesses the kind of skills from 1985, should we be surprised that his real income actually dropped by 20%? I wouldn't. I call that fair.
And there is the workload associated wit it. Many of us tend to focus only on how much money others make, ignoring how much efforts they made. I know many friends who work in the financial industry. Their workload is unimaginable. Can you handle a 14 hour work schedule every single day? Can you sleep for a total of 6 hours in three days finishing a consulting project because the deadline is tight? Are you willing to sacrifice your time with your spouse and kids spending more hours with your colleagues/boss than family? It is not uncommon for a lawyer or investment banker to work for 80 hours a week or more. Are you able to do that?
I myself am not rich but I make a decent income. I know the value of education so I did two master's degree from a top university. I later spent 3 years studying every day after work for my professional certificate, one level each year. and I am still in constant fear/worry that my skills are not enough or useful. You expect to get a high school diploma or some trades from a crappy unknown school, and expect to be one of the middle class folks enjoying a comfortable life for the rest of your life?
Those who think their income is unfairly low should really think about two things
1) how competitive my skills/education are? Is there a lack of demand for people like me? Am I 100% replaceable (if fired today, can be replaced easily by 9 am tomorrow)?
2) have I studied hard in school to be outstanding, or I was always mediocre/below average? Have I constantly been improving myself, acquiring new skills to meet the demand of employers, or I have pretty much replied on the skills I had 10 years ago?