Toronto - The Capital of Poverty

[Hydrogen]

In the extreme cases, I suppose it would be due to lack of photo ID or whatever the bank deems sufficient identification, perhaps also lack of SIN card or SIN number.

Lack of a sufficient initial deposit can also be a factor.

Toronto now attracts only a fraction of the number of immigrants as it did before. Far less than the surrounding 905 region. So any negative impact on poverty rates via immigration patterns should be improving. They are not. I don't believe for a second that Toronto has a very unique demographic if immigrant that is unable to find work as opposed to those whom settle in the 905 region. I think that almost all immigrants are very hard working and will work in any capacity they can given the chance.

Glen,

Concerning the "fraction," is that total or per capita? Also, you look at immigrants in different regions, but isn't there a significant difference in the economic realities of those immigrants (I'd imagine there would be a significant range).

Again, my main criticism is the idea business taxes in the city have a direct relationship to higher rates of poverty. This is not an accusation or a suggestion that you have uttered such a thing, but that such a correlation speaks to other variables that are not mentioned in such a discussion. Without those details, such a relationship is spurious.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Here is the section of the stats Glen quotes from, from Toronto Community Foundation Vital Stats 2007:

Getting Started:

Finding work is difficult for new immigrants and the young
Getting hired half as often and making half as much has been the experience of recent immigrants in the Region:

In the Region, the unemployment rate of recent immigrants (those who entered the country in the 1996-2000 period) was 11.3% in 2001, 2.2 times the unemployment rate of non-immigrants (5.1%), While across the country, recent immigrants in 2001 experienced higher rates of unemployment than their non-immigrant neighbours, the Region’s rate of disparity was higher than the provincial average (2 times) and the national average (1.7 times). While in some cities, recent immigrants fared worse, notably in Montreal, where the unemployment rate of recent immigrants at 20.9% was more than triple the non-immigrant rate of 6.2%, elsewhere, recent immigrants found greater opportunity. In Sudbury for example, recent immigrants had an unemployment rate (8.7%) less than the local non-immigrant rate (9.3%)

The average individual income of recent immigrants in the Region in 2001 was $20,438, just under half (49.7%) the income of non-immigrants. The average earnings of Toronto’s recent immigrants relative to non-immigrants were lower than the Ontario average (61.2% of non-immigrants’ income) and the national average (65.7%).

Fewer are choosing to make a start in the Region than in previous years, especially in the City:

The number of immigrants settling in the Region dropped 12% from 112,784 in 2005 to 99,263 in 2006. This decline is consistent with the Ontario average (10% drop), but represents a greater decline than the national average (4% drop). In the past six years the proportion of permanent residents in the Region has fallen by 10% (from 49.9% in 2001 to 39.4% in 2006)

The Region has gained in population every year in the past ten years thanks to strong gains from international migration offset by smaller intra-provincial losses. In 2006, the Region gained 68,442 people.

The City however, has experienced much higher losses through intra-provincial migration that, from 2003 to 2005, more than offset gains from international immigration. In 2006, the City gained 5,920 people. In 2005 it experienced a net loss of 19,088 people.

http://www.tcf.ca/Theme/TCF/files/Vital_Signs_Report_2007_Expanded2.pdf

Losses through intraprovincial migration, offsetting international immigration. It doesn't tell me what fraction of immigrants the city attracts, the spread of immigrants in the GTA, much less the economic status of those immigrants AND out-migrants. How, I question, can one come to such dramatic conclusions about demographics, and by extension poverty levels on the basis of property tax when the data is so lacking? You tell me.

AoD

 

[Hydrogen]

^Thanks for that Alvin.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Census 2006 data further disproves the notion that the 905 belt is absorbing more immigrants than the central core:

Toronto CMA - Immigrants between 2001-2006:
447,925

City of Toronto - Immigrants between 2001-2006:
267,855

% of Toronto CMA immigrants settling at the core: ~60%.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/cen...arch/List/Page.cfm?Lang=E&GeoCode=35&Letter=T

Note this data does not even deal with potential for socioeconomic sorting effects. Also keep in mind that the population growth and the growth in number of dwelling units in the City of Toronto is much lower than in the rest of the GTA.

AoD

 

[King of Kensington]

Of course incomes are lower in 416 than in 905 but that has ZILCH to do with Miller or business taxes. In virtually every metropolitan area in North America poverty is concentrated in the city core and inner-ring suburbs. The outer suburbs are dominated by new single-family housing and has little rental stock.

Also the trend of immigrants increasingly bypassing the city and moving directly to the suburbs has been happening all over the place like in Orange County and Northern New Jersey. I don't think the fact that the proportion of immigrants settling in 905 has increased a little has anything to do with Miller's policies.