In the past year the Occupy movement and its rallying cry of “we are the 99 per cent” brought into the limelight the growing gap between the richest and poorest in the United States and the world. In December, columnist Charles M. Blow wrote in the New York Times that income inequality could be “the new global warming.”
Over the last 30 years, the distance between the richest and poorest Canadians has widened considerably. Using different income definitions will slightly change who belongs to Canada’s “one per cent” and “99 per cent,” but the basic story stays the same across a wide breadth of statistics: the richest Canadians make disproportionately more than the poorest, and, more importantly, in the last three decades income for the richest Canadians has increased far faster than it has for the poorest.
Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank says inequality isn’t about “insecurity about not having what others have.”
“What you need to spend to achieve basic goals depends, in a concrete way, on what others spend,” he says. “If you go for a job interview, you want to look good – but that means looking better than the other people who want the same job you do. If they spend more on suits, you’re less likely to get the callback.”
Frank points to education as the clearest example of inequality’s concrete consequences. Elementary and secondary schools with the best quality of education are often concentrated in high-income neighbourhoods. As the income gap widens and rich neighbourhoods become unaffordable for middle- and low-income families, good schools become less accessible.
There are many different ways to measure how much money people make. The primary source for studying Canadian incomes is Statistics Canada’s Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, which shows how earnings (employment income), market income (employment income plus private pensions, dividends, rental income and home equity), and after-tax income (market income and government supports minus income taxes) are distributed among individuals and economic families.
As of 2009, the average Canadian family had an after-tax income of $60,000, an increase of 16 per cent from the Canadian average of $52,000 in 1980. By contrast, the average income in the highest-earning 10 per cent of families saw a much larger increase of 34 per cent, and the bottom 10 per cent saw an increase of only 11 per cent. In other words, incomes have increased across the board, but the top 10 per cent have pulled ahead of the pack.
The gap is more exaggerated if we look at only employment earnings for working-age Canadians. The average income that families in the bottom 20 per cent make from employment has decreased by 60 per cent since 1980, whereas the average earnings in the top 10 per cent has grown by 45 per cent.
COMPARING CANADA WITH THE WORLD
Economists often use a number called the Gini coefficient to summarize how much income inequality a country has. A simple way of understanding the Gini coefficient is to look at its maximum and minimum values: a Gini of 0 is perfect equality, meaning everyone in the population takes home an equal share of the national income; a Gini of 1 is perfect inequality, in which only one person in the population takes home 100 per cent of the national income.
In a report released last year by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada’s Gini was estimated to be 0.32 – a middling value compared to 0.37 in the United States, 0.36 in the United Kingdom, 0.29 in France and 0.25 in Denmark. More telling is that in the past decade, Canada’s Gini has risen faster than all but five of the OECD’s 34 countries, climbing at almost double the rate of the United States.
To fully understand the income situation in a country, we also have to look at how easy it is for earners to move from one income bracket to another. The most comprehensive study of economic mobility in Canada was done in 2006 by Miles Corak, a researcher at the University of Ottawa, who used administrative data dating back to the 1960s to compare the earnings of a group of Canadian men to the earnings of their fathers. He found that the income bracket the men were born into had relatively little effect on how much they earned, compared to other Western countries.
For instance, a man born to a father who earns in the bottom 10 per cent has a 38 per cent chance of earning above the Canadian average, and a 16 per cent chance of staying at the bottom. By contrast, if you were born in the bottom 10 per cent in the much less mobile U.S., your likelihood of making it into the top half of the earnings distribution is only 30 per cent, and you have a 22 per cent chance of staying at the bottom.
So while the income gap is growing in Canada, it is still comparatively easy to climb the ladder. In fact, Canada’s mobility is on par with Denmark and Norway, which are among the most economically mobile countries in the OECD.
WHY INEQUALITY MATTERS
Using data from 23 countries, British economist Richard Wilkinson has linked inequality to 10 social indicators like life expectancy, teenage births, obesity, homicides, imprisonment and infant mortality rates. Wilkinson says that as the income gap widens, problems related to social status increase – in particular, the “things that are more common at the bottom of the social ladder,” like health problems and crime.
“In a way, the whole picture is very simple,” he says. “All we’re saying is that these problems that people know are related to social status get worse when social status differentiation increases."
Research has shown that increasing inequality leads to income enclaves. In a 2007 study, University of Toronto researcher David Hulchanski found that he could draw distinct borders around neighbourhoods in Toronto that had low, middle and high income. The fraction of Toronto made up of low-income neighbourhoods grew from 19 per cent in 1970 to more than half of Toronto’s total area in 2005, while middle-income neighbourhoods shrank from 66 per cent to 29 per cent.
Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and a primary researcher on the CCPA’s “Growing Gap” project, stresses the costs of neighbourhood income disparity.
“Housing takes the biggest bite out of our incomes. People without a lot of money end up living in cheaper places, and cheaper places are geographically specific – they don’t have good transit, good schools, good public spaces, or good retail,” she says. “That has consequences for how our kids get raised.”
> Gini coefficient: 0.330<br>
> Change in income inequality: +21.8%<br>
> Employment rate: 72.3% (6th highest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +2.5% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +1.1% per year
New Zealand performs well by a number of economic indicators, including employment, where it ranks sixth highest out of the 27 OECD countries in the study. Income in New Zealand has increased across the board since the 1980s, but the percentage annual increase among the top decile was more than twice as great as among the bottom decile. Among OECD nations, capital income in New Zealand as a percentage of total household income grew the most for the richest group and decreased substantially for the poorest group.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
9. Australia
> Gini coefficient: 0.336<br>
> Change in income inequality: +8.7%<br>
> Employment rate: 72.4% (5th highest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +4.5% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +3% per year
The difference in the annual increase in income between the richest and the poorest in Australia from the mid-1980s to 2008 is one of the largest among all countries in the study. The average annual change in income for the bottom decile was 3%, compared with the top decile's 4.5%. This caused the Gini coefficient to increase 8.7% over those years. Australia has one of the highest minimum wages, as a percentage of average wages, of all the G-20 countries. The country also has a fairly high employment rate.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
8. Italy
> Gini coefficient: 0.337<br>
> Change in income inequality: +9.0%<br>
> Employment rate: 56.9% (3rd lowest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +1.1% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +0.2% per year
In Italy, income inequality increased 9% between 1985 and 2008. According to the OECD, earnings for the wealthiest 10% increased an average of 1.1% each year, while earnings for the poorest 10% grew just 0.2% annually. Italy has the third-lowest employment rate among the 27 nations in the study, with just 56.9% of working-age adults holding jobs in 2008. Since 1985, unemployment benefits declined by more than 50% to one of the lowest recipient rates in the OECD.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
7. United Kingdom
> Gini coefficient: 0.345<br>
> Change in income inequality: +7.9%<br>
> Employment rate: 70.3% (10th highest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +2.5% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +0.9% per year
The UK had one of the biggest increases in the income gap between the wealthy and the poor over the past two and a half decades. On average, the income of the bottom 10% increased 0.9%, while income for the top 10% grew 2.5% per year. After Israel and Australia, the UK had the third-largest difference between the top decile's annual income increase and the bottom decile's increase. The income ratio of the wealthiest citizens to the poorest citizens is 10 to one.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
6. Portugal
> Gini coefficient: 0.353<br>
> Change in income inequality: n/a<br>
> Employment rate: 65.6% (14th highest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +1.1% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +3.6% per year
Despite its high Gini coefficient, Portugal's income inequality has been improving. From the mid-1980s to the late 2000s, the incomes of the country's poorest increased an average 3.6% each year. The incomes of the richest grew only 1.1% annually. The country has increased its efforts to redistribute income since the mid-1980s, such as through benefits for the unemployed.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
5. Israel
> Gini coefficient: 0.371<br>
> Change in income inequality: +13.8%<br>
> Employment rate: 60.2% (7th lowest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +2.4% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: -1.1% per year
In Israel, the average income of the bottom 10% actually decreased between 1985 and 2008. On average, income of the top 10% increased 2.4% per year. During the same period, income of the poorest 10% declined 1.1% each year -- the worst rate of decline among the 27 nations studied. Only one other country, Japan, saw its bottom decile's income fall as well. According to the OECD, the top 10% of Israel's residents make 14 times more than the poorest 10%.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
4. United States
> Gini coefficient: 0.378<br>
> Change in income inequality: +12.1%<br>
> Employment rate: 66.7% (13th highest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +1.9% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +0.5% per year
Inequality in the United States increased significantly from 1985 to 2008, putting it in the fourth-worst spot in the study. As with many other countries in which income inequality has increased, average income has gone up across all income groups since the mid-1980s, but not equally. The income of the wealthiest 10% has greatly outpaced the poorest 10%. The share enjoyed by the top 0.1% in total pretax income quadrupled in the 30 years to 2008.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
3. Turkey
> Gini coefficient: 0.409<br>
> Change in income inequality: -5.8%<br>
> Employment rate: 46.3% (the lowest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +0.1% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +0.8% per year
Turkey was one of the few OECD countries to experience a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor, with income inequality improving 5.8% between 1985 and 2008. However, it still has the third-highest income inequality among the countries in this study. Part of Turkey's problem is a relatively low number of government programs to aid the poorest citizens. The average government social expenditure among OECD nations is close to 20% of GDP, while it spends just above 10% -- the third-lowest percentage. The wealthiest 10% of Turkey's residents make 14 times more, on average, than the poorest 10%.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
2. Mexico
> Gini coefficient: 0.476<br>
> Change in income inequality: +5.1%<br>
> Employment rate: 60.4% (8th lowest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +1.7% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +0.8% per year
Mexico has one of the highest rates of income inequality. Among all OECD countries, Mexico has the lowest amount of public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It also has the lowest unemployment benefit recipient rates. Finally, the country has the lowest minimum wages as a percentage of average wages.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
1. Chile
> Gini coefficient: 0.494<br>
> Change in income inequality: n/a<br>
> Employment rate: 59.3% (4th lowest)<br>
> Change in income of the rich: +1.2% per year<br>
> Change in income of the poor: +2.4% per year
Chile is one of the few countries where the income of the poor increased at a higher annual rate than the income of the wealthy, 2.4% to 1.2%. Nevertheless, the South American nation has the worst income inequality among the 27 OECD nations examined. Chile has a particularly high rate of self-employed individuals, primarily because of its large farming class. The income ratio of the top 10% to the bottom 10% is 27 to one.<br>
<a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>
With a 22 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods, Quebec City has seen the smallest growth in neighbourhood inequality. However, the city also saw the largest proportion of neighbourhoods in decline. The numbers suggest some six in 10 neighbourhoods saw their income decline from 1980 to 2005.
7: Winnipeg -- 31.5 per cent
7: Winnipeg -- 31.5 per cent
Winnipeg saw a 31.5 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods suffering a 7.6 per cent decline, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow 24 per cent.
6: Montreal -- 34 per cent
6: Montreal -- 34 per cent
Montreal saw a 34 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods suffering a 10 per cent decline, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow 24 per cent.
<em>Correction: An earlier version of this text misidentified Montreal as Winnipeg.</em>
5: Vancouver -- 36.5 per cent
5: Vancouver -- 36.5 per cent
Vancouver saw a 36.5 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods suffering a 10.5 per cent decline, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow 26 per cent.
4: Ottawa -- 37 per cent
4: Ottawa -- 37 per cent
Ottawa saw a 37 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods growing 1.3 per cent in income, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow nearly 36 per cent. Ottawa is unique in that none of its neighbourhood deciles suffered an income decline during the period.
3: Edmonton -- 39 per cent
3: Edmonton -- 39 per cent
Edmonton saw a 39 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods suffering a 7.8 per cent decline, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow 31.5 per cent.
2: Toronto -- 68 per cent
2: Toronto -- 68 per cent
Toronto saw a 68 per cent increase in the gap between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods from 1980 to 2005, with its poorest neighbourhoods suffering a 5.5 per cent decline, while its wealthiest 10 per cent of neighbourhoods saw income grow 62.5 per cent.
1: Calgary -- 81 per cent
1: Calgary -- 81 per cent
With an 81 per cent increase in the difference between its richest and poorest neighbourhoods, Calgary wins Canada's ghettoization crown. It's worthwhile to note that Calgary's large increases in income in the wealthiest neighbourhoods has not pulled up its poorest areas, which have seen declines in income on the same scale as low-end neighbourhoods in other Canadian cities.
This feature was produced by Jeff Fraser, a student in Ryerson University's School of Journalism, in partnership with The Huffington Post Canada.
In the past year the Occupy movement and its rallyi...
This feature was produced by Jeff Fraser, a student in Ryerson University's School of Journalism, in partnership with The Huffington Post Canada.
In the past year the Occupy movement and its rallyi...
Canada risks becoming a more violent and anti-social place if it allows income inequality to worsen, one of the world’s leading experts on the subject...
High-income buyers are a driving force behind Toronto’s booming housing market, fuelling demand for an extremely limited supply of properties in desirable areas, says one...
Montreal has seen its middle class neighbourhoods shrink as industrial jobs disappear, but economic segregation is worsening at a slower pace than in Vancouver and...
Following an awareness breakthrough in 2011, public support and political interest for addressing inequality is apparent. But what is to be done? The more effective option for combating inequality is for governments to, first, rebuild greater fairness into our systems of taxation and, second, increase the distribution of income from the "top" to the "bottom."
Yet we keep voting in the elite class or their puppets to run the show. What did we expect from that? The Harper CONS are there for the elite, not the average working person, so stop voting them in thinking they are there for you.
cheeseplease: Yet we keep voting in the elite class or their
the constant tax attack on the middle class has not helped , I remember making 40k a year was good but that 40k can barely make ends meet,
with the middle class gone or almost gone you have either rich or poor, there is no middle,
Toronto will be another American city with Ghetto's poverty crime, the time is for governments to work on getting the middle class back, sadly we already have too many Ghetto's in Toronto, which angers me to no end. What also should be done is curb immigration levels and tie them to unemployment levels, with high employment levels immigration should be place on hold. Getting people who are in Canada back to work should be priority not recruiting around the word,
revelationman: the constant tax attack on the middle class has not
It's not about immigration, it's about entitlements. Even if you collect and increase taxes, it's not going to help the people. The tax dollars would be used to buy figther jet planes or bail out rich banks. The government seem to not care about the economy or it's people anymore as long as the money in their pockets grows, there is no reason for them to change.
kingemperor: It's not about immigration, it's about entitlements. Even if you
Lower your tariffs and watch as the corporate titans move industry to countries with Dickens era wages and working conditions and their finances to Panama or the Caymans. The burden is continually shifted to the middle and working classes and the gap grows.
SheikArbusto: Lower your tariffs and watch as the corporate titans move
Changing E! rules won't help nor will governments intervention of labour disputes help. Also when peple get raises there is an imbalance.A 2,5% increase of a doctor's salary is a lot more than a 2.5 % increase of a sales clerk's salary. Perhaps ian ncrease of higher paid workers should be less and of lower paid workers be more. Since base salaries are always remarkably different the % gap could be lessened. There of course are many workers making lower salaries then and fewer people making larger salaries. Something like the animal kingdom or the money pyramid or. Well you name a symbolic parallel.
piceaglauca: Changing E! rules won't help nor will governments intervention of
While I can acknowledge the existence of the1%, I vehemently dispute lumping everyone else into any sort of homogenous community of the remaining 99%. That was a concept adopted by the occupy movement in order to attach itself to instant credibility. But nothing could be further from the truth.
There's at 3, maybe 4, different community levels in the 99%. And along with an education, profession and income gap, there's also what I call a dedication gap.
A commitment and determination to improve one's own lot in life, without expecting society to do it for us. The refusal to give in to life's complications. The.desire to pull ourselves by the bootstraps and get out there each and every day in an effort to better our own lives.
I'm not equating laziness with poverty. The poor are more often people who've been overcharged by life for their mistakes. And our social programs should be there to protect them.
But if the 30% of student protesters had spent 100 days walking in search of independant income, instead walking to perpetuate dependance on the government, then in all likelyhood their issue with the tuition increase would be resolved and their burden on the taxpayer would be at least partially relieved.
TonyOnly: While I can acknowledge the existence of the1%, I vehemently
"I'm not equating laziness with poverty. The poor are more often people who've been overcharged by life for their mistakes. And our social programs should be there to protect them."
You're not, eh? Your logic is poverty equals mistakes. Perhaps you meant misfortunes? Maybe we are to blame for our misfortunes?
"Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential,[10] and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public, and focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs. Socialists argue that socialism would allow for wealth to be distributed based on how much one contributes to society, as opposed to how much capital one holds."----Wikipedia
What does 'exploitation" mean?
Diggersin: "I'm not equating laziness with poverty. The poor are more
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you accusing me of being a socialist because I said poverty doesn't equal laziness?
Or are you trying to play amateur shrink by saying somewhere deep down inside I blame the poor for their misfortune?
My comment was simply meant to say, I believe the protesters would've been better off spending the 100 days in search of independant income rather than trying tp perpetuate their dependance on the government.
In either case, it's rude to make assumptions about someone you've never met. Too often these days people think if they can discredit
TonyOnly: I'm not sure what your point is. Are you accusing
I take exception with your comments in the last paragraph. First, do you live in Quebec?
One has to have an understanding of the philosphical educational values of French society and the province itself to understand the movement. If you don't to outwardly criticise it is a mistake. Their beliefs are not English societies so to impose your arguement that their demand is unreasonal be given the costs in other jurisdictions is not sound. You can't compare apples in this situation because it really is apples and oranges.
piceaglauca: I take exception with your comments in the last paragraph.
10yrs ago was an Anglo Quebecer, in his 50's, unemployed and on welfare. Even the bureaucrats thought I would never work again. But I refused to give in or give up. I went out there every day and took any job I could get. Which led to a job I could tolerate, which eventually led to meaningful employment. Last year I became a 1st time property owner at the age of 61, when I bought a condo.
So don't try to tell me the opportunities aren't there. Because I know that's not true. Even for an older Anglo in today's Quebec.
For linguistic purposes, it may necessary to think of Quebec as an island. But economically, times have changed. Quebec has to be competitive globally. We can no longer afford to ignore our debt if we want to pass on our standard of living to future generations.
TonyOnly: 10yrs ago was an Anglo Quebecer, in his 50's, unemployed
When I was a kid I lived next to a prof hockey player who sold cars in the summer to make ends meet, now they make $5m a year, in fact the top 50 hockey players make more than the top 50 CEO's in Canada.
On the other hand, I know of 3rd and 4th generation welfare people(why is that?) and my sister didnt like getting up early for work and went on welfare 32 years ago, I envy her apartment(rent $129, market rent $1500), but she could not mentally work today, after 32 yrs of welfare.
LetsKeepitSimple: When I was a kid I lived next to a
So you 'envy' your sister. How smug is that! If she lives in Ontario, after rent, she's got $400 to buy food, soap, clothes.... also how much is a bus pass where she is?
If you read the article it points out that the candidates with the best chance in a job interview are those with the best clothes (prettiest, too I would add) and don't forget white teeth and not older than about 50.
Diggersin: So you 'envy' your sister. How smug is that! If
While she doesnt have to work and she would likely have to earn $45K to have the same lifestyle after tax. Factor in the dental, the physio, the $1500 apt, no need for clothes to go to work nor buy your lunch etc etc. I cant afford $1500 for an apt, walk to U of T, a new townhouse(when she moved in in 1980). Now if she had an once of industry, she could also earn money under the table and really do well
LetsKeepitSimple: While she doesnt have to work and she would likely
Only a few hockey players last more then a few years. Try these MP pensions after a 6 year commitment. As for CEO's they work a life time.
Michaael Chong $3 124 903
Peter Van Loan $3 194 114
Rona Ambrose $3 330 876
Rob Anders 3 643 873 (Alias Sleepy)
Denis Corderre $3 701 989
Scott Brison $3 723 666
James Moore $3 795 386
Gerry Bryne $3 996 498
Jason Kenny $4 318 507
Stephen Harper $5 596 474
PS: Basebal players in the US play ball for 20-30 years. Look up their salaries. You'll get sick.
piceaglauca: Only a few hockey players last more then a few
If I had a chance to play hockey for three years at three million a year I'd take it...the idea that they only "work" for a few years in comparison to a regular joe is no arguement.
Greed exists in all fields including the medical profession It is human nature. Until we are able to put in place a form of government controlled by the people it will continue.
Did you vote in the last election and did your vote make any difference ? Until a proportional representation system and enforced voting system is established, expect to see more of the same.
The subject of pensions came up in Parliament a few weeks ago and the government said there would be a review. See any results yet ? Don't hold you breath for any party to promise to do something about the issue.
homwwilk: Greed exists in all fields including the medical profession It
The boiling point will be the inequality between Public workers with their indexed pensions and working stiffs who will....have to keep working till they drop.
Bobo_Macoute: The boiling point will be the inequality between Public workers
And thats what the 1% want you to focus on. "Why do they have all this stuff"? opposed to "Why did I used to get this stuff and now no longer do, while companies are making record profits".?
NekkidTruth: And thats what the 1% want you to focus on.
A large Canadian bank sent my mom an updated list of service charges. Things you used to get for free are now costing as high as $7 - $10 EACH! This came shortly after an article in the paper about this exact bank hitting a record $1.7 BILLION dollar profit that quarter. My mom promptly cut out that article, headed in to the bank and shut down all of her accounts. She is in the process of moving her mortgage.
We need to tell these people that we will NOT be squeezed until we have nothing left! People need to fight back. One person moving all her accounts might not be a big deal, but when thousands do it, it makes a difference. This is why we protest, this is why we boycott. I just hope the middle and low class get their fighting spirit back!
Emmy555: A large Canadian bank sent my mom an updated list
Yes, the divide and conquer process will be complete when those lucky enough not to have had their incomes and pensions razed are attacked by those who have lost everything. Meanwhile the wealthy will be smoking expensive cigars and drinking champagne. Taking in the entertainment.
albertarick: Yes, the divide and conquer process will be complete when
How ironic Dalton's Ontario number 2 in Ghetto number 2 income inequality this what you get, Ontario will be another American City
I wish people in this province wake up and stop voting for the Liberals,
revelationman: How ironic Dalton's Ontario number 2 in Ghetto number 2
Why do you believe it is all the fault of the Liberals ? Do you not believe the Harris Conservatives also created a problem?
I am apolitical and vote for whatever party I believe has the most sensible platform . The Liberals have done what all politicians do and that is make decisions which they believe to be the right, given circumstances they face, and oh by the way, decisions that will garner votes. It won't matter who gets in, they will act this way.
Until we get proportional reprresentation instead of the first past the post electoral system, the people will have little control over the actions of the politicians. McGinty is no worse than some others we have had.
homwwilk: Why do you believe it is all the fault of
While I believe Proportional Rep. is the way to go also, I can't believe its going to happen within the next couple of generations after two confusing referendums in the last ten years in B.C. and Ontario. Both failed miserably. In Ontario only 30some percent in favour. Some believe was due to a confusing question and not a yes or no as in B.C.
Diggersin: While I believe Proportional Rep. is the way to go
They can keep their million dollar tombs as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just as happy to live in a tent with a fresh garden and some friendly farm animals grazing the land.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.
—Matthew 6:19-21,24
Wolf3y3s: They can keep their million dollar tombs as far as
Um you must not live where it is cold if you are happy to live in a tent. Also, animals cannot graze year round in cold weather.......do try to keep up!
saskatoonie: Um you must not live where it is cold if
Keep on convincing yourself that your imaginary friend will look after your needs. It makes it so much easier to steal from you when you pretend that you didn't want your stuff anyway.
albertarick: Keep on convincing yourself that your imaginary friend will look
Seting up trade barriers will not necessarily have the right outcome. Proper management of the trade with other countries is necessary, but the governments we have had have only believed in the " trickle down " theory of economics which has been proven to be a failure. They will, however, not abandon their ideological position for one that makes more sense.
Granted it is not easy to come up with solutions, but some things that worked in the past would be well worth revisiting. The Auto Pact with the U.S. comes to mind as a pattern.
That pact resulted in the expansion of the production of cars, trucks and busses in Canada and the growth of the manufacturing field generally.
You cannot just close the doors to foreign investment in Canada or to the importation of goods from other countries, but their needs to be a much more rigid set of controls. Unfortunately, this is not the mind set of the Reform/Conservative government we are saddled with . They are dead set on giving away the keys to our future. The new rules relative to increasing the benchmark level to 1 billion dollars before any review process kicks in, is an indicator.
homwwilk: Seting up trade barriers will not necessarily have the right
Interesting you refer to the (now mostly defunct) Auto Pact. Except for a few home grown Canadian manufacturing industries in which we excelled such as shoes and other leather work and textiles, steel processing and even electronics, Canadian manufacturing has been branch plant U.S.
And where are they now? Mexico and China. FTA and NAFTA have only a deleterious effect for Canada.
Diggersin: Interesting you refer to the (now mostly defunct) Auto Pact.
The most dangerous thing in the world is an idea (ideology), when its the only one you have. We need to make sure Harper is sent to the woodshed after his term. He is incapable of any balanced, rationally considered approach to our economy. Any thing that deviates from his sell it, privatise it, cut it, defund it, eliminate it, simplistic views will never make it past this leaderships desk.
albertarick: The most dangerous thing in the world is an idea
The scam has been exposed it is time to stop the economic destruction. The world needs a new direction and Capitalism based greed is not the answer. It is the problem.
We need new leadership, new ideas, if we are ever going to solve this man made mess. Since it is obvious the way it is now, we have about 5 good years left.
Mad_Hatter_1: The scam has been exposed it is time to stop
You live in a fantasy world. We will be lucky to have 5 years to my mind.
I can't agree totally with you that Capitalism is the worst of all systems. The unfortunate problem is that you are dealing with human nature . Humans will always be greedy unless s controlled. Capitalism has been responsible for a great improvement in the well being and lifestyles of humans but it has spun out of control of the people . Until the people take control of the political process and insist on a fairer distribution of the benefits of economic effort, nothing much will change.
To my mind, the first and foremost change has to be in our electoral system. Away from " first past the post " to proportional representation whereby eveybody's vote would count. At the same time there must be a way to enforce voting. Basically, if you don't vote, you have no right to " bitch and chew " about the government you get.
homwwilk: You live in a fantasy world. We will be lucky
The problem isn't capitalism because we no longer live under actual proper capitalism. We live under corporatism now and corporatism is an economic leech that will suck us all dry for the benefit of a small handful.
Until governments step in and start taxing and regulating corporations (especially income from certain investments) like it was the 70s...we will continue to see all wealth and power shift back to the hands of a few. Then we are just a modern serfdom at that point.
Mools: The problem isn't capitalism because we no longer live under
I wish I did. I think the best thing any government can do is maintain a healthy budget. I sure miss Paul Martin. We are however our own worst enemy. If they don't give us what we demand we vote them out. So in the end we force them to spend irresponsibly.
Murray_Mason: I wish I did. I think the best thing any
and yet the plan is to emulate the Americans, who are already farther down the curve for gapping, and creating conditions where democracy is impossible. And wrapping it up as just lazy, unmotivated workers not wanting to get their hands dirty. Sadly, scoring a run is a lot easier when you start with a lead-off on second than when you bunt; if you do score from 2nd, it's not superior skill, no matter how much Faux or the equiv says that's the case.
walkerhds: and yet the plan is to emulate the Americans, who
Loading comments… 
The Huffington Post Canada | By Jeff Fraser Posted: 05/27/2012 12:16 pm Updated: 05/28/2012 4:54 am