[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what exactly will the transition be? I mean there were poor people in the 1800s, and there are poor people in 2011. That will never change.

I think that transition is partly unclear - which is why the Occupy movements have had trouble creating a singular purpose. But it revolves around fairness and an equal playing field. I think the main argument is about the loss of opportunity (or perceived loss) to better yourself, to find and afford educational opportunities, and find jobs once you've been educated in a field. This is obviously more about the rest of the world than Calgary, which lives in an economic bubble, partly separated from the problems of the rest of the world atm.

I also think it also revolves around adaptations to the changing way of life as technology starts to have a bigger and bigger impact (see my comment later about their always being low page jobs.)

As I said, I think its different in every country. The US has a huge segment of a 'lower' middle class that has stagnated for 50 years or so with fewer opportunities, terrible public school options and recently fewer job opportunities. That segment of the population in Canada has done better (with the exceptions of some regions like those mentioned in this thread that haven't had new resources or technologies on which to base their economy.)

What changed is the opportunity for more people to not be poor. The rich and well do to were literally a select group of people back during the industrial revolution, while today there are a lot of nobodies that have done very well for themselves. In fact the majority of people in the developed world are doing well.

I agree. Before the industrial revolution and the migration to cities there was a tiny middle class. Now almost everyone is in the middle class and as a segment of the population the poor are tiny in comparison. Almost everyone was poor then and far worse off than the poor now who have government help. Don't forget that government hasn't always helped those who are less fortunate. That, and things like universal health care, only started very recently in our history.

The problem I see is being able to help those that need help, and doing it as efficiently as we can. Are we doing enough? I think we have this idea, and the government has it to, that if we allocate a certain amount of money to helping the mentally ill, as an example, then we're doing something. I don't think that is fair.

And to add to that - are corporations doing enough themselves? I know the bottom line is profit and the shareholders, and I believe that it should be. That's how capitalism works and it is capitalism that has taken the biggest segment of the population (the poor) and moved them into a much wealthier position (the middle class.) But perhaps corporations should do more to help, turning their technologies and people expertise into what you're citing, which is genuine help rather than throwing money at the problem.

There will always be low-paying jobs. The good part is that there are MORE high paying jobs these days than there were even 20 years ago.

Agree with your second statement.

But not with the first. There used to be a zillion low-paying jobs. But that isn't the case anymore. There used to be hand picked crops but its done be machines now. Factories used to employ hundreds of thousands of workers before machines took over and now they employ tens of thousands or fewer.

Luckily it worked out that our educations systems were able to stay ahead of the game and people moved into white collar and service industry jobs. But what happens when your waitress is a robot. When you're office is cleaned by a machine. It's possible, in fact its' probable, that eventually it will be more efficient and cheaper to have a machine do the jobs of the poor, and you know corporations will adopt them. What then?

And also, what about at the other end of the scale? I read an article recently that suggest that the US will require 50+ million technologically skilled employees in the computer industries in the next 25 years but will only educate 19 million in that time. That's an equally scary proposition if you live in North America because all those jobs will go to wherever the educated people are.