A question for the older members regarding the occupy movement and poverty.

[afc wimbledon]

Is it just me but every time I hear the OWS people going on about how much greater the disparity is between the rich and the poor I think back to the seventies when my single parent mum brought me up with no money and times for the poor in the seventies seemed way worse than they are now.

We had no phone, no TV and no car which was in no way unusual in the UK, we generally lived on canned meat, corned beef and spam, or offal, tripe, liver kidneys etc. I don't think I ever had a steak until I moved here in my mid twenties!

There were times, many many times, when we couldn't afford to put coins into the gas or electric meter so had no heat or light and most of my friends went through the same. My mum patched up my clothes, as did every other mum.

I ask this question because obviously things were harder in the UK than in Canada, but even with that in mind it seems to me that things have never been better for the poor than they are now, my foster kids parents, most of who are 'poor' have TV's, cell phones, food in the fridge and none of them have ever had their heat or services cut off except for the pointless cell phones they seem to waste much of their welfare on, all seem to be able to afford playstations and take the kids to McD's fairly regularly.

Is it just me or does being poor now look immeasurably better than being poor 30 or 40 years ago?

[woob]

Did you walk uphill both ways to school too? In the drifting snow?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by woob

Did you walk uphill both ways to school too? In the drifting snow?

I actually thought it was an interesting discussion point to bring up.

[woob]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I actually thought it was an interesting discussion point to bring up.

I did too, but it also had an air of "get off my lawn" to it Besides, afc had to know posts like this were coming. And yes, I lived in the 70s, even if it was just the last part of it.

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by woob

Did you walk uphill both ways to school too? In the drifting snow?

So constructive.

It's a legitimate question. Seems like every year the definition of "poor" shifts a little more. Years ago, being poor actually meant that you had to go without. My mother grew up in the Yukon in a single parent family, and she remembers periods of time when there was only one meal a day and any "new" clothes she got were donations from other families. Today is seems that "poor" means that you have to wait for your next welfare cheque before you can buy Modern Warfare 3.

[Hack&Lube]

The cost of housing and cost of education has gone up significantly since the 70s hasn't it?

[MelBridgeman]

Let just speak for Canada - but if you are on the bottom of the poor list here (homeless) you still have access to things poor people in third world countries don't have access too. Healthcare, shelter, food, clothing

Watch this documentary - Streets of Plenty to gain an idea of what its like to start with nothing (just your underwear) in Vancouver.
http://streetsofplenty.com/

[woob]

Originally Posted by Redliner

So constructive.

Sorry, I must have missed the notice that said no more sarcastic posts on CP.

That being said, I think it's all a matter of perspective. I went through my own period of being poor in the late 90s and I can assure you I wasn't wasting my assistance by waiting for the next new video game or computer accessory (yeah, I was a big geek back then too). It went to obtaining the food and things I needed while I went back to school. I can assure you I went without many things so that I could be sure my basics and rent were covered so I could re-educate myself.

There will always be examples of people abusing the assistance just like there will be examples of people using it very constructively to help them get to a point where they no longer need it.

[SeeBass]

Yes being poor is better today then it was 30-40 years ago just as it was worse than that 80 years ago.

I guess the statement of a society should be judged by how they treat their worst is a lasting one indeed.

We are not perfect but as long as we are getting better as a whole we are going in the right direction.

[Suave]

Here are some graphs from BNN

Showing after tax income by quintile


Showing the multiple difference between the top and bottom quintile. (y-axis values should be shifted one spot down)
\

The gap did widen in the mid-nineties, with the top 20% making 5.6x more then the bottom 20% compared compared to ~5.2x in the later seventies.

[Azure]

The definition of 'poor' is skewed. IIRC, 1/5 'poor' people own their house. 75% have air conditioning, 45% own their car, etc, etc.

Being poor in California is like being rich in Montana. And the stats don't point out the differences.

[1stLand]

It might seem that we are 'better off' now than in the 70's, but I think that is truely not the case.

Easy access to credit is making a 'better life' more accessible, but it's not real, considering people's lack the cash money to afford said life.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Yes being poor is better today then it was 30-40 years ago just as it was worse than that 80 years ago.

I guess the statement of a society should be judged by how they treat their worst is a lasting one indeed.

We are not perfect but as long as we are getting better as a whole we are going in the right direction.

I agree with this. We (government) is constantly bringing in new (or increasing funding to) programs for low income people.

Plus a more affluent society is more apt to give generously to charities.

The problem that results though, IMHO, is that expectations are then increased as well. Particularly in those in the lower income brackets. We end up seeing movements like Occupy calling for redistribution of wealth, etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

It does seem like the cost of owning a home is out of control these days. It seems like real estate inflated faster than wages and there is a pretty big segment of the younger generation that will never own a home of their own despite working just as hard as their parent's generation. There is a bit of bitterness there.

Back in my parent's generation, they could get a decent paying job out of highschool, buy a home and have hardly any debt.

[afc wimbledon]

Thanks for the responses, and I did expect someone to go woob on it so to speak, I asked the question because I am terrified of being poor, it is something that has hung over me all my life (not that it is a bad thing, I have always worked my arse off as a result) as I equate poor with an almost Dickensian life of cold and hunger, but it occured to me as the occupy mob were going on about how the rich were so much better off these days that I don't think they are really.

We all seem to have similar stuff, they have more of it, but we all have cell phones reliable cars, food in the fridge, big flat screen TV's etc, everyone eats out some, most go on vacation to Mexico or the like.

Of course I have little idea what life was like in Canada in the seventies if you were a single parent living on very little hence my question.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Is it just me but every time I hear the OWS people going on about how much greater the disparity is between the rich and the poor I think back to the seventies when my single parent mum brought me up with no money and times for the poor in the seventies seemed way worse than they are now.

We had no phone, no TV and no car which was in no way unusual in the UK, we generally lived on canned meat, corned beef and spam, or offal, tripe, liver kidneys etc. I don't think I ever had a steak until I moved here in my mid twenties!

There were times, many many times, when we couldn't afford to put coins into the gas or electric meter so had no heat or light and most of my friends went through the same. My mum patched up my clothes, as did every other mum.

I ask this question because obviously things were harder in the UK than in Canada, but even with that in mind it seems to me that things have never been better for the poor than they are now, my foster kids parents, most of who are 'poor' have TV's, cell phones, food in the fridge and none of them have ever had their heat or services cut off except for the pointless cell phones they seem to waste much of their welfare on, all seem to be able to afford playstations and take the kids to McD's fairly regularly.

Is it just me or does being poor now look immeasurably better than being poor 30 or 40 years ago?

I think it's more an issue of access to owning a house and entering the job market. This is easier than it has been historically, but harder than it was in the 1980s. My grandfather was born in a ghetto in Eastern Europe. However, my father got a high paying career almost instantly after graduating school and was then able to put a downpayment on a house right away. This happens rarely now.

Perhaps part of the problem is that we are using the 1980s as the measuring stick. This period of prosper was built on bad debt - that haunts us today - and may not be attainable again in the future.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Is it just me but every time I hear the OWS people going on about how much greater the disparity is between the rich and the poor I think back to the seventies when my single parent mum brought me up with no money and times for the poor in the seventies seemed way worse than they are now.

We had no phone, no TV and no car which was in no way unusual in the UK, we generally lived on canned meat, corned beef and spam, or offal, tripe, liver kidneys etc. I don't think I ever had a steak until I moved here in my mid twenties!

There were times, many many times, when we couldn't afford to put coins into the gas or electric meter so had no heat or light and most of my friends went through the same. My mum patched up my clothes, as did every other mum.

I ask this question because obviously things were harder in the UK than in Canada, but even with that in mind it seems to me that things have never been better for the poor than they are now, my foster kids parents, most of who are 'poor' have TV's, cell phones, food in the fridge and none of them have ever had their heat or services cut off except for the pointless cell phones they seem to waste much of their welfare on, all seem to be able to afford playstations and take the kids to McD's fairly regularly.

Is it just me or does being poor now look immeasurably better than being poor 30 or 40 years ago?

I'm 26 years old. My single Mom brought me up with no TV, no phone, most of the time no heat (living in rural PEI), very often no food, except for what we could get from the food bank, and I dropped out of high school due to, but not entirely, lack of guidance and stress from poverty.

Your definition of "poor" is wrong. There are still many, many "poor" individuals in Canada, and other industrialized nations. Not everyone goes on vacations to Mexico, not everyone owns a reliable automobile . . . where do you live to get this impression? Have you ever been to the East Coast?

[Jacks]

I know a ton of people who live 'paycheque to paycheque' and can't afford to save up for a down payment on a house. Most of them spend $300+ per month on cigarettes, $100's a month on booze and they buy lunch for $5-$10 per day rather than packing a lunch. Lots of the people who think they are poor have a spending problem.

[afc wimbledon]

I am in East Van, and havn't been out to the east coast, which is why I pose the question, my experience of poverty is through comparing my upbringing in the UK and my foster kids families, mostly east side Vancouver native families, who are considered very poor by stats canada standard and yet have way more than I could have dreamed of when I was a kid.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I know a ton of people who live 'paycheque to paycheque' and can't afford to save up for a down payment on a house. Most of them spend $300+ per month on cigarettes, $100's a month on booze and they buy lunch for $5-$10 per day rather than packing a lunch. Lots of the people who think they are poor have a spending problem.

Lots of people who think they are poor... is because they are actually poor and don't spend $300+ per month on cigarettes, $100's a month on booze and they don't buy lunch for $5-$10 per day