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

[afc wimbledon]

I should make it clear I am not trying to suggest there isn't poverty just that it seems to have changed for the better over my lifetime.

[Calgaryborn]

In the 70s we had a second hand black and white TV with 2 sometimes 3 channels depending on the weather. We had no car so walked everywhere. Had a second hand bike given to us. For school I had peanut butter or cheese sandwhiches at the beginning of the month and probably fried egg sandwiches at the end of the month. There was no food banks where we lived. Fried eggs or potatoes for supper wasn't uncommon towards the end of the month.

That was the 70s and of course things are different today with computers and cable TV and such. I really don't know what folks have and don't have today. I'm sure it depends on where you live. There is more food banks and more entertainment out there. Food is more expensive and housing/heating. Clothes are a lot cheaper thanks to China but, less quality.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by 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/

I watched it and that guy is a goof and there are many other non-complimentary words I would use to describe him as well. The fact that anyone would willingly go down to the East Side and shoot up Heroin and smoke crack, take clothing and donated gifts for the homeless, fake a mental illness and then at the end of it say that addiction is the cause of the problems is completely ignoring the circumstances that result in someone being homeless and finding the need to do drugs.

It looks easy for someone with a University education, or at least part of one to take advantage of social services for the most part... okay what about someone who has schizophrenia, isn't on medication, is addicted to heroin because it provides some relief and likely has a number of concurrent issues related to drug use and living in an unsanitary environment... to say that his problems are related to his drug use and a weakness (which is what I think he was saying in the video), is insulting and just plain stupid.

As for the original poster - yes there are services available and that people who are poor can have a relatively decent life, but I wouldn't say it is as comfortable as some people make it out to be. The real issue is the health care costs associated with poverty though and that is where long term savings can be seen.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

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

I never said that there aren't any poor people.

[sclitheroe]

Things may be better for Western poor people, but they are like the 1% of the poor relative to the 99% trapped in genuine third world poverty conditions. Someone living in a slum (or worse) in Haiti or dying of TB while working in a gold mine in Africa is looking at essentially a hopeless situation.

That's the thing that strikes me the most about OWS - you can talk about wealth gaps, but fundamentally, a shanty still looks like a shanty from 50 years ago. The gap between the Western lower and upper class is nothing compared to the gap everyone in North America has put on the truly poor.

[HPLovecraft]

I can't speak for East Vancouver, but from my experience, actual poverty more than exists in this country. I've experienced it first hand living in a rural community, and here in Toronto in areas. However, city living is entirely different to country living, and the types of poverty are different, too. Some rural communities and households in Canada are brutal when it comes to poverty compared to what you'll see in cities.

I grew up in poverty in one of those rural communities (actually several), and at 26, I'm still struggling with some aspects of it, though I am better off than I ever was before, and I am still improving, but it was never because I smoke (I don't), or I spend all my money on booze (I don't drink), or that I gamble (I don't gamble), but because escaping from a poverty you were raised in is a difficult thing to do. Not everyone succeeds, as it seems you did. And while the type of poverty has changed somewhat over the centuries (obviously people generally don't starve to death on a city street any longer, and don't live in wooden huts), there is still poverty very similar to what you experienced existent in this country. Not everyone goes on vacation to Mexico (or vacation to anywhere, really), not everyone has a reliable car, and not everyone has food in their fridge to feed their kids at all times. It baffles me that you would assume that.

It almost seems, not particularly from you, but from many people I've spoken to offline and online, that there is an almost disdain for those in poverty these days, as if they are assumed to be there because of their spending habits alone, and those criticising them are in general better people because of their greater supposed fiscal responsibility. It's an odd thing to come across.

[Jacks]

Let's clear the air here, it was mentioned in this thread that people couldn't save enough for down payments on houses because their jobs didn't pay enough. I said that I know many people who say that but who spend hundreds of dollars every month on things they don't need. I never said that poor people are poor because they spend all their money on smokes and booze.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Let's clear the air here, it was mentioned in this thread that people couldn't save enough for down payments on houses because their jobs didn't pay enough. I said that I know many people who say that but who spend hundreds of dollars every month on things they don't need. I never said that poor people are poor because they spend all their money on smokes and booze.

Not sure if you're posting in reference to what I said, but I'm not accusing you in particular of anything. Though from my experience -- which is of course completely anecdotal -- a number of people these days tend to view those they perceive as "poor" as being that way because of their own faults, or deficiencies, or vices. As the popular saying goes, "the cream always rises to the top," and by association that must mean those at the bottom are the inefficient dregs that have sunk there due to their own merits, or lack thereof.

Maybe that impression comes from those with city-life cynicism. Toronto has a lot of that.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Not sure if you're posting in reference to what I said.

I agree with what you've said. Just thought people were taking my post out of context and wanted to clear it up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

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?

Sadly, the definition of 'poor' has been skewed. Today, 'poor' people have air conditioning, drive nice cars, own their own house, but pay for their food with food stamps.

I would venture a guess that a lot of 'poor' people have no idea what the poor is you're talking about.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Agent86

I watched it and that guy is a goof and there are many other non-complimentary words I would use to describe him as well. The fact that anyone would willingly go down to the East Side and shoot up Heroin and smoke crack, take clothing and donated gifts for the homeless, fake a mental illness and then at the end of it say that addiction is the cause of the problems is completely ignoring the circumstances that result in someone being homeless and finding the need to do drugs.

It looks easy for someone with a University education, or at least part of one to take advantage of social services for the most part... okay what about someone who has schizophrenia, isn't on medication, is addicted to heroin because it provides some relief and likely has a number of concurrent issues related to drug use and living in an unsanitary environment... to say that his problems are related to his drug use and a weakness (which is what I think he was saying in the video), is insulting and just plain stupid.

As for the original poster - yes there are services available and that people who are poor can have a relatively decent life, but I wouldn't say it is as comfortable as some people make it out to be. The real issue is the health care costs associated with poverty though and that is where long term savings can be seen.

In his defence, I don't think this is really the point of what he was saying. He doesn't comment on why people start drugs. He just says that if you can remain sober and mentally with it, you have a much better chance of taking advantage of social programs.

This could be interpreted a number of ways. You could interpret it to mean that mindlessly throwing money at the problem is ineffective unless you address the issues of addiction/mental illness. Not a statement I disagree with.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Things may be better for Western poor people, but they are like the 1% of the poor relative to the 99% trapped in genuine third world poverty conditions. Someone living in a slum (or worse) in Haiti or dying of TB while working in a gold mine in Africa is looking at essentially a hopeless situation.

That's the thing that strikes me the most about OWS - you can talk about wealth gaps, but fundamentally, a shanty still looks like a shanty from 50 years ago. The gap between the Western lower and upper class is nothing compared to the gap everyone in North America has put on the truly poor.

This.

I hate the difference between the rich and the poor in North America as well, but we are still blessed. We disagree on how to effectively curb a spending problem, while countries like Haiti can't afford the $1/day that it costs to provide water to one person.

Or whatever the cost is.

The definition of poor is wrong. Completely wrong. Poor is not being able to afford your basic needs. Poor is not when you can't buy the NFL package on DirectTV.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sadly, the definition of 'poor' has been skewed. Today, 'poor' people have air conditioning, drive nice cars, own their own house, but pay for their food with food stamps.

I would venture a guess that a lot of 'poor' people have no idea what the poor is you're talking about.

I would hazard a guess and say that the number of people living under the poverty line and having everything that you listed is going to be pretty small. Go down to the womens shelter, the DIC or whatever the youth center is called in Calgary and then you will see poverty and poor people who don't have anything let alone the luxuries that you listed there. In my experiences I think that the biggest issue is the people who are living with a mental illness and don't receive adequate care and that in turn leads to higher rates of poverty... which is of particular concern when you factor in the genetic predisposition to many mental illnesses and the social determinants of health... a lot of people aren't really given a fair chance.

I worked with one lady, Calgary in January, no heat, no windows on her place, neighbors electricity being used in exchange for her driveway, awful landlord, no plumbing (would have frozen anyway) and was getting 1,000 dollars a month on AISH. While not every poor person in Canada is this bad, this is not an unusual case... it is just unpleasant to look at.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sadly, the definition of 'poor' has been skewed. Today, 'poor' people have air conditioning, drive nice cars, own their own house, but pay for their food with food stamps.

I would venture a guess that a lot of 'poor' people have no idea what the poor is you're talking about.

The home ownership rate in Canada has risen only 10-15% in the last 40 years. There isn't a significantly greater portion of poor people owning housing than there was in the '70s.

[GP_Matt]

I think there is a huge difference regionally across this country. I grew up in Alberta and there was always a job to be had if you wanted one. In high school the only kids who didn't have part time jobs were seen as either lazy or having rich parents. I was surprised when I was talking with a friend who grew up in New Brunswick. He was talking about having no money in high school and I asked why he didn't just get a part time job. Living in Alberta (and being young enough to have missed the last oil bust) it is hard to imagine the lack of opportunities elsewhere in the country and within parts of this province as well.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sadly, the definition of 'poor' has been skewed. Today, 'poor' people have air conditioning, drive nice cars, own their own house, but pay for their food with food stamps.

I would venture a guess that a lot of 'poor' people have no idea what the poor is you're talking about.

I wouldn't doubt it. I've never known someone living in actual poverty -- hardly able to provide for much more than basic needs -- to own a house. Though one could fall into poverty afterwards, I suppose.

Regardless, though, the fact that there are still genuinely impoverished people in Canada shouldn't be obfuscated by the fight between those who view the poor as not really poor, and the self-titled poor that believe themselves poor. It seems like the actually impoverished often have the pre-conceived notions that get applied to the one group extended to them.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by blankall

In his defence, I don't think this is really the point of what he was saying. He doesn't comment on why people start drugs. He just says that if you can remain sober and mentally with it, you have a much better chance of taking advantage of social programs.

This could be interpreted a number of ways. You could interpret it to mean that mindlessly throwing money at the problem is ineffective unless you address the issues of addiction/mental illness. Not a statement I disagree with.

People don't make the decision to become homeless, people who are homeless often times have mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder which in turn lead to the use of illegal drugs in order to self-medicate the symptoms. That isn't even starting to mention the stresses associated with living on the streets without knowing that there is an apartment waiting for them when they decided they were done slumming it for a month. Listen to most any homeless persons or drug addicts story - there is a lot of abuse, often sexual and the situations they were leaving were not much better, in some cases worse, than living on the streets.

The problem of homelessness in no small part stems from the closure of mental health facilities and increased outpatient programs, in which people slip through the cracks and go down a dark path.

[octothorp]

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?

The OWS rhetoric is always difficult to parse through, but from what I've seen it's more about what's been happening to the middle-class and about the number of people below or in danger of falling below the poverty line, as opposed to what exactly it means to be poor. So I sort of think that a question like 'are poor better off now' is a bit of a red herring.

But leaving aside any sort of OWS tie-in, it's a legit question. I think one of the big issues is that debt is far easier to come by than it was 40 years ago, especially for people who are in low income jobs, living just above the poverty line. The sub-prime loan policies in the US are a perfect example of this, where low income families were allowed to assume a debt obligation they would have never had even 20 years earlier.
So people have two options: live within your means, not buy any luxuries, contemplate every purchase and every meal; or go into debt so that you can buy yourself some luxuries that will make you feel less impoverished, and not need to feel like you're living day-to-day. Obviously a lot of people choose the second path, and it ends up catching up with them sooner or later. They go from being just above the poverty line to well below it, and without any credit to fall back on. Forty years ago, people in that sort of situation simply would not have been able to get credit and would have learned to live within their means.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The home ownership rate in Canada has risen only 10-15% in the last 40 years. There isn't a significantly greater portion of poor people owning housing than there was in the '70s.

I would be suprised if the 'poor' were able to own a house at all to be frank, nor would I see it as a significant negative if they couldn't as long as there were reasonable stocks of rental housing.

I don't see having to rent a house as being an indicator of deprivation myself, homelessness is another matter obviously.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The OWS rhetoric is always difficult to parse through, but from what I've seen it's more about what's been happening to the middle-class and about the number of people below or in danger of falling below the poverty line, as opposed to what exactly it means to be poor. So I sort of think that a question like 'are poor better off now' is a bit of a red herring.

But leaving aside any sort of OWS tie-in, it's a legit question. I think one of the big issues is that debt is far easier to come by than it was 40 years ago, especially for people who are in low income jobs, living just above the poverty line. The sub-prime loan policies in the US are a perfect example of this, where low income families were allowed to assume a debt obligation they would have never had even 20 years earlier.
So people have two options: live within your means, not buy any luxuries, contemplate every purchase and every meal; or go into debt so that you can buy yourself some luxuries that will make you feel less impoverished, and not need to feel like you're living day-to-day. Obviously a lot of people choose the second path, and it ends up catching up with them sooner or later. They go from being just above the poverty line to well below it, and without any credit to fall back on. Forty years ago, people in that sort of situation simply would not have been able to get credit and would have learned to live within their means.

I'm not sure its just the access to credit though, other than housing the availability of everything at a reasonable price has just become a matter of course, throughout my life there have been computors, when I was kid we saw them on James Bond movies and only a well off nation state could afford them, there was no reason to think it made sense selling them for a few thousand dollars in the 80's or a few hundred now, its just become accepted business practise, what ever you make, sell it to as many people as you can as cheaply as possible.

If you brought out a cell phone in the 70's you charged several thousand dollars for them, as well as hundreds of dollars a month for the use and their use was limited to the elite, each of my 15 year old foster kids has a cell paid for by their mums (who are all on fixed incomes).