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

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

I agree. I was just countering the characterization of poor people being rich enough to own their house and drive nice cars. Given that 30-40% of households are renters, I'd argue nearly 100% of people living in poverty aren't in that situation. If that's how someone thinks poor people live, then they've probably never met someone who lives in real poverty which is something roughly 10% of the population experiences nationwide.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I agree. I was just countering the characterization of poor people being rich enough to own their house and drive nice cars. Given that 30-40% of households are renters, I'd argue nearly 100% of people living in poverty aren't in that situation. If that's how someone thinks poor people live, then they've probably never met someone who lives in real poverty which is something roughly 10% of the population experiences nationwide.

I have spent a couple of days trying to decide whether to start this thread actually as I was painfully aware it would likely come across as blaming those who are struggling no matter how I put it.

It does interest me though in that it impacts on the wider question of Capitalism and how it is preceived by many to be broken these days and yet my perception is we have never been so well off across the board, even the developing world seem to be better off, when I was a kid Asia and Africa were both considered basket cases where millions starve, now only Africa is seen as broken, mostly due to asia embracing capitalism with gusto and doing with basic market law and supply and demand what Angelina Jolie and Nelson Mandela could never manage, getting the west to share its wealth.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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.

True, but personally, I think it wrong that in a country as wealthy and with the resources of Canada, that any working class person who isn't idle can't afford to own a home. While not owning a home does not make someone "poor" all of the time, the transition of wealth by property through family lines is important to ensuring generational class mobility. It's more difficult now than it was in the past few generations to move up from lower middle working class when most of your income goes into paying someone rent (and for many others, the rest goes into paying back loans for education and a vehicle they can get to work).

While the poverty situation might have improved since the 70s, the number of working poor who are stuck in an endless rut of living paycheck to paycheck seems to be growing as people are having more trouble advancing out of it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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

People are definitely better off today.

My first memories are of a one room house - which later became our cramped, one car garage - in a small, dusty prairie town. A blanket served to carve off part of it for a bedroom. These days, a first home is likely to be a palatial palace in comparison.

We were lower middle class. Not quite poverty stricken but not much for extras. My father built a duplex for $13,000 in 1962. It was a 15 year mortgage and he used all of those years.

My "allowance" used to be 25 cents a week. That was good for a walk to the corner store for a 15 cent comic book and a 10 cent Jersey Milk chocolate bar. Then you'd wait for another week.

The difference today is that what might be considered a "minimal" standard of living seems to have no comparison to what "minimal" used to be.

Coming from that background, I'm just not seeing what all the whining is about these days. I've worked occasionally at the Calgary Drop-in Centre so I'm not as completely out of touch as you might think but still . . . . yeah, things are different these days.

And yes, I did use to walk to school barefoot in the snow, uphill, both ways.

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.

That's good.

I've told the story on this board before of searching for a place to live once in Grande Prairie as a young lad. I came across this old, retired army guy renting a smelly, greasy, basement apartment, trying to sub-let a postage-stamp sized bedroom in his place for some extra cash. Nice guy but I took one look at his circumstances - the sheer hopelessness of it all late in his life - and vowed right then and there that I would never, ever, never in a million years be in his position, even though I was poorer than him at the time. I've never forgotten him. He scared the crap out of me.

Being scared is a motivator. Don't accept your circumstances and assume the present is what the future will be as well. That's stagnation. Do something about it. Grind it out. And sometimes the grind isn't a lot of fun and can get you down. Nevertheless, you can carve your own destiny.

Cowperson

[bizaro86]

There's been a few mentions in this thread of mental illness and poverty, but IMO they're separate problems. Absolutely a huge amount of the very poor in Canada do have mental health issues, but it's not a truly economic problem.

Even if you did give someone with severe mental illness/drug addiction money/a job/a house, it wouldn't necessarily stick, since the root cause of the situation hasn't been addressed.

Better care for mental illness would be a huge benefit to society from a social justice and economic perspective. Right now we're spending a huge amount on recovery health care and homeless shelter for those who probably need mental health care, and it doesn't solve the problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would have been part of the extreme economic kill.

My parents ran a successful interior design supply store, they had worked their fingers to the bone getting it established, I was left to the tender mercies of my three older sisters (yeah that was fun).

My parents decided to expand and add another store, they went to the bank got approved, found another location and opened it, they hired staff and everything, then that jacka$$ PET and his scumbag crony's enacted the national energy program and destroyed the Alberta economy in one foul swoop.

Suddenly nobody was renovating their houses, withing a year my parents dream was dead. We sat on the front step as the sherrifs took absolutely everything that they could lay their hands on. The car, gone, the house gone, We basically sold everything that wasn't nailed down just to survive.

My parents savings, gone, any money for advanced education gone. We scrapped by for years, while my dad tried to find a job in a brutal alberta economy.

we weren't the only kids wearing bargin basement clothing and eating a lot of mac and cheese to survive back them, but it felt like we were.

We went from upper middle class to poor in no time at all.

If you want to see a government that should have been overthrown, that was the one.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Agent86

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.

I in no way disagree with you. In "Streets of Plenty" they make that very point and discuss the closure of mental facilities and the effect on homelessness in Vancouver.

My point was: if you say that "Streets of Plenty" is about a rich kid mocking homless people, you need to pay better attention to the second half of the movie.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

People are definitely better off today.

My first memories are of a one room house - which later became our cramped, one car garage - in a small, dusty prairie town. A blanket served to carve off part of it for a bedroom. These days, a first home is likely to be a palatial palace in comparison.

We were lower middle class. Not quite poverty stricken but not much for extras. My father built a duplex for $13,000 in 1962. It was a 15 year mortgage and he used all of those years.

My "allowance" used to be 25 cents a week. That was good for a walk to the corner store for a 15 cent comic book and a 10 cent Jersey Milk chocolate bar. Then you'd wait for another week.

The difference today is that what might be considered a "minimal" standard of living seems to have no comparison to what "minimal" used to be.

Coming from that background, I'm just not seeing what all the whining is about these days. I've worked occasionally at the Calgary Drop-in Centre so I'm not as completely out of touch as you might think but still . . . . yeah, things are different these days.

And yes, I did use to walk to school barefoot in the snow, uphill, both ways.

I think a lot of the whining these days is directed at the fact that in many parst of the country owning that duplex is not a reasonable goal for many working people.

You're also using your parents life as an example. Your not taking the example from own generation. Like I said before, maybe taht is the issue, we are using a generation that was unsustainable as a measuring stick.

[Ryan Coke]

Poverty and being poor are different things--poverty is a statistical measure (the bottom 10% will always be there no matter how good they have it) vs truly struggling to to survive. The fact is the social programs in this country will allow anyone to maintain a survivable standard of living.

The people who are homeless and really living a 'poor' life (struggling to meet basic necessities, like being homeless) are almost always dealing with substance abuse or mental health issues.

And if it matters I grew up certainly in poverty, but because my Mother was very careful we always had food and shelter. But I do understand what living on social assistance means--it is enough, but it is not easy, nor should it be.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think a lot of the whining these days is directed at the fact that in many parst of the country owning that duplex is not a reasonable goal for many working people.

You're also using your parents life as an example. Your not taking the example from own generation. Like I said before, maybe taht is the issue, we are using a generation that was unsustainable as a measuring stick.

The percentage of adult Canadians owning their own home has never been higher, closing in on 70%.

http://www.canadapersonalfinancewebs...heir-own-homes

No surprise, as per the statscan link below, the likelihood of an adult Canadian owning their own home increases with age.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-.../10314-eng.htm

Why are you under the assumption that a "young" Canadian should be able to own a home?

How is the notion that you have to find an occupation, settle into it, begin building a career, save sufficient monies for a downpayment and then have a qualifying income stream to support a mortgage . . . . all somehow different than the process prior generations had to go through?

I bought my first home, I believe, at roughly age 26, admittedly a bit of a sweetheart deal from the mother-in-law in a smaller town and then bought my first serious home in Calgary at about age 30. Which is pretty much in the zone of likelihood described in the statscan study.

My father, born in the Depression of the 1930's, built that duplex in 1962 when he turned 30 years old.

Cowperson

[troutman]

What is the effect of the rise in divorce rates on poverty? There are far more single parents than before.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The percentage of adult Canadians owning their own home has never been higher, closing in on 70%.

http://www.canadapersonalfinancewebs...heir-own-homes

I don't really consider someone "owning" their home when they have a huge mortgage that they may never pay off.

We'll see what that number is once the recession catches up, which to be fair, the source you posted makes that point as well.

It also explains that this number is largely due to a demographic shift where "baby boomers" makes up a disproportionate percentage of the population. The ratio of 45-65 year olds, as compared to the 20-40 year olds, has never been more skewed.

[Sinny Darino]

The younger generation these days are all entitled. They think that everything should be handed to them on a silver platter. Like the OP here; when I was younger we did not really have anythIng. If we wanted to have anything we had to make it with stuff that we had around the house. We never went out for lunches or dinners and we had homemade snacks in our lunches. I was brought up with a work ethic and taught that if we wanted something we had to work for it and save up he money. I rarely had anything purchased for me unless it was Christmas or my birhday. My wife's brother who is still living at home is a entitled little bum and it really annoys me that he gets everything that he wants.

Stupid children these days expect everything to be dropped into their laps. Work for your damn self and you can have anything that you want.

[CaptainCrunch]

Anyone else sell those coupon books from the back of the comics so you could get your x-ray specs

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

There's been a few mentions in this thread of mental illness and poverty, but IMO they're separate problems. Absolutely a huge amount of the very poor in Canada do have mental health issues, but it's not a truly economic problem.

Even if you did give someone with severe mental illness/drug addiction money/a job/a house, it wouldn't necessarily stick, since the root cause of the situation hasn't been addressed.

Better care for mental illness would be a huge benefit to society from a social justice and economic perspective. Right now we're spending a huge amount on recovery health care and homeless shelter for those who probably need mental health care, and it doesn't solve the problem.

I fail to see how they are separate problems though - especially when you acknowledge that stress (including stress about finances) can lead to someone developing a mental illness or a disorder. It is a two way street.

I do agree though keeping people out of the cycle of homelessness does lead to more positive outcomes for all.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't really consider someone "owning" their home when they have a huge mortgage that they may never pay off.

We'll see what that number is once the recession catches up, which to be fair, the source you posted makes that point as well.

It also explains that this number is largely due to a demographic shift where "baby boomers" makes up a disproportionate percentage of the population. The ratio of 45-65 year olds, as compared to the 20-40 year olds, has never been more skewed.

If you're renting, you're not gaining equity.

If you own, you are most likely gaining equity, the burp of the last year or so aside.

Historically, owning has always been better than renting.

I don't see your point.

Secondly, as the boomer generation dies off, homes are likely to be transitioned to the next generation, if they are indeed as homeless as they are currently claiming.

Cowperson

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by blankall

I in no way disagree with you. In "Streets of Plenty" they make that very point and discuss the closure of mental facilities and the effect on homelessness in Vancouver.

My point was: if you say that "Streets of Plenty" is about a rich kid mocking homless people, you need to pay better attention to the second half of the movie.

Perhaps - I couldn't make it through watching the entire thing after I saw him take donated gifts for the homeless, fake a mental illness and in general act like a total dick towards the situation of homelessness, I skimmed through the rest to see him smoke crack and inject heroin, at which point I determined that this guy was an idiot. I didn't really get the impression that he understood the impact of mental illness on many issues including drug addiction... it might be the only case I have ever seen of anyone doing heroin for no reason at all...

[CaptainCrunch]

The other thing to consider was that back in the day social services was a lot more sparse then it is now. There are more avenues for the truly poor now there were even 30 years ago when I was growing up.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Clearly there is poverty in the country. But there are also so many opportunities in this country.

My parents emmigrated here from Hong Kong in '79 in anticipation of the Chinese taking over in '97. They both started out in near poverty conditions. Essentially living in a small shack with a few families. They had quite a few siblings as well. My told me this story about here when she was 10 or 12, walking to school with tuition in hand, and getting robbed of it, leaving her out of school for the year. My dad never finished high school because his parents forced him to work to provide for the rest of the family.

By the time they grew up, they ended up alright. They both got a job at the bank (where they met). My mom was able to finish school with an administration diploma, which gave her the credentials to emmigrate here with my dad and sister.

They actually came here with enough money to buy two houses, one of which they tried to rent out. But then the NEP pwned them, and so they ended up walking away from one property, and retained the other at a 24% interest rate.

Even then, they were able to work hard enough to pay off that home, move into a bigger home, pay for food for my sister and eventually me... all under the wages of an admin assistant and labourer.

I always thought it sucked that Trudeau opened up immigration to people like my parents, just to strip them of all their money through the NEP. But my parents never complained. They said as bad as it was, it was always worse in HK, and that Trudeau did them a huge favour by letting them move here. Hell, it's pretty much my raison d'etre. My was born here because my sister needed company after they moved out here lol.

So yes, poverty is here, and there is some disparity between the rich and poor, but at least in Canada, you have the opportunity to work your way out of poverty and into a respectable life. The same can't be said about other places in the world.