Huffington Post Rips Calgary... Hard

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

He brings up interesting statistics, i'm not sure if they are great points, unless his points are that poor people are better off today than poor people were 20 years ago.

It's rabblerousing and melodrama, like just about everything else in political commentary. Really? The square footage available to a poor American is greater than the average European? Good lord, I can't imagine why! After taking a couple of potshots at Stephen Colbert he then engages in the same tactics. That's pretty irritating. Can we just have sanity? No, of course not, it's US politics, after all.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Statistically, the #1 indicator to predict the future success (or lack thereof) of a given person is the financial stature of his or her parents.

Seems less true in our meritocracy. I make more at 26 than my dad ever made in his entire life and I'm not even close to anything resembling an average. Similarly, as noted, you can do pretty damned well for yourself in this province regardless of whether you're deemed "successful" in terms of social stature or what have you. A lot of the blue collars, the welders and rig workers, aren't necessarily the suit-wearing upwardly mobile corporate type you think of as prototypically "successful". But they're doing pretty damned well for themselves. Getting to that point is more about motivation than it is about whether your parents pushed you towards post-secondary. Maybe upbringing contributes to that to some extent but it certainly isn't determinative.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A Almost every day I see people working significantly harder than most of us middle- and upper-classers do, but they only make a fraction of what we earn.

Maybe in some cases. It kind of depends what field you're in, though. Hell, even in my field, people who practice a different discipline have widely varied lifestyles. Similarly, while I may not work as hard as someone who might be pulling down 12 bucks an hour somewhere in this city, that guy working the rig for his 120k plus living expenses very well may be. It's impossible to paint "X income bracket works harder than Y income bracket" with a broad brush.

[MarchHare]

Seems less true in our meritocracy. I make more at 26 than my dad ever made in his entire life and I'm not even close to anything resembling an average.

Personal anecdotes aren't statistically significant. People can indeed achieve the "rags to riches" American dream*, but those that do are the exception. Statistics show that most people who are born into poor families tend to be poor as adults and most people who are born into middle class and wealthy families tend to have a similar financial status as their parents as adults. There are numerous studies that document this effect and try to explain the causes behind the cycle of poverty; very rarely is "laziness" or "lack of work ethic" the reason.

*Somewhat ironically, class mobility is now less common in the United States than it is in most other Western democracies. It's easier to achieve the "American Dream" if you were born in Stockholm, Oslo, or Tokyo than it is if you were born in New York City, Atlanta, or Detroit.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I absolutely agree with this, but the underlying cause is almost always related to one's upbringing, not one's personal work ethic.

Statistically, the #1 indicator to predict the future success (or lack thereof) of a given person is the financial stature of his or her parents. When parents are better off, they're more likely to take an active interest in their children's education and involve them in extra-curricular activities. Both of these make it far more likely for the child to complete post-secondary education, which in turn makes it more likely for him or her to land a successful middle or upper class job as an adult.

I don't want to get in a huge ##ssing match about this because no matter what I say, I'm going to be the villian here.

I can understand what you're saying if we're talking about the States and specifically the very poor areas in major cities and the deep south.

But I don't know if I agree with that in Canada, I think because of our free health care, the global availability of a fairly liveralized education system, relatively cheap post secondary with funding options, the ability to climb above you're so called station is absolutely there and fairly accessable.

I would also argue that there are very high paying base labor jobs out there and this city and this province are screaming for people to take those roles.

I don't think there's the true level of hopelessness in the poor communities that's illustrated.

I've seen more and I'll call them dirt farmers climbing up in status here then anywhere else that I've been.

[AR_Six]

I agree, but I would imagine that if you compared those trends within Alberta to the average, country or continent-wide, you would find that Alberta beats said average. Thus "less true here", rather than "wrong". Being from Vancouver originally, I would, without any evidence outside of personal observation, suspect that upward mobility is considerably more likely and more observed in this province than B.C.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you really going to call a single parent who works long hours at two jobs but is barely scraping by when it comes to providing for his or her family "lazy"? There are many systemic reasons why poor children grow up to be poor adults, and work ethic/laziness is not part of the problem for the majority of them.

I might take some flak for this, but I think one of the things that keeps the hardworking poor person poor is overtime laws. Mandatory overtime means that those in jobs with a low barrier to entry are not given overtime. Instead the company decides that hiring two employees is cheaper. For someone who wants extra hours to get ahead/make ends meet they are forced to take a second job and deal with the commute between them and the scheduling hassles. As a result they may spend 75 hours working and moving between jobs but only receive 60 hours pay. I couldn't imagine trying to get ahead if I had a 35 hour a week commitment outside my primary job. No time for training or upgrading and a rigid schedule that would likely prevent me from obtaining a promotion.

And I don't think this would affect those who have jobs that demand/pay overtime already. My industry has an overtime exemption that doesn't require overtime until the employee works 10 hours in a day and after 191 hours in the month. 19 ten hour shifts in a row means no overtime according to the law. In reality, we need the employees to work overtime and want to retain them so we pay overtime after 8 and 40 which is better than the labour code standard of 8 or 40.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would agree, I would say Canada has far better opportunities as a whole to close the income gap.

the article did focus on Calgary, and I think thats what was taking not offense to but was questioning the validity of the article.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Am I the only one who finds comments like, "Poor people are only poor because they're lazy," to be incredibly ill-informed? Almost every day I see people working significantly harder than most of us middle- and upper-classers do, but they only make a fraction of what we earn. Are you really going to call a single parent who works long hours at two jobs but is barely scraping by when it comes to providing for his or her family "lazy"? There are many systemic reasons why poor children grow up to be poor adults, and work ethic/laziness is not part of the problem for the majority of them.

The overwhelming majority of rich people have worked hard to become rich. So while I agree that you can't blame all the poor people for being lazy I do still think that if alot of them would put in a bigger effort they could be not so poor. And that applies even more in Alberta where you can make 6 figures with just a high school education.

[Cowboy89]

I think people are really getting bent out of shape about a problem that's the better problem to have than the 'most equal' Provinces. We have a high 'income gap' because we have been blessed with an industry and it's many offshoots that allowed a good chunk of people to achieve high levels of income. The story is one in which the problem isn't that we don't have a growing economy but rather that there are lesser structural problems caused by high income. Statistically if you wanted to have Calgary come up smelling like roses according to the Huffington Post you would simply have to kneecap the Oil and Gas industry and voila! more equality. But clearly that's not a Calgary I would actively choose to live in.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I absolutely agree with this, but the underlying cause is almost always related to one's upbringing, not one's personal work ethic.

Statistically, the #1 indicator to predict the future success (or lack thereof) of a given person is the financial stature of his or her parents. When parents are better off, they're more likely to take an active interest in their children's education and involve them in extra-curricular activities. Both of these make it far more likely for the child to complete post-secondary education, which in turn makes it more likely for him or her to land a successful middle or upper class job as an adult.

Except for inherited money (of which there is some, but not a lot of yet in Calgary), financial stature tends to be a a result of hard work and risk. You aren't actively interested in children's education because you're financially successful; you are because you recognize the importance of education in attaining financial success as an adult. You recognize the importance of education in opening up opportunities.

Statistics are dangerous - they can be used to make statements like "you're more likely to be successful if you're parents have money" leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of "why try? the cards are stacked against me." Instead of looking at the financial stature of the parents, why not look at how the financial stature was attained? Maybe the stats state that 85% of financially successful parents are so due to work ethic. That would tell a much different story then. You're more likely to land a successful middle or upper class job, if your parents demonstrated a solid work ethic.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think people are really getting bent out of shape about a problem that's the better problem to have than the 'most equal' Provinces. We have a high 'income gap' because we have been blessed with an industry and it's many offshoots that allowed a good chunk of people to achieve high levels of income. The story is one in which the problem isn't that we don't have a growing economy but rather that there are lesser structural problems caused by high income. Statistically if you wanted to have Calgary come up smelling like roses according to the Huffington Post you would simply have to kneecap the Oil and Gas industry and voila! more equality. But clearly that's not a Calgary I would actively choose to live in.

Good point - PEI is the most equal. So...?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Azure

And that applies even more in Alberta where you can make 6 figures with just a high school education.

I agree with you that there is a lot of opportunities for someone willing to work hard to make 6 figures. But a lot of that stems from the oil patch where working hard means consecutive 80 hour weeks staying in a camp in some random spot in the province, often working a 24 and 4 shift. For a single parent this means giving your children to someone else to raise.
I can agree with you with regards to a traditional family or SSCCaTaGs , but I don't think lazy is the right word* at all, more that they have chosen that the wage isn't worth the cost. This also ignores the segment of the population that isn't mentally and physically fit with a clean drivers abstract and the ability to pass random drug tests.

*There are of course some who are simply lazy. I worked with someone who considered his period on EI as the greatest time of his life. Four friends on EI at the same time pulling in enough money to pay for rent, pizza, beer, weed and video games.

[MarchHare]

How many single mothers are capable of landing a roughneck job working on a rig?

It's easy to say, "Anyone who wants a job and is willing to work hard can be successful in Alberta," but that's a hopelessly naive comment that ignores the incredible complexities surrounding cyclical poverty.

The fact remains that children of poor parents are at a structural disadvantage compared to children of middle class and wealthy parents. These disadvantages, which aren't even necessarily the fault of the upper classes or the government, enable the cycle of poverty to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty

The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations. These families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle.[2] This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, poverty-stricken individuals experience disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increases their poverty. This would mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives.[1] This cycle has also been referred to as a "pattern" of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.[3]

http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/...ver_causes.htm

Increasingly, people talk about the ‘cycle of poverty’ that keeps the poor locked into poverty. Basically, because of the poverty that the poor are already experiencing, they and their children are not able to break out. Imagine that you are a six-year-old child in an impoverished family in India. Your parents might want to send you to school, but are unable to because they need you to work so your family can be supported. Later on in life, when you try and get a job, you will be limited to low-paying occupations because of your lack of education. You will be forced into poverty once more.

[Tinordi]

I'd prefer we stick we the convenient, self-gratifying vilification of the poor narrative. It fits into my predefined beliefs much better and allows me to offload social problems from my actions to the marginalized.

[burn_this_city]

I'm less inclined to believe in cyclical poverty here compared to the village in India.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How many single mothers are capable of landing a roughneck job working on a rig?

It's easy to say, "Anyone who wants a job and is willing to work hard can be successful in Alberta," but that's a hopelessly naive comment that ignores the incredible complexities surrounding cyclical poverty.

The fact remains that children of poor parents are at a structural disadvantage compared to children of middle class and wealthy parents. These disadvantages, which aren't even necessarily the fault of the upper classes or the government, enable the cycle of poverty to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty



http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/...ver_causes.htm

I would agree that it sucks to be poor in India or China or other developing countries. But I don't think, in Canada or Calgary, it takes a rocket scientist to ensure your kid goes to school and that they understand that school is the most important aspect to elevating oneself out of poverty. I doubt that poor kids in Calgary have to stay home from school to help cover their mom's shift at Tim's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How many single mothers are capable of landing a roughneck job working on a rig?

It's easy to say, "Anyone who wants a job and is willing to work hard can be successful in Alberta," but that's a hopelessly naive comment that ignores the incredible complexities surrounding cyclical poverty.

The fact remains that children of poor parents are at a structural disadvantage compared to children of middle class and wealthy parents. These disadvantages, which aren't even necessarily the fault of the upper classes or the government, enable the cycle of poverty to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty



http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/...ver_causes.htm

i would buy that argument if it was exceedingly difficult for their kids to go to school, but base education is not denied to anyone. And we know that for the most part students in our public schools are made aware of either post secondary or work related options.

I don't think that there's a lack of educational help or encouragement based in our school systems.

With the low skilled woman that's not capable of working in the oilfield I've seen a massive influx of woman in the trades through apprentice programs, and even receptionists and admin assistants and other what I would call low intensity decent paying jobs are available.

Its a two way street, for people that are rising out of poverty it can be tough, but I believe that especially in this province and in this country there are lots of hand holds to help them get there.

The argument to me would be different in some of the really remote areas and the reservations for example. But I honestly think that there are some real problems with that article.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I would agree that it sucks to be poor in India or China or other developing countries. But I don't think, in Canada or Calgary, it takes a rocket scientist to ensure your kid goes to school and that they understand that school is the most important aspect to elevating oneself out of poverty. I doubt that poor kids in Calgary have to stay home from school to help cover their mom's shift at Tim's.

You have to look at it as being somewhat relative. For example, in Canada, getting a highschool education isn't going to do that much for you because almost everyone else will have one as well (not having one is a huge negative though). In some developing countries, it could really elevate you in status since not everyone has access to one. I think in most developed nations, it takes a lot more resources to keep up with the economic middle. I personally know two people from 3rd world countries who, while grateful at the economic opportunities in Canada, prefer the lifestyle of their home country. One of them actually moved back to Mauritius by choice.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You have to look at it as being somewhat relative. For example, in Canada, getting a highschool education isn't going to do that much for you because almost everyone else will have one as well (not having one is a huge negative though). In some developing countries, it could really elevate you in status since not everyone has access to one. I think in most developed nations, it takes a lot more resources to keep up with the economic middle. I personally know two people from 3rd world countries who, while grateful at the economic opportunities in Canada, prefer the lifestyle of their home country. One of them actually moved back to Mauritius by choice.

And lack of winter!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You have to look at it as being somewhat relative. For example, in Canada, getting a highschool education isn't going to do that much for you because almost everyone else will have one as well (not having one is a huge negative though). In some developing countries, it could really elevate you in status since not everyone has access to one. I think in most developed nations, it takes a lot more resources to keep up with the economic middle. I personally know two people from 3rd world countries who, while grateful at the economic opportunities in Canada, prefer the lifestyle of their home country. One of them actually moved back to Mauritius by choice.

On the other hand, someone in the bottom 10-20% of incomes in Canada may have a higher standard of living than someone in the "middle" of a developing country.

[zuluking]

I believe that the ethnic enclaves found within communities especially in the NE plays a significant role in the neigborhood economic disparity. For those immigrating to Canada, they will tend to sponsor their parents, normally elderly or approaching, and family with few/no professional skills. This is going to have an impact on the average income in those areas.

Additionally, and a crying shame, there are professionals (engineers, doctors, pharmacists, etc) that have immigrated to Canada and, due to stupidly ridiculous regulations and beurocracy, are mired in some menial job for an unknown duration. If / when they finally are able to work in their proper field, there should also be a significant income shift.