Huffington Post Rips Calgary... Hard

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by zuluking

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.

This bugs me a bit. It takes a few years for someone to apply and go through the whole process to immigrate to Canada. If you are an Engineer or a Doctor you should know enough to look into transferring your credentials when you start the process, not when you get to Canada. The process of verify someones credentials can take a while. In some countries the universities have only paper records so it can take months just to verify that the individual attended the school. From there you have to verify that the school is legitimate and that the course has similar content to that of a Canadian institution. Experience has to be verified next and then an exam or practicum may be set to bring the applicant up to speed with Canadian regulations and standards. In the end though, all of this can be started before you get to the country so that when you get here you can start working in your field right away. I can't speak specifically for doctors, but most professions will be happy to help someone transfer their credentials.

[Jordan!]

About time...

One of the biggest reason's I moved was due to the cost of living. From 2002 to 2009 the change was ridiculous. My Scottsdale apartment would cost me 3 times as much in Calgary

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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.

Agreed.

Also, there are construction jobs in Calgary or throughout Alberta that allow people to work through the ranks and make a good living. Sure, it is hard physical labor, but you're home everynight.

*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.

These are the people I'm talking about when I mention lazy poor people.

[Azure]

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 agree with the cycle of poverty. I also agree that we should help these people.

But, the point still stands that there is tremendous opportunity in Alberta to do well. Maybe you don't have to go to the rigs, but there are a wide variety of other options available as well.

What percentage of people put themselves through post secondary without a penny from their parents? I suspect there are quite a few. If they can, everyone with a capable mind and body should be able to do the same.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I actually think the biggest reason income inequality has changed so much is due to technology. A waitress today serves the same amount of tables as before. A banker can evaluate many more loans because they can pull credit, etc on computers. A lawyer can do way more work because they can electronically access documents instead of getting them from a library. An engineer can do way more with CAD/other software than doing calculations by hand.

Since pay always follows productivity, those who use technology have seen their incomes increase.

This. Wages are tied to the amount of money your job generates (and O/G generates a ton) or the skill/education and responsibility required to do the job. There has been a huge increase in the number of these high paying jobs due to the economy going global, ratcheting up the number of customers and the profits.

At the other end of the scale the jobs haven't changed much, they are still generally unskilled or low skilled jobs that require little education and therefore there hasn't been a jump in wages.

I'm not advocating that this is a good thing, because in the long run it causes social unrest and this is a time of huge economic change.

We've seen this before, during the Industrial Revolution and at the start of the 20th century. The economic pressures had large parts to play in big social upheavals that eventually benefited the poor and working classes (suffragettes, unions etc).

The downside is that these factors also contributed to 60 years of major wars and other upheavals (which also affect those at the bottom end of the income scale in a disproportionate way since they supply the bulk of the soldiers.).

Let's hope that this transition is smooth and let's fractious than previous periods of such major economic change and that the income levels of the poor and middle class can improve.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

About time...

One of the biggest reason's I moved was due to the cost of living. From 2002 to 2009 the change was ridiculous. My Scottsdale apartment would cost me 3 times as much in Calgary

While its a factor, I don't think income disparity is the whole story here. It's also about demand. Arizona, Florida, Nevada and California all built homes like crazy when there were so few real buyers and even fewer buyers who lived year round in those places and therefore supported the local economies. These economies are also stagnating.

Calgary on the other hand has a huge continued migration that means there are far more buyers and therefore is a much greater demand in the market, driving up the prices (which is where income disparity allows them to buy those homes.)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

This. Wages are tied to the amount of money your job generates (and O/G generates a ton) or the skill/education and responsibility required to do the job. There has been a huge increase in the number of these high paying jobs due to the economy going global, ratcheting up the number of customers and the profits.

At the other end of the scale the jobs haven't changed much, they are still generally unskilled or low skilled jobs that require little education and therefore there hasn't been a jump in wages.

I'm not advocating that this is a good thing, because in the long run it causes social unrest and this is a time of huge economic change.

We've seen this before, during the Industrial Revolution and at the start of the 20th century. The economic pressures had large parts to play in big social upheavals that eventually benefited the poor and working classes (suffragettes, unions etc).

The downside is that these factors also contributed to 60 years of major wars and other upheavals (which also affect those at the bottom end of the income scale in a disproportionate way since they supply the bulk of the soldiers.).

Let's hope that this transition is smooth and let's fractious than previous periods of such major economic change and that the income levels of the poor and middle class can improve.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Azure]

Good post.

Regarding your last point, how much of that is due to kids going to post secondary and not majoring in something that will give them the potential to secure that specific job that requires technologically skilled employees?

I mean if you major in art or the classics, don't come complaining when your roommate who majored in Engineering is making 2x more than you right out of high school.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Good post.

Regarding your last point, how much of that is due to kids going to post secondary and not majoring in something that will give them the potential to secure that specific job that requires technologically skilled employees?

I mean if you major in art or the classics, don't come complaining when your roommate who majored in Engineering is making 2x more than you right out of high school.

Thanks. I guess its really up to the kids. They need to know the options and what the consequences are. There can be consequences for the wrong choices - which is tough because kids don't know what they want to do or be at 18 or 22.

I certainly didn't. I have no idea what I wanted to do. I dropped out of UofC after a semester and then got kicked out of SAIT. But I am now an employer rather than an employee in two industries that are at the cutting edge of technology. My best friend in high school got art and history degrees and is now head of IT at a multinational. I think we need to recognize that training and acquisitions of skills continues after University - and perhaps the lack of opportunities to continue this advancement is part of the problem.

[Azure]

Getting art and history degrees and then getting a job as head of IT at a multinational company is certainly not the norm today.

There are 2 industries that are doing well right now. Oil, or energy and computer technology. There are a pretty wide range of careers that both offer, but I really think kids need to look at both and what kinds of jobs they offer, and go from there.

Will a history major help you to get a job at Suncor, Google, Facebook or Microsoft? Not as much as a computer science or engineering major will.

EDIT: I should mention that going to high school in Alberta, engineering was the main course that teachers pushed us towards when we began looking at post secondary options. Probably a smart choice. 25% of the kids that I graduated with took some form of engineering, and every single one of them was employed the day they graduated from post secondary by oil companies throughout North America. Some even got jobs in Houston, Texas.

[MarchHare]

Will a history major help you to get a job at Suncor, Google, Facebook or Microsoft? Not as much as a computer science major will.

This is a very interesting point. Having the "right" degree will get your foot in the door for an interview for an entry level job, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're any more skilled or knowledgeable or would be a better fit for the position than someone who did a different degree.

As someone who successfully completed a computer science major (plus physics minor) and now works in the IT industry, I can say, unequivocally, that the electives I took in "worthless" liberal arts courses like history, classics, philosophy, literature, etc. have proved to be more valuable in my career than the CS, math, and physics courses that made up the bulk of my university education. Almost every single day I take advantage of the skills I was forced to learn from writing research papers about Greek mythology or the history of pre-Confederation Canada. I have never, not once, used any of the C++ and x86 assembly language programming techniques, differential equations, orbital mechanics, or quantum physics knowledge that was taught in my major and minor areas of study.

I have climbed the career ladder much faster than most of my peers who completed a purely workplace-oriented technical program (e.g. two-year SAIT diploma), and I attribute this success largely to the broader education and stronger writing and research skills I picked up from having to take liberal arts electives while completing a computer science major. The CS courses I took provided zero value to my professional career beyond getting my foot in the door for my first interview.

[Azure]

Nobody called arts 'worthless.' I said that if you major in something like history, it won't improve your chances of securing a well paying job like actually majoring in the field you want to get into.

CS doesn't provide zero value. Obviously if you want to work at a company like Google, Microsoft or Facebook, you will need those skills that you learned while taking CS. Having a history major won't help you get that $60,000 starting wage job at one of those companies.

Either way, I still agree with you. A broad range of education is extremely beneficial. But you should still major in an area that you want to seek employment in.