Huffington Post Rips Calgary... Hard

[blankall]

I'm sorry, there is no way that the lowest salaries have only gone up by 5% over 25 years. Minimum wage has gone up way more than 5%. Tradesmen, waitresses, unskilled labourers all earn considerably more. There's a reason it costs many times more to get a dent in my car repaired now than it did 25 years ago.

Someone is playing with the stats here.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

However, the data does show severe problems with income inequality. So no matter you idolize Rich Uncle Pennybags there is a real downside



...data even suggests that the 1% in societies with large income inequality suffer.

Thought provoking TED video here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

There are economic feedback loops that make the rich better able to get richer...a wider range of investment options, disposable income etc.

Basically it takes money to make money...

Not sure what a municipality can do about this...save a progressive housing tax (i.e. a mansion tax).

And that is exactly why it isn't fair to blame Alberta or Calgary for that problem.

Alberta provides more jobs and opportunity for success than a lot of other provinces/states/countries in the world.

The tax code should be fair to all, and extra fair to those that are poor. Although I don't think 'taxes' are the problem here.

Seems to me like HuffPost has a itch with the O&G sector, and they're reaching to try and back it up with facts.

[octothorp]

I think a major part of the picture that the article misses out on is the way that Calgary's growth plays into it: it honestly makes a lot more sense to have the most affluent citizens moving into the new suburbs (as long as they're paying their actual development costs, which I believe they finally are now). Let the high income households be the ones shouldering the weight of suburban expansion. You want to keep your low income households relatively close to the center of the city where their own costs will stay down and where they're close to most of the low-income jobs.
I can't imagine how much worse off a typical Forest Lawn low income family would be living in the far northwest, needing to commute halfway across the city, buying groceries at overpriced suburban supermarkets, and surrounded by services that they can't afford because they're priced for their more affluent neighbours. The city needs to continue to be proactive in making sure there's low income housing available, but making sure the location makes sense. Homogeny for its own sake doesn't do anyone any good, but if you let it happen somewhat organically, you'll ensure that neighbourhoods are always well suited to the people who live there.
(And in case this post sounds NIMBYish, I'm actually very much in favour of more low income housing in my own neighbourhood because its excellent transit situation makes it an appropriate fit.)

[Bunk]

Calgary is acting to do something about poverty through its upcoming 10 year plan to reduce poverty. This is in addition to the 10 year plan to end homelessness, which is effectively housing and providing support for a lot of people.

It's not like the community turns a blind eye, these stats are symptomatic of big economic forces largely beyond the control of a municipality.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

While I only skimmed over the article it appears as though they are using the range of incomes as a means of showing the gap between rich and poor. If you have Warren Buffet at one extreme and Occupy Calgary at another (poor people with nothing, the gap will appear massive, mostly because it is ignoring the vast number of people in between. The population of Calgary has grown a significant amount in the same time period and while there are people who are continually stuck in the ringer at the bottom of society, I think that the middle class is the one which has grown the most over the past 25 years. Showing the extreme ends of the spectrum doesn't show the whole story.

There are a few problems I think with what is being stated - the first being that the 5% increase over the course of 25 years is dubious... that being said I didn't read the entire story.

Plus the examples they use of equal don't seem like bastions of economic paradise - New Brunswick... PEI has an unemployment rate of 11.1%, more than double Calgary's... equal misery shouldn't be viewed as a positive.

[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.

[Bunk]

Yes, how the city grows is important. For instance, if owning a vehicle is a necessity of daily life and lower income jobs are not very transit accessible, that cost alone can drive people into poverty.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Can the poorest areas in Calgary be compared to the poorest areas in cities like Toronto or Vancouver?

Doesn't Calgary have one of the best anti-homelessness campaigns in North America, and aren't we on track for eliminating homelessness in the next couple of years?


Income disparity is a problem, and the way the boom-bust cycle seems to spike rent and home prices is a big problem, but Calgary has a lot going for it, even if you don't work in the O&G sector.

Its called winter.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think a major part of the picture that the article misses out on is the way that Calgary's growth plays into it: it honestly makes a lot more sense to have the most affluent citizens moving into the new suburbs (as long as they're paying their actual development costs, which I believe they finally are now). Let the high income households be the ones shouldering the weight of suburban expansion. You want to keep your low income households relatively close to the center of the city where their own costs will stay down and where they're close to most of the low-income jobs.

I think "inner city = low income, suburbs - higher income" is a myth. Property prices in neighbourhoods near the core like Mission, Kensington, Eau Clair, Sunnyside, etc. are much higher than comparable homes in suburban developments. That list of communities doesn't even include the most affluent neighbourhood in the entire city (Mount Royal).

To put things in perspective, my wife and I purchased our first home, a two bedroom condo in the Beltline, four years ago. At the time, we could have bought a similar-sized unit (only newer and nicer) in the suburbs for about half the price, but we were more than willing to pay a hefty premium to live in a more desirable (to us), central location.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes, how the city grows is important. For instance, if owning a vehicle is a necessity of daily life and lower income jobs are not very transit accessible, that cost alone can drive people into poverty.

That is one way you transfer wealth from the rich to the poor through taxation.

As a dirt-poor student one time, I lived in Dover, which might be the worst sub-neighbourhood in Forest Lawn. It was three bus transfers and an hour and a half to school, each way, back in the day. Before c-trains.

Cowperson

[kirant]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm sorry, there is no way that the lowest salaries have only gone up by 5% over 25 years. Minimum wage has gone up way more than 5%. Tradesmen, waitresses, unskilled labourers all earn considerably more. There's a reason it costs many times more to get a dent in my car repaired now than it did 25 years ago.

Someone is playing with the stats here.

Again, I suspect it has been some real vs nomical trickery here.

The CPI 25 years ago was 65.6 (100 at 2002), today's being about 115. If we take these points into account, money has gone up 75.3% since. Include the 5% gain and what it stands to reason is that for every 1 dollar earned in 1986, 1.84 dollars are being earned today, but the average low earner can only purchase 5% more today than they did in 1986 (aka the notion that, if our dollar hadn't inflated, they would only be earning 1.05 per 1 dollar in 1986).

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Oh noes! Not the Huffington Post!

[opendoor]

I assume those 5% and 75% figures are inflation adjusted. I believe the point they're trying to make is that almost all of the real increases in wages have gone to the more affluent whereas for a lot of the 20th century increases were more equitable across society.

It's still a pretty useless stat though, especially when it's divided by neighborhoods whose character can change over time. Stuff like that needs way more context to be useful.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I assume those 5% and 75% figures are inflation adjusted. I believe the point they're trying to make is that almost all of the real increases in wages have gone to the more affluent whereas for a lot of the 20th century increases were more equitable across society.

It's still a pretty useless stat though, especially when it's divided by neighborhoods whose character can change over time. Stuff like that needs way more context to be useful.

For most of the last 2000 years the wealthy were so much better off than everyone else as to be damn near a different species, the poor starved to death, the wealthy has servants by the hundreds to take care of their slightest whim.

During the last 100 years we have been lucky enough for the 'poor' to catch up with the wealthy to a great degree, we all eat about as well, most have a place to live that is heated, access to healthcare is pretty well equal, in the last decade the wealthy have benefited (as have all of us) to access to a massively devalued fiat currancy and vast amounts of easy credit to stimulate the economy.

[firebug]

I would be curious to know if the poor are the same individuals now as they were 10 or 20 years ago.

Maybe the poor from 20 years ago were able to benefit from Calgary's economic environment and move-out of their poor neighbourhood into a not-poor one and the 'poor' who moved-in and replaced them in the poor neighbourhood were worse off to begin with?

I am much more interested in social and economic mobility in the city rather than the absolute disparity between rich and poor. ie. does a poor person here get the opportunity to make their situation better or are they trapped?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

For most of the last 2000 years the wealthy were so much better off than everyone else as to be damn near a different species, the poor starved to death, the wealthy has servants by the hundreds to take care of their slightest whim.

During the last 100 years we have been lucky enough for the 'poor' to catch up with the wealthy to a great degree, we all eat about as well, most have a place to live that is heated, access to healthcare is pretty well equal, in the last decade the wealthy have benefited (as have all of us) to access to a massively devalued fiat currancy and vast amounts of easy credit to stimulate the economy.

Yea, but you've ignored the fact that the middle class society, which has also always existed, is basically seeing themselves be pushed toward the poor.

In a consumer spending driven economy, that doesn't bode well for anyone.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think "inner city = low income, suburbs - higher income" is a myth. Property prices in neighbourhoods near the core like Mission, Kensington, Eau Clair, Sunnyside, etc. are much higher than comparable homes in suburban developments. That list of communities doesn't even include the most affluent neighbourhood in the entire city (Mount Royal).

To put things in perspective, my wife and I purchased our first home, a two bedroom condo in the Beltline, four years ago. At the time, we could have bought a similar-sized unit (only newer and nicer) in the suburbs for about half the price, but we were more than willing to pay a hefty premium to live in a more desirable (to us), central location.

I never said (and didn't mean) that the inner city doesn't have some upper class neighbourhoods, just that the inner city is more economically diverse compared to new suburbs, which tend to be almost strictly upper and middle class.

You mention Mission and it's a perfect example: it has some expensive homes, but also some very affordable housing (cheapest apartment I ever had was in Mission). It's got 25% low income residents, higher than most suburban areas. Upper Mount Royal is one of the richest neighbourhoods in the city, but it's bordered by neighbourhoods like Mission, Bankview, and Lower Mount Royal, which all have upwards of 25% low income. This ratio is more or less on par with more famous low income neighbourhoods like Forest Lawn. In the neighbourhoods you mention -- Sunnyside, Eau Claire, Mission, and Kensington (not actually a neighbourhood but a business zone so I'll use Hillhurst instead), home prices are high, but low income percentage is also high due to a large number of affordable rental units.

Compare this to the northwest arm of the city along crowchild, where you've got a massive area of neighbourhooods all without any of them above 12% low income residents. Which is fine. As the city continues to expand to the northwest, these neighbourhoods will age and diversify, as most neighbourhoods have over time.

[HotHotHeat]

The elephant in the article I posted is that it completely ignores statistics on mental health and drug problems among the poorest demographic. IMO individuals with those problems are the result of the way our race has evolved, and exist in larger percentages than they ever have before.

[Hack&Lube]

Hmm, I wonder which Canadian city is having the most ghettoization?