Don't worry - thanks to a horrendously mishandled scandal related to prosecutorial independence, our Liberal government is struggling to survive and the Conservatives will likely take power federally.
Once the CPC is in power, we'll reposition ourselves on poverty into a place that the USA can more easily catch up.
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. The current Liberal government is in the process of imploding (And since they've gone back on their promise of electoral reform, we're again looking at a Tory majority.)
And before people praise Canadian culture as the reason for better support of the poor:
Yes, there is a cultural sense in Canada that the government should work on helping the poor. It's held by ~45-55% of the population. There's also a similar cultural sense in the United States, and it's held by ~40-50% of the population. Small differences at the margins make a big difference in policy... But can also be lost, from a minor shift in sentiment.
(And yes, Canada has all the same problems with homelessness that the United States does. Shutting down all the mental institutions, unsurprisingly, turns East Hastings x Main into an open-air mental institution, staffed by cops and bystanders.)
Until people start talking about dismantling zoning laws, I don't take them seriously when they say they care about homelessness. We deeply care about homelessness. Yes, we've systematically made dormitory housing illegal, but we deeply care about homelessness. Yes, we've outlawed any form of mixed use zoning necessitating a car for most jobs, but we deeply care about homelessness. Yes, we have made any form of construction basicly impossible, but we care so so much about homelessness.
Judging by their revealed preferences, almost no one cares about homelessness.
There are people who will be homeless, regardless of what your zoning laws are. An income of $0 doesn't quite get you a roof over your head, regardless of how cheap that roof is. An inability to function in modern society won't keep you inside an apartment, even if its a shitty dormitory.
Zoning is only a part of the homeless problem. Only a fraction of homeless are homeless because they were priced out of their homes.
>> An income of $0 doesn't quite get you a roof over your head, regardless of how cheap that roof is.
I mean if the cost is "$0" then it does. But people don't want shelters being erected in their neighborhoods either, because then you'd have a concentrated group of undesirables nearby...
> Only a fraction of homeless are homeless because they were priced out of their homes.
Do you have a source for this? It seems excessively cruel and smacks of "othering" a group of vulnerable individuals. My impression is that many people/families teeter on the edge of poverty, and not having enough "low end" housing supply is a huge part of that. If your entire support network is in a single city than just moving somewhere cheaper isn't an option, nor is going out to the suburbs where a car is required.
So then you have this yawning chasm from $0 for "homeless" up to $1000+ for "tiny apartment". Sure, maybe it's possible to split something with friends (if you have/trust them) or whatever, but it's not hard to see a cycle where job loss leads to home loss and suddenly it's impossible to get a job again because you're not properly slept or groomed.
Having dorm-style housing options at a half or quarter the price of "tiny apartment" would double or quadruple the amount of runway you have after job loss or injury before you're caught in the cycle of unemployability.
The government and corporate America is winning the war on poverty - in preserving it, as they (somewhat) openly desire to do.
Just read Businessweek or the Wall Street Journal when unemployment falls. This is not seen as a good thing but a bad thing. I can link to dozens of examples if one can't figure out how to Google that.
It's fine for unemployment to exist - for people to be seeking work but not finding it. The idiotic part is that we've structured everything so the reality is, for most people, continued unemployment leads to poverty.
I'm not expressing any strong view on what the most influential corporate and political leaders deep-down truly desire to be the case, but it can't actually be part of any coherent economic philosophy that widespread poverty is desirable, can it?
It seems to me the requirements of any growth-based economic system must be to promote total economic productivity (which includes rewarding individuals for being competent and productive employees), whilst also distributing wealth broadly enough to enable widespread consumption of/sustained demand for companies' goods and services.
Any system that fails on either count will fail overall, no?
The number is simply too good to be true. Reduce poverty rate by 20% in 3 years in Canada? So when will they totally eliminate poverty?
"there were 825,000 fewer Canadians living in poverty in 2017 than there were in 2015" from the official website. It's not the same as "Roughly 825,000 Canadians were lifted out of poverty in those years".
Also, it's ridiculous to claim this scale of change was caused by the program described in the article. It's almost certainly caused by some large scale economical or statistical reasons.
In the late 1990s, 29% of the world lived in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as less than $1.80/day in today's dollars. Today, that number is less than 9%. We've slashed extreme poverty globally by two thirds in twenty years.
The data brought to light by Factfulness also contradicts this NYT article, which claims the US is not addressing poverty. In fact, the US and most western nations -- and indeed the world as a whole -- are getting richer with less poverty. Already extreme poverty is virtually nonexistent in Level 4 nations like the US.
Extreme poverty and regular poverty are different things. Extreme poverty is nearly nonexistent in the US, but the regular poverty rate has been more or less static for decades (yes, I looked it up). Canada is making rapid progress on the regular poverty rate, which is what's so remarkable.
Do you a plausible explanation for the stat that goes against the point being made that Canada is meaningfully decreasing poverty? Otherwise, that seems like a pretty useful stat.
Right, but my point is that statement on its own doesn't mean 825,000 people are now living above the poverty line. How many of them moved out of Canada? How many are deceased?
All this tells us is the numbers came up different. It doesn't give facts about why.
If "living in poverty" is defined as some kind of statistical measure (which it usually is) which is defined as something like "percentage of average wage" or something like that, than lowering of average wage (due to any circumstances) could cause less people to end up under the bar and thus reduce "poverty rate". The people in question may not get a single cent better income or conditions. I have no idea if that's the case in Canada, but it's an example how this is can be statistic-driven. Usually when one uses a single number to describe complex conditions of people in a large diverse country, that's what you get.
1. I would like if this had a citation. Any citation.
2. I'd like to see a rather more sophisticated breakdown of where the poverty has been reduced. Has poverty gone done universally across all groups? Including First Nations? This opinion piece puts a lot of emphasis on grassroots community-level change starting the ball rolling, but has that actually happened on the Prairies or the Atlantic provinces?
To expand on this: I'm a relatively recent US -> Canada immigrant, and I've already learned to be skeptical of a source that talks about "Canada" as some monolithic country.
There's a world of difference between Toronto and Thunder Bay, even though they're in the same province. When Brooks uses stats that says poverty has declined, is that truly across the board, or is that just in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor? Because the urban-rural divide here is just as stark as in the States, and just saying "Canada" doesn't capture the spectrum of lifestyles here.
On the one hand, sure, this is true. On a deeper level this is just a criticism that the methods may not apply across the whole population -- that they may not be able to reduce the rate to 0. Fair enough. But given that more than 80% of Canada's population lives in urban centers, and indeed, that about half the country lives in the corridor you mentioned (Windsor-Quebec City corridor), it's a really good start, and may yield many more dividends yet.
I live in Canada and I have no idea what this opinion piece is talking about. You would expect such an impressive improvement to be on the front page of every news agency, and the institute behind it become a household name. Yet this is the first time I am hearing about either of those. I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on the claims.
It has been in the news in Canada, it just doesn't make the front page. Steven Pinker talks about this; slow steady improvements aren't reported because no one writes stories with the headline, "10 fewer people starved today", even though over time this can be a significant reduction in suffering. If it bleeds it leads...
It seems to me the key drivers are increase in guaranteed income supplements and the child tax benefits. Also believe the economy in urban centres have been doing quite well combined with highly educated workforce. As others have mentioned nobody feels better off, the dramatic increase in housing prices makes everyone feel as if we are living worse off then before. However I believe the housing crisis isn't due to immigration alone but a combination of factors including low interest rates, increase in personal income, limited desirable housing supply due to poor public transit investment and bad planning policy in the urban centres.
"Equal rights" in this context, through some semantic gymnastics, probably means "abortion and contraceptives." Calling it "equal rights" is silly because men don't get elective medical procedures and condoms for free.
Men also don't get pregnant for 9 months, or experience lower wages in anticipation of it. What is it with men and abortion? Scared of your inferior genes being rejected by conscious female logic who knew from the outset she definitely did not intend to produce your vile offspring?
>Scared of your inferior genes being rejected by conscious female logic who knew from the outset she definitely did not intend to produce your vile offspring?
Wow, that is ugly. Also I happen to hold some pro-choice views so please direct your toxic bile elsewhere.
There is a metric fton (an SI unit) of research on a wide range of socially beneficial change that happens simply from giving power to women.
What, I literally have to do research for you? At least in political science circles, this is like basic multiplication. Not quite as simple as addition.
(Political science is my discipline. I see high orders of Dunning Kruger and misogyny in the HN community, so it does not surprise me at all that my idea of 4*4!=16 is common here).
The root commenter may have started this flamewar with a simplistic and inflammatory comment, but you exacerbated it with an equally simplistic and inflammatory comment introducing gender politics in a way that has only a tenuous link to the original topic.
> There is a metric fton (an SI unit) of research on a wide range of socially beneficial change that happens simply from giving power to women.
Nobody who is the kind of contributor that HN welcomes would take serious issue with this.
That doesn't make your original comment a relevant or constructive contribution to the discussion, which is about poverty in general.
Discussions about just how equality can be achieved across gender and other axes, and how that can lead to benefits to society, are important and worthy discussions.
But they're not simple - if they were, these problems would have been solved long ago.
Its a testament to the state of our national discourse that the statement of some simple, but obvious, truths could be considered "inflammatory". Also I didnt bring gender into the discussion; the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on women.
So this is already generating more heat than light, but:
I really don't see how lorcan brought gender into the discussion. cmurf did. To me, it looks like you're chewing out the wrong person. (And therefore, I don't think it's a rhetorical tactic for lorcan to say so.)
Oh, true, thanks for pointing that out, apologies to lorcan, I was mistaken about which original-comment-writer I was replying to. I guess it was too late at night for me to be writing comments in a discussion like that.
To lorcan:
The problem with your original comment was that it is technically true, but handwaves away a whole lot of really important detail about how someone's circumstances (e.g., family/community environment and inherited attributes like genetics and innate behaviours) influence one's ability to do that. To your credit, you acknowledged this in a later comment, but the crappy discussion was well on its way by then.
Related to that is it conflates correlation with causation.
Comments like this inevitably set off bad discussions, because that missing detail is what really matters about the topic, so you'll get arguments at cross-purposes, with some people supporting the truthiness of your point, and others trying to point out the gaps, and so it's hard to reach common ground because people are focused on different aspects of the issue.
Anyway, as AnimalMuppet said, this is well past generating more heat than light, so I'm out and I hope others are content to move on too.
IDK how to take this/ Do these rules guarantee that if followed you won't wind up in poverty? If you break these rules (which TONS of people do) will you not escape poverty? How do these rules help someone incapable of one of them?
Statistically it virtually is a guarantee though I tend to think the three rules are 1) graduate high school. 2) get a full time job. 3) be married before having children.
These "no rule is valid unless it works for everyone 100% of the time" arguments are tiring. There is literally no rule that meets these criteria, yet humans are smart enough to recognize when something works relatively consistently for most people, and consider that a good thing. People wanting absolute guaranteed results for all cases come across as deliberately contrarian.
>>People wanting absolute guaranteed results for all cases come across as deliberately contrarian.
People making stupid generalizations that "these 3 rules..." are coming across as deliberately stupid. The world is nuanced. Saying "the way to fix poverty is this one simple thing" is useless. You want to have an actual conversation, that's fine. OP is laying down some bullshit. If he want to come back and refine is statement, great. Let's start the discussion I was instigating.
You want to infer meaning and give his bare bones comment a whole bunch of implied meaning, great. I'm trying to figure out if he's trolling or just being trite and dismissive.
The miscommunication here is I was on the same page as OP because I've seen the study he was alluding to (and actually got one of the points wrong). I incorrectly assumed that it was common knowledge. It's referenced here, and yes I am aware that this article is attempting to "debunk" it, but I think the counterpoints it makes are quite weak: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-...
No, I deliberately adapted them ... the rule about having a full time job is kind of ridiculous, however having a minimum education, not doing drugs or being burdened as a single parent will make having a steady job much more likely. Also dont think you need to be married (not that type of conservative) to be a good parent.
Calling them "rules" was probably a mistake. "Principles" would be a better description and of course they dont guarantee anything but I stand by the concept that anyone who aspires to follow them will most likely escape poverty. And while the concepts are simple I fully acknowledge that they could, given your circumstances, be enormously difficult to follow. But do you have a better proposal, do you think throwing some small amount of money will fix it ? Change comes from within and the conceit is that you can "fix" other people.
> And you have universal healthcare & disability in Canada.
Yes and no. "Universal" health care doesn't cover vision, dental, or mental health. In BC, "universal" health care is paid by one's employer. Which is great for people with steady employment, and awful for everybody else.
And this is why Appalachia still cannot break its cycle of systemic rural poverty.
I think people fail to realize or are just now realizing that the opioid epidemic beginning in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky (as well as on reservations) wasn't an indictment of the character of Appalachians as a distinct cultural group by any means, it was a calculated move to exploit the vulnerable and forgotten: rural populations isolated from the outside world, full of bodies broken in the mines and in pain, few prospects and little hope for anything better. Purdue was pumping hundreds of thousands pills into these little hollers. Just one more corporate entity committing... Can we call it genocide yet? Between this and tens of thousands dead in the mines and from black lung and cancer caused by pollution? Because basic safety would cut into the bottom line and these people are seen as disposable? Just a bunch of backwards yokels who can't speak English right and get what they voted for? Things have happened in this region that make the Flint water crisis look like amateur hour.
Their schools are chronically underfunded because industry owns local governments all the way down to the school boards and sherrifs, that they would pay their fair share of taxes and invested in these communities with that kind of death grip on the region is laughable. I live near a trailer park, it kills me to think there is genius in there and in trailer parks all over the place that goes unrecognized and never developed and allowed to grow to reach its full potential. What's the point of staying in school if all you've ever expected of yourself is working at the gas station because you don't know you can want more for yourself? Because your family is poor, and you need to go to work to help feed your little siblings?
That teenage pregnancy rates are higher is hardly surprising. If you're standing in line at 6 am for Remote Area Medical to get a tooth pulled, it goes without saying you have no access to birth control or abortions. Not that you could even afford the latter anyway.
And so the cycle of systemic rural poverty continues.
Instead of simply telling poor people to stop making bad decisions, we should work to solve the underlying problems which are causing them to make those decisions.
>we should work to solve the underlying problems which are causing them to make those decisions.
And in the meantime, we should be educating and encouraging them about avoiding making bad decisions. But by removing their agency, you rule out that option as part of the solution. Instead, it seems you would rather hold your breath until "the system" is fixed, than address how to encourage people to make better decisions while also working towards a better system.
Just telling people “stay in school, don’t do drugs” and trying to sell them the American Dream doesn’t do enough to combat poverty. Talking points like the “3 Rules” diminish or even deny the fact that systemic flaws are contributing to poverty. Attempts to encourage good decision-making among the poor may work in the short-term, but if it detracts from the movement to provide long-term solutions then that’s a problem. At the same time we shouldn’t wait idly for political change like you said. I guess we should take both approaches and not go too extreme with either one.
Probably the biggest poverty problem with Canada is the cost of housing. All of BC & large parts of Ontario has horribly out of wack housing affordability ratios. The average across Canada is %50 of income going towards housing cost, which means people are not saving as much for their future retirements.
A lot of that (most?) has to do with (illegal) foreign influence. Especially in Metro Vancouver, where illegal money laundering schemes that heavily impact the housing markets (that appears to be where the money is invested) exceed a billion dollars annually.
It’s an issue that’s finally getting some attention beyond anecdotal “the Chinese own everything in Vancouver”.
I'm surprised above comment hasn't been downvoted to oblivion. It can come across as cold/racist/nationalistic, but it is something that needs to be debated out in open.
Why would it be racist or nationalistic? Canada is very open to educated and wealthy migrants from all cultural / ethnic backgrounds and I appreciate it. Likewise, poor Migrants from Germany are just as undesirable als poor Africans. It's an indisputable fact that they will have less poverty this way.
My comment will be downvoted anyway. Simply because some people don't like facts that are in the way of their ideological facade.
And to be fair, the general consensus is that Trudeau has de-facto dissolved the US border since he came into power. It has been problematic for the cities and provinces who ultimately have to house/care for the people that the Federal government decides to allow into the country, the takes 2 or more years to process.
Toronto for example, saw its tiny shelter surplus evaporate and over 40% of those using shelters are now of the "irregular" immigration category [1]. It got so bad that certain hotels became de-facto shelters (with the tab picked up by the tax payers). It's something to be quite aware of because it is impossible to do this without generating some level of resentment by the people who feel their hospitality is being exploited.
Thankfully winter is over so being homeless is no longer a death sentence, but Canada should not be used as an example of how to handle poverty or immigration at this moment.
Pretending Canada or Iceland or Norway are some kind of utopia where everyone is rich, in perfect health, eats pixie dust, and shits rainbows isn't doing anyone any favors.
Those countries have their own problems, even if they aren't the same as in the United States.
Different cultures, different economies, different priorities.
You can't solve a problem by saying "look how awesome this homogenous country with a population the size of a medium sized US city is!".
That argument will always fall flat on it's face. And on deaf ears.
Certainly we can and should learn from other countries. But it's getting really tiring to hear these empty arguments trying to hold some other country up as some kind of wonderous Paradise when it's simply not true.
As a Canadian, I hear frequently from Americans that Canada is a homogeneous place. I imagine there are a lot of different ways to measure that, but for what it's worth, per StatsCan Canada has the highest foreign-born population in the G8[1]. Subjectively, Toronto feels amazingly polyglot compared to most large US cities I've spent time in. (Although, as in the US, there's a lot of geographic variation.)
Not to invalidate your point, but that particular assumption always strikes me as dubious.
Well if it’s any consolation, visit East Hastings st in Vancouver. Canadians are better than us at poverty, but I wouldn’t call that winning when the number of people in poverty are going up.
82 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 39.7 ms ] threadOnce the CPC is in power, we'll reposition ourselves on poverty into a place that the USA can more easily catch up.
And before people praise Canadian culture as the reason for better support of the poor:
Yes, there is a cultural sense in Canada that the government should work on helping the poor. It's held by ~45-55% of the population. There's also a similar cultural sense in the United States, and it's held by ~40-50% of the population. Small differences at the margins make a big difference in policy... But can also be lost, from a minor shift in sentiment.
(And yes, Canada has all the same problems with homelessness that the United States does. Shutting down all the mental institutions, unsurprisingly, turns East Hastings x Main into an open-air mental institution, staffed by cops and bystanders.)
Judging by their revealed preferences, almost no one cares about homelessness.
Zoning is only a part of the homeless problem. Only a fraction of homeless are homeless because they were priced out of their homes.
I mean if the cost is "$0" then it does. But people don't want shelters being erected in their neighborhoods either, because then you'd have a concentrated group of undesirables nearby...
I keep seeing PERFECTION OR NOTHING arguments on HN, and it's disappointing.
Do you have a source for this? It seems excessively cruel and smacks of "othering" a group of vulnerable individuals. My impression is that many people/families teeter on the edge of poverty, and not having enough "low end" housing supply is a huge part of that. If your entire support network is in a single city than just moving somewhere cheaper isn't an option, nor is going out to the suburbs where a car is required.
So then you have this yawning chasm from $0 for "homeless" up to $1000+ for "tiny apartment". Sure, maybe it's possible to split something with friends (if you have/trust them) or whatever, but it's not hard to see a cycle where job loss leads to home loss and suddenly it's impossible to get a job again because you're not properly slept or groomed.
Having dorm-style housing options at a half or quarter the price of "tiny apartment" would double or quadruple the amount of runway you have after job loss or injury before you're caught in the cycle of unemployability.
Just read Businessweek or the Wall Street Journal when unemployment falls. This is not seen as a good thing but a bad thing. I can link to dozens of examples if one can't figure out how to Google that.
That this is the case has been known for a long time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
This is the entire premise behind UBI initiatives.
It seems to me the requirements of any growth-based economic system must be to promote total economic productivity (which includes rewarding individuals for being competent and productive employees), whilst also distributing wealth broadly enough to enable widespread consumption of/sustained demand for companies' goods and services.
Any system that fails on either count will fail overall, no?
"there were 825,000 fewer Canadians living in poverty in 2017 than there were in 2015" from the official website. It's not the same as "Roughly 825,000 Canadians were lifted out of poverty in those years".
Also, it's ridiculous to claim this scale of change was caused by the program described in the article. It's almost certainly caused by some large scale economical or statistical reasons.
In the late 1990s, 29% of the world lived in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as less than $1.80/day in today's dollars. Today, that number is less than 9%. We've slashed extreme poverty globally by two thirds in twenty years.
Too good to be true? No, facts on the ground.
Also the poverty line here is totally different.
Yeah, that's meaningless. Those 825,000 could have been murdered and that statement would still be true.
Do you a plausible explanation for the stat that goes against the point being made that Canada is meaningfully decreasing poverty? Otherwise, that seems like a pretty useful stat.
All this tells us is the numbers came up different. It doesn't give facts about why.
as in, 2014 percentage of population in poverty was 11.3%, 2017 percentage of population in poverty was 9.5%
hence a 15.9% decrease in the percentage of population in poverty.
2. I'd like to see a rather more sophisticated breakdown of where the poverty has been reduced. Has poverty gone done universally across all groups? Including First Nations? This opinion piece puts a lot of emphasis on grassroots community-level change starting the ball rolling, but has that actually happened on the Prairies or the Atlantic provinces?
There's a world of difference between Toronto and Thunder Bay, even though they're in the same province. When Brooks uses stats that says poverty has declined, is that truly across the board, or is that just in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor? Because the urban-rural divide here is just as stark as in the States, and just saying "Canada" doesn't capture the spectrum of lifestyles here.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/...
With further breakdown:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190226/dq190...
It seems to me the key drivers are increase in guaranteed income supplements and the child tax benefits. Also believe the economy in urban centres have been doing quite well combined with highly educated workforce. As others have mentioned nobody feels better off, the dramatic increase in housing prices makes everyone feel as if we are living worse off then before. However I believe the housing crisis isn't due to immigration alone but a combination of factors including low interest rates, increase in personal income, limited desirable housing supply due to poor public transit investment and bad planning policy in the urban centres.
Wow, that is ugly. Also I happen to hold some pro-choice views so please direct your toxic bile elsewhere.
What, I literally have to do research for you? At least in political science circles, this is like basic multiplication. Not quite as simple as addition.
(Political science is my discipline. I see high orders of Dunning Kruger and misogyny in the HN community, so it does not surprise me at all that my idea of 4*4!=16 is common here).
> There is a metric fton (an SI unit) of research on a wide range of socially beneficial change that happens simply from giving power to women.
Nobody who is the kind of contributor that HN welcomes would take serious issue with this.
That doesn't make your original comment a relevant or constructive contribution to the discussion, which is about poverty in general.
Discussions about just how equality can be achieved across gender and other axes, and how that can lead to benefits to society, are important and worthy discussions.
But they're not simple - if they were, these problems would have been solved long ago.
You might want to check your assumptions about which country I'm from.
> I didnt bring gender into the discussion; the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on women.
This is a rhetorical tactic, not a good-faith mode of discussion.
From the age of your account it looks like you're a new participant on HN.
Fair enough that you're not yet up to speed with how things are done here.
This site is intended for people who want to engage in good-faith discussions, not rhetorical trickery and point-scoring.
I really don't see how lorcan brought gender into the discussion. cmurf did. To me, it looks like you're chewing out the wrong person. (And therefore, I don't think it's a rhetorical tactic for lorcan to say so.)
To lorcan:
The problem with your original comment was that it is technically true, but handwaves away a whole lot of really important detail about how someone's circumstances (e.g., family/community environment and inherited attributes like genetics and innate behaviours) influence one's ability to do that. To your credit, you acknowledged this in a later comment, but the crappy discussion was well on its way by then.
Related to that is it conflates correlation with causation.
Comments like this inevitably set off bad discussions, because that missing detail is what really matters about the topic, so you'll get arguments at cross-purposes, with some people supporting the truthiness of your point, and others trying to point out the gaps, and so it's hard to reach common ground because people are focused on different aspects of the issue.
Anyway, as AnimalMuppet said, this is well past generating more heat than light, so I'm out and I hope others are content to move on too.
People making stupid generalizations that "these 3 rules..." are coming across as deliberately stupid. The world is nuanced. Saying "the way to fix poverty is this one simple thing" is useless. You want to have an actual conversation, that's fine. OP is laying down some bullshit. If he want to come back and refine is statement, great. Let's start the discussion I was instigating.
You want to infer meaning and give his bare bones comment a whole bunch of implied meaning, great. I'm trying to figure out if he's trolling or just being trite and dismissive.
Yes and no. "Universal" health care doesn't cover vision, dental, or mental health. In BC, "universal" health care is paid by one's employer. Which is great for people with steady employment, and awful for everybody else.
I think people fail to realize or are just now realizing that the opioid epidemic beginning in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky (as well as on reservations) wasn't an indictment of the character of Appalachians as a distinct cultural group by any means, it was a calculated move to exploit the vulnerable and forgotten: rural populations isolated from the outside world, full of bodies broken in the mines and in pain, few prospects and little hope for anything better. Purdue was pumping hundreds of thousands pills into these little hollers. Just one more corporate entity committing... Can we call it genocide yet? Between this and tens of thousands dead in the mines and from black lung and cancer caused by pollution? Because basic safety would cut into the bottom line and these people are seen as disposable? Just a bunch of backwards yokels who can't speak English right and get what they voted for? Things have happened in this region that make the Flint water crisis look like amateur hour.
Their schools are chronically underfunded because industry owns local governments all the way down to the school boards and sherrifs, that they would pay their fair share of taxes and invested in these communities with that kind of death grip on the region is laughable. I live near a trailer park, it kills me to think there is genius in there and in trailer parks all over the place that goes unrecognized and never developed and allowed to grow to reach its full potential. What's the point of staying in school if all you've ever expected of yourself is working at the gas station because you don't know you can want more for yourself? Because your family is poor, and you need to go to work to help feed your little siblings?
That teenage pregnancy rates are higher is hardly surprising. If you're standing in line at 6 am for Remote Area Medical to get a tooth pulled, it goes without saying you have no access to birth control or abortions. Not that you could even afford the latter anyway.
And so the cycle of systemic rural poverty continues.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-...
And in the meantime, we should be educating and encouraging them about avoiding making bad decisions. But by removing their agency, you rule out that option as part of the solution. Instead, it seems you would rather hold your breath until "the system" is fixed, than address how to encourage people to make better decisions while also working towards a better system.
http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/reports/rbc-housing-affordabilit...
It’s an issue that’s finally getting some attention beyond anecdotal “the Chinese own everything in Vancouver”.
My comment will be downvoted anyway. Simply because some people don't like facts that are in the way of their ideological facade.
Toronto for example, saw its tiny shelter surplus evaporate and over 40% of those using shelters are now of the "irregular" immigration category [1]. It got so bad that certain hotels became de-facto shelters (with the tab picked up by the tax payers). It's something to be quite aware of because it is impossible to do this without generating some level of resentment by the people who feel their hospitality is being exploited.
Thankfully winter is over so being homeless is no longer a death sentence, but Canada should not be used as an example of how to handle poverty or immigration at this moment.
---
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toron...
We’re merely picking up the slack for the US’ horrendous (recent) approach to immigration.
And yet I don't see the US doing anything to stop 'domestic' poverty. In fact, I see programs being dismantled for the poor and downtrodden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
I participated in a restorative community justice program while if in the US I would have landed in a detention facility.
Those countries have their own problems, even if they aren't the same as in the United States.
Different cultures, different economies, different priorities.
You can't solve a problem by saying "look how awesome this homogenous country with a population the size of a medium sized US city is!".
That argument will always fall flat on it's face. And on deaf ears.
Certainly we can and should learn from other countries. But it's getting really tiring to hear these empty arguments trying to hold some other country up as some kind of wonderous Paradise when it's simply not true.
Not to invalidate your point, but that particular assumption always strikes me as dubious.
1. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-0...