How Quebec became North America's urban outlier

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This video and the others on the website are all a little too much. It just seems like the site is desperate to portray Montreal as an exceptionally cosmopolitan place as compensation for its relative economic and cultural decline. For whatever reason it has this need to be considered some sort of gem on the world stage in a way that Toronto does not and neither does any individual U.S. city.

This article places Quebec (not just Montreal) as poorer than pretty much every single U.S. state:
https://thehub.ca/2025/11/12/ontario-and-quebec-are-poorer-than-louisiana-and-42-other-states/

Tell us you've never been to Montreal without actually telling us

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Tell us you've never been to Montreal without actually telling us

Seldom has someone so naive been so outspoken.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This video and the others on the website are all a little too much. It just seems like the site is desperate to portray Montreal as an exceptionally cosmopolitan place as compensation for its relative economic and cultural decline. For whatever reason it has this need to be considered some sort of gem on the world stage in a way that Toronto does not and neither does any individual U.S. city.

This article places Quebec (not just Montreal) as poorer than pretty much every single U.S. state:
https://thehub.ca/2025/11/12/ontario-and-quebec-are-poorer-than-louisiana-and-42-other-states/

Your attempt to discredit what you perceive as a misconception with a blatant misrepresentation is sad but hilarious at the same time.

Anyone, I mean, anyone who has been to ******* Louisiana and Mississippi knows that they are not richer than Ontario and Quebec. This is ludicrous.

I don't give a **** what GDP per capita might say. This statistic is basically meaningless when defining standard of living. It is a simple average. If a few people get very rich while most stay poor, GDP per capita goes up even if most people's lives do not improve.

Ireland, for example, has recorded the fastest growth of real GDP per capita of any OECD country over the last decade and its GDP per capita is purportedly twice Canada’s.

Ireland is a wonderful, fascinating place. But any visitor can immediately confirm it is not rich. Average living standards (evidenced by wages, housing, health and poverty) are no higher and, by some measures lower, than Canada’s.

Elon Musk walks into a bar, and suddenly everyone in the bar is, statistically, a billionaire.

Some business and political commentators cite a growing gap between the per capita GDP of Canada and the U.S. as evidence of Canada’s purported economic dysfunction.

Some even conclude that because of stagnating per capita GDP, Canada is now poorer than Alabama – a state with widespread poverty, low incomes and short life expectancy. This far-fetched conclusion reflects deep flaws in the use of per capita GDP as a measure of prosperity and living standards.

GDP per capita ignores important issues such as what is included in GDP, who owns it and how it is distributed. International comparisons are further complicated by necessary adjustments for exchange rates, price levels and population estimates. Comparing GDP per capita between Canada and the U.S. is especially fraught because of other methodological problems. For example, the much larger proportion of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. artificially boosts its apparent per capita GDP. There are an estimated 11 million people there who contribute to the numerator (GDP) but are not counted in the denominator (population).

Similarly, per capita GDP ignores the value of time. In 2023, the average employed American worked 114 hours longer than the average employed Canadian – about three weeks more of full-time work. American working hours are among the longest of any OECD country because low wages compel many of them to work extra hours or even second jobs and because there are no legal requirements for paid vacation. Those longer working hours account for much of the Canada-U.S. gap in GDP per capita.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craigs

Seldom has someone so naive been so outspoken.

He's our resident town crier mixed with a court jester for amusement
"Hear ye hear ye, my feelings and personal anecdotes are more important than your knowledge and facts"

[hipster duck]

Household income quintiles

Alabama (source):

1st (lowest): USD 12,871
2nd USD 36,708
3rd USD 62,568
4th USD 99,961
5th (highest) USD 219,518

For Canada, I've applied today's USD<>CAD conversion rate of 0.71 although, obviously, this is not an accurate reflection of PPP in Canada:

Ontario (source):

1st. CAD 28,400 (USD 20,164)
2nd CAD 65,600 (USD 46,576)
3rd CAD 104,200 (USD 73,982)
4th CAD 157,200 (USD 111,612)
5th CAD 318,800 (USD 226,348)

Quebec:

1st CAD 27,200 (USD 19,312)
2nd CAD 55,400 (USD 39,394)
3rd CAD 85,600 (USD 60,776)
4th CAD 130,400 (USD 92,584)
5th CAD 249,900 (USD 177,429)

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Docere

You really seem to have an ax to grind and haven't gotten over not being able to get the last word when the Great Lakes thread took an unfortunate turn. Maybe you should take a break from Canada-related topics, they obviously trigger you greatly. I can understand feeling miffed for maybe a day at most but this seems unhealthy.

This website is host to unending anti-U.S. sentiments, but nobody from Canada seems to be able to handle simple statements of fact. The pretense for the video is that Montreal's built form is singular when in fact it is comparable in many respects to many American cities. If there is anything particularly odd about Montreal is that it sits on an island but the edges of the island and the large hill at its center didn't cause the flat areas to become super-dense and there is little or no interesting hillside development. The city doesn't have a particularly interesting street layout (be it planned [Detroit, Washington) or unplanned [Boston]).

My main irritation from the video is its unexpected riffing on the "missing middle", which is not something to be proud of. In the past, people used to be proud of tall buildings, historic districts, major bridges, etc. - not blocks of nondescript small multifamilies. I grew up in an area overrun by similar small multifamilies...we had no idea that we were so fashionable.

Originally Posted by Wigs

Tell us you've never been to Montreal without actually telling us

I drove there a long time ago, in 2002. I remember at the time thinking the neighborhoods "looked like Chicago or Queens", and that the waterfront was more industrial than I expected. It's not a city that makes a huge impact on visitors in the way that its boosters wish it did.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I drove there a long time ago, in 2002. I remember at the time thinking the neighborhoods "looked like Chicago or Queens", and that the waterfront was more industrial than I expected. It's not a city that makes a huge impact on visitors in the way that its boosters wish it did.

Probably why so many overseas visitors are delighted with Montreal.

I mean, compared to that bastion of tourism that is southern Ohio, I will admit that Montreal is nothing special, but I digress.

Montreal is a major international tourism destination renowned for its European-style architecture, French-speaking culture, world-class food scene, and large festivals. Cincinnati is a pleasant regional U.S. city, but it rarely registers as a primary trip for overseas travellers.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

.


I drove there a long time ago, in 2002. I remember at the time thinking the neighborhoods "looked like Chicago or Queens", and that the waterfront was more industrial than I expected. It's not a city that makes a huge impact on visitors in the way that its boosters wish it did.

2002. So 24 years ago!
Do you know how long ago that is? Approximately 3,200,000,000 of the 8 billion plus humans on Earth have been born since 2002!

Montreal has made a lot of changes and grown a lot in 24 years, buddy. That's an entire generation ago!
edit: just looked it up and the Montreal CMA has grown by approximately 930,000 between 2002-2025.
The city of Montreal has grown by around 285,000 people, or basically an entire city of Cincinnati during that time.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Probably why so many overseas visitors are delighted with Montreal.

I mean, compared to that bastion of tourism that is southern Ohio, I will admit that Montreal is nothing special, but I digress.

Montreal is a major international tourism destination renowned for its European-style architecture, French-speaking culture, world-class food scene, and large festivals. Cincinnati is a pleasant regional U.S. city, but it rarely registers as a primary trip for overseas travellers.

Cincinnati isn’t a primary destination for US travelers, either.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by molsonexport

your attempt to discredit what you perceive as a misconception with a blatant misrepresentation is sad but hilarious at the same time.

Anyone, i mean, anyone who has been to ******* louisiana and mississippi knows that they are not richer than ontario and quebec. This is ludicrous.

I don't give a **** what gdp per capita might say. This statistic is basically meaningless when defining standard of living. It is a simple average. If a few people get very rich while most stay poor, gdp per capita goes up even if most people's lives do not improve.

Ireland, for example, has recorded the fastest growth of real gdp per capita of any oecd country over the last decade and its gdp per capita is purportedly twice canada’s.

Ireland is a wonderful, fascinating place. But any visitor can immediately confirm it is not rich. Average living standards (evidenced by wages, housing, health and poverty) are no higher and, by some measures lower, than canada’s.

Elon musk walks into a bar, and suddenly everyone in the bar is, statistically, a billionaire.

Some business and political commentators cite a growing gap between the per capita gdp of canada and the u.s. As evidence of canada’s purported economic dysfunction.

Some even conclude that because of stagnating per capita gdp, canada is now poorer than alabama – a state with widespread poverty, low incomes and short life expectancy. This far-fetched conclusion reflects deep flaws in the use of per capita gdp as a measure of prosperity and living standards.

Gdp per capita ignores important issues such as what is included in gdp, who owns it and how it is distributed. International comparisons are further complicated by necessary adjustments for exchange rates, price levels and population estimates. Comparing gdp per capita between canada and the u.s. Is especially fraught because of other methodological problems. For example, the much larger proportion of unauthorized immigrants living in the u.s. Artificially boosts its apparent per capita gdp. There are an estimated 11 million people there who contribute to the numerator (gdp) but are not counted in the denominator (population).

Similarly, per capita gdp ignores the value of time. In 2023, the average employed american worked 114 hours longer than the average employed canadian – about three weeks more of full-time work. American working hours are among the longest of any oecd country because low wages compel many of them to work extra hours or even second jobs and because there are no legal requirements for paid vacation. Those longer working hours account for much of the canada-u.s. Gap in gdp per capita.

+1

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It just seems like the site is desperate to portray Montreal as an exceptionally cosmopolitan place as compensation for its relative economic and cultural decline........ this need to be considered some sort of gem on the world stage .....

I didn't watch it but Montreal doesn't need any video to portray it as exceptionally cosmopolitan, culturally relevant, or a gem on the world stage. These 3 things are abundantly obvious to Montrealers and anyone who's been there. Gauging a city's worth or relevance based on population or GDP ranking is lazy, dismissive, and misguided. Phoenix has a GDP double that or Amsterdam, for instance.

Montreal gets lauded by globe trotters for good reason. It's a fabulous fabulous city.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Your attempt to discredit what you perceive as a misconception with a blatant misrepresentation is sad but hilarious at the same time.

Anyone, I mean, anyone who has been to ******* Louisiana and Mississippi knows that they are not richer than Ontario and Quebec. This is ludicrous.

I don't give a **** what GDP per capita might say. This statistic is basically meaningless when defining standard of living. It is a simple average. If a few people get very rich while most stay poor, GDP per capita goes up even if most people's lives do not improve.

Ireland, for example, has recorded the fastest growth of real GDP per capita of any OECD country over the last decade and its GDP per capita is purportedly twice Canada’s.

Ireland is a wonderful, fascinating place. But any visitor can immediately confirm it is not rich. Average living standards (evidenced by wages, housing, health and poverty) are no higher and, by some measures lower, than Canada’s.

Elon Musk walks into a bar, and suddenly everyone in the bar is, statistically, a billionaire.

Some business and political commentators cite a growing gap between the per capita GDP of Canada and the U.S. as evidence of Canada’s purported economic dysfunction.

Some even conclude that because of stagnating per capita GDP, Canada is now poorer than Alabama – a state with widespread poverty, low incomes and short life expectancy. This far-fetched conclusion reflects deep flaws in the use of per capita GDP as a measure of prosperity and living standards.

GDP per capita ignores important issues such as what is included in GDP, who owns it and how it is distributed. International comparisons are further complicated by necessary adjustments for exchange rates, price levels and population estimates. Comparing GDP per capita between Canada and the U.S. is especially fraught because of other methodological problems. For example, the much larger proportion of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. artificially boosts its apparent per capita GDP. There are an estimated 11 million people there who contribute to the numerator (GDP) but are not counted in the denominator (population).

Similarly, per capita GDP ignores the value of time. In 2023, the average employed American worked 114 hours longer than the average employed Canadian – about three weeks more of full-time work. American working hours are among the longest of any OECD country because low wages compel many of them to work extra hours or even second jobs and because there are no legal requirements for paid vacation. Those longer working hours account for much of the Canada-U.S. gap in GDP per capita.

Merci beaucoup!

We already have our own "home-grown" advocates of this bad-faith argument (ok it's mostly US-owned, right-wing Postmedia).

The not-so-subtle message is that Canada's higher taxes, higher level of unionization and "bloated" government spending has led Canada to fall behind even the poorest states with the worst social indicators. The solution: be more like Alabama/Texas/Tennessee etc.

[Docere]

Montreal is a very cosmopolitan and global city, a substantial "second metropolis" indeed.

It has more than 1 million foreign born; there are 50 countries with at least 5000 members in the foreign born population. And Montreal's Trudeau Airport has over 15 million international passengers, the sixth highest number in North America.

[Crawford]

So I'm sure I'll get pushback, but it's probably true that MS or LA are "richer" than UK or France in terms of buying power. That doesn't mean those states provide a better existence or more prosperity or a higher quality of life. A median MS or LA household can likely afford more home, more car and more stuff.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

So I'm sure I'll get pushback, but it's probably true that MS or LA are "richer" than UK or France in terms of buying power.

Ok, so I've had a look at this with the most recent and authoritative data.

Here is the GDP per capita of France, the UK, Québec, Ontario and British Columbia, compared to US states. It's expressed in PPP US dollars. Not only that, but I've also redressed the Canadian and US figures to take into account the varying costs of living across provinces and states. Cost of living in Mississippi is lower than in California, so 100 dollars in Mississippi will take you much further than 100 dollars in California. For Canada, I've used a synthetic index of prices in each province (this is the best we have to approximate a "provincial PPP" value). For the US, the US Department of Commerce publishes the Regional Price Parities by state every year, so this is a very good way to get the PPP GDP per capita of every state. Both the synthetic price index for Canada and the RPP for the US are for the year 2024.

And here are the results. They may surprise. Québec is above Ontario and British Columbia. The reason for that is because cost of living in Québec is significantly lower than in Ontario and BC (cheaper housing in Québec in particular), so that pushes their PPP GDP above Ontario and BC. These 3 Canadian provinces have a rather low PPP GDP per capita, lower than Canada's PPP GDP per capita, but that's because the national GDP per capita is boosted by oil production in Alberta and other territories.

PPP GDP per capita in 2024 (in PPP US dollars):
- Arkansas: 69,972
- South Carolina: 69,374
- Idaho: 67,524
- West Virginia: 67,314
- Canada: 64,575
- France: 64,054
- UK: 63,072
- Mississippi: 61,667
- Québec: 60,902
- Ontario: 58,735
- British Columbia: 57,699

If we don't adjust for provincial/state prices, then Québec, Ontario, and BC would be above Mississippi, but the cost of living in Mississippi is very low compared to the national US average, so that boosts the PPP GDP of Mississippi a lot (100 dollars in Mississippi will allow you to buy as much stuff as 127 dollars in California, so a 50,000 dollars annual salary in Mississippi is equal in purchasing power to a salary of 63,667 dollars in California).

Now, as has already been explained, GDP per capita is an average, it's not a mean. Income inequality is high in the US, much higher than in the UK, France, and Canada, so obviously the median income in Mississippi is not going to look as good as the GDP per capita.

Moreover, GDP is useful to measure per capital wealth at the level of an entire country, but it's much less relevant at a subnational level. For example, the income of people in Ontario and Québec is going to be higher than what their GDP per capita suggests, because they receive revenues from the oil extracted in Alberta (either directly via stock shares, or indirectly via the federal government spending tax dollars levied in Alberta in the provinces of Ontario and Québec). In the US, financial transfers by the federal government are much lower than in the UK, France, and Canada, so poor states are not going to receive much in terms of financial transfers.

The best data to compare these territories would be median income, but we alas do not have harmonized income data for these 4 countries. It would be like comparing apples and oranges. Moreover, even if we had perfectly comparable, apples-to-apples income figures, it wouldn't tell the whole truth, because countries have different levels of taxation. Disposable incomes in France, for instance, are lower than in the US, because taxation is sky high, but then you get all sorts of government services, like essentially free education and healthcare, whereas in the US people have to use their disposable income to pay these. That's why comparing incomes across national borders is tricky. And that's why GDP per capita is the least bad thing we have for international comparisons, because it shows the entire wealth production in the country, irrespective of how the state will later tax it. But GDP comparisons don't work well for subnational comparisons (GDP per capita in Florida is artificially lowered by the many retirees living there who don't produce anything, Ontario and Québec's GDP per capita doesn't reflect the transfers from Alberta's oil, etc).

[New Brisavoine]

And here is the most up-to-date and accurate data for incomes, from the OECD database. Incomes are not affected by commuter flows (so that gives the right level of wealth in Luxembourg for instance). Figures are equivalized (accounting for economies of scales within larger households) and converted in PPP dollars (accounting for different price levels between nations). And it's a mean, not an average.

Yet even with all these parameters, the comparisons are not strictly apples-to-apples, because this is disposable incomes (after social contributions and taxes are paid and social benefits received), which means countries with low levels of taxations (US, UK, Canada) will appear "better" in this table than countries with high levels of taxations (Denmark, France, Finland). So this is important to keep in mind. As per the data, the median equivalized disposable income in the US is 49,885 dollars, and only 41,798 in France, but the French household has paid lots of social contributions and taxes and will now receive lots of free public services (education, health, etc), whereas the US household with 49,885 dollars will have to pay far more for education, health, and other services. To illustrate: if you cost your employer in France 80,000 USD a year (i.e. your employer disburses 80,000 USD a year to employ you), you get only 39,450 USD net in a year, after taxes and social contributions are paid. In the US, if your employer spends 80,000 USD a year to employ you, depending on the state and city, your net salary will be around 57,000 USD after social contributions, federal taxes, state taxes, city taxes. So these two people who earn the same salary actually end up having two very different disposable incomes (39,450 vs 57,000).

To keep this in mind, I have added after the disposable income figure the % of taxation in each country. The disposable income is after these taxes and social contributions are paid, so the higher the %, the lower the disposable income, but the higher the free public services.

Median equivalized disposable income in 2023 (in PPP US dollars).
- Luxembourg: 67,393 (after taxes and social contributions, which represented 39.8% of GDP in 2023)
- Switzerland: 56,390 (26.9%)
- Norway: 55,765 (41.6%)
- Austria: 50,229 (42.6%)
- Ireland: 49,912 (21.3%)
- USA: 49,885 (25.6%)
- Canada: 48,633 (34.8%)
- South Korea: 48,558 (26.9%)
- Belgium: 47,572 (41.9%)
- Netherlands: 46,966 (39.3%)
- Denmark: 44,152 (in 2022) (42.1% in 2022)
- Sweden: 43,361 (41.7%)
- Germany: 42,139 (37.3%)
- France: 41,798 (43.9%)
- Finland: 39,554 (42.8%)
- New Zealand: 39,040 (in 2022) (32.6% in 2022)
- Australia: 39,072 (in 2020) (29.3% in 2022)
- Italy: 37,606 (43.9%)
- Spain: 37,310 (36.4%)
- UK: 36,275 (35.0%)
- Poland: 33,987 (34.9%)
- Israel: 33,436 (29.8%)
- Czech Republic: 32,046 (33.2%)
- Portugal: 26,004 (35.3%)
- Japan: 25,737 (in 2021) (34.5% in 2022)
- Romania: 23,886
- Greece: 22,900 (38.9%)
- Turkey: 12,606 (in 2022) (20.9% in 2022)
- Mexico: 9,320 (in 2022) (16.8%)
- Brazil: 9,239 (in 2022)

Several facts stick out. The UK, despite having lower taxes than continental European countries, has a pretty low disposable income because it is sunk by its unequal distribution of incomes (since the figures here are median, not mean; the mean would be close to France's, but the median is much lower due to a more unequal society).

Canada and the US have almost the same median disposable income (despite Canada having more taxes and more public services than the US). Ontario and Québec should be around the national figure, whereas Mississippi should be significantly below the US national figure.

Disposable incomes in Japan are extremely low (probably due both to 30 years of economic stagnation + lots of retirees now, who typically have lower incomes than workers). The figure for Japan is also for 2021, it would be a bit higher in 2023. Back in 2021, Japan was at 25,737 PPP dollars and South Korea was at 38,790 PPP dollars.

With 48,558 PPP dollars in 2023, South Korea is almost at the same level as the US now, and the taxation in South Korea is nearly at the same level as the US too, so both disposable incomes are very comparable. What that means is your average South Korean now has almost the same standard of living as your average American, which is pretty incredible considering where South Korea is coming from. And your average Canadian has probably a slightly higher standard of living than your average American and South Korean, because taxation is higher in Canada (so the disposable income statistically lower than what it would be with US level of taxation).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Disposable incomes in France, for instance, are lower than in the US, because taxation is sky high, but then you get all sorts of government services, like essentially free education and healthcare, whereas in the US people have to use their disposable income to pay these.

This is not correct. About half of all Americans receive government-funded healthcare, be it Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. All Americans pay into Medicare/Medicaid with every paycheck (and it is a significant tax), whether or not they receive the benefit. Also, all public schools are free to attend, and are mostly funded through local property taxes, whether or not a property owner has kids or not. The property tax for public schools is often the single-largest property tax, ahead of police/fire/parks.

The cost of health insurance through employers is usually quite low (i.e. less than $2,000 per year) and there is usually a cap on how much out-of-pocket somebody might pay if they have a lot of medical issues in a calendar year. So if you have a job that offers this benefit, you are unlikely to suffer a very high health care bill. And if you do, you don't even have to pay it. Who pays for it, then? The health networks anticipate many people not paying their bills and so everyone who pays for insurance and who pays their copay bills offsets those who don't pay. This means that paying for health insurance and paying for co-pays and other expenses is partly a tax that pays for everyone who either purposefully doesn't pay their bills or who cannot.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is not correct. About half of all Americans receive government-funded healthcare, be it Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. All Americans pay into Medicare/Medicaid with every paycheck (and it is a significant tax), whether or not they receive the benefit. Also, all public schools are free to attend, and are mostly funded through local property taxes, whether or not a property owner has kids or not. The property tax for public schools is often the single-largest property tax, ahead of police/fire/parks.

The cost of health insurance through employers is usually quite low (i.e. less than $2,000 per year) and there is usually a cap on how much out-of-pocket somebody might pay if they have a lot of medical issues in a calendar year. So if you have a job that offers this benefit, you are unlikely to suffer a very high health care bill. And if you do, you don't even have to pay it. Who pays for it, then? The health networks anticipate many people not paying their bills and so everyone who pays for insurance and who pays their copay bills offsets those who don't pay. This means that paying for health insurance and paying for co-pays and other expenses is partly a tax that pays for everyone who either purposefully doesn't pay their bills or who cannot.

I have seen pretty much everything on online forums, but trying to argue that education and health is as cheap in the US as in Europe is a first.

[Docere]

Somehow Mecklenborg made this thread a discussion about how the USA does it best and how Quebecers/Canadians don't know how poor they are.

[Docere]

Interestingly a common Montreal self-image vis-a-vis Canada's largest metropolis is that Toronto is business-oriented "live to work" city and Montreal is more creative, "work to live" city. Often it's a bit overdone, and they'll talk as if Toronto is Frankfurt to Montreal's Berlin.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I have seen pretty much everything on online forums, but trying to argue that education and health is as cheap in the US as in Europe is a first.

It could be true, depending on income, employment and jurisdiction.

I'd pay more in healthcare in Germany than in the U.S. since I have pretty good employer-provided healthcare, like most professionals in the U.S. I doubt I even pay $1,000 out of pocket annually. If I moved to Germany with the same job, I'd be eligible to opt out of public system, and pay private system, or I could stay in, and pay 15% of income up to like 90k on public system. Either would be much more expensive.

Elite universities in the U.S. are free or very cheap for the vast majority of American families. Some states also offer free state university tuition for pretty broad income bands. Community colleges are often free for everyone. Public K-12 education is obviously free everywhere, and some states now have universal free preschool.

The U.S. doesn't really spend notably less on social welfare benefits (maybe less than France, which is high even for Western Europe) it just does so wildly inefficiently. U.S. spends vast amounts on Medicare, Medicaid, SS, SSI, VA, etc.