Federal Government & Politics II

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Just like the liberals with their poverty stats.

StatCan is a political tool now?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Railway strike begins! Hurray for everything.

I assume you support the corporation and not the workers?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

StatCan is a political tool now?

The argument is that the market based measure the Liberals chose is a flawed statistic that overemphasizes income (or benefits) and underestimates cost of living changes because of the aforementioned issues with CPI. As Statcan points out, they just measure and report the data. The government chose the statistic that defines poverty.

Since the initial publication of the low‑income lines, Statistics Canada has clearly and consistently emphasized that poverty is not something that can be defined by a National Statistical Organization. Instead, defining poverty is the responsibility of the policy departments of the government.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

The argument is that the market based measure the Liberals chose is a flawed statistic that overemphasizes income (or benefits) and underestimates cost of living changes because of the aforementioned issues with CPI. As Statcan points out, they just measure and report the data. The government chose the statistic that defines poverty.

The MBM methodology means that poverty is relative to where you live, which obviously makes a lot of sense.

If you saying CPI is flawed because "trust me bro", I'm not sure what to say.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The MBM methodology means that poverty is relative to where you live, which obviously makes a lot of sense.

If you saying CPI is flawed because "trust me bro", I'm not sure what to say.

It's been discussed several times in this thread and many others. Feel free to go back and read those posts. CPI underestimates cost of living changes because its an aggregate of price increases. Those suffering from poverty are more likely to be exposed to rising costs of housing and transportation than a baby boomer sitting in paid off house with nowhere to go. We also discussed the specific problems with CPI and housing just a page or two ago. I don't really feel like typing everything out again, but you can read this if you're serious about having a discussion (I know you aren't).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The MBM methodology means that poverty is relative to where you live, which obviously makes a lot of sense.

If you saying CPI is flawed because "trust me bro", I'm not sure what to say.

The idea doubling or more benefits to the poorest families hasn't reduced absolute poverty because prices of especially suburban houses have gone up is a strange claim. Most poor families have not seen their housing costs explode and overall inflation has trailed benefit and wage increaeses with minimum wage increasing more than all but the highest wage earners over the past few years.

If familes getting $10 or 15k a year in tax free federal benefits want to vote for cuts to "out of control government spending" with the idea that will lower inflation...well they deserve what they get. Like a turkey voting for Christmas.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea doubling or more benefits to the poorest families hasn't reduced absolute poverty because prices of especially suburban houses have gone up is a strange claim. Most poor families have not seen their housing costs explode and overall inflation has trailed benefit and wage increaeses with minimum wage increasing more than all but the highest wage earners over the past few years.

If familes getting $10 or 15k a year in tax free federal benefits want to vote for cuts to "out of control government spending" with the idea that will lower inflation...well they deserve what they get. Like a turkey voting for Christmas.

People living in poverty are more likely to be young and have unstable housing. They don't have the advantage of grandfathered in rents via rent control apartments. They are also more likely to live in cheaper areas, which have actually seen the greatest increases in rent over the last few years.

The market based rent for a 1 Br apartment in Canada has gone up $400 since 2019. That eats up a bulk of the benefit. In some markets its even worse, where just about the entirety goes to rent now. London Ontario has gone up from $947 in 2019 to $1780 in 2024. The numbers would almost certainly be worse if we compare going back to 2015, but I don't have that data on me.

Comparing income growth by percentages between high and low income owners makes little sense, since nothing we buy is pro rated to our income. Income growth for the lowest quintile has only gone up by about $3000 since 2015 and $6000 since 2006, and this includes those federal benefits. While these are real dollars and the rents are not, quick math shows that the gains are not even enough to keep up the the increased cost of housing.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by theman23

People living in poverty are more likely to be young and have unstable housing. They don't have the advantage of grandfathered in rents via rent control apartments. They are also more likely to live in cheaper areas, which have actually seen the greatest increases in rent over the last few years.

The market based rent for a 1 Br apartment in Canada has gone up $400 since 2019. That eats up a bulk of the benefit. In some markets its even worse, where just about the entirety goes to rent now. London Ontario has gone up from $947 in 2019 to $1780 in 2024. The numbers would almost certainly be worse if we compare going back to 2015, but I don't have that data on me.

Comparing income growth by percentages between high and low income owners makes little sense, since nothing we buy is pro rated to our income. Income growth for the lowest quintile has only gone up by about $3000 since 2015 and $6000 since 2006, and this includes those federal benefits. While these are real dollars and the rents are not, quick math shows that the gains are not even enough to keep up the the increased cost of housing.

Thank you for taking the time to outline the severity of the problem.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

It's been discussed several times in this thread and many others. Feel free to go back and read those posts. CPI underestimates cost of living changes because its an aggregate of price increases. Those suffering from poverty are more likely to be exposed to rising costs of housing and transportation than a baby boomer sitting in paid off house with nowhere to go. We also discussed the specific problems with CPI and housing just a page or two ago. I don't really feel like typing everything out again, but you can read this if you're serious about having a discussion (I know you aren't).

I read the report. Yes, CPI and inflation hit different demographics unequally. I'm not sure what your point is. The original argument was that the Liberals were politicizing the poverty index to make themselves look better.

Was CPI calculation different under past governments? Will it change in the future? No.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea doubling or more benefits to the poorest families hasn't reduced absolute poverty because prices of especially suburban houses have gone up is a strange claim. Most poor families have not seen their housing costs explode and overall inflation has trailed benefit and wage increaeses with minimum wage increasing more than all but the highest wage earners over the past few years.

If familes getting $10 or 15k a year in tax free federal benefits want to vote for cuts to "out of control government spending" with the idea that will lower inflation...well they deserve what they get. Like a turkey voting for Christmas.

Yes that's correct. And arguably handing out cash to the poorest people is much better for the economy than across the board tax cuts (raising the minimum taxable income levels for example). Some people see these as handouts to the lazy though.

Individual people are terrible judges of inflation and it's impact on their lives.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by niwell

Interestingly I've noted that in recent communications including at this week's Association of Municipalities in Ontario Conference the Ford government has started touting high levels of immigration as a net benefit for Ontario communities. Focusing on labour shortages in sectors like the construction industry and the "solution" to housing prices being increased construction. This is an interesting turn given the Federal situation and recent mood.

Well there aren't enough people available to build housing so getting immigrants who know how to build would be a good idea. Don't forget that Ford has had huge support from immigrants and represents a riding with a huge immigrant population. I'm quite sure that Ford doesn't want a PP federal government.

[whatnext]

Now Trudeau is trying to put downward pressure on office worker salaries.

The sudden rise of temporary foreign workers in entry-level office jobs
Matt Lundy Economics Reporter
Published Yesterday
Updated 10 hours ago

Temporary foreign workers are no longer a rare presence in entry-level office roles.

Last year, employers were approved to hire more than 3,500 administrative assistants via the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, up from just 112 of those roles approved in 2016, according to figures published by the federal government. In addition, companies were authorized to hire nearly 2,000 administrative officers in 2023. (The TFW program accounts for a small share of foreign labour in Canada, so it’s likely that other pathways are being tapped for admin workers, too.)...

....Abdullah Balal, a licensed immigration consultant in Oakville, Ont., questioned why employers needed to look outside the country for admin workers. “How is a Canadian company in an urban or semi-urban area not able to find an administrative assistant?”

Mr. Balal said this surge of admin work likely includes cases of fraud, in which temporary residents pay employers for jobs, often so they can stay in the country longer and have a better shot at obtaining permanent residency. The federal government has acknowledged the existence of fraud in the program....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...-level-office/

[shreddog]

I posted this in another thread that was exploring Federal-FN issues, but I think it also belongs here. I've been offline for a couple weeks, but couldn't believe it when I read about this .. WOW!!!

Originally Posted by shreddog

Better yet, ask their MP why PMJT just last week (!!) appointed a person to the Senate who believes that FN leaders are "uncivilized boneheads" and "intellectually moribund" against the wishes of Manitoba's Chiefs ...

I know that this is the wrong thread for this post, but come on PMJT, are you really that dense??

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I read the report. Yes, CPI and inflation hit different demographics unequally. I'm not sure what your point is. The original argument was that the Liberals were politicizing the poverty index to make themselves look better.

Was CPI calculation different under past governments? Will it change in the future? No.

We were discussing the poverty statistic. The Liberals were the first government to utilize the current market based metric. CPI was only brought up because changes in the basket of goods within the metric track components of the CPI, but this is an aggregate measure of price increases and doesn't reflect cost of living changes for specific groups (such as those living in poverty). In effect, the Liberals chose a income based metric that was adjusted by a statistic that stays relatively fixed. It also happens that the Liberals campaign focus was to tackle child poverty and that their chief policy intervention was a government benefit program (i.e. income). We can debate whether there was political motivation behind their choice of statistic, but our poverty statistics look like something else entirely if we look at metrics relied on in other parts of the world.

[Loco101]

Recent polling has shown that CPC support has fallen although the party is still well ahead. My guess is that a large chunk of voters are undecided. I'm wondering how much of an effect Kamala Harris will have on Canadian federal politics and if Trudeau will be stepping down fairly soon to make way for an LPC leader who is much more exciting and maybe more like Harris.

PP and the CPC in my opinion are taking the anti-Trudeau sentiments for granted and aren't doing enough work to outline an attractive new vision.

[Justanothermember]

We don't need any more Yankee-style politicians in this country. PP and his minions are bad enough as it is. Just get rid of pretty boy JT for someone who will actually govern for the best interest of Canadians, not Yankees.

[cranes]

338Canada Waterloo Region Latest Projections as of August 25, 2024

https://338canada.com/ontario.htm

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea doubling or more benefits to the poorest families hasn't reduced absolute poverty because prices of especially suburban houses have gone up is a strange claim. Most poor families have not seen their housing costs explode and overall inflation has trailed benefit and wage increaeses with minimum wage increasing more than all but the highest wage earners over the past few years.

If familes getting $10 or 15k a year in tax free federal benefits want to vote for cuts to "out of control government spending" with the idea that will lower inflation...well they deserve what they get. Like a turkey voting for Christmas.

It is the price of housing and other necessities across the board. Since Trudeau became PM the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Toronto has gone up $8400 per year. Food prices have gone up from 141 (Statscan uses 2002 as a base year) to 190.

It is unlikely most working poor are better off financially under Trudeau.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Recent polling has shown that CPC support has fallen although the party is still well ahead. My guess is that a large chunk of voters are undecided. I'm wondering how much of an effect Kamala Harris will have on Canadian federal politics and if Trudeau will be stepping down fairly soon to make way for an LPC leader who is much more exciting and maybe more like Harris.

PP and the CPC in my opinion are taking the anti-Trudeau sentiments for granted and aren't doing enough work to outline an attractive new vision.

If by recent polling you mean EKOS, who's owner Frank Graves has a personal vendetta against Poilievre, and also has a very questionable track record with federal polling, then yes.

Abacus, Nanos, and Research Co, all in the field at the same time, has not shown the same decrease in support.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is the price of housing and other necessities across the board. Since Trudeau became PM the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Toronto has gone up $8400 per year. Food prices have gone up from 141 (Statscan uses 2002 as a base year) to 190.

It is unlikely most working poor are better off financially under Trudeau.

Very few people saw their rent increase $8400. People don't move every year.

So food is up 40%. Minimum wage has gone from $11 to $17.20 so that's more than a 50% increase. CCB went from $1500 (ish $1900 taxable) or per child to average of $7000. Rest of inflation is far below 40% so working poor familes are obviously better off though most of the gains were 2015-2017 when the biggest CCB boost happened and before inflation. A case of what have you done for me lately.