Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
Totally anecdotal - and I’d like to see the stats on this - but Quebec City must have the lowest levels of wealth inequality of any major city in North America. Driving around, no part of the city feels truly “rich” or very viscerally “poor”. The Area south of the Grande Allee along the cliffs looks affluent, but more like upper middle class, not like Bridle Path or West Point Grey or even like Westmount. There are also few markers of wealth, like designer stores or luxury cars roaming around.
|
I mean Quebec is probably the least corporate city of more than 500,000 in all of Canada. It's dominated by government employment with a little bit of Caisse de Depot and Desjardins thrown in.
That leads to some positive side effects like a lack of income inequality, but calling it commendable is odd in my view because it makes it sound like something that can be replicated. Is the income equality actually a result of better corporate practices, or just a side effect of there being few large employers who pay out a disproportionate share to the top executives? Would Quebec City be worse off if it had BMO's head office on top of it's existing employment base?
A non-capital city of similar size like Hamilton doesn't have the luxury of drawing in a public sector employment base that serves the entire province. The income inequality can be apparent, but I'm not sure anyone in the city would be arguing against a head office even if they only paid most of their employees $50k/year while the executives got rich.
This is all prefaced by the fact that I don't support the growing divide in the corporate world, but cities don't really have influence at that level and are more price-takers than price-setters when it comes to employment.