Lessons of the Miller Years

[Admiral Beez]

Miller didn't make any mistakes. He accomplished exactly what he planned to do.

He wanted high revenues through property taxes, and additional revenues through enacting new fees and taxes - he got it.
He wanted higher expenditures on transit, higher wages for councillors and city staff - he got it.
He wanted to travel to Europe and dream of making Toronto a city it wasn't - he did it.

 

[archanfel]

This discussion implies most people who are in social housing are able to find reasonable work. Many folks in social housing are seniors on fixed pensions. You cannot make these people work. Let's face it, there are leaches on society- always has and always will be. It is time we grow up and accept a certain level of poverty will always exist in our society as it is structural poverty due to our polarized employment structure. The best way for people to get out o the poverty trap is through education, but very rarely will you see any politician support these kinds if programs. They work but are not funded properly. I wool much rather pay more taxes for some social programs to help reduce the rich-poor gap and have low crime and the ability to enjoy the city without fear than to see the abject poverty and super high crime rates south of the border and slightly lower taxes. I feel our quality of live is better than in US because of this and I am fine with that.

First of all, even without CPP, seniors have good income via OAS+GIS. It's not a lot, but should allow them to live comfortably in a cheap bachelor apartment. Basement apartments probably cost even less. I wouldn't bet that the social safety net will continue to be there by the time I retire.

Secondly, why don't they have CPP? Where is their savings? How about RRSP? Why don't they have a house with a paid off mortgage? Let me guess, they either didn't work very hard or spent everything in their youth? Well, they have the freedom to do that. Just don't let everybody else pay for their choices. Those whose circumstances are beyond their control have my sympathy, but there are very few of them.

Oh, I accept that a certain level of poverty will always exist in our society (what made you think I don't?). I just don't think it's a bad thing. That's how society works and how human evolve. It motivates people to make better choices in life, to seek better educations and build a career. It gives people the wisdom to save for retirement and to provide education to their children. However, when a government sanctions poverty and makes it an acceptable choice, we got a problem on our hands.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You're being idealistic. Amongst youth, poverty is a motivator for crime. Amongst the elderly, it's not a motivator for anything but it doesn't matter because the government can't just let people die in the streets so we're on the hook for them regardless.

 

[archanfel]

You're being idealistic. Amongst youth, poverty is a motivator for crime. Amongst the elderly, it's not a motivator for anything but it doesn't matter because the government can't just let people die in the streets so we're on the hook for them regardless.

Poverty is not a motivator for crime, stupidity, laziness and lack of discipline are. Well, petty crime that is. White collar crimes kind of require white collar jobs. Lenience of the law is another major motivator.

If somebody is going to die in the streets despite GIS+OAS, I doubt throwing more money at them is the answer. They don't have a income problem, they have a spending problem.

 

[lead82]

For seniors, you are assuming that all seniors worked here. They may be only in Canada for only 10-20 years and their CPP and OAS will be minuscule ~500/mth, with GIC that bumps it up to reasonable but it is still tough for some seniors who don't have property. So for seniors, social housing is important to have. For lazy and capable people milking the system there should be better enforcement and incentives for these people to wean themselves odd the public tit.

 

[archanfel]

For seniors, you are assuming that all seniors worked here. They may be only in Canada for only 10-20 years and their CPP and OAS will be minuscule ~500/mth, with GIC that bumps it up to reasonable but it is still tough for some seniors who don't have property. So for seniors, social housing is important to have. For lazy and capable people milking the system there should be better enforcement and incentives for these people to wean themselves odd the public tit.

They don't have to come to Canada if they think it's tough, nobody forced them. They made a conscious decision and they have to live with the consequences. There are exceptions, but they are a very small minority. I also suspect it's not very tough for them. Most immigrants I know are very frugal and they work well into retirement. Social housing is just nice to have. Universal health care is far more important to them.

 

[SimonP]

Secondly, why don't they have CPP? Where is their savings? How about RRSP? Why don't they have a house with a paid off mortgage? Let me guess, they either didn't work very hard or spent everything in their youth? Well, they have the freedom to do that. Just don't let everybody else pay for their choices. Those whose circumstances are beyond their control have my sympathy, but there are very few of them.

There are many, many avenues for people who have led responsible lives to end up very poor as seniors. Through politics I've heard from a lot of them. You have people who worked their entire lives for a company, only to have it go bankrupt and their pension dissapear. What about the thousands of Canadians who buy into the cultural adulation of entrepreneurship, and invest their life savings into a business only to have it fail, as most do.

The vast majority though are people that simply never get a well paying enough job to save for retirement. About 20% of people work either minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs. Average annual income for someone living on their own in Canada is $24,900. These people can survive, but saving much for the future is impossible.

 

[archanfel]

There are many, many avenues for people who have led responsible lives to end up very poor as seniors. Through politics I've heard from a lot of them. You have people who worked their entire lives for a company, only to have it go bankrupt and their pension dissapear. What about the thousands of Canadians who buy into the cultural adulation of entrepreneurship, and invest their life savings into a business only to have it fail, as most do.

If you want to gamble, you have to accept the consequences of your choices, good or bad. I have no sympathy for anybody who complains that the recent market crash wiped out their savings just before retirement. What are they doing in the stock market just before retirement? Wherever there are rewards, there are almost always risks. If you removed the risk, moral hazard would cause more and more people betting their life savings into a business that has little chance of success.

The vast majority though are people that simply never get a well paying enough job to save for retirement. About 20% of people work either minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs. Average annual income for someone living on their own in Canada is $24,900. These people can survive, but saving much for the future is impossible.

I am not sure that number makes much sense since it hides way too many details. I would like to see the average education level of these people making $24900 a year. Did they work hard in school to get into a good university or did they chose the easy and/or fun road? Everybody is entitled to make decisions for their lives, but they need to accept the consequences of such decisions.

And for a single person, $24900 is a lot of money. A basement room costs about $300. For $500, you can get a nice master suite with your own bathroom all inclusive. If you are frugal, you should be able to live on $1000 a month even in Toronto. Some other cities are even cheaper. That means you can save at least $10000 a year. With a conservative 6% return over 45 years, you are looking at more than $2M by the time you retire if my calculation is correct. Of course, that means no vacation, no dining out, buying clothes from Value Villages on 50% off day, no nice apartment, no cable, no expensive cellphone plans, no playstation, no cigarettes, no alcohol, no fancy cars, no marriage, no kids. As I said, it's all about choices and consequences.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The moral superiority is cute, but the reality is that there are people - seniors and otherwise - who have made mistakes, who don't have savings, who lack marketable skills, etc. Society is stuck with these people. We can make strategic investments on both the front-end (education, programs for youth, etc) and on the back-end (safety nets, social services, housing, etc) to mitigate many of the problems associated with poverty - things like crime, public health risks, neighbourhood deterioration,and whatever else.

You're like some kind of drug counselor refusing to give someone methodone treatments because they really should just not have taken heroin in the first place.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Perhaps we all lose when the argument is framed in a left-right continuum. Trends in these "movements" change. The "right" and the "left" often share more in common than the centre do with either.

I personally support policy both on the right-wing and progressive movements at city hall. I think Miller lost many people like me who orginally supported him. For instance I voted for Miller in his first term. Remember at the time his victory was uncertain, I was voting for him, not against anyone else. However, I did not vote for his re-election against Jane Pitfield. I voted against Miller, at that time. In this election I voted against Ford. I would not have voted for Miller if he ran again. I think that Pantelone was by far the most sincere and credible candidate. That is Pantelone the man. However, I do not share his wholesale support of progressive issues and sense, as much of Toronto has, that with the good of Miller also came the bad, like an overly coddled labour force.

At the surface Ford's message criticising the superfical (like going away parties) is symbolic of the underlying issue. The underlying issue is that people are struggling and were not convinced that additional revenue streams were being used to enhance or sustain the quality of life in this city. The feeling is that Miller asked for new revenues, got new revenues, and too much of this money was soaked up in wages for unionized employees. I think while this theory is exaggerated it has legitimacy.

My suspicion is that Ford himself is too focused and concerned with the superficial. That is, he did not just emphasize the superfical aspects during his campaign but these aspects concern him in themselves, rather than being symbolic of larger issues and deeper policy discussions that need to be had. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. I hope Ford is the iceberg not the Titanic.

 

[archanfel]

The moral superiority is cute, but the reality is that there are people - seniors and otherwise - who have made mistakes, who don't have savings, who lack marketable skills, etc. Society is stuck with these people. We can make strategic investments on both the front-end (education, programs for youth, etc) and on the back-end (safety nets, social services, housing, etc) to mitigate many of the problems associated with poverty - things like crime, public health risks, neighbourhood deterioration,and whatever else.

You're like some kind of drug counselor refusing to give someone methodone treatments because they really should just not have taken heroin in the first place.

Where did you see moral superiority? Did I say taking heroin was wrong? On the contrary, I have said repeatedly that everybody is entitled to make live decisions however they see fit. I just ask them to accept the consequences of their decisions. If I was a drug counselor, I would be happy to give someone methodone treatments as long as they pay for it themselves.

I don't think those as "strategic investments". Investments require returns corresponding to the risks. Those are worse than wasting money since they create moral hazards that disconnect the consequences from decisions.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You're being morally superior because you're using phrases like 'moral hazards' and being ideological as hell. An ounce of pragmatism goes a long way.

Heroin addicts generally can't pay for their own treatment because they've spent all their money on HEROIN. There is a significant economic cost to letting heroin addicts wander around neighbourhoods. If we spend $X we can reduce the number of heroin addicts by Y thus creating $Z in renewed economic activity.

This isn't just some bleeding heart save-the-world fight-poverty kind of thing. Poverty has a direct link to crime which has a direct link to declining economic activity. It's business. It's money.

 

[archanfel]

You're being morally superior because you're using phrases like 'moral hazards' and being ideological as hell. An ounce of pragmatism goes a long way.

Heroin addicts generally can't pay for their own treatment because they've spent all their money on HEROIN. There is a significant economic cost to letting heroin addicts wander around neighbourhoods. If we spend $X we can reduce the number of heroin addicts by Y thus creating $Z in renewed economic activity.

This isn't just some bleeding heart save-the-world fight-poverty kind of thing. Poverty has a direct link to crime which has a direct link to declining economic activity. It's business. It's money.

It has nothing to do with ideology. Moral hazards is a natural phenomenal, not a political catch phrase. Denying that is like denying global warming. It's harmful no matter whether you acknowledge it or not.

If you can prove the spending $X in social housing would generate $Z future taxes where $Z>>$X, I am all ears. The problem is that you can't and I say you are wrong. Not only $Z is likely far smaller than $X, more people will likely fall into the poverty trap because the perceived risks have diminished. And this is not limited to poverty either. Whenever the government disconnect consequences and actions, you can bet more people will take the action. The US housing market was a great example.

If you really believe that this is business, this is money. Let's sign a contract with private banks. Banks will bankroll social housing by investing $X. In exchange, banks get $Z from increased economic activities. If $Z>$X, banks get a profit, otherwise they take a loss. Let me guess, no bank will be stupid enough to get involved on those terms?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Yes, you've done a good job of demonstrating the difference between the private and the public sector and why governments are important.

I really think we're just an impasse. You believe that more people will make bad decisions if they know there's a social safety net in place to support them. I maintain that people make bad decisions regardless and we must have a social safety net because the problems associated with poverty in urban areas are too great to ignore.

 

[fouronesix]

What I want to know is why did Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman never have a love child..... or did they?