grey
Senior Member
Occupy Clarence Square!
And now after the "occupiers" are done with their free camping, outdoor sex and recreational drug consumption and left a mess for the city to clean up,
I am amazed by people's tendency to blame the rich for everything. And now after the "occupiers" are done with their free camping, outdoor sex and recreational drug consumption and left a mess for the city to clean up, not only they are not punished for violating the law, but also the rich should pay for the damage, as apparently the rich screws up the world in the first place!
One thing that amuses me is what exactly do the "occupiers" want, except to vent their anger for being completely losers in the competitive society? Do they have a plan to make things "right"? Do they have a specific agenda regarding what steps should be taken? Are they interested in politics? Are they interested or capable of managing the economy? Yes I understand you are mad that you are poor and others live comfortable lives, but what's the plan? Tax the rich more? Tell banks "you are forbidden to make profits"?
Everyone seems to hate banks. If so, why didn't they abandon the banks completely? Stop depositing money in them, stop using credit cards and consume with cash, and stop ask for mortgages/car loans. It is that that a difficult thing to do after all. No banks forced anyone to use their service and get a profit from it. You go to them voluntarily.
kkgg7, out of curiosity, where do you get your news or information? Did you grow up in Canada? I am genuinely curious how you have developed your views and opinions.
Your comments are extreme and completely unrealistic. People will use banks. They have to in today's society. It doesn't mean they have to agree with what they do. No one is saying that the banks can't make profits. They are saying that there needs to be a better balance and ratio between the top 1% of income earners and everyone else. The Occupy movement (and thus re-sodding the park) would have been unnecessary had there not been such a huge discrepancy in income inequality. In Canada, things aren't as bad as in the US, but that shouldn't mean that we should ignore what is happening or have a discussion about it.
"In 1980 the average 1-percenter made 12.5 times the median income, but in 2006 (the latest year for which data is available) the average income of our richest 1 percent was a whopping 36 times greater than that of the median household. " Source
Moderate income gap is not only reasonable, but also necessary.
Sure, income gap in increasing, but in Canada situation is a lot better
An increase from 12x to 36x is moderate, necessary and healthy? Plus - I wonder just how much of that difference is attribute to skills and education (not to mention that the access to both is far less equitable than one'd think it is)
And funnily enough, that's only because of among other things, our social safety net, relatively large middle class and well-paid blue collar positions, which are all under increasing pressure. The trends are troubling, to say the least. I don't know about you, but one shouldn't have to wait till they become Burkina Faso before they do something about it.
AoD
1) 12-36x is the US, while I was commenting on Canada. We do know these are two very different countries, right?
2) care to elaborate how our middle class is under pressure? Not to question you, but it would be more helpful if you have some stats showing that trend.
From the stats, I don't think the 2% top income earner make 5 times of the medium income folks should be considered "unfair" at all. What do you think is reasonable? TD CEO makes only twice the income as an automobile worker?
And funnily enough, that's only because of among other things, our social safety net, relatively large middle class and well-paid blue collar positions, which are all under increasing pressure.
AoD
What does "income inequality" mean? What is not equal? Are some being paid more for the same work? Now that would be income inequality. I would not define the spread in income distribution as income inequality, no more than the spread in age between young and old could be defined as "age inequality".1) While not as high as the US, Canada ranks 12th out of 17 peer countries for income inequality.
How many of these so called 'occupiers' would be willing to study for their GMAT or MCATS? Go through a few semesters as an engineering student, instead of a liberal arts?
Many probably don't even have a Bachelor's degree, not to mention a Master's, yet somehow think it is unfair because those with advanced degree (because of much harder work) make 2 or 3 times as much.
What does "income inequality" mean? What is not equal? Are some being paid more for the same work? Now that would be income inequality. I would not define the spread in income distribution as income inequality, no more than the spread in age between young and old could be defined as "age inequality".