[cacruden]

Gap is not the issue, the issue is only making sure that those that are poor are not destitute, and have the opportunity to pull themselves up (i.e. education). Besides if there is no poor, then I will never be able to afford the maid I want

 

[cacruden]

Of course, this is all supposed to happen behind the scenes, no one is supposed to notice these forms of government intervention. The conservatives want the public to believe that the differences in pay between doctors and dishwashers result from nothing other than the natural workings of the market.

So lets see... a dishwasher and doctors pay differs because of what - artificial restriction on the supply of doctors? Sorry, that one statement is about as stupid as I have seen. Market is about supply and demand (although for doctors their is government interference restricting there billings to a certain extent limiting potential income) right? Anyone with a days training can be a dishwasher (a job I held a long time ago for around 5 weeks), it takes close to a decade to become a fully qualified doctor. I guess his argument is that everyone should be able to become a doctor with little or no training (unqualified) thereby increasing supply - and to do this we lower the standard.... to nothing.

 

[afransen]

To be fair, he didn't say that. Some of the wage differential might be attributable to artificially restricting the number of doctors in Canada. For instance, medical associations in Canada have done an atrocious job recognizing foreign credentials.

 

[cacruden]

Actually, it is not necessarily a credential problem, it is a way to certify what gaps exist in countries we deem as insufficient. I.e. Identifying gaps and allowing upgrading... That being said, the article is also immigrant predjudice. ... Don't want any immigrants stealing jobs...

 

[Glen]

So lets see... a dishwasher and doctors pay differs because of what - artificial restriction on the supply of doctors? Sorry, that one statement is about as stupid as I have seen. Market is about supply and demand (although for doctors their is government interference restricting there billings to a certain extent limiting potential income) right? Anyone with a days training can be a dishwasher (a job I held a long time ago for around 5 weeks), it takes close to a decade to become a fully qualified doctor. I guess his argument is that everyone should be able to become a doctor with little or no training (unqualified) thereby increasing supply - and to do this we lower the standard.... to nothing.

No, you are missing the point completely. The average person working in a factory is subject to competition from aboard. The viability of his/her job and wages is a result of a competition across the globe. Despite there being many factors like labour and environmental rules and regs that skew the costs. Professionals on the other hand do not face such competition. A dentist in Canada can buy solar panels made in China cheaper than ones made in Canada. The reason they are cheaper, in large part is producers of polysilicon in China are able to dump the toxic silicon tetrachloride byproduct. Labour cost savings are minimal. Dumping the byproducts on the other hand give a cost savings of ~60%.

The lowly Joe who worked in the plant making solar panels here in Ontario on the other hand , cannot hire a lawyer, doctor, accountant, dentist, engineer, etc. from out of the country to do work for him. All these professions, and more, have in place means to restrict competition. Citing differences in qualifications and standards is hypocritical when the same differences exist in all fields.

Have a look at the uproar from Canadian radiologist when all of a sudden they were thrust into the global workforce...
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/1/21
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1217434
Despite there being insufficient Radiologist to fulfill demand, with an implication for public health, it is wrong to 'offshore'. In manufacturing, despite there being millions (Canada and US) of unemployed workers, it is considered protectionist to try and protect local jobs.



What Dean has done is explain all this in greater detail. He is one of the most intelligent economist around, having also worked with, and cited by Paul Krugman and Brad De Long.

 

[cacruden]

I guess you haven't heard of medical tourism? It is big business here in Thailand (including Dentists).

 

[Glen]

I guess you haven't heard of medical tourism? It is big business here in Thailand (including Dentists).

That is not the issue.

 

[Nostco]

This gap is quite simply the result of capitalism "working." It never was a sustainable way of doing things, and I think this now visibly growing gap is a sign that it's getting worse. Especially in an age where global corporations have evolved from the survival of the fittest form of free market capitalism, it means that the money is going to be funneled from the lower downs and all up into the people who are already rich and can either invest in or own capital that will generate them more money.

This is exactly it. 1% of the population owns 80% of all the wealth in North Amercia. Which means 99% owns only 20%. Not only is the gap between the rich and poor getting bigger, now we have the gap between the Super rich and the rich becoming ever more widening. It's as if the Super rich are on a rocket and the rest of us piggy-backing, barefoot, and walking backwards, in the desert...you get the idea.

 

[urbandreamer]

Well, so be it. The world is turning back in time to the feudal system again. It's a cycle, probably to be broken within the next century by revolutionary wars.

 

[Catapult]

The fact that the rich are getting richer isn't necessarily a bad thing. If someone slugs their way through school, works hard, takes risk, commercializes a great idea or invests wisely then why shouldn't they be rewarded with additional wealth. These tend to create jobs for the majority of people who "aspire" only to work 9 to 5 (or less), don't read the newspaper (and therefore have never had an original idea) or who don't value education. There are a lot of opportunities in Canada for people to better themselves. If they choose not too too bad for them.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The fact that the rich are getting richer isn't necessarily a bad thing. If someone slugs their way through school, works hard, takes risk, commercializes a great idea or invests wisely then why shouldn't they be rewarded with additional wealth. These tend to create jobs for the majority of people who "aspire" only to work 9 to 5 (or less), don't read the newspaper (and therefore have never had an original idea) or who don't value education. There are a lot of opportunities in Canada for people to better themselves. If they choose not too too bad for them.

wow, where to begin.

What about all those people that went to college or university studying philosophy or the fine arts? They sure don't get a huge amount of money. Are they therefore stupid and undeserving because they don't possess the near-psychopathic "talents" of businesspeople?
I'd say that someone who can paint a picture worth a million words, or who can explain why god would make the sky blue, is much more deserving than someone who has figured out how to exploit other people so he can sell his brand of pop better than another.

You're essentially saying in that statement that these multibillionaires deserve to have their money because they know how to make people do things. Doesn't that sound a lot like things that start in small numbers and end in "rulers"? (i.e. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Autocracy,) that we decided were bad for the world?
Why does it make sense to hold on to this trait? The only "reason" to do so is self-contained. Other than that, it just makes the world a harsher, more competitive place where it obviously doesn't have to be.

I think I'll continue the rant tomorrow.

 

[Catapult]

We're focusing on the gap between rich and poor. Statistics clearly show that people that go to university are relatively well off compared to the truly poor in this country - even philosophy majors. My undergrad is in Poli Sci by the way (another major that many people consider useless). I clearly included going to school in my list of factors that could lead to relative success.

Another thing that you've seemed to have missed is that I stated that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that the rich are getting richer. Why shouldn't someone get richer if they work hard for example or get a better job if they go to university compared to someone that doesn't?

Also, I think that you are assuming that wealth creation is zero sum - that to get richer one has to steal from someone else. The fact that GDP can expand clearly shows this isn't the case. The reality is that the poor don't really participate in the economy or if they do it is on the margins. The rich getting richer isn't the problem. The problem is that the poor are not getting richer. Ways need to be found to move the poor from the margins of society. I personally think that the best way to do this is through education. That's why for the last few years I have been donating to an organization called Pathways to Education. I encourage you to check it out. Their results are truly amazing IMO.

Re your comment about the pop seller - the one thing you don't seem to get about the market is that it rewards people for producing things that people want. Money is merely a proxy for this. The fact that a pop seller makes more money than say a painter simply tells me that more people want pop than art. Personally I think this is unfortunate but it is the reality especially in Canada where culture is undervalued). Also, I'm not sure why you used "exploit" in relation to someone selling pop. It's water and sugar in an aluminum can. Who's being exploited? Maybe you should have used the manufacture of running shoes (or anything else) in a third world country as your example instead.

Finally, re your last point - I'm not sure where in my post you gleaned that I was saying the multibillionaires deserve their money because they can make people do things. Please enlighten me. I said that going to school, working hard, taking risks, having ideas and making good investments can create jobs. Is Steve Jobs a monarch, oligarch or autocrat? No - he's a successful business guy who went to school, work his butt off and took a risk developing a product that was new. Or maybe you're thinking about some of these oil guys in Russia - that's a different subject.

I look forward to your continued rant tomorrow...

 

[GraphicMatt]

While there is a correlation between working hard and wealth, it is absolutely insane to think that everyone who is rich has worked hard to get there. Or that everyone who works hard will get rich.

 

[GenerationW]

While there is a correlation between working hard and wealth, it is absolutely insane to think that everyone who is rich has worked hard to get there.

There are people born into wealth and then there are people who get rich. I doubt there are many of the latter who didn't work hard to get there.

 

[Chuck]

I don't think the answer is to knock down the rich, but rather to raise up the poor.

This completely sums up my viewpoint. What good is it funnelling billions of dollars a year into social housing and welfare, when little is being done to help people break the cycle? My lefty side is saying that we need better support programs to help people break the cycle. My righty side is saying that once the programs are in place, implement a 5 years and you're out policy as an ultimatum.

For those who have found a way to legitimately be financially successful, let them keep as much money as is reasonably possible. It's only fair. I'd prefer to shrink the income gap by helping lower income earners become more financially independent. Chances are this will boost the GDP, reduce the cost of funding social assistance programs, and benefit everyone.