HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 9:28 PM
Pavlov's Avatar
Pavlov Pavlov is offline
Khan
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 4,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Two things.

1. It seems it would behoove us to consider worldwide poverty metrics, as the United States has been pretty instrumental and a central player in a massive transfer of wealth to developing countries, enabling them to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
What does that have to do with Trump, domestic tax cuts, or reduced government spending? In fact, a central tenet of Trump's platform was reduction in foreign aid/investment. And reduction in foreign aid/investment is typical consequence of tax cuts and reduced government spending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
2. By some metrics, poverty is at record lows - way down from the 1960s. As the article indicates, much of the credit is on the social safety net, and in particular the Child Tax Credit, which thankfully is going to be increased and expanded under Trump's tax reform.

Also important to point out that according to the graph referenced in the article, poverty increases during recessions and decreases during economic growth, a situation which lends itself to pursuing policies to expand economic growth, soften recessions, and make smart investments into the social safety net.

Income inequality doesn't really factor into any of this.
Well, the linked to article is discussing child poverty rates only. Its at best an incomplete measure of poverty in the United States.

And, I mean, how much should anyone really be celebrating that the United States has managed to reduce child poverty since 1967. I would fucking hope so.

Also, this excerpt from your article pretty much contradicts the point that you were trying to make:

Quote:
That said, the near-halving of the child-poverty rate over the past half-century is not primarily due to improvements in the economy. In fact, stagnating wages, reduced bargaining power, automation, and offshoring have held down the earnings of families in the bottom of the income spectrum, and spiraling income inequality has meant that most of the gains of economic growth have gone to families at the top. Instead, it is the expansion of the safety net—in particular through the food-stamp program and provisions like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit—that has been most responsible for moving millions of kids above the poverty line over time, the researchers found.
Quote:
The expansion of the economy alone has done little to push down the child-poverty rate. Not taking government benefits and tax policies into account, the rate has barely budged since the late 1960s, going from 27.4 percent in 1967 to 25.1 percent in 2016. But after accounting for government benefits and tax credits, it has dropped to its all-time low.
__________________
Confucius says:
With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my bended arm for a pillow - I have still joy in the midst of these things. Riches and honors acquired by unrighteousness are to me as a floating cloud.

Last edited by Pavlov; Dec 6, 2017 at 9:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 9:37 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesonov View Post
What does that have to do with Trump,domestic tax cuts, or reduced government spending? In fact, a central tenet of Trump's platform was reduction in foreign aid/investment. And reduction in foreign aid/investment is typical consequence of tax cuts and reduced government spending.
Are you under the impression that foreign aid is the cause of hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty world wide?

No, it is the result of an integrated global economy, driven by the United States. Foreign aid doesn't create sustainable gains against poverty, economic opportunities do.

Trump's domestic tax cuts are partially an embodiment of that philosophy on the domestic front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesonov View Post
Also, this excerpt from your article pretty much contradicts the point that you were trying to make:
Again, focusing on what works and fixing what doesn't. The article itself creates %2+ reductions in poverty as being driven by the economy, and the rest social safety nets including the Child Tax Credit, which has just been expanded and increased by Trump's tax plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 9:40 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,021
It's neat that the person who consistently deems anyone he disagrees with as "hyper-partisan" is completely ignoring all other factors than those he considers worthy of being important in evaluating a complex situation. Seems rather hyper-partisan to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 9:45 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Apologies for trying to cite my sources and challenge some views held here. I should know better.

All, please continue to visit that bastion of freedom Cuba in direct protest of the now fascist United States. Nothing hyper partisan about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 9:56 PM
Pavlov's Avatar
Pavlov Pavlov is offline
Khan
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 4,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Are you under the impression that foreign aid is the cause of hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty world wide?

No, it is the result of an integrated global economy, driven by the United States. Foreign aid doesn't create sustainable gains against poverty, economic opportunities do.
Well, Trump is combining his proposed tax cuts with a protectionist withdrawal from the global economy.

Anyway, your blanket claim that foreign aid does not create growth or gains against poverty is highly suspect. For instance:

Quote:
There would appear to be one inescapable conclusion from the preceding data. Given
that the vast majority of the literature finds that aid is effective in promoting growth, and
by implication in reducing poverty, that this result holds on average for all countries
poverty is undoubtedly higher in sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific as a result of the
declines in aid to these regions during the 1990s.
SOURCE: https://www.oecd.org/dev/34353462.pdf

Quote:
In the 1960s and 1970s, Korea and Taiwan (China)
received substantial aid flows, which were used
productively in accelerating growth and reducing
poverty. In the 1980s, Bangladesh and Indonesia
benefited from and made good use of large aid flows.
Several more recent country cases show the essential
role played by foreign assistance in helping countries
move out of very difficult situations (including postconflict
environments as with Uganda, Mozambique and
Vietnam) and promote growth and poverty reduction.
Less extraordinary but still high and sustained levels
of growth, accompanied by high level of aid, have been
witnessed in a group of eleven Sub-Saharan non-oil
countries. This group has experienced GDP per capita
growth rates of about 2.5 percent—enough to reach
the poverty MDG by 2015—while receiving aid above
10 percent of GDP over the period 1994 to 2003 (Table
1).4
SOURCE: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/D...-Aid-18Apr.pdf

There are plenty of studies that conclude that in some circumstances aid has not been effective in reducing poverty. Its a complex issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Trump's domestic tax cuts are partially an embodiment of that philosophy on the domestic front.
Sorry but I don't really understand this comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Again, focusing on what works and fixing what doesn't. The article itself creates %2+ reductions in poverty as being driven by the economy, and the rest social safety nets including the Child Tax Credit, which has just been expanded and increased by Trump's tax plan.
Well, the article suggests explicitly that it it is the social safety net that worked, not economic stimulation (the benefits of which went almost entirely to the wealthy). So, by your own argument, we should focus on strengthening the social safety net, not cutting taxes to stimulate the economy (the benefits of which will likely go almost exclusively to the wealthy.)

In fact, in the current deficit climate, Trump's tax cuts will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to the social safety net. Indeed, Paul Ryan just this afternoon announced that such drastic cuts are now required and will be the GOP priority in 2018.
__________________
Confucius says:
With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my bended arm for a pillow - I have still joy in the midst of these things. Riches and honors acquired by unrighteousness are to me as a floating cloud.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:27 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
I've met people that have never been to the US before, but I'm pretty sure they're all just recent immigrants who don't have their citizenship yet. Everyone else has been to the states countless times. Seattle Premium Outlets is universally known and many people go at least once a year. Visiting Seattle itself as a tourist is also common, and back when the dollar was good just about everyone flew out of their airport. For those that live in the southern suburbs adjacent to the border, weekly trips for gas (and Costco back when the dollar was good) are commonplace.

I'll echo that it's much more common for people to have been to Washington and Oregon than anywhere else in Canada. If Seattle is a 3 hour drive and Portland is 6 hours, are you really going to drive 10 to go to Calgary? Let alone anywhere else. Obviously it's not that simple, as many people have family in Alberta or Ontario, but aside from that, the US is the most typical "out-of-town" destination, along with Okanagan ski resorts.

But it is mostly limited to Seattle and Oregon. Some of you have mentioned people flying to the states, but to me that's almost unheard of, aside from business. If you're going to go through the inconvenience of flying, you might as well go to Europe.

I'll also talk about post-9/11 border travel. It's all I know, as I became a citizen in 2004, but I really don't think it's so bad. The lines are brutal, but I doubt that's anything new. Once you get there, they check your passport and you're on your way in minutes. I've only had my car checked once.

But yes, you do meet people that are poorly travelled. While just about everyone has been to the US, I do know people that have never been to Whistler. Stories of kids having never been downtown don't really surprise me. Suburbanites are often chastised for staying in their suburb, but if everything you want is there, why would you leave?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:32 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ Vancouver is quite lucky, and in a somewhat unique situation in that it has an impressive US city nearby just over the border. A lot of the other US border cities that are big draws for Canadians are either tiny or simply not that impressive/interesting compared to the dominant Canadian city in the region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:34 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesonov View Post
In fact, in the current deficit climate, Trump's tax cuts will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to the social safety net. Indeed, Paul Ryan just this afternoon announced that such drastic cuts are now required and will be the GOP priority in 2018.
As you have admitted that foreign aid is a complex issue which isn't black and white, so too I will admit that the social safety net is a complex issue which isn't black and white.

Do not forget that you started the conversation by claiming that poverty in the United States hasn't changed in 40 years, in the face of fluctuating Federal spending and policies, which heavily implies that reforms are in order. Part of reforming the system will mean evaluating the welfare cliffs which punish those for lifting themselves out of poverty. The Republicans expanded the Child Tax Credit to middle class families in part to combat effects like this.

The Republicans do not want to gut the social safety net. They increased the major source of reduction of child poverty, the Child Tax Credit. They want to cut what isn't working and double down on what is working.

It's not black and white, Republicans have already increased the social safety net, and they will reform it and make cuts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:37 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
I'll also talk about post-9/11 border travel. It's all I know, as I became a citizen in 2004, but I really don't think it's so bad. The lines are brutal, but I doubt that's anything new. Once you get there, they check your passport and you're on your way in minutes. I've only had my car checked once.
To be honest the Peace Arch stands out to me as a particularly bad border crossing - from the Canadian side. I never had a problem going south, but on return I had numerous bad experiences, unprofessional service, and a few times what I would consider invasive personal property searches.

It got to the point where I would use the Pacific Highway crossing routinely instead which was generally much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:37 PM
Sarah89 Sarah89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 148
I have met plenty of people who have not been to the U.S. There are quite a few people in the GTA who are immigrants or children of immigrants who have not been to the U.S.

They do not have the means or perhaps some are under the impression that they'll be discriminated against for their ethnic background. Not all of our immigrants are doing all that well financially guys, there are success stories a plenty but several end up in the poverty trap.

I've also met native born white Canadians from cities like Kitchener who have never even been to the United States. These are for the most part lower income people who just don't have the means or don't drive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:49 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Vancouver is quite lucky, and in a somewhat unique situation in that it has an impressive US city nearby just over the border. A lot of the other US border cities that are big draws for Canadians are either tiny or simply not that impressive/interesting compared to the dominant Canadian city in the region.
Definitely, though on the flip-side I've always wondered what it's like to be the "big brother" in the Canada-US city relationship.

I've also always been jealous of places like Alberta, Ontario and Quebec where they have another cool Canadian city they can go to nearby, whereas Seattle and Portland are really all we have. It's nice to imagine going to a whole other urban area without sitting in line for an hour. But as you mentioned, having a big US city across the border certainly has its perks too.

Edit: But to your main point, yeah, I can see how someone from Calgary would never have gone to the US for example. Flying is expensive and inconvenient, and Spokane is not worth an 8 hour drive.

Last edited by GlassCity; Dec 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 10:54 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Vancouver has the best of both worlds. A major US city nearby with major Canadian cities one day trip away. Kelowna and Victoria are way more different from Vancouver than Edmonton is to Calgary for example. Kelowna/Victoria are also way more interesting with more things to do than Red Deer.

I also never quite understood the implication that Buffalo was at all an exciting place for Torontonians to visit. Certainly doesn't compare to Seattle on any level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:05 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Vancouver has the best of both worlds. A major US city nearby with major Canadian cities one day trip away. Kelowna and Victoria are way more different from Vancouver than Edmonton is to Calgary for example. Kelowna/Victoria are also way more interesting with more things to do than Red Deer.

I also never quite understood the implication that Buffalo was at all an exciting place for Torontonians to visit. Certainly doesn't compare to Seattle on any level.
Obviously Calgary and Edmonton are very similar (sorry if I'm bursting Albertan bubbles here) but it's still a change of scenery. Kelowna's got a beautiful setting, but it's still just a city of 200,000. Takes like an hour to walk around downtown and then what? The ski hills are a much greater attraction, but that's not really the city.

Victoria's amazing but the ferry is a massive psychological, time and money boundary to deal with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:09 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesonov View Post
In fact, in the current deficit climate, Trump's tax cuts will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to the social safety net. Indeed, Paul Ryan just this afternoon announced that such drastic cuts are now required and will be the GOP priority in 2018.
The bulk of US spending at a federal level is directed to mandatory programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Currently, those 2 programs account for 40% of federal spending alone. They are projected to increase in cost by 50% by 2025. Social spending at a federal level is mostly geared to the >65 year old population. I'm not sure significant reductions in federal spending can be achieved without touching these programs. That will be politically tricky as that voting block increases in size (and tends to lean Republican).

I believe that the Trump tax cuts will add a significant amount to the US federal debt at a time when the nation can ill afford it. The fiscal policy of the United States has been disastrous since 2001 - the federal debt has ballooned from $5.7 trillion to close to $20 trillion today.

The other issue with these tax cuts is timing. The US economy is performing close to maximum output right now. A tax cut would not particularly help economic growth and may be blunted by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates.

Wither the fiscal conservative in these times.

My opinion of the US political system is that a realignment must take place - the binary choice between Rep/Dem needs to be shaken up and a third party might just remind the two incumbent parties that they are not guaranteed a shot at governing if they wait long enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:10 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Vancouver has the best of both worlds. A major US city nearby with major Canadian cities one day trip away. Kelowna and Victoria are way more different from Vancouver than Edmonton is to Calgary for example. Kelowna/Victoria are also way more interesting with more things to do than Red Deer.

I also never quite understood the implication that Buffalo was at all an exciting place for Torontonians to visit. Certainly doesn't compare to Seattle on any level.
Cheap hockey tickets mostly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:23 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
My opinion of the US political system is that a realignment must take place - the binary choice between Rep/Dem needs to be shaken up and a third party might just remind the two incumbent parties that they are not guaranteed a shot at governing if they wait long enough.
If people are being honest that was a big part of the appeal of both Obama and Trump's campaigns. Outsider candidates to shake up the system.

I think Bloomberg might have been a decent third party candidate, certainly the best since Perot. But then again, he was afraid to run lest Trump be elected. Oops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:29 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
If people are being honest that was a big part of the appeal of both Obama and Trump's campaigns. Outsider candidates to shake up the system.

I think Bloomberg might have been a decent third party candidate, certainly the best since Perot. But then again, he was afraid to run lest Trump be elected. Oops.
Yes, but change hasn't occurred at a Congressional level, which arguably is more important. People like to focus on the Presidency, but a lot of power lies in the legislative corridors of the US Capitol.

It just doesn't get the attention it deserves because it lacks a distinctive 'face'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:35 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
Yes, but change hasn't occurred at a Congressional level, which arguably is more important. People like to focus on the Presidency, but a lot of power lies in the legislative corridors of the US Capitol.

It just doesn't get the attention it deserves because it lacks a distinctive 'face'.
I think that's one positive about Trump. He isn't afraid to call out and clash with his own party. You would never hear Obama throwing any fellow Democrat under the bus. As such, congress flew way under the radar during the past 8 years.

I think Bloomberg as an independent would have a similar focusing lens on Congress. If nothing else, Obama and Trump's broad failure to enact real change will wake up some people to the relative importance of congress, and hopefully reduce this misguided hope that voting for a certain president will make any difference to the broken system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:40 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
So, two contrasting groups of people have been talked about who have not visited the US.

One, involves very small town, far-from-the-border, people who were native-born Canadians for generations, but have rarely travelled outside their zone of familiarity.

The other involves big-city dwelling folks who are first generation immigrants that though living in very diverse and multicultural cities, have also rarely travelled outside their zone of familiarity.

Which one is more likely?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:47 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
So, two contrasting groups of people have been talked about who have not visited the US.

One, involves very small town, far-from-the-border, people who were native-born Canadians for generations, but have rarely travelled outside their zone of familiarity.

The other involves big-city dwelling folks who are first generation immigrants that though living in very diverse and multicultural cities, have also rarely travelled outside their zone of familiarity.

Which one is more likely?
I'm going to say probably the latter.

My argument: Disney World and Las Vegas are huge destinations that are reasonably accessible and have no equivalents in Canada. Thus, even Canadians that are relative homebodies will go at least once in their lives, if nothing else. Call it the trip of a lifetime.

First generation immigrants who may (or may not be) citizens probably have more barriers. Getting a passport might be more challenging, crossing the border can be a hassle and the current climate in the US may deter them. Also, first generation immigrants may use their discretionary income to travel back home for a visit, rather than to a tourist attraction in the US.

But I'm speculating here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.