# Toronto's middle class shrinking rapidly: report



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

See article below.

QUOTE

Okay do I have to give my history lesson again? 

Middle class in North America is shrinking..why? Because...the corporations have downsized and automated jobs that were done by people in the 70's. Remember those factories, your parents/grandparents used to work at. Good wages with job security. On that they bought their nice houses and sent the kids to university. 

Well today those jobs are gone and corporations are making these huge profits. In their place are either office jobs that everyone wants and low paying service jobs. The corporations keep their operating costs down and CEO are making more profits than ever before.

UNQUOTE 


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/torontos-middle-class-shrinking-rapidly-report-20101215-090949-045.html


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/15/three-cities-report542.html

There is a map at the bottom of the page that will give you a better picture of things.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Are you asking a question? Thank you for posting an article, it is interesting, but in the spirit of a discussion forum (which is what CMF is), I am wondering what your point is. What is your question? Are you trying to express an opinion? Normally people quote articles as backup for a question or opinion they might have.

??


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

I did not have any specific comment or question at the time of the post. I just thought that I could learn useful information from the many knowledgeable people here. 

I like the map in the second link. This map shows the areas that have increased or not since 1970. Do you think it is possible to get a map with the same layout, that will show the average individual income, but year by year?


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

Interesting to look at the subway lines. It generally goes through white and blue areas (positive areas). Many factors may explain that: Middle class people like to be close to a subway station, and for good reasons.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

You shouldn't repost articles - they are under copyright. Just post the link.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

Taxsaver said:


> See article below.
> 
> QUOTE
> 
> ...


An economist may argue that economic growth can only be achieved through increased productivity. The onset of technology is certainly one way to improve productivity. As a result, our (grand)parents experience frictional unemployment and learn new skills as they migrate to a whole to sector that would not have been in existence without previous economic growth or improvements in productivity. 

Did your company have an IT department 50 years ago? What did CSCO do 20 years ago? I just see it as the evolution of an economy.


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

Thanks for this information. Nothing against economic evolution, but what if it makes me poorer each year while rich people become richer. I guess it depends on what side of the fence you are. What is good for one is bad for the other.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Those who try to sell these concepts are the ones who stand to gain by their adoption. The middle class is the one paying all the bills. The rich are protected by their friends in gov't and the poor takes up all the money in social programs. That leaves the middle class as the perpetual wallet for gov't and biz to tax/fee/levy.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

Maybe it's just my perception, but relatively speaking, I don't think corporations (as a whole) are earning more than they were in the past. In fact you could argue P/E ratios are higher now than they were in the past.


----------



## MoneyMaker (Jun 1, 2009)

The beauty of capitalism


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

Do you think this solution would be good for the rich?

Reduce the world population to 200 million by eliminating the "useless eaters", so there is enough people to work the fields and pay taxes, to insure the rich have all the power and money they desire to have.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

There is no doubt in my mind that socialism has become a huge threat and could bring down the system due to everyone collecting off the gov't and forming new lobby groups almost daily. Nobody wants to work anymore and at the same time they expect the gov't should spend millions accomodating their own desires. Too many ideas competing for the wallet of the middleclass = death of the middle class.


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that socialism has become a huge threat and could bring down the system due to everyone collecting off the gov't and forming new lobby groups almost daily. Nobody wants to work anymore and at the same time they expect the gov't should spend millions accomodating their own desires. Too many ideas competing for the wallet of the middleclass = death of the middle class.


If the death of middle class means the richest becoming richer, then is socialism the best thing the richest could hope?


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

atrp2biz said:


> An economist may argue that economic growth can only be achieved through increased productivity. The onset of technology is certainly one way to improve productivity. As a result, our (grand)parents experience frictional unemployment and learn new skills as they migrate to a whole to sector that would not have been in existence without previous economic growth or improvements in productivity.
> 
> Did your company have an IT department 50 years ago? What did CSCO do 20 years ago? I just see it as the evolution of an economy.


There are some problems with this line of thinking. To illustrate think of the following scenario:

As technology advances & increases in complexity, assume that the technical skills of the people required to design and maintain it would have to rise in kind. But what if only 10% of the population is innately capable of attaining such skills, and you have a drop off in that % as time goes on because of the increasing complexity? meanwhile jobs in industries where 90% of the people are employed are being done away with due to automation ...........

What's the long-term result of such trends?

Unemployment of the majority of society, with an increasing demand for a minority of people, whose proportion in society will keep decreasing.

Who's to say we can keep pace with the evolution of our economy"in a manner that doesn't lead to the destabilization of our society due to growing inequities between the wanted and the unwanted, the haves and the have nots....? Who's to say if we are capable of migrating the average joe to jobs requiring more ability than they have the potential for? And when we can't, what do we do with all of these people?

It's a hypothetical scenario, but not one completely out of the realm of possibility is it?

I believe these issues are contributing to the shrinking of the middle class.


----------



## ramy98 (Sep 20, 2009)

The obvious answer to this problem is that we (canadians) need to spend our money within our communities; buy local, bank local (credit union), we gotta stop buying made in china and support our communities!

We need to innovate and bring manufacturing back to this country.

Just my .02


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

ramy98 said:


> The obvious answer to this problem is that we (canadians) need to spend our money within our communities; buy local, bank local (credit union), we gotta stop buying made in china and support our communities!
> 
> We need to innovate and bring manufacturing back to this country.
> 
> Just my .02


I definitely agree that we need to bring manufacturing back to our shores, but the obvious answer stated above isn't so easy. For many, many products we simply do not have the option to buy local. When you step into that dollar store to save money, you are supporting chinese production. Even the computer you are reading this on was made with components largely made offshore. Many of the items we need are simply not available, on a Made in Canada basis.

Even if they were, would you be willing to pay $30 for a Made in Canada item vs $10 for a Made in China item? Exact same product, brand, everything. Didn't think so.

Consumers' low price demands are the ultimate culprit.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Such a collection of half truths and generalizations. Things change-get over it!


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Sometime I see things and as a business person I think... that's just too cheap. Who makes money selling these things? 

Case Study - I went to Metro the other day and bought a box of clementines for $2.99. From Morocco. 

So figure someone has to plant a tree... then someone has to pick the clementines and put them in a wooden box. Someone had to make the wooden box too and then the whole lot had to be shipped from Africa to Canada Then it has to go through customs and be picked up then trucked to Metro so I could buy it for $2.99 

Not exactly a business I'd like to be in.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Manafacturing at the level it was at here will never return, the labour costs and their generous benefits programmes will ensure that doesn't happen.

Indexed DB Pension Plans held by Government, Unions, etc will increasingly tax the middle class as the monies for these benefits must come from somewhere??

The U.S are actually telling Pensioners that the monies they thought they would get, they are not, no money to pay them.

Why does a TTC Driver get $80k a year and full benefits, a School Bus Driver gets minimum wage and no benefits.???

The Middle Class are being treated like an ATM by the politicians and they are not about to make changes to their compensation.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

Square Root said:


> Such a collection of half truths and generalizations. Things change-get over it!


+1.

I'm curious what the best system is, if socialsim and capitalism aren't ideal. What is? 

I think if you work with the poor like I do, most of them do not abuse the system and just want a way out of their circumstances. Welfare and its structures do not provide a basic living capability for the majority of the people, and many of them work multiple jobs to keep their lives afloat.

A more equal society is generally a more harmonious society. I think socialism does have a role in ensuring that the poorest off, have an opportunity to live to a minimal standard of living (i.e. the good old Rawlsian 'minimax' concept that if you were a random person in society, what is the minimum that society should provide for all.) It's the concept of the fair and just society. If you want inequality and a free for all, move to the US ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have never understood the argument that the way to prosperity is to drive down wages to the lowest point on earth.

If that was true, Somalia would be a world power.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

There is not "best" system. The answer is both... 

In Capitalism it's the law of the jungle and innovation but no one cares for anyone else. 

In Socialism there's no incentive but everyone is equal and taken care of. 

The best society is one in which both system's strength's and weaknesses are in balance.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> There is not "best" system. The answer is both...
> 
> In Capitalism it's the law of the jungle and innovation but no one cares for anyone else.
> 
> ...


That would be ideal, yes.
But alas, those two systems cannot co-exist.
By nature, each system is exclusive and cannibalistic in nature.
Capitalism is inherently unstable and needs to constantly expand.
Socialism is stable (at least in theory) but cannot co-exist with other systems.
In the end, most democratic countries end up being "state capitalism", welfare states and a dog's breakfast of policies, ideas and features like trade unions, public sector enterprises, govt & corporatation alliances, etc.
Each member of the working classes then has to figure out his/her own way of surviving within this, creating wealth for themselves, and generally staying out of trouble.


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

I think we're at a tipping point where our overall economy and that of other developed nations is not human labor intensive enough to continue absorbing workers who have lost their jobs due to automation and/or globalization. Our basic mechanism for putting purchasing power into the hands of consumers begins is breaking down, and that disturbs everything. Our economies were have to supposed to have evolved into knowledge based economies where developing countries would do all of the menial stuff, and we would sell them the technology and science to produce more and better products.

The problem with this is that the transfer of science and technology is often a one shot deal, so it's not sustainable for us. So now the world economy can be divided into just two categories: coming up, and going down. 

I think that we're screwed and there's very little we can do about it.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Taxsaver said:


> Middle class in North America is shrinking..why?
> 
> 
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/torontos-middle-class-shrinking-rapidly-report-20101215-090949-045.html


A. Toronto is not Middle Class America, so your rant has little to do with the referenced demographic study. 

B. As regards the study; Well, Duh! As defined in the study, "Toronto" is old Toronto, Etobicoke, North York, & Scarborough south of Steeles Avenue". Where do you think middle-income housing (ie suburbs) in the GTA has been built in the last 30 years? North of Steeles ave. in Markham, Richmond Hill, & Vaughan; west of the GTA in Mississauga; and east along the lakeshore towards Pickering, Ajax, Oshawa, etc.

In the meantime "Toronto' has experienced densification: Expensive condos where the upper crust live; and apartment blocks (public & private) where the working/non-working poor live. And at the same time the older housing neighbourhoods have skyrocketed in market value, so only high income earners can afford to move in.

And we are supposed to be surprised that there is a corresponding change in the income demographic?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> Sometime I see things and as a business person I think... that's just too cheap. Who makes money selling these things?
> 
> Case Study - I went to Metro the other day and bought a box of clementines for $2.99. From Morocco.
> 
> ...


I recently bought a pair of gloves (the thinsulate active winter glove variety) for $3. Regular price. They are pretty well put together, with a fair bit of elaborate stitching. If you asked me how much I would have expected them to cost, I'd say at least $10 and probably $15. A friend of mine was bragging to me about buying some gloves at MEC for $30 that were marked down from $100. I wasn't impressed.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Socialism is not Communism, and their are differant styles of Socialism, the ideal is Democratic Socialism.

All societies have some degree of Socialism, some form of Wealth Transfer, it is just the degree.

The US brags they are Capitalists, yet still provide homes, health care, benefits to those unable to pay.

The U.S , 20% of the top tier own 80% of the wealth, 20% of the lowest tier own 0.01%.

The U.S also has almost 300,000,000 hand guns in circulation. 

The problem with well meaning benefits is the creation of a cycle of dependancy, the poor stay poor, there is little incentive to free yourself of this aid.

Ophra just learned She has a sister, the child was given away at birth due to fear of losing welfare due to another child.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know I have been poor and I have been rich, and rich is much better.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm Howard said:


> Ophra just learned She has a sister, the child was given away at birth due to fear of losing welfare due to another child.


Actually, the opposite is true. 

I saw the show yesterday and heard Oprah's mother say that she gave up her child for 2 reasons: 1) because she could not take care of the child [Oprah was living with her father at the time] and 2) to get *off* welfare.


----------



## manishg (Jan 24, 2011)

Well no matter what the stats and data say's,but the fact is that there are not obvious occupation reasons infact the major cause behind this is the broke down of the relations in the family and thats why people are now parting there ways from each other that causing the middle class to shrink.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Wow, I have never met anyone who actually watches the show, but thank you for providing the facts, mine was a newspaper headline.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Actually, I don't normally watch Oprah [don't even have cable], I just happened to be home early & searching for t.v. coverage of the Australian Open with no luck.


----------

