[Robair]

Which isn't bad considering our strong economic ties to number 25...

$1:

Canada ranks 10th on economic security index


DAVID CRANE

Family stress and economic insecurity appear to be growing, even though we are much better off in per capita income than 20 to 30 years ago.

A combination of intensified global competition, the growth in non-standard work such as contract and part-time employment, rising income inequality, the weakening of social support systems and the end of steady employment with a single employer for most workers — these all are contributing to this sense of insecurity.

In one respect, Canadians are better off than those in most countries. A new report from the International Labour Organization, "Economic Security for a Better World," has published for the first time an economic security index, and it shows Canada ranks 10th out of some 90 countries. The United States, in contrast, ranks 25th — the worst showing of an advanced economy — while the top five countries for economic security, not surprisingly, are Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands...

#10 deafinatly leaves room for improvement...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 9048863851

Link to full article.

[Gonzo]

Privitizing is definantly one reason we're ranked tenth. Here in BC they privitized health care work in housekeeping and food service. People who were making $17 an hour are now making $10. You cant make a living on $10 an hour. Plus, who's going to work hard when there sallary is cut almost in half? It's to bad for patients but when your work is contracted out and people have there hand in your paycheck, you dont spend as much money and it's just bad for the economy.

[Ralph]

I guess it would depend on what or who you ask




LONDON, England (CNN) -- Melbourne and Vancouver are the best cities in the world for expatriates to live in, according to a survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Both Australia and Canada fared well in the survey, with the west Australian city of Perth ranking third, and Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide tying in eighth place.

Toronto and Montreal also made the top 10, while Calgary was 16th. (Full list)

Port Moresby, the capital of Papua New Guinea came in last place, while the European Union was considered the best region to live just ahead of North America.

Conducted by the London-based EIU -- the business information arm of the Economist Group -- the survey assessed the level of hardship for expatriates in 130 cities.

It looked at 12 factors including housing, education, recreational activities and climate, rating every city on a five-point scale in each category, with five indicating extreme hardship.

Melbourne weather, notorious for providing four seasons in a single day was all that prevented it from receiving a perfect score of zero.

Port Moresby
On the other end of the scale, Port Moresby managed a hardship score of 80.

There, expatriates "must take extreme security precautions ... Education and health indicators are poor, corruption is rife and high humidity makes the climate oppressive all year round," the report said.

Rounding out the top ten cities were Vienna, Geneva and Zurich (all equal fourth) while Copenhagen, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt and Oslo were also equal eighth.

The Japanese cities of Osaka and Tokyo were the highest rated in Asia in equal 21st spot. Next best was Hong Kong in 44th place. The most livable mainland Chinese cities were Guangzhou and Shanghai at equal 73rd.

London was also rated 44th while Honolulu was the preferred U.S. city in equal 21st place. New York was ranked 52nd.

[passthedutchie]

Ralph, the only problem with the article you listed is that it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original article was about.

The original article is about Economic security, while your article is about what cities are rated to be the best for expatriates. Big difference.



It's no surprise that the countries that have the best economic security, which basically means that your income level is stable based on multiple criteria, are countries where the government role in regards to market control of wages is high and taxes are as well. All of these countries have good social programs which of course are paid for by those higher than average taxes.

It should also be no surprise that Canada was pretty much right in between the leading European countries and America. Generally speaking, Canada is pretty much of mix of these countries.

If being tenth on this list is poor to you, and you want to be #1, then put pressure on your elected officials to enact policies similar to those found in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. Before you do that, you might want to think about the competitiveness of the Canadian market and the effects that those policies might have, which may ultimately lead to a downturn in the Canadian standard of living.

I personally think that being tenth on this list fits in perfect with Canada, even though I tend to agree with the policies of the leading countries. I just realise that to enact them in Canada will not work because of the nature of the Canadian market (exporting nation with the vast majority of the trade going to America) and based on Canada's geographical location (close to the US and far from more large and diverse populated areas like Europe, South America and Asia).

Tenth on that list is the best that Canada can do unless there is a drastic shift in the overall policies of the USA (both trade and social), or Canada breaks apart and floats towards Europe or Asia. There are some small things Canada can do, like fix the health care system or have a functionally better welfare system, but those still won't make a big difference on this list.

That said, if Canada slowly moves towards similar policies the effects would be minimal or non-existent. Unfortunately it seems like Canada is slowly adopting policies (not including foreign policies) similar to America.

[Robair]

Very well thought out post dutchie.

passthedutchie passthedutchie:

Tenth on that list is the best that Canada can do unless there is a drastic shift in the overall policies of the USA (both trade and social), or Canada breaks apart and floats towards Europe or Asia. There are some small things Canada can do, like fix the health care system or have a functionally better welfare system, but those still won't make a big difference on this list.

Did you know that in the US, one percent of the population has 50% of the total wealth? The middle class down here (USA) is shrinking. I think a shift in US policies is on the way. It has to be, or you'll end up with an elite few rich folks and a nation full of people in debt to their eyeballs.

I think there are deafinatly changes to the welfare system that would give Canada a little boost in this area. But you may be right about being stuck in 10th...

[passthedutchie]

Robair Robair:

Very well thought out post dutchie.

Did you know that in the US, one percent of the population has 50% of the total wealth? The middle class down here (USA) is shrinking. I think a shift in US policies is on the way. It has to be, or you'll end up with an elite few rich folks and a nation full of people in debt to their eyeballs.

I think there are deafinatly changes to the welfare system that would give Canada a little boost in this area. But you may be right about being stuck in 10th...

Actually, those statistics aren't perfect, but close. I understand the point you are making though. As of 1998 (the latest statistics on wealth distribution that I could find), the top 1% is around 34.0%. The 50% mark is passed around the top 4%. (Source - U.S. Wealth Distribution Data (1998)). I'm sure this has gotten worse under the Bush administration.

In Canada, the situation is unfortunately similar, but not as drastic. The wealthiest 10 percent of family units held 53 percent of the wealth in 1999. The wealthiest 50 percent of families controlled 94.4 percent of the wealth, leaving only 5.6 percent for the bottom 50 percent. (Source - WSWS)

This is why I said that Canada and Canadians must think about their market competitiveness before acting upon adopting policies similar to the typical Scandinavian countries. Canada competes almost exclusively against the American market, and if taxes are substantially more, or the cost of producing in Canada increases dramatically (which it would if those policies are brought in due to unions, taxes and strict labour laws), Canada would be at a great disadvantage and ultimately the standard of living would either fall or stagnate, despite improved social programs. No matter how good the health care is, no matter how much jobs are paying employees, and no matter how much the welfare state is taking care of the unemployed/unemployable, if jobs, trade and investment are not flourishing, debt will mount and eventually cutbacks on those improved social programs will happen.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are able to compete because of their advanced technologies, competitive advantages, and competencies, but also because the markets which they compete in are relatively similar. Canada does not have this luxury, as it has to compete ultimately with the United States. Canada has to be very, very careful with the policies it enacts that affects the business environment in order to remain competitive against the USA, and provide a great alternative for foreign companies looking to invest in North America.

While you seem to think that America is due for a change, I beg to differ. I don't see too much happening in regards to the poor and middle class standing up against the hyper-wealthy, I see them electing people like Bush. The top 5% still only have 5% of the vote, but their power and their money buys the votes of the mostly ignorant middle class. The US is already a plutocracy, and it will continue to be. It doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat in office, or who is in control of the house, they are basically the same. They just seem to have a different pace. Republicans rapidly enact policies that favour the rich, while the democrats do it just a little slower, and with a different face.

The middle class seems to think that the only thing that improves their lives is lower taxes. These lower taxes will allow them to buy stuff after all! And while they are out buying new jet skis and Gucci bags, their health care costs rise because the private sector and their shareholders that own the hospitals are demanding more profits. So while they have that new jet ski, they are paying more for their health care, but don't have the money because they bought that Gucci bag as well. Plus, the free government funded hospitals are going away or the quality is going down because their funding has been cut back. Oh what a vicious cycle. You can apply it to almost any essential service, be it hydro or even education.

Until America realises that electing buffoons like Bush, or slightly less yet still rich-serving alternatives like Kerry, is actually the wrong way to go, Canada will always have to compete in this environment. Real incomes are not doing well in neither Canada or America because the rich are accumulating more and more wealth. The middle class spends more proportionately of what they earn, and this circulates the wealth more. This does not happen with the rich, who continue to build their wealth.

Sadly in today's current state of the world we still need these hyper-wealthy people because they invest, they create jobs, and they spend their money. If the business environment causes them to leave or not invest, it is the middle class and poor who suffer. Again, another reason Canada has to be careful in regards to what it does, and maintain the balance that allows it to remain competitive. Tenth position still fits fine with me.

[Robair]

Check this out:

The L-Curve

And this.