Talk:Poverty in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent Deletions

"According to Statistics Canada, recent increases in Canadian low-income rates are associated with the arrival of new immigrants, which has more than offset the decline in low-income rates of Canadian born residents."

This statement is misleading. Immigrants are not increasing low-income rates for everyone, they are just experiencing lower income rates themselves. I have re-worded this to clarify.

"Debating relative versus absolute measures"

The debate, or difference, between absolute and relative measures is captured accurately in the Measuring poverty Wikipedia entry. It does greater justice to the debate as a whole, by providing more context and information. The concerns raised by both sides in the Canadian debate are better explained in this entry. That is why I have removed this section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft1 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian

Sourced from:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=fb622996-c92f-4f94-8cfa-6601e2b3dda6&k=10588

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/06/16/taxfreedomday.html

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13957&Itemid=86

http://www.ontariohomeschool.org/fraserstudysummaries.html

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=8c492527-8a82-40b2-9d51-30bb25a92802

Mft1 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charity Paragraph

I do not deny that religious organizations perform charity work. The paragraph clearly identifies that both religious and non-denominational (i.e. non-religious) organizations perform this kind of work. Both of these are forms of private charity. Mft1 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Poverty in Canada

"This is one of several metrics used as a poverty measure in Canada, and another model often referred to as a poverty measure, the low-income cut off published by Statistics Canada, does not mirror this result."

This contribution clearly identifies that the LICO is referred to as a poverty measure, but that it is not one in intent. The statement made here is accurate, the results of both these metrics do not mirror each other.

Of course it doesn't mirror it, it is a relative income metric, it will never trend down even if all Canadian's incomes doubled. And besides, you know full well from our other discussions that the only reason LICO weren't better it due to new immigrants. Deet (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"It should be noted, however, that low-income rates do not necessarily imply immigrants are living in a state of poverty. Additionally, low-income rates among immigrants tend to fall with time spent in Canada, translating into viable long-term income progress for immigrants."

The net impact is that of a rising LICO. Your comments are confusing the issue. Deet (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article identifies that the LICO and poverty are not identical. It is relevant to identify that distinction when talking about any group, including immigrants. Additionally, the statement that "low-income rates among immigrants tend to fall with time spent in Canada" was from the same Statistics Canada report cited above. It is a relevant economic observation on the topic, considering immigrants are identified as increasing poverty in the country.

"Many social programs developed during this time designed to increase the Canadian citizen's quality of life."

Canadian social programs were designed to increase the Canadian citizen's quality of life, why is this statement contentious? It is fact, that is the intent of government social programs in Canada.

What are we taking a position on the merits of socialism here? Deet (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"However, the Fraser Institute has also stated that the "the basic needs poverty line is not absolute…to be meaningful, a poverty line has to be connected to the society in which people live." (Measuring Poverty in Canada, 2001)."

This addition is relevant in the debate about whether a relative or absolute poverty measure is more applicable. This article should summarize the debate about poverty lines, not be argumentative itself, and the distinction between absolute vs. relative is an important part of that debate.

It is designed to be a poverty threshold. This edit confuses the issue. The calculation is clear in the original form. Deet (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"The basic needs measure, like many poverty metrics, has been the subject of debate among experts and organizations involved in poverty analysis and reduction. The executive director of the National Anti-Poverty Organization, a large Canadian anti-poverty group, has stated that the report tires to hide homelessness in Canada and is inaccurate [1]. Additionally, the Canadian Council on Social Development argues that a relative definition of poverty is more accurate in measuring poverty in Canada, and that the LICO of Statistics Canada best fulfills this criterion, regardless of its intent or designated purpose[2]."

The article sheds light onto the debate about using the LICO as a poverty measure. It is reasonable, that in line with Wikipedia's role of summarizing debate not creating argumentative articles, those who believe the basic needs measure should not be used a poverty measure are represented here. CBC News, a major Canadian media company, directly makes reference to this debate in the article supplied. This is a necessary presentation of an alternative viewpoint.

"Alternatively, however, some groups like the Canadian Council on Social Development believe the LICO is applicable as a poverty measure regardless of whether its intent or designation is to be one. They have argued, that as it stands, the LICO is the best measure available that accurately measures a relative poverty rate. [3]"

This article elaborates the argumentation against using the LICO is a poverty measure. It identifies that there is a debate about this issue. Both sides should be represented in this debate. The opinion of a major NGO dealing with poverty about how to measure poverty is relevant.24.85.222.215 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 209.53.177.173 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (updated)

As identified by the National Post articles, certain groups seem to have an interest in exaggerating the extent of poverty in Canada. These logically include the Canadian Council on Social Development and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. You are internally inconsistent and play two sides of the issue. When talking about immigration you play down the significance of the LICO, but then play it up other times. Gee, the CBC says ya-di-ya... oh, well out of respect for my tax dollars maybe I should pay more attention to them; however, they did not even address the Fraser Institute metric. Why? They quote them in many other areas... schools, etc? They may also be biased. Wikipedia certainly does not need to follow government-run media opinions verbatim. StatsCan's opinions (noted as the best statistical organization in the world) trumps those of the CBC by a long shot relating to one of their own measures. Period. And if we bring in all the opinions from one author, then we need to bring in all the opinions from the National Post, etc, then this article becomes about the debates about controversies, opinions and perceived conflicts of interest rather than the actual subject. Sticking to facts will make for a better article in my opinion. Deet (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,
"To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." We are not here to have a debate on what is the correct way to measure poverty in Canada, we are here to summarize that debate.
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors"
"All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."
The role of Wikipedia is not to conclude what poverty measure is valid in Canada. Wikipedia must summarize the debate on poverty in Canada, and present the different viewpoints on the issue. As this article (http://www.streetlevelconsulting.ca/homepage/homelessness2InCanada_Part2.htm) states,
"Canada has no official definition of poverty, no official method of measuring poverty, and no official set of poverty lines. In the absence of any kind of official government-approved methodology the debate over how to measure poverty continues to boil."
It mentions there are two sides to this debate. These are "The first group — the anti-poverty coalition" and "The second group — the pro-business coalition", where "Christopher Sarlo of the Fraser Institute is a leading spokesperson for this group."
This clearly and directly establishes the existence of a debate on this issue, as per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, this article must represent the different sides in this debate. If one believes certain groups "exaggerates" the level of poverty and that they are "biased", that is applicable to other groups too. The low-income cut off or LICO is advocated as a poverty measure by the following groups that satisfy the criterion of prominence as per NPOV guidelines:
National Council on Welfare: http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/publicstatements/Archives/2003_NCWResponse_mbmENG.htm
Canadian Council on Social Development: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2007/upp/measuring_low_income.htm
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/poverty-line.html
Social Planning Toronto: http://www.socialplanningtoronto.org/Research%20&%20Policy%20Updates/New%20Data%20Access%20Pamphlets/Poverty%20Statistics%20html.htm
Additionally, as you have identified, many groups do not identify the LICO as a valid poverty measure. One of these groups is Statistics Canada, the group that compiles this measure, and this is explicitly noted in the article. It should be noted the article you cite from StatsCan about the LICO (http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/13F0027XIE/13F0027XIE.htm) not being a poverty measures also identifies:
"The proposed poverty lines have included, among others, relative measures (you are poor if your means are small compared to others in your population) and absolute measures (you are poor if you lack the means to buy a specified basket of goods and services designated as essential)."
This means that StatsCan itself does not identify the Fraser Institute's measure as official, nor has it ever argued that is it is a valid poverty measure. StatsCan clearly states in the article that there is a debate about whether a relative or absolute line should be used.
The article also notes: "As long as that represents their own considered opinion of how poverty should be defined in Canada, we have no quarrel with them"
Thus, StatsCan is not explicitly stating that the LICO cannot be used as a poverty measure, but that the LICO is not intended to be one. Maybe it should be and maybe it shouldn't be, but the role of Wikipedia is not to make that judgment, but to elaborate on the ongoing and existent debate in Canada about that judgment. This article, therefore, must include those on both sides of the issue.
The reason my edits "play down" the significance of the LICO, and then "play it up" at other times, is because I am not here to advocate one side or another. I am trying to make this article more balanced.
The "controversies, opinions and perceived conflicts of interest" should comprise "the actual subject" of this article, because that is what Wikipedia is, a summary, not an argument unto itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
ok, we are into minor points. glad you joined. remember to sign your comments by putting this at the end of your comments: ~~~~ . BTW, appealing to Bearcat won't help you. Facts will. Still waiting for your immigration economic facts... zzzz Deet (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is a major point. You completely removed my edits before that were designed to increase article neutrality, and I have re-instated them for the rationale cited above. Talking to Bearcat is motivated on the basis of procuring the facts required for these articles, and increasing their neutrality. I am not here to fight with you, or go it alone, I am here to make these articles fit Wikipedia policies and practices. Enlisting others help is a way to do this, Wikipedia is collaborative. Mft1 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You now have the same CBC point repeated no less than 3 times in the article. That's some kind of balance you are bringing. Deet (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I cite the CBC article thrice, twice with regard to the LICO, and once with regard to the opinion of another organization on the LICO. I certainly believe a major analysis of the issue by Canada's largest news organization on the subject of this article is of relavence. This article, as it stands, now has a more neutral tone. Both sides are presented, the existence of a debate is directly identified, and therefore it adheres far more effectively to NPOV. Mft1 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraser Institute repeatedly used as statistical reference. Fraser institute is contolled by american business interests

The Fraser Institute is repeatedly used as statistical reference in this article. The Fraser institute is contolled by american business interests and is widely considered by educated canadians to be a right wing media manipulation tool funded by american interests for the purpose of representing right wing bias in the news through illegitimately generated "factoids" and surveys. Any reference to the Fraser institute in this article will cause it's truth to be questioned by a great many canadians.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only one metric, the Basic Needs Poverty Measure, is referenced. Statistics Canada has openly abdicated on this topic so we are not left with much choice. The Fraser Institute measure is the only Canadian metric explicitly designed for the purpose of being a poverty metric. I have re-read the Fraser Institute Wikipedia article and, as written, it is not entirely consistent with your views. Your opinions on the Fraser Institute would carry more weight if they were reflected in the main article on the Institute, rather than it just reflecting your personal opinion. I would also point out that criticism of the Fraser Institute consistent with your view is noted in this section: Poverty_in_Canada#Debating_relative_versus_absolute_measures . Regards, Deet (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


So why is the fraser institute mentioned conspicuously at the top as if it were a reliable source with no clarifiers, and then only at the bottom is a small one liner clarifying the concerns of other organizations that the Fraser institute method is unsound and being used for propoganda purposes? Clearly there is BIAS in this article starting in the first paragraph.

If the fraser institute is to be mentioned in a debate about Canadian poverty they should not be right at the top represented as a trusted source of information. The CBC, StatsCan, sure put them at the top. This article misleads the reader into believing that there is broad support for the Fraser Institute's interpretation of this situation simply by placing the possibly suspect data in the most prominent place of the article.

They should appear later in the article and have dissenting viewpoints on the Fraser institutes methods immediately represented within the same section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, they are the only organization in the world that has explicitly created a poverty measure for Canada. Given the topic of the article that does buy them some special mention perhaps beyond their normal status. If you have additional points with references, feel free to add content in the Poverty_in_Canada#Debating_relative_versus_absolute_measures section. Deet (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the argument that we should accept data from the Fraser Institute simply because they are the only onganization that has created a poverty measure in Canada. That doesn't speak to whether or not their data and methodologies are ideologically driven. I agree with the above commentor: The Fraser Institute is well known in Canada as a right-wing think tank, in favour of cutting social services and implenting tax breaks for corporations. I would question any data they put forward because it is likely to support their ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.30.55 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly labeled as a conservative think tank which is code for ignore for all those who dislike such organizations. Actually, this point itself shows a bias that is unacceptable. First that all things American-controlled are bad (which does not even seem to be the case according to the main Fraser Institute article). The key internet computers are all American controlled (ICANN), but that doesn't seem to deter you from using it. Second, the bias that right of centre organizations are inherently unreliable. I personally think the Basic Needs measure is the closest thing to what average Canadians on the street generally think of as a definition of poverty (i.e., not being able to afford food & shelter) and that all the other measures are so loosely defined as to be nowhere near what Canadians think of when you say the word "poverty". Wikipedia is not censored, so the best approach is to label them the source for what it is and let people make up their own minds. Deet (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)