Talk:Poverty in Canada

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amarj15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shelter System Omission

If the wikipedia minions are done with their version of reality, I will report my own. In the past, I've commented on the homelessness problem in Canada, having had the misfortune of being homeless in toronto myself, and you can read this here: Seaton House Controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.62.92 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC) allo my name is jeff 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)69.70.128.110 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Additions to Poverty in Canada

"in ottawa 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)

Not sure why the Market Basket Measure is not included. It's produced by Stats Can.--Ddyson (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Ddyson

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)

Recent Change

The changes made by the last IP address where made by me. The following is the rationale:

1. By definition, the low-income cut off is a relative measure of poverty. There is no need to remove this wording. The paragraph clearly later establishes it is an income inequality measure in that context.

2. The language "frequently quoted as a poverty rate" suggests that it is not one in some capacity. The article establishes the debate between the two rates in its lead. I have re-worded to "the most popular measure" and changed "recognized" to "used".

3. Low-income cut off rates are not just "often quoted by the media as a measure of poverty". This language misleads about the actual extent to which they are considered a poverty rate in the relative context. There are think-tanks and other organizations that equally share the viewpoint that a relative measure of poverty is valid.

4. The language that "Statistics Canada has stated it is not a poverty measure" is misleading. Statistics Canada has not endorsed any measure of poverty, it has not explicitly endorsed one or the other. This position is explicitly outlined in the lead and then again at the start of he Measures of poverty in Canada section, there is no need to re-state a third time. To quote: "Statistics Canada has refused to endorse any metric as a 'measure of poverty', including the low-income cut off it publishes, without a mandate to do so from the federal government."

5. I have shifted the relative measures section above the absolute measures section. It is the most used measure in Canada, and this should be reflected in the ordering of the article. Mft1 (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your bias stems from but drop it. "At the heart of the debate is the use of the low income cut-offs as poverty lines, even though Statistics Canada has clearly stated, since their publication began over 25 years ago, that they are not" --> that says in plain english that lico is not, read direct quote: "not", a poverty line. period. who cares that they also don't think my shoe size is one also? stop twisting facts. And if you want to bring the CIA of all irrelevant organizations into this, then we are going to represent their full opinion, period. Deet (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request you do not engage in character attacks, e.g. "drop your bias". I am making changes on the basis of what best fits Wikipedia's policies.

1. You have taken issue with the fourth point of my change. Let me further explain why I have made this change.

Statistics Canada has not said the low-income cut off is a poverty line in its intent. The organization does not publish or regard the low-income cut off as a poverty line. This is because it has no mandate to create any metric that officially measures poverty, and accordingly does not endorse any metric it publishes in that capacity. This is explicitly stated in the article twice:

"Statistics Canada has refused to endorse any metric as a 'measure of poverty', including the low-income cut off it publishes, without a mandate to do so from the federal government."

"Canada has no official poverty measure because Statistics Canada has stated that unless politicians express a social consensus on the definition of poverty, there will be no measure because they feel that it is not Statistics Canada's role to determine what constitutes a necessity."

This is the position of Statistics Canada, and it is represented in this article. There is no reason to re-state it for a third time. It is also misleading to say that Statistics Canada states that it is "not a poverty measure". Indeed, they have said:

"In the absence of politically-sanctioned social consensus on who should be regarded as "poor", some people and groups have been using the Statistics Canada low-income lines as a de facto definition of poverty. As long as that represents their own considered opinion of how poverty should be defined in Canada, we have no quarrel with them: all of us are free to have our own views. But they certainly do not represent Statistics Canada's views about how poverty should be defined."

This article outlines this position, in the previously aforementioned sections. The key here is that this article does not say that the low-income cut off is the be all and end all of how to measure poverty. It identifies it is one of many contested definitions and metrics of poverty.

2. CIA issue

The CIA, as a major publisher of statistical information, is a relevant organization. On the Wikipedia pages for poverty lines, for example, it is one of three main sources that are cited. Its position on the LICO is established in the previous change. That is to say, it recognizes that the calculation of a relative measure of poverty results in a higher rate than an absolute one. This was established in the edit.

3. Other changes

You have performed a full edit reversion without qualifying your other changes. Given the preceding justification, and the lack of contest for the other changes, I have reverted your edit. Mft1 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am travelling. Will get back within 1 week. Deet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.148.115 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If we don't agree on what english words mean, there is little point in discussing it further, and even if we did agree on the english, that doesn't mean you have points that I think actually improve the article, regardless of how much you write on the talk page. We have all agreed that LICO should be discussed on the page. But to have the section on LICO ignore the fact that its creator does not recommend it as a poverty line is a must have. Plus, the CIA opinion on the calculation, that it produces high numbers, is also relevant for the reasons you have stated. Again, the direct quote from StatsCan: "At the heart of the debate is the use of the low income cut-offs as poverty lines, even though Statistics Canada has clearly stated, since their publication began over 25 years ago, that they are not". Not. Again, its plain english. We know they don't offer an alternative, and that is already stated in the article. The article in its current form is simply preferred to your previous version. We are not going to have an article where the LICO section is completely silent on these matters. I don't know what else to say. I have been very accommodating of your changes in this article, even as you deleted many perfectly reasonable sections (such as the percentage of charity given to social services needs which was on point to this article), but I am not prepared to let it be tilted too far in any direction, based almost exclusively on a single reference from a CBC story. Deet (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern about the current form of the Statistics Canada quote is its context and intent. The organization is not stating that the low-income cut off is not a poverty measure because the low-income cut off cannot be one. It is stating this because nobody has defined what a poverty measure is or should be for Statistics Canada's purposes. Therefore, nothing is a poverty measure for Statistics Canada, including the LICO. The article establishes this multiple times:

"Statistics Canada has refused to endorse any metric as a 'measure of poverty', including the low-income cut off it publishes, without a mandate to do so from the federal government."

"Canada has no official poverty measure because Statistics Canada has stated that unless politicians express a social consensus on the definition of poverty, there will be no measure because they feel that it is not Statistics Canada's role to determine what constitutes a necessity."

The use of the third quote in the LICO section is unnecessary. If this quote is repeated in this section, it should also be repeated in the absolute measures section. This would be redundant. The repetition of the third quote does not provide necessary context, and therefore should be removed. Furthermore, the opinion of Statistics Canada is explicitly outlined in the lead of the article and then again in its text. To repeat, this is the text of Statistics Canada explicitly rejecting the LICO, "...refused to endorse any metric as a 'measure of poverty', including the low-income cut off it publishes" Unless there is an additional reason to re-quote Statistics Canada, the third quote does not have a place in that section.

You do not object to the edit in the lead that mentions the CIA with the information that is produces an unusually high number relative to other economies using different measures. I have re-inserted this edit in the lead. The CIA sentence in the LICO section has been removed.

You do not object to the re-ordering of the article to outline the LICO first. This measure, as established in the article, is the most frequently quoted and accepted measure. Therefore, it should be placed first.

You do not object to the introductory sentence of the LICO section citing the measure as a "relative poverty measure" not as an "income inequality measure". This change was made because an income inequality measure is a type of relative poverty measure, and this needs to be made clear.

I have edited the sentence that reads, "Low-income cut-off rates are often quoted by the media as a measure of poverty". They are used by many other groups such as the Canadian Council on Social Development. This sentence now reads, "The low-income cut off is a relative poverty measure, specifically an income distribution metric, used by policy organizations, most media outlets, and other organizations as a measure of poverty."

To briefly address another issue. Edits to this article are not subject to your extent to be "accommodating". They are subject to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Your reaction or lack thereof to an edit is not my concern. Should you feel an edit does not align to Wikipedia's policies, its discussion and resolution is subject to that standard and it is welcomed.

Until we have resolved in on talk, I have not changed the Statistics Canada quote in the LICO section. Should you wish to edit any of the aforementioned other changes you have not objected to, please provide an explanation for each on talk. Mft1 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough before. I object to all the changes because I do not feel they improve the article. Deet (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide justification for your edits as per Wikipedia's policies. Personal preferences about improvement do not qualify. I have reverted your blanket undo edit. Please also provide a response to the ongoing debate about the third re-quote of Statistics Canada. I have left this edit in the article as you have contested its removal. Mft1 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My justification is that we are not even arguing over any facts. Most observers probably can't even figure out what the heck we are arguing about because, despite you writing of War and Peace on the talk page, it is all inconsequential window dressing. But I do not think your proposed changes improve understanding of the topic. I think they obscure issues and unduly promote LICO which is already adequately represented. Deet (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide justification for your edits as per Wikipedia's policies. Personal preferences about improvement do not qualify. I have reverted your blanket undo edit. Please also provide a response to the ongoing debate about the third re-quote of Statistics Canada. I have left this edit in the article as you have contested its removal.

You have yet to present a reason to disqualify a single edit, nor have you provided a reason as to why a third re-quote of Statistics Canada is necessary in the article. Mft1 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the lead is to be a summary of the content and the content should be in the appropriate spot. Deet (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to the Statistics Canada quote issue in a short-while and have left this particular issue unchanged until we can resolve the dispute. In the interim, you have performed a blanket undo edit. I have reverted this. You have not provided or disputed my detailed explanations for each of those edits. Please cease blanket undo edits. Unless you can identify your specific concerns with each edit, and respond to my rationale for including them, you do not have the right to blanket undo repeatedly. Mft1 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You refuse to acknowledge that I have addressed your points but simply disagree. You also have not addressed mine, such as why the CIA is ok in one use, but then you remove the important colour they provide to the LICO measure. You are using them only when it suits a particular slant. Deet (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"An absolute measure of poverty can provide insight on deprivation, or the inability to provide for basic needs, while a relative measure of poverty encompasses the issues of social exclusion and inequality." I added this to clarify the role of each kind of measure. My favourite example of the how this depends on one's perspective was a story from the Isle of Mann as they were composing a Deprivation Index which could be used to determine if someone was poor. What if they owned no bedding? Most people polled agreed that was a basic need. No good shoes? The same. What if they didn't have a dessing gown/house coat? Absolutely, said the older women polled. Not at all, said the young men. All a matter of perspective. --Ddyson (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Ddyson

References

Community Foundations of Canada

Calling this foundation non-partisan doesn't excuse them using exaggerated numbers. Many of these organizations need large numbers to justify their existence with respect to their social justice mandate. Let's review the facts: 1. LICO is not a poverty rate in my opinion, but let's ignore that and assume it is for a moment... 2. The CIA says it is results in a high number compared to normal poverty rates... 3. The after-tax prevalence of children under 18 in Canada under the LICO measure is 760,000 [4] 4. Even the NDP acknowledges there is not 1.6 million children living in poverty (although they round up to 800,000) [5] 5. LICO is a relative income measure which we should be definition not expect to change much over time. I am not trying to censor the discussion, but we can't print just any old bumpf just because the papers are lazy and quote these press releases without any scrutiny. There is no way we can give this organization a free ride in Wikipedia. I went to their website and I can't even locate the main study-- just their "News Release and Backgrounder" which all the sensational highlights but no real information. We really need to stick to hard facts and not this unsubstantiated fringe stuff. Deet (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove it, if you can prove the inaccuracy. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's proof or not, but I'm just pointing out that its a number that is twice as high as any other I've seen, and some have offered that the previous high water marks were high in the first place. I'm just very uncomfortable with their figures and I'm not getting any more comfort from their website. If at some point we can figure out their measure with any sort of insight, then perhaps we can add a section on it at some point. But for now I will respectfully remove it. Deet (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Social Research

Just a question about the following language inserted:

"Some researchers of have made the argument that since the base LICO has not been updated since the early 1990s, it serves less as a relative measure of poverty and increasingly as an absolute measure"

It quote Canadian Social Research. I don't want to accuse them of tilting information to the same extent as the above noted group, but again they may have a bias or just don't understand LICO that well. I draw your attention to a point made by economist Alex MacMillan:

"Since Statistics Canada currently still uses the 1992 expenditure patterns to measure LICO, this means that if spending habits had not changed over the years, LICO poverty would have been measured in 2005 at about 4.8%, rather than the announced 10.8%. That's almost a 60% reduction, or twice the Liberal's promised target." ("Dion's misuse of poverty stats", Jan 22 2008, Financial Post)

In other words, general income levels in Canada have risen so much that if LICO was recalibrated as an absolute measure it would fall by over half. Should we include the counter-point, or remove the somewhat confusing discussion completely? I am not sure it adds much value to the article. There are many things about poverty measures that can be debated if we start down that path. I have a similar opinion of CSR's like of LIM, which I suspect they like because it produces a very high poverty figure. Deet (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shillington understands LICO very well as he has worked on these issues for decades. Andy Mitchell is a professor at U of T. So I cannot agree with your suggestion that their argument may be uninformed. Their paper was published through Canadian Social Research which acts as a electronic collecting point for social research discussions.

Alex MacMillan's argument would hold if family incomes were equally dispersed. However in an environment of growing income inequality (an inversion of the "natural" bell curve) poverty would be growing at the very same time that average family income was going up, simply because of growth in top end earners.

However, I (and others) would agree would agree with you that whether these are absolute or relative measures is a minor point. As Katherine Scott from CCSD said a few years ago in a presentation: "The debate over poverty lines is much broader than absolute and relative measures of poverty. It touches on societal values - what level of poverty do we find tolerable in Canada? "

If you feel the need to change it, go ahead. --Ddyson (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Ddyson

We previously had a section titled Debating relative versus absolute measure but another user deleted the entire section, and I did not disagree because it was somewhat distracting. I think we should try to develop the article without endless debate if possible. We could always start an additional article on any debates if people really want to address more controversial issues in Wikipedia. I will make some adjustments. Deet (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right wing biased

This article is right wing biased, it sources the Fraser Institute for alot of the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightWingLies (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is one stat that is indirectly sponsored by the Fraser Institute (basic needs), and several others that are not (LIM, LICO, Gini, MBM, etc). Seems like a fair balance. I don't see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.65.71 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Conference Board Bias

There are a lot of Conference Board sentences but very few references. Most seem to reference Statistics Canada. The Conference Board is not on par with organizations such as the OECD and shouldn't be referenced together just because they have a similar view. There should also be far more emphasis on the Market Basket Measure and much less on relative measures, which really don't make much sense, especially at the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.93.222 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poverty in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622144148/http://www.hrle.gov.nl.ca:80/hrle/poverty/consultations/understanding.html to http://www.hrle.gov.nl.ca/hrle/poverty/consultations/understanding.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. .... PKT(alk) 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Children living in low‑income households

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016012/98-200-x2016012-eng.cfm Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of date stats and unbalanced discussion.

The content of this article uses data that is at least 5 years old, ( some much earlier!) and the sources of evidence appear unusual, that is, unnecessarily idiosyncratic. The tone of the article is biased, implying resistance on the part of Canadian governments to acknowledge the existence of a “poverty line” and resistance of Statistics Canada to provide poverty data in the absence of federal government defining the poverty line. “Poverty line” is an established economic concept and is not well explained in this article, either in general or in the Canadian context. Jrwthomson (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Potential sections and subsections

These are the headings used in a 2016 Employment and Social Development Canada Backgrounder that could be potentially used in this article.

• Measures of low income in Canada
• Situation of low income over time
• Canadians living in persistent poverty
• Characteristics of Canadians more likely to be living in low income
  • Children
  • Vulnerable groups
    • Indigenous people
    • People with disabilities
    • Recent immigrants
    • Single parents
    • Unattached individuals aged 45–64
• The working poor
• Upward income mobility
• Poverty beyond income in everyday life
  • Housing
  • Food insecurity
  • Health
  • Crime

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Child poverty in Canada

The article Child poverty in Canada was created as a fork from this article Poverty in Canada by copying content from Poverty in Canada as it stood on 8 August 2022 I created both the section "Child poverty in Canada" and the subsection "Indigenous child poverty in Canada on 6 August 2022. The content in new article Child poverty in Canada will be more detailed than that in the sections and subsections in Poverty in Canada article. Other editors are encouraged to help improve this new article. Thank you in advance.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Poverty

People on odsp cant even afford rent. Single parent with 3 children pay around 300 plus utilities. Canad is killing their people and allowing major serious poverty!!. Drop rent prices in half and cap them, what good is building more housing when cant afford to rent them, oh!, Canadians can go on waiting list of affordable housing after New Comers get theirs first.

Also!, jobs Canadians can't even get jobs as our Government pays portion of New Comers wages, but not for Canadians, Obviously employers will take the cost relief. Look aound people!. They put a limit on employment status of white people being employed at a business Really!Talk about racism and Discriminating a now minority of Canada. 2607:FEA8:2882:4E00:D995:3DA1:B9B5:DE6C (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic Correction inPrevious : Poverty 3000 ment to say plus utilities definately not 300 Sorry This is all in London Ontario including my above topic submitted

Previou topic add by me in previous topic add stated by accident 300 month definate correction to 3000, London Ontario. Our Government is turning its people into homeless and starvation!!! 2607:FEA8:2882:4E00:D995:3DA1:B9B5:DE6C (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)