Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at this more broadly, GDP stats don't lie but I am not sure if it's the best measure. Equatorial Guinea has a high per capita GDP but I'm not sure I'd rather live there as opposed to New Zealand or a bunch of other countries that are in the same GDP range.
Newfoundland actually has one of the highest GDPs per capita in Canada now due to soaring oil revenues but it's still a relatively poor province with by far the highest unemployment rate in the country. No one would say it's the third richest province in the country (or something like that) in any event.
Also, consider that average family incomes in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are all about the same, around 70,000 Canadian dollars. Factor in the higher cost of housing in Toronto and the exorbitant one in Vancouver, and I am not sure the average Jean-Guy in Montreal is really that less well off than the average Joe in Toronto or Vancouver.
In any event, Toronto and Vancouver and all Canadian cities are likely fairly low down the list compared to American cities (and also states), and I suspect this is at least partly due to differing economic structures between the two countries, and the U.S. likely having more a "high capitalization" economy that leads to stronger GDP outputs in places that when you look at them, don't always appear to be richer than most places in Canada.
That is the typical socialist stance. "Inequality skews the numbers. so the places that look poor aren't actually poor". The bottom line is that in a North American context, both Quebec and Mississippi are poor. We can toy with the numbers, but at the end of the day they are the numbers. Let's apply this logic of looking at inequality in Montreal:
Does Westmount's high family incomes skew Montreal's "average" income upwards? Yes, of course it does. In fact, Quebec is not particularly more "equal" than the Canadian average. We can look at these rich people in any province or state, and they ultimately make up a small number of people. Their individual incomes have little impact on the overall GDP (PPP) of the province or state. Just like the 9,000 people making $200,000+ in Westmount hardly make a dent in the overall GDP (PPP) of the other 3.4 million people in Montreal. If Quebec wasn't really poor, it wouldn't have roads filled with potholes, and bridges sitting around in need of repair. It wouldn't have a GDP near the bottom of the Canadian average, and below every US state except Mississippi. It also wouldn't need to continue spending money on social projects needed to help the poor, and Montreal wouldn't have a such a visibly large homeless population. An ubranized province like Quebec should have a GDP per capita similar to New York state; instead we are discussing why it only can keep up with Mississippi.
First of a few posts addressing certain assertions made in the OP.
The proverbial "average Albertan family" doesn't send anything to Quebec. It pays its federal taxes just like everyone else in Canada, and then the federal government pays out equalization to the have-not provinces in order to even things between the richer and less rich provinces.
Also, equalization is not a fixed, pro-Quebec thing. Alberta could become a recipient at one point in the not-too-distant future. It has been one in the past.
Also 2, is that the high-income family in Quebec will pay more into equalization than an Alberta family where both parents work at Tim Hortons.
For example.
If you insist. Let's put it this way then.
The average Albertan family pays taxes to the federal government, who then gives Quebec free money, who then uses the free money to pay for anti-English policies like the language police. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?
Quebec is no MS, its a resources rich huge landmass. They have good schools , an educated and skilled workforce, some fertile farmland with good operators and quite a few homegrown successful corps.__SNC Lavalin, Power Corp, Alim CouchTard, CGI, Bombardier, CAE, Saputo, Hydro Quebec etc
Their problem is this mindset which keeps electing euro-style leftist gvmts.
I expect this is never going to happen but if they could for once go with a set of business oriented officials who could make them tighten their belts, do away with some of those social programs they can ill afford and scrap those language laws for good they could be a powerhou$e.
No you don't get it. The English are the problem, and if they are once and for all ethnically cleansed, then Quebec's economy will recover. That is why anti-English social programs are the major focus of the provincial government.....What Quebecs needs are MORE taxes for anti-English policies not less.
If you don't like the equalization payments, that's not Quebec's fault. It's the fault of the Federal Government, and on a per-capita basis, Quebec isn't that bad. At least they're spending their money on the citizens. Where is the money that goes to the Maritimes (ex. NFLD) going?
That is the typical socialist stance. "Inequality skews the numbers. so the places that look poor aren't actually poor"..
Except that I don't find that most places in Montreal or most anywhere in Quebec look poor. They tend to look from working class to middle class to upper middle class.
With only a few exceptions, the worst places (when it comes to poverty - and also crime) even in prosperous U.S. metros and states generally look far worse than the worst places in Montreal, Quebec and even Toronto and Ontario. (Places like Winnipeg and Vancouver in the West have some doozies, though, I will grant you that.)
I know why that is, and I realize that the high-tax environment and statist economic policies can inhibit competitivity and wealth generation, but all of this is part of a larger picture.
Rich places/people are richer in the U.S. And poorer/people places are poorer. We all know that.
Except that I don't find that most places in Montreal or most anywhere in Quebec look poor. They tend to look from working class to middle class to upper middle class.
With only a few exceptions, the worst places (when it comes to poverty - and also crime) even in prosperous U.S. metros and states generally look far worse than the worst places in Montreal, Quebec and even Toronto and Ontario. (Places like Winnipeg and Vancouver in the West have some doozies, though, I will grant you that.)
I know why that is, and I realize that the high-tax environment and statist economic policies can inhibit competitivity and wealth generation, but all of this is part of a larger picture.
Rich places/people are richer in the U.S. And poorer/people places are poorer. We all know that.
Yes, and the average person is also richer in the US. The "average" Quebecois is relatively poor or to be more specific upper lower class to me. It looks like Vermont (which of course likes to use the "we are more equal" argument) and West Virginia. A lot of low middle class to upper lower class people, but no real ghettos or really rich people. Then again I have only lived in "rich" northeastern coastal states (MD, NJ, NY) and in the west and deep south there is more concentrated poverty.
Of course Winnipeg has the poorest areas, they have lots of first nations people who were basically dogs a few decades ago and had everything stolen from them. The poor in the US is very disproportionately black/latino/native, but are still richest blacks and latinos in the world. Same thing in the US, white people are way richer than white people in Quebec, hands down and no questions asked. The average income (PPP) of a white American is about double that of Quebec, an extremely white place.
You might enjoy this chart. Quebec is in the yellow between Manitoba and Mississippi:
I read that. A lot of cherry picking, but other than that it kind of defeats it's purpose (to show Quebec is a better place to live). Vermont is a quite poor state in the US.
Yes, and the average person is also richer in the US. The "average" Quebecois is relatively poor or to be more specific upper lower class to me. It looks like Vermont (which of course likes to use the "we are more equal" argument) and West Virginia. A lot of low middle class to upper lower class people, but no real ghettos or really rich people. Then again I have only lived in "rich" northeastern coastal states (MD, NJ, NY) and in the west and deep south there is more concentrated poverty.
Of course Winnipeg has the poorest areas, they have lots of first nations people who were basically dogs a few decades ago and had everything stolen from them. The poor in the US is very disproportionately black/latino/native, but are still richest blacks and latinos in the world. Same thing in the US, white people are way richer than white people in Quebec, hands down and no questions asked. The average income (PPP) of a white American is about double that of Quebec, an extremely white place.
You might enjoy this chart. Quebec is in the yellow between Manitoba and Mississippi:
I still have a bit of an issue with the GDP measure - even with PPP taken into account.
I'll tip my hat to Alberta any day but the NWT, Newfoundland and Nunavut are by no means the best places in Canada to live when it comes to material well being and quality of life.
I read that. A lot of cherry picking, but other than that it kind of defeats it's purpose (to show Quebec is a better place to live). Vermont is a quite poor state in the US.
How does it matter that Vermont is a poor state when both families have the same income ($45K/Y)? Their point was that a family making $45K/year is way better off in Quebec compared to our closest neighbour, Vermont. I doubt the conclusion would have been very different if they had compared the Quebec family to a Utah family or California family making $45K/year.
And how is comparing the main expenses of a regular family, like cost of housing, health insurance, car, etc "cherry picking"? What other major item would you have suggested that they overlooked?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
