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.
Jonathanc's post makes for an interesting read but it is too pessimistic when it comes to Canada's prospects.
If you look at the top 20-25 richest countries in the world, all of them offer good qualities of life. Which one is best for an individual person is really a question of personal preference, and this is no slam-dunk "best" place.
It is not pessimistic, it is simply the truth. It is a trade-off.
In providing more generous social welfare, a country inevitably takes away some of the wealth of richer people as well as the incentive to be innovative and successful.
Just by looking at the Nobel Prize winner list, you will immediately notice the dominance of the US and UK, which tend to be less of a welfare countries among rich countries.
It is a fact that one is more likely to be successfully in countries that don't punish the rich (when I say punish I mean charging higher taxes and give it to the low-income people) and cherish fierce competition more than wealth equality.
Take the milk industry for example. The government wants to protect milk farms and limit competition by artificially setting entry barriers, so that milk production remains low and prices remain high. It limits farms who could have used superior technology and won market share by offering better products at lower price (at the cost of traditional protected farms). On the other hand, those who are already in the industry are better off because they don't need to do much to maintain profitability.
The same thing applies to a wide variety of industries. I am not saying it is good or bad - it has both - bu in reality, the consequence is in Canada there is always less competition because becoming successful by knocking down others is not encouraged, and that consumers always pay more for everything so that the protected industry will have an easier life. Rogers, Telus etc with their management skills can't survive in the American market for one year, yet for years they dominate the Canadian market. Air Canada etc. as well.
It is customary to blame to higher cost resulting from smaller market for why everything is more expensive in Canada, but that's far from the whole story. Eventually consumers and taxpayers picks up the tab.
I am not saying the US model is superior or Canada should copy it, but that there are a lot of man-made systematic inefficiencies here that shouldn't be overlooked and can be improved. I believe Spain and Italy are learning similar lessons.
It is not pessimistic, it is simply the truth. It is a trade-off.
In providing more generous social welfare, a country inevitably takes away some of the wealth of richer people as well as the incentive to be innovative and successful.
Just by looking at the Nobel Prize winner list, you will immediately notice the dominance of the US and UK, which tend to be less of a welfare countries among rich countries.
It is a fact that one is more likely to be successfully in countries that don't punish the rich (when I say punish I mean charging higher taxes and give it to the low-income people) and cherish fierce competition more than wealth equality.
Take the milk industry for example. The government wants to protect milk farms and limit competition by artificially setting entry barriers, so that milk production remains low and prices remain high. It limits farms who could have used superior technology and won market share by offering better products at lower price (at the cost of traditional protected farms). On the other hand, those who are already in the industry are better off because they don't need to do much to maintain profitability.
The same thing applies to a wide variety of industries. I am not saying it is good or bad - it has both - bu in reality, the consequence is in Canada there is always less competition because becoming successful by knocking down others is not encouraged, and that consumers always pay more for everything so that the protected industry will have an easier life. Rogers, Telus etc with their management skills can't survive in the American market for one year, yet for years they dominate the Canadian market. Air Canada etc. as well.
It is customary to blame to higher cost resulting from smaller market for why everything is more expensive in Canada, but that's far from the whole story. Eventually consumers and taxpayers picks up the tab.
I am not saying the US model is superior or Canada should copy it, but that there are a lot of man-made systematic inefficiencies here that shouldn't be overlooked and can be improved. I believe Spain and Italy are learning similar lessons.
As you correctly point out, Canada has always more or less done things this way.
And yet... it has always been able to sustain a standard of living more or less equal to that of the United States.
So while I agree that Canada has, does and will offer less economic opportunity than the United States, the effects of this under-performance for the average person are not really catastrophic.
As you correctly point out, Canada has always more or less done things this way.
And yet... it has always been able to sustain a standard of living more or less equal to that of the United States.
So while I agree that Canada has, does and will offer less economic opportunity than the United States, the effects of this under-performance for the average person are not really catastrophic.
True, Canada's quality of life is more or less similar to America everything considered. from a pure financial perspective, America is richer. It is not a secreate that Americans make more money and living cost is lower. Let's not forget though, Canada's resources on a per capita basis are far more than America, which may explains it too.
yet this is only average, as Jonathanc mentioned, the top talents would usually be better off by working in the US. I am pointing this out only out of the best interest for Canada - a country should always keep its top talents by providing competitive compensation and opportunities. If all the true leaders are gone, who will provide the comfortable jobs for average Joes?
Another case in point I am familiar with is the academic circle. My experience tells me that it is a lot harder to survive in American universities, especially top ones, because the pressure is immense. Faculty are in constant stress of producing "results". Most of them are responsible for bringing funding as well. If they can't achieve them, they will be kicked out naturally. In Canada, such pressure is much much lower. yes life is a lot easier - which translates into so called "Quality of life", but the incentives to make achievements, innovations, breakthroughs are lower too.
I think we as a neighbour of the most powerful country in the world, should aim higher. Canada should stopp thinking of itself as some sort of little brother of the US, and that we can't live without producing FOR the US and our economy is always at the whim of the fickle American economy. There is a lot that can be done so that Canada can be a bigger, more powerful, more competitive nation that is economically independent of anyone.
People live to bring about the quality of life thing. A lesson from what happens in most part of Europe is, sometimes "quality of life" is an temporary illusion. There is no sustaining high quality of life without core compeitiveness. Quality of life in Spain often ranks higher than in Germany, and now let's see how precarious things are in Spain.
I don't really think Canada is in any way "in danger" like some European countries. As you pointed out it has huge resources for a lower population. This alone will ensure a pretty prosperous future.
Yes, Canada will likely remain less productive than the U.S. and there is a price to pay for that. As for ramping it up and aggressively pursuing excellence, I guess most Canadians would ask "at what price?"...
Overall, I'd say most Canadians like their country just the way it is.
Yes, Canada will likely remain less productive than the U.S. and there is a price to pay for that. As for ramping it up and aggressively pursuing excellence, I guess most Canadians would ask "at what price?"...
Bingo. With economic "progress" there is always great social cost.
Just out of curiosity, what ethnic groups are you referring to? Because I cant think of an ethnic group prominent in Canada that is not well represented in the US.
African american`s, and hispanics, are what percentage of the canadian population . French canadians Natives have a ten times the share of the population that they have in the states. Asian americans are half the proportion that is found in the canada, but more importantly they lack the critical mass that they have in , where in the urban areas, as they are a significant part of the multicultural makeup of the country.
Whether or not these cultural issues may or may not explain the differences between canada and the usa, especially toronto, it`s clear that the fact that many on here prefer to use words like `vibrant` when comparing toronto to chicago, shows some are clearly on a long running bias.
^ I did not mean to throw all Americans into the same group. I fully understand that there are different regions of the country, just like Canada. Although, as seen in the recent Alberta election... the people of Alberta had the chance to vote in a very right wing government with some discriminatory homophobic views (arguably) and they shunned it out. This is Canada's most Conservative province and they elected a female human rights lawyer as their premiere... a lady who will be attending gay pride, believes in public healthcare, big funds for education, human rights at their greatest, multi-culturalism, and building bridges. This is not "conservative" policy at all. The mayor of Alberta's largest city is a Muslim, the mayor of the capital of Alberta is Jewish. So, that countryman in Red Deer Alberta is clearly more liberal than many US big cities (not all). But I do understand your point.
I have been to 30 US States from the west coast to the east coast, the extreme south and the Northeast/Midwest. I own property in the US, I have dozens of friends in the US who I visit frequently. I feel like I have the ability to point out some key issues with the US policy. Now I don't mean to harp on the US, it's a great country as well. They have great world class cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and the list goes on). But there are some fundamental differences between the two nations. I am a fiscal conservative, but social liberal. It angers me to see a country like the US where more states allow people to marry their first cousins than a same sex partner. It's severely backwards.
Well it's both "Northeastern" and "Great Lakes." Just like....Buffalo!
(Problem is Toronto and Buffalo just don't seem all that much alike, but both in their way can be said to be a sort of Northeast/Midwest transition zone.)
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.
