[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I agree.  my guess is a lot of Canadian 1 percenters have significant mortgage obligations.  The rich are more like the .1% and idle rich are more like the .01%

Yup.

My further guess is that on this site are posting a very high number of people who would qualify in Canada as a "one percenter". Certainly a lot more than 1% of posters.

[Barrister]

I agree.  my guess is a lot of Canadian 1 percenters have significant mortgage obligations.  The rich are more like the .1% and idle rich are more like the .01%

Yup.

My further guess is that on this site are posting a very high number of people who would qualify in Canada as a "one percenter". Certainly a lot more than 1% of posters.

I think it's just you and Malthus.

I'm but a lowly 2%er.

[Malthus]

I think it's just you and Malthus.

I'm but a lowly 2%er.

Me and myself? 

I don't mean just among Canadian posters, but posters generally - there must be a high percentage posting here who make enough, were they in Canada, to qualify for "1%" status.

[Valmy]

Isn't CC a 1%er?

[Barrister]

I think it's just you and Malthus.

I'm but a lowly 2%er.

Me and myself? 

I don't mean just among Canadian posters, but posters generally - there must be a high percentage posting here who make enough, were they in Canada, to qualify for "1%" status.

Just some of the lawyers I think.

Joan, PLJ, Gupta I bet, maybe Martinus.

[viper37]

As much as I dislike the ideologically driven policies of the present government, years of living in this province make me wary of the ideology of the NDP.  I recognize that the NDP here are probably the most ideologically driven of all the Provincial NDP parties but there is a significant chance that some of those old time socialists will be able to influence a Prime Minister Mulcair.

I don't think anyone can really influence Mulcair.

[viper37]

Malthus says he isnt a one percenter--he's middle class.

to be a 1% in Canada, you need to earn about 200k/year.

[Malthus]

I think it's just you and Malthus.

I'm but a lowly 2%er.

Me and myself? 

I don't mean just among Canadian posters, but posters generally - there must be a high percentage posting here who make enough, were they in Canada, to qualify for "1%" status.

Just some of the lawyers I think.

Joan, PLJ, Gupta I bet, maybe Martinus.

What about Ed and Caliga? 

That makes "only" 8. I don't think we have 800 regular posters ...

[frunk]

Hell, BB's getting that tired old schtik, just for hiring a nanny. 

Truth be told, people are messed in the head as to what constitutes "rich". I deal with people who are really rich all the time - some of my clients. I'm not "rich" like they are.

Virtually everybody can point to people that are richer or poorer than them.  That doesn't really tell you anything.

[viper37]

Just some of the lawyers I think.

Joan, PLJ, Gupta I bet, maybe Martinus.

it has to be relative to your cost of living.  If I made my actual wage in New York, i'd be living on the Street.  While I live confortable over here, in my small hell hole

[Malthus]

Hell, BB's getting that tired old schtik, just for hiring a nanny. 

Truth be told, people are messed in the head as to what constitutes "rich". I deal with people who are really rich all the time - some of my clients. I'm not "rich" like they are.

Virtually everybody can point to people that are richer or poorer than them.  That doesn't really tell you anything.

What is telling, is how "classes" are traditionally defined. Lawyers are usually classed with other professional types, as 'upper middle class'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class

Typical professions for this class include lawyers, physicians, certified public accountants, pharmacists, optometrists, dentists, engineers, professors, architects, school principals, urban planners, civil service executives and civilian contractors.

The notion that if you are in the "1%" you are "rich" is simply an invention of recent sloganeering. For one, what being in the "1%" means depends on the distribution curve of income in the place at issue. In Canada, as pointed out, it doesn't take a very high income to get into the "1%"; in Toronto, which has a high percentage of these "1%ers", living costs are so high that being at the low end of the "1%" earns you a non-extravagant lifestyle that looks a lot like the middle class elsewhere - that is, a three-bedroom house, cars, and a vacation once per year. 

That doesn't really look like "rich". If you earn $200k in Toronto, you aren't living in a mansion with servants and driving a Rolls on your way to your private boat.

[frunk]

What is telling, is how "classes" are traditionally defined. Lawyers are usually classed with other professional types, as 'upper middle class'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class

Typical professions for this class include lawyers, physicians, certified public accountants, pharmacists, optometrists, dentists, engineers, professors, architects, school principals, urban planners, civil service executives and civilian contractors.

The notion that if you are in the "1%" you are "rich" is simply an invention of recent sloganeering. For one, what being in the "1%" means depends on the distribution curve of income in the place at issue. In Canada, as pointed out, it doesn't take a very high income to get into the "1%"; in Toronto, which has a high percentage of these "1%ers", living costs are so high that being at the low end of the "1%" earns you a non-extravagant lifestyle that looks a lot like the middle class elsewhere - that is, a three-bedroom house, cars, and a vacation once per year. 

That doesn't really look like "rich". If you earn $200k in Toronto, you aren't living in a mansion with servants and driving a Rolls on your way to your private boat.

Certainly, just pointing out that saying "I'm not rich, now that guy over there, he's rich." isn't a persuasive argument.

[viper37]

That doesn't really look like "rich". If you earn $200k in Toronto, you aren't living in a mansion with servants and driving a Rolls on your way to your private boat.

I can assure you that where I live, you can not live in a mansion with servants and driving Rolls on you way to your private boat with 200k/year.  But I could have a bigger house, with more rooms, and finally have my real home theater with proper soundproof panels.

[Malthus]

Certainly, just pointing out that saying "I'm not rich, now that guy over there, he's rich." isn't a persuasive argument.

Fair.

The argument improves when one mentions the stuff that other person owns, and the power he or she commands.

Basically, lawyers are no different from any other sort of professional - albeit, in some cases at least, very well-paid ones. They have to hunt for customers and work for them directly. The really 'rich' not only have signs of outward status (fancy and expensive cars and properties, vacation homes and the like), but they aren't hunting for "customers" - they are managing "employees" who do that, or better, they are owning the businesses that have managers who have employees who do that.

It's a difference, not only in income (much higher, like by a factor of 10 or 100 or more), but in function. Only in very rare and unusual cases do the really rich "sell" their own services (like actors or sports stars). They get rich by using the services of others.

These are the types I occasionally see - as customers for legal services.

[Admiral Yi]

Methinks he doth protest too much.