Montreal protests/riots.

[montréaliste]

cjb,

 

Sans compter que si tu t'achètes une maison dans un nouveau développement à Houston, tu devras faire partie d'une homeowner's association et payer une franchise annuelle comme des frais de condos.

Si tu te trouve en défaut de paiement comme c'est arrivé à des militaires partis en Iraq ou Afghanistan pendant six mois, ils peuvent confisquer ta maison, comme une reprise de finance.

 

Pour ce qui est des jobs au Texas, ils claironnent fort que c'est là où le plus de jobs ont été créés depuis 2008, mais la vaste majorité sont des emplois très mal payés.

[davidivivid]

Ma perception des choses:

 

To be properly understood, the Quebec student protests should be put in the proper context: they are the manifestation of a broader social malaise which could be summed up by the expression “clash of generations”, a problem shared by almost all western countries I might add. In fact, it can be argued that the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements are more about intergenerational equity than anything else. The need for intergenerational burden sharing will be a huge political issue going forward. Youth around the world are most likely confronted with higher income taxes, higher pension fund contributions, higher consumer goods prices, lower employment opportunities (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/23/global-youth-unemployment-rate-climbs/) and much higher home prices than their predecessors:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/2012-vs-1984-young-adults-really-do-have-it-harder-today/article2425558/

 

 

The student protests in Quebec are very much a manifestation of this inevitable confrontation. Every week, Quebec’s youth is witnessing politicians making decisions geared toward appeasing their biggest electoral constituents: baby boomers. Ste-Justine hospital is expanding; McGill and UdM are each currently building mega-hospitals; the Ministère des Transport is investing $700M to replace road signs because font size is now considered too small for seniors; reforms of public pension plan funding seem to be off the agenda, etc etc etc. Hence, when the government announced its plan to significantly increase tuitions, it was la goutte qui a fait déborder le vase for many current and future higher education students for many reasons.

 

First of all, let’s make something very clear: the students are not feeling entitled. Their claim never was that they shouldn’t pay for their education but rather, when such payment should be made. Should they do so before they have income, or later, as taxpayers in a progressive taxation scheme. The societal consensus reached in Quebec following the Quiet Revolution was that higher education should be easily accessible for all but that the said education would have to be paid later in life through income taxes. This social contract might have to be updated but such a change should absolutely be debated. An anglophone from Montreal recently posted a letter making the rounds on facebook and summing this point quite accurately:

 

What strikes the balance in the students' favour in the Quebec context is that the ideal of no up-front financial hurdles to University access is enshrined in some of the most foundational documents of Quebec's Quiet Revolution, in particular the Parent Commission Report, which wrested control of schools from the Church and created the modern Quebec education system, a cornerstone of the kind of society that many Quebeckers see themselves as aspiring to. Now, it could be that that ideal is no longer viable, or that we may no longer want to subscribe to it. But moving away from it, as Charest's measures have done, at least requires a debate, analogous to the debate that would have to be had if the Feds proposed to scrap the Canada Health Act. It is clearly not just an administrative measure. It is political through and through. Indeed it strikes at fundamental questions about the kind of society we want to live in. If this isn't the sort of thing that requires democratic debate, I don't know what is.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/daniel-weinstock/an-open-letter-to-english-canadians-who-might-be-feeling-that-quebeckers-have-ta/10150823985187322

 

 

Also, the students are rightfully questioning whether the extra money thus collected will indeed be invested in the betterment of the higher education system. There are presently no guarantees to that effect and certainly no oversight either. Hence, the government may very well choose to take money from the students’ pockets to finance healthcare programs for the elderly.

 

Thirdly, contrarily to what some people seem to be implying, students are acutely aware of the very steep financial problems faced by province and its reliance on federal money. Hence, one of the major goals of the protests is to question the seemingly poor management of Quebec universities: higher education in La Belle Province costs approximately $29 242 per student compared to $26 383 in Ontario, even though teachers’ salaries are inferior. The students are thus asking the government to explain this discrepancy and to address it instead of taking more money from students’ pockets to finance management shortcomings. This question of mismanagement might as well be asked of all government programs.

 

Finally, some of you noted that students should simply shut up and show their grievances through their votes on Election Day. Well, as sad as it may be, the younger generation obviously believes that it cannot affect or bring change only through their votes on provincial elections because demographics simply aren’t on their side. This new reality will affect every province in Canada sooner or later: the needs of older generations, centered around healthcare, will take precedence over the needs of the youth because politicians want to be elected. When our parents were students, politicians were claiming that education should always be the first priority because baby boomers were so numerous. You would be hard pressed to find a politician strongly advocating this reality nowadays. I would also like to say that I’m baffled at people implying that democracy should only be manifested through elections when it in fact encompasses so much more than that. I believe this is why Quebec students are trying to influence or at least to have their voices heard in other ways then through their votes. I think the positions adopted by some students are not commendable but I viscerally believe that most young adults peacefully demonstrating in the streets not only have a right to do so but should be commended for being so implicated in the future of their society instead of staying on the sidelines.

 

Here’s the reality : according to numbers obtained through a great study realized by a Marius Demers, an economist working for the Ministère de l’Éducation, a typical university graduate will contribute, during his working life (ages 17-64), a total of $916 043 in income and consumption taxes. It is $379 187 more than the typical CEGEP graduate and this discrepancy climbs to $503 668 when compared to a high school graduate. Finally, that gap is evaluated to be an impressive $644 277 when compared to someone with no degree at all.

 

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/publications/SICA/DRSI/BulletinStatistique38_f.pdf

 

 

In other words, current university graduates will be the future cash cows of the government and the said students are fully aware of this reality and they accept it. Hence, contrarily to what might be perceived, the goal of their protests isn’t to manifest their way out of paying their fair share of the social burden, quite the contrary. Their argument, or at least how I personally interpret it, is the following: university graduates will easily contribute the most to the fiscal burden of the Province in the future. It is therefore in our society’s interest that a maximum number of young adults have easy access to higher education. In other words, they are committed to fully contribute to the social burden in the future but in order to do so, a compromise has to be made: affordability of education while studying.

 

All that being said, as a Quebecer I believe it is illusory to expect higher education to be completely free. Hence, I actually support a tuition hike which would be tied to inflation, though under certain conditions like better university management and better access to financing for under-privileged students. However, if our society is to stay competitive in our globalized world, easy access to higher education is paramount in my humble opinion.

 

Another point I want to address is the presumption that contrarily to previous generations, current students live in a world of their own and that they haven't worked an honest day's work in their life. You might not agree with some of the arguments put forward by the students on strike but let's not automatically assume that these men and women are just lazy. It is a far cry from the truth, as supported by the following statistics, published by Statistics Canada.

 

 

The first chart illustrates that a much higher percentage of postsecondary students are working while studying full-time than in the past. Though it slightly dipped during the recession, approximately 47% of postsecondary students are currently managing a work/study equilibrium compared to ~32% in 1984. This is a very important increase.

 

Chart A Employment rate of full-time postsecondary students peaked in 2007/2008

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2010109/charts-graphiques/11341/cg00a-eng.htm

 

 

 

The second chart shows that not only are there much more full-time postsecondary students working but that they work more hours as well: I’d say almost 3h/week more on average.

 

Chart C Weekly employment hours of full-time postsecondary students

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2010109/charts-graphiques/11341/cg00c-eng.htm

 

 

 

The previous chart considered all postsecondary students. When only undergraduates are considered, the proportion of full-time students also holding a job increased dramatically: in Quebec, more than 80 per cent of full-time undergraduate students are gainfully employed. Of those who are gainfully employed, roughly half work more than 15 hours per week. Also, according to this last chart, Quebec's school year employment rate amongst full-time postsecondary students is the HIGHEST in Canada, followed by Manitoba.

 

Chart F School year1 employment rate highest in Quebec and Manitoba

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2010109/charts-graphiques/11341/cg00f-eng.htm

 

 

I've elaborated extensively in this post on the subject but I'll rephrase some of it more concisely here:

 

Financing higher education isn't only a matter of HOW MUCH? but also WHEN?. The average university tuition fee for students in Ontario was $6,640 in 2011 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/09/16/statistics-canada-tuition-fees.html). However, higher education costs were approximately $29 242 per student in that particular Province that year. The difference isn't paid by the tooth fairy but rather, by these students, later in life through income taxes. In the US, the philisophy is different: students have to pay a shitload of money up-front to pay for their tuition but as a consequence, they expect to pay less in income taxes in their adult life, which they do.

 

Following the Quiet Revolution, a different consensus was reached in Quebec: access to higher education would be encouraged partly through lower up-front tuition costs. HOWEVER, young adults making the choice to attend university would have to pay the balance of their education costs later in life through higher income taxes.

 

Herein lies the reason why current students are manifesting, not necessarily for themselves but for those coming after them: this consensus has been single handedly broken by the governement without any democratic input. The Liberals are asking future students not only to pay much more up-front costs but in return, their future income taxes won't be proportionally lowered but will most likely get higher in order to finance healthcare. Yes, young adults have a very legitimate reason to demand answers.

[Malek]

Voici un tableau récap, caculé à la marge avec dollars d'aujourd'hui, 2 adultes, 2 enfants, avec tes chiffres...

 

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 680]

<tbody>[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD] Texas[/TD]

[TD] Montreal[/TD]

[TD] Net[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Salaire net[/TD]

[TD] $ 780,000.00[/TD]

[TD] $ -[/TD]

[TD] $ 780,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Taxe vente[/TD]

[TD] $ 90,000.00[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD] $ 90,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Electricité[/TD]

[TD] $ 5,472.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 1,824.00[/TD]

[TD]-$ 109,440.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Garderie[/TD]

[TD] $ 63,700.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 12,740.00[/TD]

[TD]-$ 50,960.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Secondaire (6 ans)[/TD]

[TD] $ 20,000.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 7,000.00[/TD]

[TD]-$ 156,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Université (4 ans)[/TD]

[TD] $ 320,000.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 48,000.00[/TD]

[TD]-$ 272,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Essence[/TD]

[TD] $ 198,588.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 282,204.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 83,616.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Déménagement[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]-$ 10,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Autres économies (5000$ par an)[/TD]

[TD] $ 150,000.00[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD] $ 150,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Assurance médicale (prime)[/TD]

[TD] $ 216,000.00[/TD]

[TD] $ 60,000.00[/TD]

[TD]-$ 156,000.00[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Au net (30 ans)[/TD]

[TD] $ 349,216.00[/TD]

[/TR]

</tbody>[/TABLE]

[GDS]

Ma perception des choses:

 

Herein lies the reason why current students are manifesting, not necessarily for themselves but for those coming after them: this consensus has been single handedly broken by the governement without any democratic input. The Liberals are asking future students not only to pay much more up-front costs but in return, their future income taxes won't be proportionally lowered but will most likely get higher in order to finance healthcare. Yes, young adults have a very legitimate reason to demand answers.

 

In what way is the gov'nt breaking this non-existant consensus you speak off. In no way are future student being asked to pay more up front costs of their education. They are being asked to pay proportionally their fair share similarly to students before them and once that equilibrium is re-established, then they are being asked to maintain that proportionality. All that crap about housing costs and employement rates and income thereafter as to their contribution to the economy is immaterial fodder because the increase would have a marginal effect on students debts and a marginal effect on graduation rates.