Low-wage earners with graduate degrees on rise

Le problème est relativement simple, pourquoi payer un PHD en biochimie à $120,000 en cdn quand je peux avoir les mêmes qualifications au 1/4 du prix en Inde, valable pour tous les secteurs professionnels.

Quand seul le coût de la masse salariale compte, nous coûtons trop chers avec les pays émergents.

Vivre le libre échange stupide sans considérer les coûts sociaux et environnementaux de nos démocraties.


Low-wage earners with graduate degrees on rise, new study shows

RACHELLE YOUNGLAI

The Globe and Mail, Published Wednesday, Jul. 13, 2016 12:00AM EDT

University degrees do not always lead to higher wages.

A new study shows that the ranks of low-wage earners with a master’s degree or PhD has soared over the past two decades.

Of the employees with a MA or PhD, 12.4 per cent were low-income earners in 2014 compared with 7.7 per cent in 1997, according to a study by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, an economics research group.

Incidence of low-wage jobs, by educational attainment

1997 2008 2014

Low wage jobs

The study showed that the percentage of low-wage earners grew across all levels of education but increased at a higher rate among the most educated.

There was a 60-per-cent increase in low-wage incidence among employees with a MA or PhD from 1997 to 2014. Meanwhile, over the same period, there was a 20-per-cent increase among low-wage workers with a bachelor’s degree, according to the study.

Employees with little education or some high school still represent the largest proportion of people who fall in the low-income group. (Of the workers with zero to eight years of education, 50.7 per cent were low-income earners in 2014 compared with 44.6 per cent in the late 1990s.) But what is surprising is the percentage growth among employees with top degrees.

“Increased educational attainment should be lowering the incidence of low wages over time. This, however, is not showing up in the actual incidence of low wages,” said the study authored by Jasmin Thomas, an economist. “This suggests that the demand for well-paying jobs has outpaced the supply.”

The survey looked at all employees between the age of 20 and 64. It classified a low-income earner as someone who earned less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage for full-time workers.

The study also found that the prevalence of low-income earners was the highest in the accommodation and food-services sector, followed by retail trade and agriculture

Housing accounted for a about half of Canada's economic growth in 2015

Extrait de : Canada Real Estate Is Essential To The Economy. This Graph Shows Just How Much, The Huffington Post Canada, Jesse Ferreras, 03/02/2016

Canada's economy emerged fairly strongly in the fourth quarter of 2015, despite projections of zero growth.

And for that, you can thank real estate.

Data released by Statistics Canada on Monday shows the country's gross domestic product (GDP) growing by 0.8 per cent in the fourth quarter. Canada's total annual GDP growth was 1.2 per cent.

Housing accounted for a $7.4 billion increase in GDP — about half of Canada's economic growth in 2015, the agency said.

GDP measures economic activity within a specific time period. It is a simple method for determining a country's economic health.

When GDP is positive, that means an economy is growing. When it's negative, that means an economy is shrinking, or contracting.

Real estate GDP grows steadily from month after month, while other industries, such as manufacturing, oil and gas, tend to fluctuate.

Most of the real estate GDP had to do with "imputed rent," University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe told The Huffington Post Canada.

It's a concept that involves calculating how much it would cost to rent out an owner-occupied property.

Imputed rent accounted for just over $4 billion in real estate GDP, Tombe said, and much of Canada's overall GDP growth.

clip_image002

Agriculture followed second to real estate after generating around $3 billion in GDP, followed by finance and insurance at just over $2 billion.

While manufacturing saw heavy economic activity relative to other industries, it also experienced negative growth of approximately $2 billion on the year.

clip_image004

The very fact that the economy managed to grow over the course of 2015 demonstrates just how essential real estate is — but it's also an observation making some analysts uneasy.

"It is concerning to see that degree of concentration coming from one sector," TD Bank economist Brian DePratto told Bloomberg in January.

"This underscores the importance of real estate to Canadian growth, and also reinforces how key of a risk the real estate sector is for the Canadian economy."

Last year, ratings agency Fitch said Canadian homes were overvalued by about 20 per cent, though the numbers varied by location.

Prior to that, the Bank of Canada said housing could be overvalued by as much as 30 per cent.

Fitch predicted that rising prices in Canadian housing markets in the last decade will eventually abate, "with modest declines to follow."


Lectures complémentaires :

1.      Dérapage Harper : La plus grosse bulle immobilière pour créer une économie artificielle par endettement (3)

 

2.      De quels moyens disposons-nous pour ralentir le marché de l’habitation (Desjardins)


Sanders lance un sérieux avertissement au parti Démocrate

Dans un éditorial New York Times publié mardi soir, le sénateur Bernie Sanders a émis un avertissement à la direction du parti démocrate qui, s’ils ne se réveillent pas dus à la profonde insatisfaction des pauvres et des classes populaires aux États-Unis, ils peuvent très bien se réveiller à un choc similaire vécue par beaucoup au Royaume Uni la semaine dernière, quand une majorité — alimentée en grande partie par les frustrations financières — a choisi de quitter l’Union européenne.  « Ce rejet de la forme actuelle de l’économie mondiale pourrait arriver aux Etats-Unis ? Vous pariez que c’est possible. »

— Bernie Sanders « Surprise, surprise. Beaucoup de travailleurs en Grande-Bretagne, ont vu une baisse de leur niveau de vie, tandis que les plus riches dans leur pays sont devenus beaucoup plus riches, ils ont tourné le dos à l’Union européenne et d’une économie mondialisée qui ne parvient pas à eux et leurs enfants, à vivre décemment » Sanders écrit.


Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up

By BERNIE SANDERS JUNE 28, 2016

clip_image002

Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children.

And it’s not just the British who are suffering. That increasingly globalized economy, established and maintained by the world’s economic elite, is failing people everywhere. Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent. The very, very rich enjoy unimaginable luxury while billions of people endure abject poverty, unemployment, and inadequate health care, education, housing and drinking water.

Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could.

During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I’ve visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize.

In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries.

Despite major increases in productivity, the median male worker in America today is making $726 dollars less than he did in 1973, while the median female worker is making $1,154 less than she did in 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. An estimated 28 million have no health insurance, while many others are underinsured. Millions of people are struggling with outrageous levels of student debt. For perhaps the first time in modern history, our younger generation will probably have a lower standard of living than their parents. Frighteningly, millions of poorly educated Americans will have a shorter life span than the previous generation as they succumb to despair, drugs and alcohol.

Meanwhile, in our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Fifty-eight percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Wall Street and billionaires, through their “super PACs,” are able to buy elections.

On my campaign, I’ve talked to workers unable to make it on $8 or $9 an hour; retirees struggling to purchase the medicine they need on $9,000 a year of Social Security; young people unable to afford college. I also visited the American citizens of Puerto Rico, where some 58 percent of the children live in poverty and only a little more than 40 percent of the adult population has a job or is seeking one.

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires.

Source: Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up


 

Sanders slogan: “I’m with you.”

Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the End)
by
John Atcheson 90 Comments
clip_image002
Bernie Sanders holds a campaign rally at Island Park in Springfield, Oregon on Thursday. (Photo: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard)
The Democratic Party establishment’s response to Sanders’ staying in the race ranges from perplexed to downright hostile. 
For example, Sam Stein reports that Senator Kent Conrad recently said:
So far [Sanders] has been riding a wave of good feelings in the sense he ran an incredible campaign … But that has a pretty short shelf life and then people start looking at you through a different lens, and that lens is: Are you a team player and do you have the larger picture in mind or are you just focused on yourself?
Then there’s Democratic Convention Chair Ed Rendell’s take on it:
I’m confused by it… If he wants to speak in primetime at the convention, then he has to suspend his campaign.
Many pundits wonder aloud whether Sanders is motivated by ego.  Paul Krugman – a reliable source of anti-Bernie sentiment – had this to say about Sanders staying in the race:
At this point it’s as if Sanders is determined to validate everything liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face reality — and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising, at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn’t there anyone who can tell him to stop before it’s too late?
These comments all reflect a viewpoint that is Party-centric, and steeped in the establishment media’s obsession with the “horserace” aspects of the race, and as a result they miss the real – and patently obvious – reason Sanders is taking his issues to the Convention.
Let’s look at each.
The Horserace
Pundits love to talk about tactics, strategies and standings, but are loathe to look at politics as an expression of values.  To them, it’s about the candidate, not the things he or she stands for.  Hillary’s slogan, “I’m with her,”  exemplifies this perspective. It’s not about us; it’s not about principles; it’s about her.
Sanders slogan is “a future to believe in” – but he’s said from the beginning that his campaign wasn’t about him, it was about us.  His slogan might be more accurately characterized as, “I’m with you.”
If you look at the nomination process through this lens, it is perplexing for Sanders to stay in.  It’s over, Hillary won; the trifectas, exactas, and other bets have been paid off, so what the hell is that old horse still doing on the track? It’s time for the next race, damnit.
In this paradigm, Bernie’s best bet is to fold the tent, rally his troops, return to the Democratic fold and get on the gravy train. Here the emphasis is on the candidates and the Party. The people’s interests? Well, they’re not even in the race.
Which brings us to the view through the Party lens.
Through a Lens, Darkly – Party Trumps People
Let’s examine Krugman’s quote, above.  In his view, Sanders loses credibility and goodwill by not quitting.  Quite a revealing take.  Credibility, in Krugman’s world, isn’t about sticking to the values and ethics you’ve been espousing; it’s not about being true to the people who supported you because of those values.  Rather, it is about playing by the Party rules.  Once again, Party trumps people.
Rendell, looking through the Party lens, can think of nothing more important than having a prominent speaking role at the Convention, and he is perplexed that Sanders isn’t doing all he can to get one. Values? People first?  Not even in the equation.
Then there’s the world according to Conrad. If you don’t “fall into line”, then you are not “a team player.”  And of course, if you’re not a team player, then you must be “just focused on yourself.”  Here, Conrad is looking through the doubly distorting lenses of the horserace and the Party simultaneously.  No wonder he doesn’t get it.
What Sanders wants, of course is obvious: He’s less interested in joining the Democratic Party than he is in transforming it.  And with good reason.
Why a Values-Based Party is Good Politics, Too.
What most pundits miss is that the Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging people  since 1960, when 50% of voters called themselves Democrats, and only about 20% identified as Independents. For the most part, Republicans have bounced around in the mid to high twenties, occasionally hitting the low 30’s.
Today, only 29%  of potential voters identify as Democrats, 42% call themselves Independents, and 26% are Republicans.
Where did all those people go?  As the Democratic Party abandoned the New Deal policies that contributed to the longest sustained and most equitably shared prosperity in our nation’s history, the people abandoned the Party, as their share of the national pie plummeted and the plutocrat’s share skyrocketed.
Hillary Clinton is the second most disliked candidate and the least trusted candidate to run for the Presidency in the history of polling. That won’t inspire a big turnout, and Democrats desperately need a big turnout. In the disastrous mid-term election of 2014 in which Republicans trounced Democrats, the US had the lowest voter turnout in 75 years.
What the average person has figured out, is that neither Party represents them, and that we live in an Oligarchy.  So they’ve stopped playing. This has been bad for Democrats, since the passionately ignorant show up to vote in disproportionate numbers.
Bottom line:  Sanders’ values-based appeal to voters is in the best long-term interests of the Party, but the Party is controlled by vested interests who won’t relinquish their chokehold on it. And as for Hillary Clinton, “the progressive who gets things done?” Well, she and her surrogates are busy backtracking on her very briefly held progressive positions on trade, climate, and universal healthcare (among others) as noted by Bill McKibben.
We are fortunate to have a candidate as crazed as Trump.  It is likely that even a weak candidate like Hillary will defeat him.
But in the long-term, the Democratic Party and the people will suffer by nominating and electing another candidate who is indebted to – indeed, an integral part of – the Oligarchy.
And that, my clueless friends in the establishment media and the punditocracy, is why Sanders won’t quit.  And why he shouldn’t.



Is Brexit the Many Dominoes?

Is Brexit the First of Many Dominoes? [Chart]

JEFF DESJARDINS, on June 24, 2016

clip_image002

UK AND THE REST OF EUROPE BRACE FOR AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

The Chart of the Week is a weekly Visual Capitalist feature on Fridays.

Markets have been turned upside down by a surprise Brexit result and the resignation of David Cameron. While there is looming uncertainty around how this will affect the United Kingdom and Europe from an economic perspective, it might be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of long-run consequences.

A Brexit opens the door for future events that would be previously unfathomable by popular opinion, and it gives vital ammunition to groups that are seeking their own referendums for independence.

UNWILLING PASSENGERS?

As the UK ship distances itself from European docks, there are two passengers that may have been more comfortable remaining on shore.

While England and Wales voted to “Leave” with 53.4% and 52.5% respectively, Scotland and Northern Ireland were both firmly in “Remain” territory. Scotland, which previously held its own independence referendum in 2014, voted overwhelmingly to have the UK remain in the EU with a 62% vote. Northern Ireland had a similar sentiment with 55.8% voting “Remain”.

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said today that a second independence referendum for Scotland is“highly likely”. She feels Scotland was taken out of the EU against its own will, and that Scottish independence is worth revisiting.

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland has echoed these calls, instead potentially looking at voting on a united Ireland. Northern Ireland is the only country in the UK that shares a land border with a country in the EU.


Brexit Fever Spreads: Austria and Holland are Next Up to Leave EU

JEFF DESJARDINS, on June 30, 2016

Europe’s got a fever, and the only prescription is…more referendums.

Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy, shared this map today after analyzing EU countries for the potential of further Brexit-like events:

clip_image003

It’s not the type of quantitative data we usually seek, but in this case we’ll make an exception – Eurasia Group, headed by Ian Bremmer, is the largest political consultancy in the world.

AUSTROUT OR NEXIT?

According to Eurasia’s analysis, the two countries that are most likely to have referendums on EU membership are Austria and The Netherlands.

It’s been 20 years since Austria held the referendum to initially join the EU. However, according to a pre-Brexit poll, nearly 40% of the population now wants to hold a referendum to leave.

“Europe can collapse because of the refugee crisis and uncontrolled immigration,” says Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian Foreign Minister. “Only by a speedy transformation can we prevent a wildfire. The EU needs to be rearranged. Everyone, who is for Europe, also needs to be a force in making the necessary changes.”

In other words, there must be fast, sweeping changes to their arrangement or they are out. Unfortunately, making fast, sweeping decisions is not what the European Union is known for.

The Dutch share a similar sentiment.

Despite Netherlands being a founding member of the EU and currently holding the EU presidency, a June poil showed 54% of people want a referendum to leave. So far, in a theoretical vote, the independence camp is leading with 48% of the vote, while 45% would seek to remain in the EU.

WHAT’S NEXT?

While Eurasia Group sees Austria and the Netherlands as the frontrunners for the next referendum vote, there are many other dominoes that could fall. France, Italy, and Sweden are among the key countries that have strong Eurosceptic movements.

If a Brexit result was a tinderbox that got the fire going, then any major developments in these countries could be the gasoline. Another “exit” event would make clear to everyone that there is an inevitability of failure around the Union.

Brexit negotiations and populist dissent will be in the news for some time, and markets will be volatile, extremely sensitive, and over-reactive as a result

 


Sources:

1.      Is Brexit the First of Many Dominoes? [Chart]

2.      Brexit Fever Spreads: Austria and Holland are Next Up to Leave EU


 

The Problem with Brexit Is the Leaders, Not the Voter

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Extrait de: The Problem with Brexit Is the Leaders, Not the Voter , KURT VOLKER

Elites have pushed policies that go against the basic sense of identity, security, common sense, and morality of many citizens.

Markets are plunging, pundits are wailing, government elites are fearing the collapse of their decades-long dream of the political and economic union of Europe. Now is a great time to buy.

Because as much as there is merit to some of the arguments about the economic dislocations that will ensue due to Brexit, most of these arguments are exaggerated. Elites employed them to scare the public into voting their way. That effort failed. The reality is far less dire.

Most nations in the world are not members of the EU, and many—like the United States, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Japan, to name a few—are just fine. The United Kingdom was not a member before joining the European Community in 1973, and it will be fine again as a non-member. Of course there will be changes and adjustments due to Brexit. But nothing so dramatic as the morning-after reactions predict.

Moreover, our basic democratic, market-economic system is by far the best means people have ever devised for creating stability, justice, prosperity, and security. Countries can be successful democracies in the world, even if they are not part of a super-government structure.

Brexit will take at least two years to negotiate. Businesses, governments and publics alike have an interest in a stable transition. Instead of putting the United Kingdom at the “back of the queue,” as President Obama threatened the British people, the United States will swiftly move to sew up any needed ties with the UK because our shared interests are simply too great. The same will be true with Berlin, Paris, Brussels and London, although emotions there will likely be more prickly.

What is more significant—and more worrying about the Brexit vote—is that it demonstrates just how deep the gulf has become that separates governing elites and the people they are meant to govern.

clip_image002

Whether in Europe or the United States, our ruling elites have pushed policies—political, economic and social—that go beyond what sits well with the basic sense of identity, security, common sense, and morality of many citizens.

·       Failure to control immigration? Amnesty?

·       Social benefits for non-citizens when citizens are suffering?

·       Nation-building wars abroad instead of nation-building at home?

·       Massive debt?

·       Failures to confront terrorism effectively?

·       Businesses moving jobs overseas?

·       Recession in the countryside while the capital prospers?

·       Rapid changes in gender politics?

·       Bizarre contortions of politically correct speech, which shout down what many see as common sense?

It has left many in the electorate angry and disenfranchised. And when those in the public who feel this way have objected or resisted, elites have doubled-down, rather than listen and adjust.

The rulers of the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States—take your pick—are so convinced that they know better than the masses, and that they are building a better world, that even in defeat, they are bemoaning how wrongly the masses have voted. And that is the looming danger for the future that the Brexit vote foreshadows: that elites will still not address the concerns of a large proportion of their own citizens.

To be fair, the vast majority of policies and arguments put forward by the elites about the global economy, integration, foreign policy, and more are substantively compelling. Most of the social policies are aimed at creating a more tolerant and inclusive society that benefits all, not just the majority. That should be a good thing. Overall, we are all better off with free trade, immigration, and dealing with foreign policy and global security problems before they get worse.

But leaders need to lead by listening and serving. If they continue to fail to address the genuine concerns of their own publics—and push this gulf even deeper—more “Brexits” will happen, whether than means the election of populist nationalist leaders, the rise of the far Right, or the departure of more countries from the European Union.

·       We need better leaders—ones who are true to core values of freedom, democracy, market economics, the rule of law, and human rights.

·       We need leaders who can listen to those with whom they disagree, and find compromises and solutions.

·       We need leaders who worry more about governing than about sound bites and elections.

·       We need leaders who truly mean it when they say they are “serving,” rather than ruling for the pleasure of exercising power in pursuit of their own agendas.

The current money-raising, lack-of-privacy, “gotcha” style of politics today has discouraged some of the most capable and well-grounded people from ever wanting to run for public office. But with the choices our country faces in our upcoming election—and the warning shot fired by the British people at their own leaders—perhaps some better leaders for the United States and for Europe will begin to step forward.

Kurt Volker is a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and currently executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership, a part of Arizona State University.