Tim Hudak, "normal" guy who learned "self-reliance" from very well-off background

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Since when did being brought up in a teaching household, with one parent becoming a principal, qualify as 'well off"?  Okay comfortable I can see, but well off, even a Princiapals salary doesn't put you into the swank set.

There are lots and lots of policy reasons to attack Hudak, trying to attack his family's 'wealth' is both over the line and frankly pretty petty.

I am not attacking his family's wealth.

I am attacking him for saying that his background was "normal."

A two income family is already pretty good. A two income where both are professionals and one is a local politician and a teacher and the other a principal is way more then "normal."

This is not a criticism. This is a fact -- and he thinks he was so struggling he learned self-reliance.

Well he remembers his father when he was at home as a principal-- no, there are no 23 year old principals and I don't think his father was 23 when Hudak was born either (exaggeration on your part Catchfire). But when he was in highschool himself and then when he was going to university when the big bills roll in for most families this was the social and economic status of his parents.

If you think that is the norm in Ontario, I invite you to reconsider.

I am very much a pro-union, pro professional person who accepts the value of these professions but I don't have to kid myself that people who are in those professionals are not also fortunate and a family with two such people are definitely fortunate.

The idea of the teacher who had to get meals from the students becuase they were paid so little is 19th century -- thanks to unions. I would not have it any other way. but this is not how the average Ontarian lives. If we pretend that it is we are doing more to advance the idea of fat cat union members and out of touch liberals than if we accept the truth.

And it is unions that have accomplished those advances.

I should add my own bias on this-- I can't stand the two-sides-against-the-middle argument that some people make that union jobs are not fortunate better than average and represent the struggling working class on the one hand and yet unions are so wonderful for workers because they make life substantially better and are leaders because of it. That is a contradiction.

Union jobs tend to be very good jobs relative to non-union jobs and the public unionized professional positions some of the best of all working class jobs. This is why I would like every worker to be unionized. Workers would be (and are) screwed without unions. So given a unionization rate that is less than 1/5 of workers, having both parents with good jobs -- one union and the other risen even past that to management-- pretty damn lucky and I am not ashamed as a left of centre person to acknowledge that. Why are you?

But this is not just about unions this is about understanding how people live in the province-- Hudak's contention that his upbringing represents "normal" in Ontario and that he could learn self reliance there (presumably because his parents were not multi-millionare captains of industry is a problem. It may be better to have a person who had a silver spoon in their mouth from a millionare family who understand that that is not normal than someone who thinks it is and that everyone else just does not work hard enough-- is not self reliant enough.

Why can't you see this problem?

Yes we know what they were making then and it is not that different from today in today's dollars -- there were years of wage freezes erasing the gains teachers had made previously -- teachers are no better off in Ontario today than in the 1980s while Hudak was growing up. Many would argue (and teacher's unions do), that they are worse off now. From what I have seen I agree.

I did not say teachers make 3 times the average salary. I said his family income that included a principal and a teacher who also was a town councillor made 3 times the average family income. That is a difference since as I pointed out the average (or median) family income is not based on 2 full-time jobs and a principal's salary is not representative of a teacher's salary.

BTW-- I have seen a lot of stats and when it comes to salaries-- average and median are not much different-- if you think about it you will understand why. Average tends to be a little higher than median but not by much.

Mr. Tea stop being so selective about my arguments-- makes me think you are not arguing as sincerely as I would expect. He states his background was "normal" when it was a great deal more fortunate than the average or median household -- about 3 times average. And he states that he as a child coming from this household learned to be self sufficient because of this middle class background. Do you really have no trouble with that?

So some single Mom who is working retail just hasn't learned to be self reliant becuase she did not struggle like Hudak did?

I argue his perception of normal is a problem and hjis perception of what it means to be self reliant is downright scary.

Sorry if I touched a nerve in the knee-jerk defend the union even when it is not under attack view. I happen to be a union member and activist so I am offended by the idea that I cannot acknowledge reality without being considered ant-union.

Timebandit wrote:

Hm.  Median Ontario salary for 2-parent households was over $77,000 a year in 2009.

Come on now! You had to blow past the All family category to get to the couple families. The all census families is the correct one unless we are assuming that all people in Ontario are in 2-parent households.

I'd be disturbed if you now are to tell me that normal is a 2-income household where both parents are working in a profession.

Median income for all Ontario households Stats can 2009 (likely unchanged since then) $69,790.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm

Mr.Tea wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

"After paying their dues at low salaries." Sorry that's a lump of bull. After paying their dues for a time at a pretty good salary more like.

May I ask you this since you question if I know any teachers. Do you know any adults earning minimum wage in Ontario? How about any who are unemployed or underemployed? There are a hell of a lot more of them in Ontario.

Do you know what a starting salary for a teacher is? When my friends were starting out (not all that long ago), it was about $35K in Toronto. Now take off taxes and union dues. Many will have student loans to pay off. A decent one-bedroom partment in Toronto back then was close to $1000 a month. Yeah, you can live but not particularly well. Add to the fact that it's damn tough just to FIND a teaching job for a recent graduate. Most people I know who graduated teacher's college spent the first couple years as a substitute teachers, with sporadic work scattered around the city, maybe getting lucky and getting to fill a maternity leave for semester. Like I said, I have friends who left teaching cause they just weren't really getting by. They looked at people (myself included) they had gone to school with who were often making triple or quadruple their salaries. The ones who stick it out tend to do it cause they love to teach, certainly not for the money.

It goes up with experience but so do your expenses related to family, etc.

To answer your question, no I don't know any adults earning minimum wage. I imagine it's next to impossible to get by. But I don't think that everyone who isn't in that fairly desparate circumstance automatically qualifies as 'extremely fortunate".

Indeed I do know what a starting salary for a teacher $37k if they are starting with 4 years education and $42 if they are starting with a 6 year education. Most people do not have a family before they start however and by the time they have a family are well on their way. By the time their children are aware of family finances they are closer to the top of the range. The following link is just teachers not principals:

http://resource.educationcanada.com/salaries.html/

That is pretty low to start, granted and not much for a one-earner family -- but no comparison to a two earner family closer to the top of their careers -- and two that were fortunate to go further than most. Plus we need to remember she was also a politician as well. Municipal Councillors working part time tend to make a top up of $12k over their full time job.

It is a totally bogus argument to present a Toronto current teacher circumstance to compare to a Niagara circumstance from 25 years ago.

They had a family income way, way above the average or median income in the province-- they lived in very fortunate circumstances. That does not mean a teacher starting out in another place and another time by themselves not in a family is not struggling.

We are not arguing the merits or fairness of teacher's salaries or the realities of people starting in that profession today in the most expensive city in the country -- you are -- but that is not my point. We are reality checking Hudak's claim to come from a "normal" Ontario background and that because it was working class he learned self reliance and that means he understands Ontario families. They earned in today's dollars over $200k when he was growing up. That is not normal or a place that would automatically bestow "self reliance."

You are for some reason turning the discussion into what I would argue is a straw man argument -- ignoring the very relevant specific circumstances we are speaking about to create new irrelevant ones to argue an irrelevant argument about the fairness of teacher's salaries when we likely don't even disagree. In short you are arguing a position I don't disagree with against a completely different argument-- which is what a straw man argument is.

I would go so far as to say a two-income family where both incomes are full time cannot be described as "normal" growing up in Ontario. It is fortunate.

Just so we don't argue this-- I am not speaking in favour of divorce either when I say you can't presume that the normal Ontario family is 2-parent. Given divorce rates (even going back to Hudak's youth) a 2-parent family was fortunate.

I am arguing he is not acknowledging his good fortune.

Ok Timebandit I give up.

If you think that coming from what in today's dollars is close to a $200k a year, double income family, is representative of normal in Ontario what else can I say? (I am not saying it is alien-- or unheard of-- just not a fair representation of normal and it would be much fairer to call it fortunate)

If you think that this background justifies Hudak from saying because it was middle class this means he had to learn self reliance (which he wants to teach the rest of us his website implies) then what more can I say?

Personally I think you won all the straw man arguments and proved your solidarity with the union (which was never in question) and left Hudak off the hook with a fantasy vision of what Ontario families look like and an utterly absurd idea of what it means to learn self reliance.

When he forms policy with this in mind, I am sure you will be so grateful you won all those straw man arguments.

(I say it is over $200k but I'll let you have that)

By the way-- I have heard Dalton McGuinty say how he comes from a fortunate background-- his mother was a nurse and his father a professor/politician. I suspect Hudak's parents made the same if not more than McGuinty's. I am neither a Liberal nor a Conservative but at least I can appreciate that McGuinty does not claim to come from anything less than a fortunate circumstance to which he does not credit self reliance but the support of parents that had done very well for themselves and in turn supported him. On this point I'll trust McSquinty just a little more. And he seems to be in recognizing that his parents were fortunate at least aware of the rest of Ontario. Yes, many of his policies suck but he shows a little bit of a clue as to how the real people live when you hear him speak about his past.

Mr.Tea wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am arguing he is not acknowledging his good fortune.

I think he IS acknowledging his good fortune. He makes no claim of a hardscrabble upbringing. He says he was middle class. If you want to say he was slightly towards the higher end of the vast "middle class", then fine. I think the point he's making is that he remembers a time when it was a lot easier to BE "middle class" and live a good life with those kinds of salaries and that he wants to take Ontario back there...the irony, of course, being that as an MPP in Mike Harris's government, he contributed to the decline of the middle class by laying off workers, fighting unions, making university more expensive, etc, etc.

Where do you get all that?

He says coming from a middle class background he had to be self reliant. Like he had to struggle to make his life with a family income of ONLY $200 k in 2011 dollars plus or minus.

The idea of claiming his background represents normal is a problem-- anyway this has all been said.

Hudak was born with many advantages into an advantaged family-- he believes he had to struggle and that is what is informing his attitudes to people who he does not understand.

Mr.Tea wrote:

The average height for men in Canada is 5 feet 8 inches. To say that someone is of "normal height" doesn't mean that they are exactly 5 feet, 8 inches. They can be 5"10 or 5"6 and still be of "normal" height, whereas people on the far outliers may be called "short" or "tall". I think Hudak's circumstances can be described as "normal" rather than by an outlier description like "rich" or "poor".

But more broady...um, what is your point...who cares what sort of home he was raised in...

Using your analolgy it is like saying you are normal when you are 6'6"-- not that this height is abnormal but it sure isn't the midrange either. It is not freakish 7 feet-- ok. It is within a range when you make that range include 90% of households but it is a stretch to call it middle, normal, typical-- all attempts to say he is just an ordinary average guy to help ordinary average families -- I suspect he does not meet many ordinary average families and circulates in a nice area that we might be able to call the upper part of upper middle class. Not exactly your average guy. And because his Dad is not called Stronach we should take that as a proof he understands the average Ontario family and what it means to be self reliant.

Catchfire wrote:

I don't suppose it's worth pointing out that when Hudak called his upbringing "normal," he was referring to pot consumption, not economics? I'd say it's pretty "normal" to try pot as an adolescent in Canada; which puts me in agreement with Tim Hudak.

I'm sorry Sean, I just don't find this line of argument/attack useful, relevant or convincing.

We may well have different ideas of normal but no you are off base-- he speaks often about this but the sentence quoted above itself is clear:

I was a normal kid, I had a normal upbringing, a normal life in university

And what is more interesting is this is not a comment about the pot and not at all the first time he has said it--

No, he is definitely trading on being normal.

We can debate whether my vision of normal is correct or not but there is no way the comment is just about pot.

That is just not credible-- if you are curious read more of what he has said and the themes he never ever leaves-- the suggestion he knows because he is one of us.

I can't see how you can read I had a normal upbringing.

But let's take this a step further. Why do you think he is raising the pot question?

I think it is part of his wider theme of normal -- just one more way he is normal-- one of us etc. Might work for people -- obviously more than I thought. Doesn't work for me because I don't recognize this normal.

But let's not pretend this whole thing is not part of a wider theme that he uses everywhere that he, his circumstances and his upbringing is normal and one of us and therefore his tough prescription is for our good and not an elite. That is the song-- you can hum a few bars or not as you wish but this is all about that simple message.

I just did not have the circumstances to see it the way he wanted me to-- but maybe enough people will because that is what he is betting on.

***

And Catchfire you miss completely the very, very relevant lesson from this thread. People have a very different sense of what is normal and what is the norm. I did not think when pointed out that his circumstances would in fact pass the sniff test as normal. I can be wrong on that which just means his gamble will work with enough people. But you have his point upside down--

Being normal is not the excuse for the pot-- the pot is trying to prove he was normal and that is what this entire charade is about.

Well whether it bugs you or not-- two people in the same family to be able to land two well paid professional jobs (and one add a part time Town Councillor job on top) -- that is pretty fortunate -- it isn't how most people live. So there you go -- consider yourself fortunate. And if you want to take a moment to be sad about the fact that this is not your typical family -- then go for it.

Why is being called fortunate taken as a slight?

Since I don't know anything about your personal finances or your parents I am in no way able to determine if your experience is a fair generalization. But still the point was not intergenerational comparison it was that Hudak's experience is not an normal ordinary one representative of the typical Ontario family -- which is the theme he is delivering all over the place-- not just this pot story-- I would not have noticed the reference if I had not already been sick of hearing it.

No doubt they worked well and were lucky as well but they did way better than most people in this province were doing at the time Hudak was growing up and my concern is his attempt to make himself sound like one-of-us and representative of "the middle class" as he calls it indicates that Hudak is out of touch with the way most people are here.This is the guy wanting to teach self reliance and personal responsibility to social assistance applicants by making them wait till they have been in the province 12 months. So if they came for a job and it did not work out after 6 months and they don't have enough money to eat they can suck it up because he learned self-reliance from his parents. This does not disturb anyone here?

What I am noticing about this really cool pile on is how incredibly selective it is-- I am quoted as saying that two partners working full time is incredibly fortunate-- not true. I stated that two partners both working full time in professional positions at the level they were able to reach is incredibly fortunate and not representative. there is a distinction especially when the entire point is about degrees. Simply working full time does not make you fortunate. so if you really think that I think a couple both working at Walmart are fortunate then let me correct that now. Wow.

Now is there some reason that most people replying to this thread have to bend what I am saying in order to make their point? Because that is the trend here almost every point made appears deliberately selective in order to find offense. It makes me think I hit a nerve that people want to fight about and are denying the realities I mention in order to fight back on more fertile if less intellectually accurate ground.

Is it because we should never allow that union members can be fortunate or considered better off than others? Is there some politically correct issue I am missing here? Because otherwise why not argue against what I am actually saying instead of twisting it into something different? Is it some aspirational thing where we want to think that a $200k income range must be seen as normal because then it could be in reach for most of us who make -- what 1/3 or less of that?

It has gotten tiresome repeating the central part of this only to see piles of critique that completely ignores that issue. Is someone saying Hudak's family are representative ordinary middle class family folks? If so that would mean that we have redefined middle class away from the middle and closer to the top ten percent. So what? Is the lower income people to be defined as 0-89% then middle income 90-96% and then 97-99 be high income and 100% to be obscenely rich? If so I did not get the memo.

And let's not be selective on the teacher side of this-- they were not just a pair of teachers-- one was a teacher with a Town Council gig on top and the other a high school principal. I don't resent them for that but I think it is really twisted to pretend this is not very, very fortunate and that it is just your ordinary middle class existence.

Anyway, I have been corrected that the thinking around here about middle class and middle income and ordinary normal upbringing is something i simply do not recognize. That in itself has been educational for me.  I suspect that there are others out there -- even if nobody on this site --  for whom the idea of calling Hudak's upbringing normal in Ontario would be more than a little disturbing. Sure I can be wrong on this but I really, really doubt that I am alone. Like I said before-- I guess the classes in this province just don't really meet each other or get to know each other much.

You know why this is a big deal to me? The part time add on that not one of you has acknowledged Hudak's mother to have -- because it is so insignificant has a rough payout equal to 23 hours a week at minimum wage. That little insignificance is about what many people only able to get part time retail work actually live on as their only source of income. The pay bump from teacher to principal-- that alone is equal to the average single person's wage -- and an amount many families in this province live on as their only income.

This week we have a child going to high school-- the cost of getting him there (school transportation no longer covered as it was in Hudak's time -- is another $75/month on top of all the other expenses families must face). So these little details you see fit to ignore are not actually that small-- unless you make shitloads of money they are not pocket change.

Clearly this thread is in some form of la la land with a great big pile-on of shit.

Show me where I was dissing them!

And what part of that *exactly* did you get out of "I don't know"

I merely said we don't know if they had other family wealth and we don't know on either side. I merely put it in because it is possible as well but I had not included it and if someone knew and wanted to write in then they could.

How about some reading comprehension here?

If you don't have time to read what is read don't bother but if you are going to commment and attribute something to someone --read what is written.

As for saying it was about the pot-- go look at his face book page, speeches, everything he  has to say about himself-- he pretends to be an ordinary joe in all of them -- that's his schtick.And that is a problem becuase either he is stretching the truth dramatically or he really thinks he had a standard typical lifestyle. Maybe all the people he has ever met have had the same upbringing.

But I said that already and clearly you guys are writing and criticizing but not reading-- except very selectively.