Back / Forward / Poverty Homepage
By Kelley Teahen; Photos by Derek Ruttan
The London Free Press
![]() DEREK RUTTAN The London Free Press |
Tracy Marion spends her days selling gourmet treats at
Sebastian's Splendid Foods, the high-end takeout and catering emporium on Richmond Row. But when it comes to buying her own food, a sweet treat requires a small miracle. Marion, 28, makes $7 an hour and takes home $220 weekly from her job at Sebastian's catering office. Most of her pay -- too much for what she earns -- goes to rent, so her grocery budget is lean. A few weeks ago, she went to withdraw $20 from a bank machine on her way to get groceries at Price Chopper, a discount grocer three kilometres from her apartment. The bank machine already had $20 sitting there. "I thought, 'Wow,' but then I thought, 'What if I had left $20 behind? I couldn't afford that.' " So she turned in the money and left her name with bank staff. A couple of weeks later, Marion walked again to Price Chopper and thought she'd check -- just to see -- if anyone had picked up that $20. No one had, so the bank gave it to her. She spent it on extra groceries -- including a treat. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| "I bought a tub of Heavenly Hash," she
says, her eyes sparkling. "And it's all gone." Poverty isn't measured in ice cream scoops, but in Marion's life, being poor also means no dental or vision care, no medicine -- and hoping you never get sick, because you can't afford drugs and you have no sick-day provisions at work. Poor means few of the toiletries, such as shaving foam or perfume, many of us take for granted. No car. No eating out. No jeans to replace the ones that wore out. It means debating if you can afford the $2 admission for Famous Players' Reel Deal on Dundas Street. It's a far cry from the glam world of a TV series like Friends, where twenty-something women who work in a coffee shop nevertheless manage designer clothes, takeout food and nights out. Marion's story is one many of the so-called Gen-Xers have experienced: In their first decade of entering the workforce, a combination of demographics and economic and personal circumstances have tossed them toward poverty. One of two daughters of a franco-Ontarian electrician and a homemaker, Marion remembers a stable home life. After high school, she moved to Ottawa to work for Bell Canada as a bilingual assigner. "I was 17 years old and I was bringing home $1,600 a month, with benefits." But two years later, Bell laid her off. "My whole department is now a computer," she says. By that time, she was dating a 25-year-old Bell linesman. When he and Marion decided to marry, the couple bought a home in Cornwall, where it was cheaper than Ottawa. He commuted to work. Shortly after the wedding, they had a son, Kale, and Marion stayed home to care for him. In the early '90s, the couple was doing well. He had a $40,000-a-year job. But car repairs and renovation costs, along with other expenses, led to her husband wracking up $17,000 in credit-card debt. He took out a homeowner's loan from the Bank of Montreal to pay it off. Marion co-signed that loan. She's still living with the consequences. By late 1994, the marriage was falling apart. Early in 1995, she decided to leave and "took nothing with me but my son." She received social assistance. Under an informal arrangement, her husband paid child support, but the amount and its timing were erratic and it was always deducted from social assistance. She calls 1995 "my bad year." She became depressed, lost weight, had medical problems. She also became pregnant from a brief encounter. Marion, raised as a Catholic, remains a religious woman and decided to give the baby up for adoption. "He has a good home," she says, quietly. "That's one good decision I've made." At the end of 1995, her monthly family benefits were cut by $200, as lower provincial welfare rates kicked in. In December, she ran out of money -- keep in mind she never uses credit -- and went to a food bank for groceries. As she tells this story almost three years later, she covers her face and weeps. The next year was a roller-coaster. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Treats are seldom on Tracy Marion's shopping list. The 28-year-old Londoner budgets only about $65 a month for groceries and transportation for herself and her partner. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| In late 1996, Marion reconnected with Don Devine,
an old high school boyfriend. A year younger than her and living in Forest, near Sarnia,
Devine was working at a cafe but planing to go back to school. "I worked 10 years in
the food industry and never made more than $8 an hour, with no benefits," he says. While Marion still had her factory job, she couldn't see a future for her and Kale in Cornwall, which she nicknames "the welfare capital of the world." Perhaps not of the world, but it's one of Ontario's worst-off cities. In 1996, Cornwall had 13.7 per cent unemployment and an average income of $21,662. Marion moved to London, where Devine had been accepted into a computer animation program at Sterling Business Academy. At that time, London's unemployment rate was 9.6 per cent and its average income $26,685. Marion made the agonizing decision to leave Kale with his father, who had been sharing custody of the boy. Despite the father's bankruptcy, he was able to maintain a car and a more well-appointed household than Marion. Marion applied for dozens of jobs here. She came close to getting one with a $24,000 salary at a financial institution, being one of six people interviewed, but lost the competition. She's tried to get a restaurant job, where low pay is supplemented by tips, but failed there, too. "You have to know someone to get into a restaurant in London," she says, adding that she connected originally with the manager at Sebastian's because both grew up in Eastern Ontario. Her job paid $7 an hour. There were no medical benefits. There was no sick pay. "It would be so hard to have Kale here," she says, tears welling in her eyes. "I mean, what would I do if he got sick?" She covered expenses -- $490 rent on an apartment on Stanley Street, food and other basics -- while Devine went to school. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tracy Marion earns $7 an hour selling expensive goodies at Sebastian's. Her monthly wage is about half what she earned 10 years ago when she worked for Bell Canada in Eastern Ontario.
Don Devine and Tracy Marion usually travel on foot, but they carry groceries home on the bus because the discount store is about three kilometres from their apartment.
|
During this time, Marion's debt monster rose from the swamp.
The $17,000 loan from her marriage was still out there. Her ex-husband, earning nearly
$50,000 a year but having declared bankruptcy, couldn't be touched, so collection calls to
Marion resumed. And while Devine has since found a long-distance phone package that limits
their monthly charge to around $35, in 1997 Marion ran up large phone bills calling her
son every day. She negotiated with a bank representative to pay $100 monthly toward the loan and with Bell to pay $100 monthly toward her accumulated bill. To earn the money, she worked 65 hours a week at Sebastian's, pulling day shifts in the office taking catering orders, then working nights in the retail area. She paid off $1,000 over five months. In June, Marion and Devine moved closer to Cornwall to be near Kale. While there were no opportunities in computer animation in Cornwall, Devine hoped to find work in Ottawa or Montreal, a closer commute. She quit her job (after winning "employee of the month") and moved to her parents' place in Cornwall. They agreed to support her for July and August while she reconnected with her son. Devine already owned the tool of his trade -- a computer -- but his course cost $8,500, covered by a student loan that he has to start paying back in December. So he went job hunting in Ottawa and Montreal, but found his only offer in London. It was a tough decision to come back, because the job was only a short-term contract. But the couple decided to give optimism a go. They rented a two-bedroom apartment on a tree-lined street in Woodfield, the neighbourhood east of the core and west of Adelaide, for $660 monthly (heat included, hydro and water extra), with hopes Kale can visit. There is a large living room and kitchen on the main floor, with two bedrooms and a bathroom in the basement. Marion says it's a better place for her son than her previous neighbourhood. But it's a big gamble. The couple had to put down first and last month's rent, plus pay a $200 deposit each for telephone and hydro. Devine's parents lent him $1,500 to cover the expenses. That's another loan to be paid back, with interest. The couple's debts, not counting interest, now total around $28,400. Marion has returned to Sebastian's. She still takes home $220 weekly, or $880 most months. To stretch their food budget they buy bagels at six for 99 cents; they're a staple for breakfast ("with tea, because it's cheaper") and lunch. Dinners are often rice-based, or a mix of potatoes and onions with chicken. Devine's speciality is bean burritos. One recent dinner was hot cereal. September was easier because Devine earned $1,000 for his computer work, but most of that went to cover moving and business expenses, such as an Internet service for the computer. October was difficult: He finished his contract for computer research and got a final freelance payment of $265. November is bleak. Devine has many irons in the fire, but no paid work in sight. Marion has had a horrible cold and had to miss a day of work for which she won't be paid. The latest blow came last week, when Marion's employer received a court order to garnishee 20 per cent of her wages for loan payments. She owes $17,757.22, the order says. She has decided to file for bankruptcy, but that, too, costs money: $1,382, in total, with $150 upfront to a bankruptcy trustee. She must pay $137 monthly for nine months, attend financial counselling and wait to see if her debts are discharged after the nine-month period. The first $150 came out of money set aside for December's rent. They won't be able to cover their basic bills this month. "We've jumped the gun" moving into the more-expensive apartment, Devine admits. "It was pure optimism. I went through the schooling. If I hold out, I should get a decent job." The apartment awaits visits from Kale, but the thought of Christmas makes Marion cry again. There's no money for travel, gifts or extra food. There are still hopes: hopes his retraining will pay off and he'll find work. Hope, eventually, they'll both have steady work and can help raise Kale -- maybe even feel secure enough to marry and have another child. Meanwhile, Marion spends her days among Londoners who can afford designer coffees, cakes and take-out gourmet. Sometimes, it grinds: "There are some people who look right through you, like you're just a robot there to serve them." But she doesn't want to complain. "I know there are some places where women can't even put a blanket over their kids to keep them warm." She, like the other 10.8 per cent of Londoners who make up the working poor, fill the low-wage jobs that keep service and retail industries afloat. She's weighed down by old debts and past decisions. "When there's financial stress, it makes everything so stressful," she says. "It makes you worry, worry, worry, worry. You're always absorbed by worry." Even her easygoing partner is feeling the strain. "It would be nice to do regular things," Devine says, "just like regular people do." |
||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Tracy Marion accumulated a serious long distance debt speaking daily to her son in another city. |
What is it, any more, to be a "regular person?" When measuring poverty within a community, we can use two measures: "absolute poverty," using a worldwide standard that doesn't change with time -- meaning few Canadians, by that measure, are poor in terms of no clean water and absolutely no food. Or we can talk about "relative poverty" -- how someone fits into the overall prosperity of a society. Critics of relative-poverty measures argue it's like a dog chasing its tail: No matter how fast or how prosperously a community moves, someone will always be at the tail end. But is it cruel to expect someone to be satisfied with water, gruel and a blanket for outdoor sleeping when indoor living, plumbing and nutritional guidelines like the Canada Food Guide are minimum standards set by our governments? The expectations in the 1990s of what it is to be a "regular person" have skyrocketed from the 1950s, writes Mark Kingwell in his 1998 book, Better Living. |
| "One reason many people think themselves more miserable
now, or consider themselves poorer than they should be -- even though in real terms their
standard of living is far higher than it was for similarly employed people a generation
ago -- is precisely that they now must confront not having some of the allegedly
indispensible trappings of a good life." He points out that we assume people were better off in the "Golden Era affluence of the 1950s," but the facts don't support this nostalgia. "In 1950, when the median family income in 1994 dollars was a surprisingly low $18,000, 35 per cent of homes lacked indoor plumbing, many people did not have telephones or cars and of course, most families did not possess a television set." A poverty-line family in the 1990s, which Kingwell sets as being in the lowest 12 per cent of incomes, likely doesn't lack "a phone, running water, an indoor toilet and shower or a colour television set. They might even own a car." Economist Paul Krugman, writing for the Internet magazine Slate, says that if you take into account "improvements in the quality of many other products, it does not seem at all absurd to say that the material standard of living of that poverty-level family in 1996 is as good or better than that of the median family in 1950." But the '90s family feels worse off, because people "don't care about their absolute material level. They care about their level compared with others." Kingwell points out this envy is pushed, pulled, prodded and inflated by the barrage of modern ads, where the crowning achievement is "the ability to make us want something we did not previously feel any need for." Like home computers. Like microwaves. Like portable phones. Like VCRs. Like bottled water. This envy is exacerbated by pop-culture TV, where fictional characters have dead-end, low-paying jobs but nevertheless enjoy expensive lifestyles. This pressure is particularly strong for those in their first decade of adulthood, a generation that has grown up with this media bombardment from the time it first smiled at its Mickey Mouse mobiles. It's made worse by the fact this generation is sitting under the big blob of the baby boom. That group, extending from those in their late 30s through their 50s, is hogging the job market. That means younger people have less chance of moving into better-paying jobs. Many of the boomers may have started out in low-wage jobs, but they had a sense that, as the world unfolded, they would move forward. There would be career steps, raises. They may look at those in their 20s, working in minimum-wage jobs, and figure the youngsters are just paying their dues. We've been there and done that. Some boomers have been knocked off this orderly progression by seismic economic shifts, but they started out with the sense that progress was possible. Those in their 20s now "rarely expect careers, any more," says Steve Cordes, executive director of Youth Opportunities Unlimited, which runs employment programs in London. Gen Xers like Tracy Marion, who says she "doesn't want any false dreams," are cautious about expecting the prosperity of the generation ahead. While the national unemployment rate hovers around eight per cent, it's closer to 15 per cent for those under 25. In London, youth unemployment is around 12 per cent. But those numbers don't reflect issues such as under-employment. One study, released this year by CIBC, reported "85 per cent of non-student teens who work part time and 70 per cent of 20-to-24-year-olds are considered involuntary part-timers because they cannot find a full-time position." This compares with a 30-per-cent involuntary part-time rate for the whole labour market. Other young workers find full-time work, but it's at low pay in service industry jobs. In fact, if you look at recent declines in Canada's unemployment rates, some of it comes from job growth in the service sector -- and few of those jobs wander far from minimum wages and only rarely offer benefits or paid sick days. University of Western Ontario President Paul Davenport argues for the relevance of university education by pointing out only four per cent of university grads are unemployed, compared with the overall Canadian average of eight per cent. Even among youth, education is one of the biggest boosts to employment. In 1996, university grads younger than 25 seeking work had a 9.5 per cent unemployment rate, but 22.3 per cent of their high-school drop-out counterparts couldn't get a job. For high school grads, it was 14.4 per cent. Standards for employment have risen, demanding more education. A job that, 10 years ago, required only a high school diploma may now need a college course because it involves computer skills. In 1998, those in their 20s have two bars raised higher. They need more education, at a time when students are expected to take on a greater portion of their post-secondary education costs. That means longer-term debt and a better chance, but no guarantees, of getting a job that will pay more than minimal wage. And they live in a society in which what's considered a "basic," aided and abetted by our consumer culture, keeps expanding. |
|