Canada's poverty rate is actually dropping

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
OK, so we’re four years into the worst financial and economic crisis since the 1930s. The Occupy movement has persuaded virtually the entire media that inequality is the number one policy issue of the day. Quebec students have now decided it’s not just tuition fees they don’t like but also capitalism, neo-liberalism, Formula One racing and their province’s corporate-toady political class. Europe is stressing out in ways not seen since the 1940s. At times it seems our whole way of life is under siege. With everything unravelling fast, poverty must be skyrocketing. Right?

Wrong! On Monday Statistics Canada published the latest edition of its annual publication “Income of Canadians,” which looks at income data for 2010. Hold on to your paper/tablet/smartphone: In 2010 the percentage of Canadians who earned less than Statistics Canada’s “low-income cut-off” and therefore by universal practice are defined as poor actually fell.

It went from 9.5% to 9.0%. True, it didn’t go to zero. But still: The world is falling apart, inequality (and unfairness reportedly are soaring) and yet Canada’s poverty numbers are getting better?

In fact, by this measure Canada’s poverty rate was at an all-time low in 2010, if you accept that in this context “all-time” means back to 1976, the earliest date for which this calculation appears on StatsCan’s books (now webpage). Yes, the rate for 2010 is even lower than in 2007, the previous best year, when it was 9.1%. It’s true that, in terms of absolute numbers of Canadians falling below the low-income cut-off, 2007 was a better year, by 70,000 people. But even so, 2010 represented an improvement of 120,000 from 2009.

Other numbers are equally surprising — and encouraging. The number of people living in families headed by single moms and making less than the low-income cut-off did rise slightly (by 3,000) in 2010. But that’s 20,000 fewer than in 2008 and more than 75,000 fewer than in 2007. In total in 2010, the overall number of moms and kids in that situation was less than half what it had been in 2002 (just 323,000 in 2010 compared to 647,000 in 2002). In terms of percentages, the rate of low income among single-mom families was 20.6% in 2010, the second lowest it has ever been, exceeding only the rate for 2009, also a post-crash year.


more


William Watson: Poverty no worse for crisis | FP Comment | Financial Post
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Born and raised in Montreal and educated at McGill and Yale, William Watson has taught economics at McGill since 1977. A specialist in public policy, he is probably best known for his columns in the Financial Post and the Ottawa Citizen. From 1998 to 2002 he editedPolicy Options politiques, the magazine of Montreal's Institute for Research on Public Policy, where he is currently a senior research fellow. He is also a research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute. Before that, while on a leave from McGill, he served for 21 months as editorial pages editor of the Ottawa Citizen. He was the 1989 winner of the National Magazine Awards gold medal for humour for a piece in Saturday Night. His book is Globalization and the Meaning of Canadian Life, published by the University of Toronto Press, was runner-up for the Donner Prize for the best book on Canadian public policy published in 1998. He was chair of McGill's Economics Department from 2005 to 2010. His column appears Thursdays.


Damn lefty........:roll:

It's a wonder he didn't say we're all the 1%.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Yup! Everything is coming up roses!

What meaningless stats. Yes, people are living longer than 50 years ago but they are consuming 100 times more pharmaceutical drugs. We are being artificially kept alive so we can consumer more, longer. Yup, capitalism is grand, if you are brain dead. The entire country is on life support (legal drug addicts) while we tear the land apart or bury it under pavement. We have hundreds of electronic toys and gizmos and are spiritually bereft and morally bankrupt.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Dirty, rotten Harper.

Yup! Everything is coming up roses!

What meaningless stats. Yes, people are living longer than 50 years ago but they are consuming 100 times more pharmaceutical drugs. We are being artificially kept alive so we can consumer more, longer. Yup, capitalism is grand, if you are brain dead. The entire country is on life support (legal drug addicts) while we tear the land apart or bury it under pavement. We have hundreds of electronic toys and gizmos and are spiritually bereft and morally bankrupt.
It's awful for the left when things get better.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Ha Ha! Your life long ambition thwarted.

Hardly.

The drop was so minimal it barely even warrants a mention. This is more a reflection of a decline in absolute wealth. Things won't get better until there is an effective policy in place to narrow the gap.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Ha Ha! Your life long ambition thwarted.

Pssssstttt.... Hey Cliffy!

I got a secret for ya.. Any measure of wealth is relative... Always has been and always will be.

Don't tell no one, OK?

Not necessarily, but it does suggest a closing of the gap, which can be a good thing.

What if the entire socioeconomic scale has dropped? There would no difference in the gaps.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Hardly.

The drop was so minimal it doesn't even warrant a mention. This is more a reflection of a decline in absolute wealth.
Absolute wealth in a fiat currency is measured in debt. It is fictional at best. It is the new form of slavery without the stigma because the slaves are living the American dream. And as George Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it."
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Poverty is a hard thing to define and is often tied solely to availability of cash. Who sets the poverty line? Most likely people whose entire livelihood is tied to cash. :smile:
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Pssssstttt.... Hey Cliffy!

I got a secret for ya.. Any measure of wealth is relative... Always has been and always will be.

Don't tell no one, OK?



What if the entire socioeconomic scale has dropped? There would no difference in the gaps.


Yeah, take how a smoker could 'improve' by quitting smoking or some other costly addiction, or buy/trade to a more efficient car or stop paying for your i-this or i-that because sexting makes you horny. Or buying bottled water or paying Tims for a friggin' coffee out of habit. Or, spending money or credit, because you can. Our wants get in the way of our needs.

If your costs are lower, suddenly things ain't so bad sometimes.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Pssssstttt.... Hey Cliffy!

Any measure of wealth is relative... Always has been and always will be.

You're absolutely right on that front. For instance, a person with the same level of wealth might find life quite comfortable in China (cities are densely packed, excellent bicycle paths, etc. Essentially, cities are built to cater to the poor), but might be struggling in Toronto with its city built more around the assumption everyone has a car, etc.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Absolute wealth in a fiat currency is measured in debt. It is fictional at best. It is the new form of slavery without the stigma because the slaves are living the American dream. And as George Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it."

What do you call people that have no direct debt?

Good quote from Carlin by the way, especially coming from a guy that makes a couple of million a year... I'm guessing that he is a person that you'd refer to as having 'negative debt'

You're absolutely right on that front. For instance, a person with the same level of wealth might find life quite comfortable in China (cities are densely packed, excellent bicycle paths, etc. Essentially, cities are built to cater to the poor), but might be struggling in Toronto with its city built more around the assumption everyone has a car, etc.

Ya hit the nail on the head Machjo.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Ya hit the nail on the head Machjo.

This is also a reason city planners need to think carefully when designing a city. If you start building highways everywhere without considering the impact on the poor, you do risk attracting wealthy suburbanites but then essentialy forcing some poor who previously lived within their means with a bicycle to then have to move into the suburbs and buy a car and then live beyond their means.

City planners do have a certain respnsibility there.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
This is also a reason city planners need to think carefully when designing a city. If you start building highways everywhere without considering the impact on the poor, you do risk attracting wealthy suburbanites but then essentialy forcing some poor who previously lived within their means with a bicycle to then have to move into the suburbs and buy a car and then live beyond their means.

City planners do have a certain respnsibility there.

There is a branch of economics that looks at the relationships between the movement of different socio-economic demographics in urban settings. I believe that you will find that the money moves farther out from the city cores as time moves on.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
But sometimes the best way to help the poor is not so much by giving them money, but rather just by building better walking and cycling paths.

After all, you can't blame the poor entirely if the local government is essentially forcing them into cars (either literally since they're riding along with them with increased risk of accident or figuratively since out of fear for their safety they feel they need to stop cycling and buy a car to adapt to the structure the city built around them.

Limiting highway constuction and increasing population density can help the poor too by making more of the city accessible on foot or by bicycle.