Income gap grows wider

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
March 01, 2007
Laurie Monsebraaten
Rita Daly
Staff Reporters

The vast majority of Canadian families – almost 80 per cent – are working more and earning less of the national economic pie than they did 30 years ago even as incomes of the richest families are soaring, says a new study to be released today.
What's more, the growing income gap has hit a record high during an economic boom, a period when traditionally the gap between rich and poor has shrunk.
"The rich are getting richer, the poor aren't going anywhere and there are fewer people in the middle to mediate the two extremes. We ignore these trends at our collective peril," says the study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice.
The report, titled "The Rich and the Rest of Us," shows that the richest 10 per cent of families with children – those with incomes more than $131,200 in 2004 – earned 82 times the amount earned by the poorest 10 per cent. In 1976, the richest families earned 31 times the amount of the poorest families.
The bottom half of families raising children, those earning less than $60,000 in 2004, earned less or stayed the same, in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to a generation ago. Those in-between worked more hours just to keep pace.
The data only consider earned income and don't count returns from investments and other assets, which could further increase the wealth gap.
The study, based on Statistics Canada labour income data from 1976 to 2004, doesn't say why most families aren't sharing in the current economic boom, but it calls the trend "unsustainable."
Economist Hugh Mackenzie, a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, blames the growing income gap on several factors:

Minimum wages that haven't kept pace with inflation.

The loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs and rise of lower-paying service sector work.

The decline in unionized workplaces.

The increase in contract and temporary employment.
"There's no single culprit you can point to," said Mackenzie, also a research associate at the U of T. "But there's no question the changing nature of work and how we value it is playing a role in what we are seeing."
The report paints a stark portrait of the vast majority of families, including the middle class, working longer hours but losing ground.
Take Myrna Stoller. The 50-year-old hotel-room cleaner and her husband, a tool and die designer, earn a combined $70,000 annually – the average income for a Canadian family in 2004. They don't feel average though, or middle class.
"It's getting worse because everything is so expensive, yet our wages increase just a little. Before you know it, you're getting behind," said Stoller, who arrived here 20 years ago from the Philippines and has raised three children, two still in their teens.
For 16 years she has picked up after the privileged at the Royal York Hotel, working 40-hour weeks tidying up rooms that go for $280 to $450 a night. She often sees the same people. "I see the rich are getting richer," she said. "But we're not getting to where we're supposed to be."
History has shown the income gap typically grows during recessions as low-wage workers are laid off. The gap tends to shrink during periods of economic prosperity.
Not so today.
"A rising economic tide raises all boats, but what we are seeing is that some of those boats are yachts that are sailing far out into the harbour and are turning into rocket ships," said the study's author, Armine Yalnizyan, research director for the Toronto Community Social Planning Council.
The study notes that the one ray of hope is the role government has played in stopping the freefall of incomes for almost half the population raising kids. The tax and transfer system – primarily the tax-free monthly Canada Child Tax Benefit – is working, says the study.
For some, the study's breakdown of family income into 10 per cent groupings may yield some surprises, including that a household income of $131,000 counts as rich (top 10 per cent). The poorest 10 per cent of families raising children earned incomes below $9,400.
The analysis focuses strictly on the 3.8 million households raising children under the age of 18 – almost half of all Canadians.
Jim Davies, economics professor at the University of Western Ontario, finds the study's results puzzling since the income gap has narrowed in the past decade when you look at all Canadian households, not just families.
"Rather than an injustice story, it may be about the changing composition of who is in this group," said Davies, an expert in income and wealth distribution. In the past 30 years, for example, the number of single-parent families has grown, as has the number of immigrant families stuck in low-paying jobs.
"It's something to investigate further to find out what is happening because, as they're saying, we haven't had a recession in a long time. We really ought to try and make sure we're prepared for things like that."
The study's focus on families is deliberate. Families busy raising children are among the most time-pressed of Canadians. And yet, the report notes, all but the richest Canadian families are spending more time at work.
The average Canadian family with children clocked almost 200 more hours of work in 2004 compared to nine years earlier. Only the richest 10 per cent of families didn't work more hours between 1996 and 2004. And yet they were the only ones to see major increases in earnings.
"Families are doing everything they're told to succeed," said Yalnizyan. "They get a better education. They delay family formation. They work harder than ever before. They should be better off than their parents' generation. But 80 per cent of families cannot say that."


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/186972
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
We are owned by corporate pigs and right wing terrorists and this is the terrorism conducted on the poor of the world by the rich of the world, screw them all, time to pull down thier bank towers and bury them.:wave:
 

temperance

Electoral Member
Sep 27, 2006
622
16
18
So what shall we do ??

stop paying tax ?
revolt
start buying Canadian goods and services leaving the cheap buck stores alone
what shall we do ?/
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
The politics of envy.

The way this country measures poverty is crazy. Look up how the LICO commonly called the poverty line is calculated.

Comparing a family to rich families is not an exercise in determining who is poor. Whether or not a family can provide the necessities of life to the family is a measure of poverty. The way I see it if you can feed everyone, put a roof over their head and clothes on their bodies you are not poor.

From http://http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/75F0002MIE/75F0002MIE2005003.pdf
As mentioned previously, a LICO is an income threshold below which a family will likely devote a
larger share of its income to the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than an average family
would. According to the most recent base for LICOs, the 1992 Family Expenditures Survey, the
average family spent 43% of its after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing.
So if a family spends more than 43% of their after tax income on necessities they are considered poor? Total BS.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
47
Newfoundland!
The politics of envy.

The way this country measures poverty is crazy. Look up how the LICO commonly called the poverty line is calculated.

Comparing a family to rich families is not an exercise in determining who is poor. Whether or not a family can provide the necessities of life to the family is a measure of poverty. The way I see it if you can feed everyone, put a roof over their head and clothes on their bodies you are not poor.

From http://http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/75F0002MIE/75F0002MIE2005003.pdf

So if a family spends more than 43% of their after tax income on necessities they are considered poor? Total BS.

agreed. I doubt there are many in the group deemed "poor" who know what real poverty is.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
The gap is widening not shrinking.

The first sentence in that article sums it up perfectly.

Our standard of living is going down the toilet.

People in comfort rarely see this as a problem until it's their own.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
If there are two people one making $50K and the othe $500K The average is $275K, the gap is $450K

A year goes by, the guy making $500K gets a raise and now makes $1 M and the other guy stays at $50K, the average is $525K and the gap is now $950K.

Tha gap has grown and the $50K guy is worse off based on his distance from the average. But he's right were he was last year. His standard of living hasn't changed one bit.

Averages lie.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Averages certainly lie when the sample size is only 2. How robust can that data be, if by changing one variable we have a significant change, well your math showed that well.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
Averages certainly lie when the sample size is only 2. How robust can that data be, if by changing one variable we have a significant change, well your math showed that well.
Two points make the example easy to understand. The message should be clear, if the bottom half stays the same and the top half moves up, the avarage moves up and makes it appear that the bottom half as doing worse against the average. Pick any sample size you want - the math gets more tedious but the result stays the same.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Two points make the example easy to understand. The message should be clear, if the bottom half stays the same and the top half moves up, the avarage moves up and makes it appear that the bottom half as doing worse against the average. Pick any sample size you want - the math gets more tedious but the result stays the same.

Right, only it's not the top half we're talking about with these numbers. Fifty percent of Canadians families earn less than $60,000, ten percent earn over 131,200. Earnings in the top ten percent are increasing, while the lowest 50% of Canadians incomes are static or lowered due to inflation.

I agree that averages make for a crummy statistic, in this case $70,000 is the mean of Canadian families. You're math highlights how meaningless they are.

What's really $hitty about this report from StatsCan is the fact that for all of our economic prosperity, the majority of Canadians are not benefitting, as they said a widening wage gap has historically taken place during recessions.

This study specifically focused on families because they are the most strapped for time. The poorest families are working more hours at work and they aren't increasing their inflation adjusted earnings. I'm not sure how the data correlates to the family breakdown, but it is probably worth investigating, more so than single parent families and same sex couples, which many op-ed pieces like to portray.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I think you folks missed a par of the article;
"There's no single culprit you can point to," said Mackenzie, also a research associate at the U of T. "But there's no question the changing nature of work and how we value it is playing a role in what we are seeing."
Taxes, the pressure to consume, cost of living, etc. all play a role in shaping our wallets. Unfortunately, the poorer people are, the more dramatic the effects become. Pointing a finger at your boss, banks, or the gov't means you are only identifying a small fraction of the causes of the problem, kinda like putting a dressing over the open wound of a compound fracture, or replacing 1 fender on a rusty old truck.
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Our standard of living is going down the toilet.

Well, that's an exageration, since the income strata is stagnating.

However, the gap between the income groups is widening. In Canada, that is partially due to budget cuts. Its also partially due to the gains to education are rising, and the more education you have, the more money you're making. Generally. Finally, globalization is more beneficial to the owners of capital in North America, be it financial capital or human capital, whereas labour is getting squeezed.

Having said all that, the article is somewhat disingenuous as it leaves the impression that the incomes of specific individuals are stagnating. That is false. As people get older, they are, on average, making more. For example, there are very few 62 year olds making the same amount as they were when they were 22. Thus, the average specific individual has seen his income rise over the past 20 years.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The minimum wage was a swindle when it first introduced, and it is still a swindle. The problem is that the minimum wage also becomes the maximum wage for a lot of people, particularly in the service industry. Another thing that is a swindle is permanent part time employees who don't get benefits like health insurance.. Companies likeWal-Mart are making a fortune on the backs of their employees.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
The minimum wage was a swindle when it first introduced, and it is still a swindle. The problem is that the minimum wage also becomes the maximum wage for a lot of people, particularly in the service industry. Another thing that is a swindle is permanent part time employees who don't get benefits like health insurance.. Companies likeWal-Mart are making a fortune on the backs of their employees.

I think I've said this before, a job where you make minimum wage is not a job that should become your career. In my view jobs paying minimum are for people (youth primarily) just entering the marketplace. The job is entry level, provides you with some skills, allows you to show that you can get to work on time and are reliable. Once you've gained that it's time to move on up whether with the same employer or by leaving that job for another. The best way to leave your job is on your own terms. Thanks for the experience for the last few months, I've found a better paying job so two weeks from now will be my last day.
Every adult how holds onto a minimum wage job for more that 6 months is stopping some kid from getting valuable experience. In my view minimum wage should not be anywhere near a livable wage. So how do you get a job with benefits? How do you get out of the permantent part time? How about starting by making some tough decisions. Bite the bullet, do what you need to do to improve yourself. Take a course offered at the community college. Join an apprentice program for a trade? Take a cooking course, whatever is in demand and you like do it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a bunch of money, just good at something. Yes you will live from day to day for a period of time, but once that's over you are on your way.

About Walmart, if you don't like it don't work there. If you don't like the way they treat their people, don't shop there.