Income gap widens between Canada's rich and poor, OECD study says

[marksman]

I was thinking more about this artical, and they didn't study what was contributing to the growth of this and which numbers are moving where and what the bench mark is. Theie is a lot of info missing from this news story. Sometimes the MSM really drives me nuts, its time consuming to try and find these studies to find out what the hard data is really saying and not the position the reporter has taken and the facts that they want to report.

I remember reading a news article about a project I worked on. The report was wrong in so many ways for such a simple news item. So sometimes it's a reporter's position on the story and sometimes it's just that they wrote an article quickly without getting into the details or properly understanding their subject. But yes either way it can be frustrating.

Here's a link to the OECD page. I think you might have to pay for the report but you can get the notes for Canada

http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_...l#COUNTRY_NOTES

The report isn't so bad for Canada. Even though the gap is widening average incomes for the poor and middle class are still above the OECD average and poor households have better access to basic goods and decent living conditions.

That doesn't mean we can't do a better job of closing the gap though.

[Alta4ever]

The article didn't really miss those things. The study was only looking at the gap between rich and poor it wasn't saying it dealt with every issue related to poverty.

But those are questions that need to be asked in order to come up with a realistic view of what's happening. 1 problem I think I mentioned before is that different governments have used different definitions of poverty to show the number of poor people going up or down.

I'd say it isn't bad that people are doing well for themselves and it isn't necessarily about taking from them. But if the gap keeps widening then that means we aren't doing enough to help lower income Canadians keep up or take advantage of growing economies.

The only emotional driven lunacy I've seen here is the need for some people to blame the victim. We can admit there're freeriders in the system without assuming everyone who's poor must be disabled or freeriding. You'd think when faced with problems like kids going hungry we'd want to help but instead some people feel that all we need to do is point at the parents and blame them. It doesn't help anyone but I guess it makes some people feel superior.

The article didn't really miss those things. The study was only looking at the gap between rich and poor it wasn't saying it dealt with every issue related to poverty.

But those are questions that need to be asked in order to come up with a realistic view of what's happening. 1 problem I think I mentioned before is that different governments have used different definitions of poverty to show the number of poor people going up or down.

I'd say it isn't bad that people are doing well for themselves and it isn't necessarily about taking from them. But if the gap keeps widening then that means we aren't doing enough to help lower income Canadians keep up or take advantage of growing economies.

The only emotional driven lunacy I've seen here is the need for some people to blame the victim. We can admit there're freeriders in the system without assuming everyone who's poor must be disabled or freeriding. You'd think when faced with problems like kids going hungry we'd want to help but instead some people feel that all we need to do is point at the parents and blame them. It doesn't help anyone but I guess it makes some people feel superior.

With out the info it just turns this type of threat into a real mess, because of the lack of info. People get labled heartless even though they really may not be. With this kind of topic you have to have all of the info not just one of the conclusions that the writer decided to publish.

[Kitch]

I was thinking more about this artical, and they didn't study what was contributing to the growth of this and which numbers are moving where and what the bench mark is. Theie is a lot of info missing from this news story. Sometimes the MSM really drives me nuts, its time consuming to try and find these studies to find out what the hard data is really saying and not the position the reporter has taken and the facts that they want to report.

Agreed.

My comment was aimed at the other guy though. I know what you were saying before... and I don't know what to think about it. What would it mean if only one of the numbers was changing? Either way the gap is widening, right?

[Alta4ever]

Agreed.

My comment was aimed at the other guy though. I know what you were saying before... and I don't know what to think about it. What would it mean if only one of the numbers was changing? Either way the gap is widening, right?

The gap widing may or not be a problem, there are so many variables. Without all the info a judgement can't be made.

[marksman]

With out the info it just turns this type of threat into a real mess, because of the lack of info. People get labled heartless even though they really may not be. With this kind of topic you have to have all of the info not just one of the conclusions that the writer decided to publish.

I don't know about that. I don't think people are going to appear reasonable if they assume poor people are either lazy or disabled no matter how much info the report includes. Unless they've got studies that show that assumption is true.

The gap widing may or not be a problem, there are so many variables. Without all the info a judgement can't be made.

That's not really true either. A widening gap will almost always be bad news all on its own. The link I provided earlier shows that. A judgement can be made on that basis.

Plus a quick google search gave the link to the OECD report itself and the country notes. That had lots of information that you were asking for.

Both the article and link show the benchmark they were using:

poverty (meaning people who live on less than half median incomes)

Sadly the article made a mistake and said it was average income not median income. But that just goes to prove my earlier point that reporters sometimes make mistakes with this kind of thing. You'd think they'd have someone to fact check.

You wanted to know what was contributing to this and some reasons are also there

One fifth of the increase in income inequality is linked to changes in the age and household

structure of the Canadian population, such as growing shares of single-parent households

or people living alone.

Canada spends less on cash benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits

than most OECD countries. Partly as a result, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality

by as much as in many other countries. Furthermore, their effect on inequality has been

declining over time.

Work is even more important as a way of avoiding poverty in Canada than it is in other

countries. Two-thirds of Canadians living in households where no one works are poor. If

there is someone working, the poverty rate is 21%, and only 4% if there are two or more

people working. If Canadians do fall into poverty, however, they are likely to remain poor

for longer than in most countries.

Some of that was in the article too.

It's not enough to say we can't discuss something because we don't have complete information. Sometimes what we do have is enough for a limited discussion. And since widening gaps cause their own problems we can certainly discuss that without further info.

What's really unfortunate is that this report is something you've got to buy. I'd like to know what other info is in there that we can't get to without paying $100 for it.

[Bryan]

I'm working on a book right now about people who live in the rain forest in Panama. People in Canada have no idea what poverty is.

[fairvotecanada]

No one with any sense would be jealous of a person in control of billions of dollars - once you know the origin of the wealth - all envy falls away - Most fortunes were originally made though booze - opium - and war supplies - not to mention legal loan sharking - I have no envy of those in high places - I have no idols that I worship... ....class envy is not a highly developed social attribute...only those of limited knowledge and intellect envy - One must know who you are..That YOU are important and that a bum on the street is just as important as the highest CEO ..that approach is mature and wise.

A soul after my heart, whomever you are Oleg and wherever you come from, I am glad to wish you good tidings on this road of knowledge on which you are heading, I wish there was more of you out there, to understand what is the pity of it all...

Class envy is in fact a sin reserved to those reaching for better while they are standing on the other guy that is drowning underneath, a bit like the PM Harper, blame the little guy for his short-coming. And it is created by the class of elite which have no reason to have any envy, so they must create it to make a profit as the international bankers (Bilberger Group), and country rulers which have to create war when the economy is slow to create revenue.

As anyone ever wonder how the investigation on the 911-incident happen to be so hush hush so much as being suspicious... go to my site and find out for yourself, I have posted link to one documentary I found on the subject on the page title Secret Agenda.

I am ashamed of my government throwing money at the economy, which does in fact create more debts, while it lets people freeze on the side-walk; why could they not offer to pay for the use of Church basement for the homeless, roll-up mats; as they do not even hold Bingo in them here in BC, and Quebec who does has a much more regulated rental system as well as a lower cost; and a lesser number of homeless because the gap in between the have and the have-not is not so great there. And lets admit it Quebecers are proud to take care of their poor and would not tolerate to have anyone left out.

Edited October 23, 2008 by fairvotecanada

[Argus]

What an ignorant thing to say. I'm confident the kids in my classes that arrive at school hungry would be offended by your comment.

I don't particularly care if truth offends you or the poor, pathetic little wretches stuck with you as a teacher.

[Argus]

Wow bud, you are ignorant.

On the contrary. I'm quite intelligent and well-read.

You, on the other hand, seem incapable of debating or discussing anything with resorting to emotion. Nor, I must say, does your writing evidence much in the way of skill or education.

People who are poor are so due to disabilities or choice? No other reasons are possible?

Problems with basic English comprehension? I said "most" not "all". The two words are not synonyms. Have someone better educated than you explain what a dictionary is and look them up.

What's going to happen to all the employees of auto plants after they close? Sure some of them will be able to find jobs, but not all of them. And if they do, they won't necessarily pay as much. Perhaps they HAD the means to take care of their kids until circumstances changed.

If they made good choices, then they'll have savings, won't be deep in debt, and, presuming they have skills, will be able to find other jobs, or retrain for them. It's all about making good or bad choices. I understand this concept will confuse you as your "profession" hates to ever blame anyone for doing anything wrong. Teachers who suck at their jobs can't be fired, and children who don't bother to learn rarely fail their year. Too bad real life isn't like that.

Sure you're helping (mind you, obviously not by choice), but you're also spitting in the face of those that need help.

I am helping by paying taxes, which I have always paid, and by contributing to various charities - by choice. And the only people I'm putting down are those who accept their situation and are willing to live in poverty for decades rather than explore other options.

[Argus]

Perhaps some. Are you implying that it's a rule that if a kid is hungry the parents are degenerates?

I am amazed at the lack of empathy and closed mindedness of some of you.

A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,

We bid be quiet when we hear it cry;

But were we burdened with like weight of pain,

As much or more we should ourselves complain.

William Shakespeare

Most of the "wretched souls" I've seen who are "poor" still manage to have large TVs with cable, stereos, DVD players, computers, MP3 players, cell phones, and more than enough money to pay for booze and cigarettes. Nor do any of them appear to be wasting away for want of food. On the contrary, most seem to be quite fat.

I think Shakespeare would have been quite startled to go into a Canadian housing project in search of his wretched souls and see how many people were grossly overweight.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Argus

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let me begin with stating quite clearly that the function of government is in fact designed by the will of the people. Having said that all kinds of economic and political theories have both form and function that are separated by nothing more than partisan support. Citizens out number politicians by numerous decimal points in the equation. Governments are merely a reflection of the will of the people.

Now, considering this reality it is clear that we in fact get the governments we deserve. It is an exercise of choice, There are guns and knives, intimidation and oppression that factor into the equations of course. There is religion to account for as well as geographical economic strengths and weaknesses. In the end however the people support whom they choose to and retain the leadership they desire.

Now as to the disposition of wealth, there are rich folks and there are poor folks and there are those that are neither. There are more poor folks than rich but there is far more that are neither. In truth the neither crowd is the determining factor in any society, they are the ones that make the difference, they have the numbers in any kind of calculation that ultimately have the ability to change society. It is that large demographic in the middle that pay a majority of taxes, preform a majority of the productive capacity etc, etc. The rich folks are no more human than the poor, we are all in the same boat.

After having said all of this, my point is simply that CITZENS make a difference. They do so by acting. They say something and they do something and change does in fact comes. With all due respect to posters in this forum, we can and do make a difference. I do not advocate the leftist liberal stance, nor the rightist conservative stance. I do not desire to live in a completely capitalistic world, nor a completely communistic world either. There is no single functional design that will serve citzens with perfection. There is of course direct democracy which comes close.

The true problem as I see things is that this nation as well as other nations are simply to large to be equitably governed. Geographics and demographics provide sufficient differences within nations that pit one citizen against the other. It is not merely equality that is at stake or even sought but more often than not it is advantage that is sought. Here lies the world of politics. It is the cause as well as the solution to our problems.

[White Doors]

I am helping by paying taxes, which I have always paid, and by contributing to various charities - by choice. And the only people I'm putting down are those who accept their situation and are willing to live in poverty for decades rather than explore other options.

Agreed, but some poor people really don't mind being 'poor' (Poor in Canada being a very relative term to REAL poverty). Regardless, I only get angry with the poor one's who are poor and think it is their right to be suckling at the proverbial government teet. I have no issue with the dude who wants to live a spartan lifestyle for whatever reason, merely with the person who takes no personal responsibility and expects, nay, is proud of the fact that the government is there to pick up the pieces from their repeated poor, selfish decision making.

Edited October 23, 2008 by White Doors

[Argus]

Not SOO much profanity. Reason being:

"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine"

Funny, I would have said "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice you're an emotionally overrought twit and I want no part of you."

Unfortunately, it seems that some not only do not tremble at injustice, they are unable to perceive it

I perceive injustice quite readily. I just don't see it as injustice that someone who makes really lousy life choices has less stuff and less money than someone who made the right ones and works hard.

That doesn't mean I disagree that CEOs, especially in certain industries, have been grossly overpaid of late, especially in light of their poor results. But I could say the same about sports and entertainment stars.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Your world must be so nice to live in where everyone can be slotted into such simplistic categories. You've said yourself that you made dumb decisions in the past. How would you feel if you weren't able to correct those decisions? Why is it you feel the need to keep someone down even if they're willing to work hard but just need some help?

Who am I keeping down? I support skills training and education - I support them quite strongly. I think our skills training programs should be greatly expanded rather than warehousing people on welfare.

[Argus]

The only emotional driven lunacy I've seen here is the need for some people to blame the victim.

Victim? Victim of their own stupidity and lousy choices, often enough.

You'd think when faced with problems like kids going hungry we'd want to help but instead some people feel that all we need to do is point at the parents and blame them.

For the most part, in Canada, it IS the parents fault. If kids are going hungry it's almost certainly because mom is spending that money on her cell phone bills, or cable, or booze.

It doesn't help anyone but I guess it makes some people feel superior.

Here's an amazing concept for you to try and wrap your mind around: some people ARE superior to others.

[fairvotecanada]

On the contrary. I'm quite intelligent and well-read.

You, on the other hand, seem incapable of debating or discussing anything with resorting to emotion. Nor, I must say, does your writing evidence much in the way of skill or education.

Problems with basic English comprehension? I said "most" not "all". The two words are not synonyms. Have someone better educated than you explain what a dictionary is and look them up.

If they made good choices, then they'll have savings, won't be deep in debt, and, presuming they have skills, will be able to find other jobs, or retrain for them. It's all about making good or bad choices. I understand this concept will confuse you as your "profession" hates to ever blame anyone for doing anything wrong. Teachers who suck at their jobs can't be fired, and children who don't bother to learn rarely fail their year. Too bad real life isn't like that.

I am helping by paying taxes, which I have always paid, and by contributing to various charities - by choice. And the only people I'm putting down are those who accept their situation and are willing to live in poverty for decades rather than explore other options.

Then you should tell Harper to stop cutting all the programs directed at the help to these groups; you can visit my site for a link to these "cuts" on the poor/disabled and disadvantaged people of this country.

That is your tax dollar that creates those program, which you may not need but that some of us do. Meanwhile did you look under your feet to see how many you have squashed there:

the blind, the deaf, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped; single mother raising the kid your father/brother might have deposited in her belly, taking the responsibility to do what he was too "good" to do, disrespecting even the native who are still living in shack in Nunavut while getting a $200/month check to survive, who by the way provided you with your place in this country by welcoming your ancestor.

I hope you can get the other end of the stick someday, that might teach you some compassion, but as for intelligence, you were not around when it was distributed at school and have made a point of staying ignorant in order to save a buck, your dad should have save his money and invest it on a real poor man, he would at least make the best of it instead on being intent on destroying anything that does not fit your image of a human being, and would have remember to thank him for the opportunity.

[Argus]

A soul after my heart, whomever you are Oleg and wherever you come from, I am glad to wish you good tidings on this road of knowledge on which you are heading, I wish there was more of you out there, to understand what is the pity of it all...

I can see why you'd admire Oleg. You're as incomprehensibly silly as he is.

[fairvotecanada]

I can see why you'd admire Oleg. You're as incomprehensibly silly as he is.

Are you afraid you might see some truth on my site, or just a cold fish who does not care for anyone's opinion but wants his opinion heard louder than anyone; If you do not comprehend it is because you needed to stay in school.

Here is to show you do not know everything bud; this might be too intelligent for you.

http://blip.tv/file/306082/

Edited October 23, 2008 by fairvotecanada

[fairvotecanada]

Victim? Victim of their own stupidity and lousy choices, often enough.

For the most part, in Canada, it IS the parents fault. If kids are going hungry it's almost certainly because mom is spending that money on her cell phone bills, or cable, or booze.

Here's an amazing concept for you to try and wrap your mind around: some people ARE superior to others.

And that is definitly not you! You are a very nasty individual; and I am glad to wish on you as much as you wish on others!

[madmax]

And that is definitly not you! You are a very nasty individual; and I am glad to wish on you as much as you wish on others!

Argus in employed by the Federal Government IIRC.

Enjoy his pleasant demeanor. You will get used to it. He answers more clearly when not on the taxpayers tab.

[fairvotecanada]

Argus in employed by the Federal Government IIRC.

Enjoy his pleasant demeanor. You will get used to it. He answers more clearly when not on the taxpayers tab.

That makes total sense! A federal Employee which we all pay for...

[Argus]

Argus in employed by the Federal Government IIRC.

Enjoy his pleasant demeanor. You will get used to it. He answers more clearly when not on the taxpayers tab.

I am not on anyone's "tab". I am paid to do certain tasks, and I do those tasks. It's called W-O-R-K-I-N-G. You might try it some day. It's not necessarily life-shortening.

[Argus]

That makes total sense! A federal Employee which we all pay for...

Well, those who pay taxes, perhaps. I'm guessing you aahhh, not so much.

[Argus]

Are you afraid you might see some truth on my site, or just a cold fish who does not care for anyone's opinion but wants his opinion heard louder than anyone; If you do not comprehend it is because you needed to stay in school.

I learned a lot more out of school than I ever did in one. As for you - I don't choose to visit the web sites of kooks who believe in 'secret agendas' and 911 conspiracies.

[Renegade]

Greater economic inequality seems to lead to less trust in a society and to more crime.

I'm not sure you can conclude that. Statistical correlation does not mean a cause and effect relationship. There are many factors which influence the crime rate.

Studies focus on homicide since it's defined almost the same in a lot of countries and the results seem pretty clear that homicide rates are lower in countries with better economic equality.

But despite increasing income inequality Canada's homicide rate has been on a general decline since the 1970s.

It's seen that lower socioeconomic status means worse health. If the gap between rich and poor are growing because more people are getting poorer then this has implications for healthcare.

As has been pointed out the size of the gap doesn't imply that people are getting poorer or less healthy, in fact it is likely people have never been as healthy.

Discussion about economic utility are interesting with respect to a widening gap. 1 dollar is generally worth more to a poor person than to a rich person so a society with big income gaps could be seen as less efficient or has less utility.

It depends upon what you mean by efficiency. (Efficiency of consumption or Efficiency of production). In general society rewards individuals for production though higher income. A wider gap can be taken to mean that resources and rewards are being efficently focused on those who produce the most and are most valued. Why does it matter that a poorer person can more efficiently consume a dollar than a rich one?

But promoting this aspect has its own problems it appears that inequality's got a negative effect on economic growth.

Please explain. How does income inequality have a negative effect on economic growth?