OECD: Canada's richest get richer...

jacee · July 19, 2011

(I can't post links, but pls see google news.)

The latest OECD report shows Canada falling from a high of 10th (1990) to 23rd of 34 developed OECD countries in infant mortality, life expectancy, income disparity, percent of GDP spent on health and social services, and other indicators.

Income disparity is the most telling indicator.

It's no surprise that decades of loud whining and complaining from the wealthiest - since they stupidly failed to predict the baby boom bust in the 80's - have resulted in reductions in services to vulnerable Canadians. The surprise is that the significant result of the constraints on our public spending is that the wealthiest got even wealthier at public expense.

The so-called 'job-creators' didn't bother. Our cuts to public services went right into their pockets in tax savings and stayed there. The 'glory days' of the 80's never ended for them.

Like most Canadians I support constraints on public spending when necessary. However, I truly resent my tax dollars going into wealthy pockets.

We've been duped. :-)

Topaz · July 19, 2011

Is this the one you were looking at? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/05/24/oecd-better-life-index.html

Moonbox · July 19, 2011

I'm by no means an advocate of heavy social spending (quite the opposite actually), but I'm certainly not pleased about the income disparity as it's probably the biggest contributor to the increased need for social spending. I don't think Canada's governments, either provincially or federally, do anything to protect consumers and ensure fair wages. We get absolutely robbed by our utility/telecom companies, as well as our banks and insurers, and all of this money goes into the pockets of the rich. At the same time, the average wages of Canadians have not increased for 30 years and inflation has just made them poorer and poorer.

It's the same all over North America. The situation appears worse in the US. Until the ignore cows that fill the electorate actually take a few minutes out of their busy days of watching American Idol and Lost to understand wtf is going on in their world, they're going to just keep voting for people who are hell-bent on screwing them. Another thing that could help is an actually sensible left wing (ie. not the NDP) that could provide an actually valid and reasonable alternative to the crooks in the CPC and LPC. Jack Layton and the other morons in his party does the cause more harm than good.

jacee · July 19, 2011

Is this the one you were looking at? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/05/24/oecd-better-life-index

Clearly not this one from two months ago, but nice try.

It's the one from today that "confirms Canada a public health laggard".

The comparison serves to demonstrate the concept though: Averages are skewed by the few really high incomes to show a rosier picture than actually exists for the vast majority of Canadians. The more recent report focuses on the more critical data on income disparity.

Edited July 19, 2011 by jacee

Oleg Bach · July 19, 2011

You need money to travel and get more money - You need money to make more money. Those trained in the handling of money and born with money will have more and more money. On the other hand the average Canadian is trained to be a consumer and trained to spend every last dollar they come in contact with. Canadian millionares and billionares do not run around like fanatic consumers looking for someone to give their money too. Most of us are not like that - we are taught that you can not be happy unless you are consuming.

There are very rich people in Canada - they do not drive Corvets or Porches...nor do they live in the largest homes money can buy...They are very conservative with their wealth. Social status through the flaunting of material wealth is not a Canadian thing..It may be for the new rich and successful immigrants...Nothing more cheezy than some Russian mafia type who has been here for 10 years buying a stupid house in the burbs with concrete lions on the drive way.

jacee · July 19, 2011

I'm by no means an advocate of heavy social spending (quite the opposite actually), but I'm certainly not pleased about the income disparity as it's probably the biggest contributor to the increased need for social spending.

Hear hear!

I don't think Canada's governments, either provincially or federally, do anything to protect consumers and ensure fair wages. We get absolutely robbed by our utility/telecom companies, as well as our banks and insurers, and all of this money goes into the pockets of the rich. At the same time, the average wages of Canadians have not increased for 30 years and inflation has just made them poorer and poorer.
It's the same all over North America. The situation appears worse in the US. Until the ignore cows that fill the electorate actually take a few minutes out of their busy days of watching American Idol and Lost to understand wtf is going on in their world, they're going to just keep voting for people who are hell-bent on screwing them. Another thing that could help is an actually sensible left wing (ie. not the NDP) that could provide an actually valid and reasonable alternative to the crooks in the CPC and LPC. Jack Layton and the other morons in his party does the cause more harm than good.

I think the governments and political parties are useless and just roll over for the rich. The proof is in the data. I suggest more direct action against the aggressors who fill their pockets at the expense of our public services, a campaign to 'out' them and then demand increased taxes for the wealthiest.

Income disparity tells the true tale of where our 'cutbacks' have gone. We've been misled into believing they were creating jobs when all they were doing was padding profits so they could maintain pre-1990's lifestyles.

I've always been suspicious of government subsidies - our tax money - for the corporate sector. Now I'm positive it is just a money grab. Research needs to be done to identify the worst culprits.

Edited July 19, 2011 by jacee

Jack Weber · July 19, 2011

I'm by no means an advocate of heavy social spending (quite the opposite actually), but I'm certainly not pleased about the income disparity as it's probably the biggest contributor to the increased need for social spending. I don't think Canada's governments, either provincially or federally, do anything to protect consumers and ensure fair wages. We get absolutely robbed by our utility/telecom companies, as well as our banks and insurers, and all of this money goes into the pockets of the rich. At the same time, the average wages of Canadians have not increased for 30 years and inflation has just made them poorer and poorer.

It's the same all over North America. The situation appears worse in the US. Until the ignore cows that fill the electorate actually take a few minutes out of their busy days of watching American Idol and Lost to understand wtf is going on in their world, they're going to just keep voting for people who are hell-bent on screwing them. Another thing that could help is an actually sensible left wing (ie. not the NDP) that could provide an actually valid and reasonable alternative to the crooks in the CPC and LPC. Jack Layton and the other morons in his party does the cause more harm than good.

That sir,is spot on the money...

30 years of trickle down/"the free market will save us all!"/"Gimme my tax cut and get me outta here!"/"What's good for business is good for everyone"/"we have to compete with(enter the name of the third world low wage sector here) mindset has got us to this point.

I'm no fan of Mr. Layton,or the current "left",but a return to bread and butter social democracy might change things around a little...

Keepitsimple · July 19, 2011

Here's the link: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565049--latest-oecd-figures-confirm-canada-as-a-public-health-laggard

Somewhat interesting but you just know that there's a fly in the ointment when Canada is ranked so poorly. An indication of their flawed perspective can be found in this paragraph:

In terms of health outcomes, in 1983, Canada was ranked 10th best of OECD 34 nations in infant mortality rates, the measure seen as being the overall best indicator of a societys health.
But, by 2008, Canada was ranked 27th of OECD 34 nations in its infant mortality rates! This is because Canadas decline of 3.4/1,000 in infant mortality rates since 1983 was the smallest of all OECD nations. Similarly, Canadas 2008 rank of 10th among OECD nations in life expectancy reflects a continuing relative decline in rank from 7th since 1990. This is because Canadas increase in life expectancy of 4.5 years since 1983 is well below the OECD average of 6.0 years.

Well gosh - our decline in infant mortality rates was the smallest because ours was so good to start with....duh! Similarly, our increase in life expectency was smaller than many other coutries because our starting point was a ripe old age to begin with. Double Duh!

Throw this "study" in the dustbin.....

Edited July 19, 2011 by Keepitsimple

bush_cheney2004 · July 19, 2011

It's the same all over North America. The situation appears worse in the US. Until the ignore cows that fill the electorate actually take a few minutes out of their busy days of watching American Idol and Lost to understand wtf is going on in their world,...

Well, that didn't take long....the "situation" is actually worse in Mexico...do they watch "American Idol" too?

WWWTT · July 19, 2011

I'm no fan of Mr. Layton,or the current "left",but a return to bread and butter social democracy might change things around a little...

The current NDP or "Jack" would have rolled back corporate tax rates to the most realistic numbers were they should be!

WWWTT

bush_cheney2004 · July 19, 2011

There are very rich people in Canada - they do not drive Corvets or Porches...nor do they live in the largest homes money can buy...They are very conservative with their wealth.

This is true....there are grandmas/grandpas down the street with great wealth nobody knows about until they die. Then the buzzards swoop in to get their piece of the carcass, including the government and do-gooders who never figured out how to save a dime. Jesus Oleg, I'm beginning to sound like you!

WWWTT · July 19, 2011

Well, that didn't take long....the "situation" is actually worse in Mexico...do they watch "American Idol" too?

No actually they watch Spanish speaking bumbble bees on TV.

WWWTT

Jack Weber · July 19, 2011

The current NDP or "Jack" would have rolled back corporate tax rates to the most realistic numbers were they should be!

WWWTT

Yes he would have...

It's all the other social,cultural,and,moral relativism crapola of the current "left" I'm not interested in...

And Layton certainly is...

M.Dancer · July 19, 2011

This is true....there are grandmas/grandpas down the street with great wealth nobody knows about until they die. Then the buzzards swoop in to get their piece of the carcass, including the government and do-gooders who never figured out how to save a dime. Jesus Oleg, I'm beginning to sound like you!

A very wealthy man in know once said to me the way to tell if someone was old money or nouveau riche was their watch. Nouveau riche wear rolex, old money wears timex

Evening Star · July 19, 2011

Yes he would have...

It's all the other social,cultural,and,moral relativism crapola of the current "left" I'm not interested in...

And Layton certainly is...

Which sorts of policies do you mean? What kind of party would you prefer? Something like Doer's NDP? Just curious.

jacee · July 19, 2011

Here's the link: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565049--latest-oecd-figures-confirm-canada-as-a-public-health-laggard

Somewhat interesting but you just know that there's a fly in the ointment when Canada is ranked so poorly. An indication of their flawed perspective can be found in this paragraph:

Well gosh - our decline in infant mortality rates was the smallest because ours was so good to start with....duh! Similarly, our increase in life expectency was smaller than many other coutries because our starting point was a ripe old age to begin with. Double Duh!

Throw this "study" in the dustbin.....

Thanks for the link.

That's not a fly in the ointment, but the truth that we have not made as much progress as other developed countries in reducing infant mortality - ie, we are losing ground in international health comparisons.

Hmm ... I wonder how many more infants could have been saved if the income disparity was smaller?

It's possible to do such projections. Might be interesting. Perhaps I could predict the different possible values for your life expectancy too!

Edited July 19, 2011 by jacee

bush_cheney2004 · July 19, 2011

Hmm ... I wonder how many more infants could have been saved if the income disparity was smaller?

It's possible to do such projections. Might be interesting. Perhaps I could predict the different possible values for your life expectancy too!

The correlation has been studied....

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102275303.html

Maybe they could make up the difference with fewer abortions!

cybercoma · July 19, 2011

The correlation has been studied....

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102275303.html

Maybe they could make up the difference with fewer abortions!

Or, as the study concludes, "Substantial reduction in infant mortality rate may be possible by decreasing income inequality or increasing GNP per head."

jacee · July 20, 2011

The correlation has been studied....

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102275303.html

Thanks for that bc.

Maybe they could make up the difference with fewer abortions!

Being a man, that's not an issue you'll ever have to confront. ;-)

jacee · July 20, 2011

Or, as the study concludes, "Substantial reduction in infant mortality rate may be possible by decreasing income inequality or increasing GNP per head."

good quote. Thanks cybercoma. I would assume the same applies to life expectancy. It may not affect those at the receiving end of the gravy train, but the growing gap between them and the rest of us will affect our health care and outcomes.

And there simply is no good reason for the growth in income disparity, except greed and contempt. If the wealthiest 1% gave up only 1% of their collective 40% of the wealth, that would double the money available to address the needs of the lower 50%.

The size of the gap is absolutely mindboggling.

Moonlight Graham · July 20, 2011

Is this the one you were looking at? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/05/24/oecd-better-life-index.html

Ahaha. Different outcomes than the article the OP is refering to, which is likely this one: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565049--latest-oecd-figures-confirm-canada-as-a-public-health-laggard

Some different stats being looked at, but some seem similar or the same. Oh who, oh who shall we believe?

maple_leafs182 · July 20, 2011

Fiat money is a big part of the problem, it transfers wealth to from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes threw inflation. The greater majority of us are getting screwed over by our monetary system but almost everyone here swears by it.

bush_cheney2004 · July 20, 2011

Thanks for that bc.

You're welcome!

Being a man, that's not an issue you'll ever have to confront. ;-)

That's not true at all. Men are most certainly involved in such issues. It's just that I have always found the very issue of "infant mortality" a curious concept in this context.

August1991 · July 20, 2011

Income disparity is the most telling indicator.

Huh?

Median real family income has been rising in Canada for the past 40 years and more. (This CBC link shows it rising for the past 15 years or so.)

One of the problems is that one must compare comparables. For example, family size is shrinking since people have fewer children, and more people are divorced/separated or simply live alone with or without children. In short, Canada has more "families". Fewer children with a lower family income mean a higher standard of living for each individual.

These statistics are for disposable (after tax) income. This suggests that Canada's variosu social supports accomplish their purpose.

While the median real income is relevant, it doesn't tell the whole story. In some ways, it might be better to look at the lowest quintile. (I don't have data readily at hand.) The last time I looked at long term data, it too shows a rise albeit small.

----

The first billionaire in the world was John D. Rockefeller in the late 1800s. The richest person now is (Carlos Slim?) is worth about $50 billion. When will the world have its first trillionaire? It's possible that it will be as early as 2030.

In such a world, should we worry about income inequality?

I think that it's far more important to ensure the steady stream of innovations, new technologies and ensuring that as many people as possible have a chance in life.

As Milton Friedman said: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

The Soviet Union is ample testimony to what happens when a society aims for equality.

jacee · July 20, 2011

In some ways, it might be better to look at the lowest quintile. (I don't have data readily at hand.) The last time I looked at long term data, it too shows a rise albeit small.

And therein lies the problem, the widening gap of income disparity as the richest got richer while the other 99% of us lost ground, and it's reflected in health outcomes too.