OECD: Canada's richest get richer...

[August1991]

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.

But we didn't lose ground. Median real incomes are generally rising, and even the poorest 20% have more.

Frankly, I just don't care about the miniscule top wealthiest people in the world - except that if you take away their rewards, then you take away the incentives of everyone to create new ideas. And that would make all future generations poorer.

This is how I see life, and world history:

Edited July 20, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...This is how I see life, and world history:

Hey, that was "pretty neat". Thanks for sharing!

[TimG]

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

Nonsense of course. A country where everyone has a income of $10000 will have high mortality than a country with an average of $30000 but a wide range.

What these studies fail to take into account is societies that redistribute too much income are poorer on average (look at Quebec compared to the rest of the country).

[Smallc]

Quebec isn't really that much poorer than most of the country. They're doing better than almost everything to the east of them...and worse than everything to the west.

[Bob]

Canadians should not wish to be ranked highly on a list that rewards increased government spending on health care and "social services", and considers incomes disparity as something undesirable that should be worked against via redistribution of wealth.

[Bob]

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.....

Sadly, this ridiculous article was penned by a York University professor of "health policy and management". He's clearly stating that more government spending is ideal regarding healthcare outcomes (which is arguably somewhat true in the context of government-administered care in countries like Canada). Still, the criticism of Canada not spending enough of money on "social services" as a share of GDP is just socialistic rhetoric. Here's the class warfare incitement - Income inequality is an important corrosive for societal cohesion and overall societal quality of life. I wonder how many students per year are being indoctrinated into this mentality. Just another example of universities producing "policy professionals" who become part of the "more government is better" mentality. It's frightening.

[jacee]

What these studies fail to take into account is societies that redistribute too much income are poorer on average (look at Quebec compared to the rest of the country).

Averages are skewed by extreme high incomes, so didn't provide an accurate picture in the first place. Yes they do come down when wealth is redistributed, but it's a healthier situation.

[TimG]

Averages are skewed by extreme high incomes, so didn't provide an accurate picture in the first place. Yes they do come down when wealth is redistributed, but it's a healthier situation.

Making everyone poorer in the name of equality of not a healthier situation.

Frankly this notion that equality within countries matters is nonsense. We live in an interconnected world where our standard of living depends on dirt cheap labour elsewhere. It is hypocritical to whine about disparity within a country while ignoring disparities across countries. I am pretty sure the people demanding income redistribution would be singing a different tune if that meant their standard of living had to go down in order to equalize their income with Africans.

[cybercoma]

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.)

From that same link:

Though all quintiles benefited from the positive economic conditions that prevailed since the early 1990s, families in the top one-fifth gained the most. Since 1996, their average after-tax income rose 24% compared with about 18% for the other quintiles.

Edited July 20, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Nonsense of course. A country where everyone has a income of $10000 will have high mortality than a country with an average of $30000 but a wide range.

What these studies fail to take into account is societies that redistribute too much income are poorer on average (look at Quebec compared to the rest of the country).

So you think the amount of money you have in the bank is the most important indication of quality of life, rather than mortality rates and health?

[cybercoma]

Canadians should not wish to be ranked highly on a list that rewards increased government spending on health care and "social services", and considers incomes disparity as something undesirable that should be worked against via redistribution of wealth.

No? So you just want to ignore all the studies that show the enormous detriment to society that these income disparities and insufficient government programs have?

[jacee]

Here's the class warfare incitement - Income inequality is an important corrosive for societal cohesion and overall societal quality of life. I wonder how many students per year are being indoctrinated into this mentality. Just another example of universities producing "policy professionals" who become part of the "more government is better" mentality. It's frightening.

Only frightening for those who have gouged their way to the top 1%. :-] More or less government is irrelevant. It's whether we allow the extremely wealthy to pocket money that should be in circulation. Income disparity is a good indicator of whether the economy is functioning as well as it could for the benefit of all. Isn't that the goal?

[cybercoma]

He's clearly stating that more government spending is ideal regarding healthcare outcomes (which is arguably somewhat true in the context of government-administered care in countries like Canada).

That's not what he's stating at all. In fact, he says that Canada is one of the top spenders on health care and most social policy analysts know that you get to a point where you can't improve your results by dumping more money into healthcare. There are other things that need to be focused on, such as promoting healthier lifestyles and preventative medicine.

[jacee]

Making everyone poorer in the name of equality of not a healthier situation.

Not everyone, just those hoarding a ridiculously high proportion of the wealth. Reducing the disparity does create a healthier population.

[cybercoma]

TimG must be in the top 1%. I can't really understand why else he would be so supportive of them raping society.

[August1991]

It is hypocritical to whine about disparity within a country while ignoring disparities across countries. I am pretty sure the people demanding income redistribution would be singing a different tune if that meant their standard of living had to go down in order to equalize their income with Africans.

Tim, that's a very good point and it puts a lie to the leftist argument for income equality.

What would we achieve if we taxed everyone in North America and sent the money to poor people in Africa? The only effect would be for people in North America to work less and the people in Africa would have no incentive to work at all. Over time, the world would be a poorer place.

I am not against transferring income from the rich to the poor (call it Robin Hood) in some cases and in specific ways but we have to think of the long term effects on incentives. In the long run, societies become richer through technology and trade.

Not everyone, just those hoarding a ridiculously high proportion of the wealth. Reducing the disparity does create a healthier population.

In the case of aboriginals, it can be argued that reducing disparities through government transfers has made them less healthy.

----

Cybercoma, I don't really care about what happens to the top quintile - as long as we don't remove their incentive to work. I am more concerned about the median and the lowest quintile.

Edited July 20, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

TimG must be in the top 1%. I can't really understand why else he would be so supportive of them raping society.

Didn't you hear? They are "Job Creators" the newest Internet meme sensation. They get a bye for creating all those jobs which drive our economy. If we give them less pay, Aramgeddon will ensue and there will be no Rapture for the lefties. (which is no problem since everyone knows that lefties tend to be agnostic or atheist anyways)

Please keep up with your current events.

[Bob]

That's not what he's stating at all. In fact, he says that Canada is one of the top spenders on health care and most social policy analysts know that you get to a point where you can't improve your results by dumping more money into healthcare. There are other things that need to be focused on, such as promoting healthier lifestyles and preventative medicine.

Why don't you actually read the rest of my post? I clearly stated that the author's primary argument is that Canada is making a mistake by not spending a larger amount on "social services". Specifically, he is stating that Canada should bring up its spending on "social services" to the same level of the average OECD expenditure, as a share of GDP.

In 2007, Canada ranked 23rd of 34 OECD nations in this important indicator, allocating just 16.9 per cent of its gross domestic product to citizen support through social spending. The OECD average was 19.3 per cent. These benefits would normally be directed to families, seniors, persons with disabilities and workers losing their jobs who require support/

He blames this alleged shortfall of government spending (or redistribution of wealth, in a another sense) for these "problems" - Not surprisingly, Canada compares poorly to other OECD nations in terms of income inequality and poverty rates as nations with stronger welfare states do better on these indicators. I wholly reject the supposition that income inequality a social problem that that the government should actively work against in the context of a free society. This position is straight-up Marxism. Additionally, poverty is relative. So the statement that Canada allegedly has worse poverty statistics that most other OECD states means nothing to me.

Basically, I find his entire line of argumentation to be false, as I think most social projects are detrimental to poorer people, and cause results that are exactly the opposite of their stated intentions. I also think, broadly, that social programs increase poverty.

Keepitsimple already pointed other stupidities in the article that I don't need to repeat.

[Moonlight Graham]

I wholly reject the supposition that income inequality a social problem that that the government should actively work against in the context of a free society. This position is straight-up Marxism.

There`s a huge difference between Marxism and social democracy.

Basically, I find his entire line of argumentation to be false, as I think most social projects are detrimental to poorer people, and cause results that are exactly the opposite of their stated intentions. I also think, broadly, that social programs increase poverty.

Based on what research and statistics exactly.

Go look at the neoliberal policies of Reagan in the 80`s and then go look at the increases in homelessness and the gap between rich and poor in the same period, which many scholars attribute in part to his policies.

You may want to also study the Great Depression.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Bob]

Take your pick, most social works projects produce adverse results, often hurting the very people they claim to assist. We can start simple, such as minimum wage laws and rent controls. Your references to Reagan's policies and the Great Depression seem to be red herrings, as they are far too broad to discuss here. Like I said, take your pick regarding a few social programs, and let's examine their successes or failures.

Yes, social democracy and Marxism are different. But they have a lot of overlap, specifically with respect to base suppositions regarding morality and perception of human nature. More often than not, argument from self-proclaimed communists and self-proclaimed social democrats are very similar. They use the same rhetoric and subscribe the same economic fallacies.

[M.Dancer]

Personally I am a little dubious on the correlation between income and infant mortality in Canada. No one here, regardless of income gets attention any different than anyone else.

So I don't buy it.

[cybercoma]

Personally I am a little dubious on the correlation between income and infant mortality in Canada. No one here, regardless of income gets attention any different than anyone else.

So I don't buy it.

It makes it significantly harder to care for your child when you don't have insurance that covers prescriptions, you're hunting for work, or you're barely making enough to support yourselves. Sure, everyone gets the same care and if you're dying it's covered. However, I'm pretty sure income does play some role in it. You must also consider other factors like the environment a child will be raised in at different income levels.

[Moonbox]

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.)

That's a worthless statistic. I mean no offense, but the number of women in the workplace has skyrocketed over the last 40 years, which effectively comes close to doubling the number of workers in any given family.

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

Umm...we should definetly worry about such a world. When one man/woman can hoard the equivalent of an entire country of 30M's GDP for a year, that harkens back to the days of Louis XVI. There's no reason for anyone to be that rich unless the system is encouraging it.

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.

Which would suggest we should do more to get hard working families out of dumpy apartments where they can raise their kids to be proud of themselves.

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."

It's the parroting of empty axioms like this that keep people stupid. You can't really argue with Friedman's quote, but it ignores the fact that unregulated capitalism provides 'freedom' for the rich, and much less so for the poor and middle class. When you're living paycheque to paycheque to feed your family, your freedom is practically non-existant.

Providing safeguards to ensure a viable middle class is the best way to encourage the economy. It doesn't mean raising corporate tax rates and screwing your wealth producers, but it does perhaps mean raising income taxes on the rich and crushing the monopolies, oligopolies and protected industries that are constantly screwing us.

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

I'm honestly disappointed in you August because you're normally a lot smarter than this. Bringing the Soviet Union into the argument is the biggest straw man you could have possibly attempted. Sure, the Soviet Union failed, but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. That was communism, or crushingly stifling government intervention. It was incompetent and misguided and corrupt and that's why it failed. Similarly, unrestrained capitalism is equally incompetent and misguided. It's human nature that certain people will exploit the system wherever and however they can, and we have countless examples of failures in the capitalist system.

I find it galling/hilarious that people in the US, for example, are still bitching and moaning about any sort of government intervention when the US economy almost collapsed as was saved, ironically, by government intervention.

I think the analogy of the government playing 'parent' to society is apt. If the parent is too laissez-faire and uninterested you're likely to end up with rotten kids. If you're too strict and overbearing, they'll grow up equally screwed up.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

I think the analogy of the government playing 'parent' to society is apt. If the parent is too laissez-faire and uninterested you're likely to end up with rotten kids. If you're too strict and overbearing, they'll grow up equally screwed up.

Quoted because it needed to be said twice.

[Bob]

It makes it significantly harder to care for your child when you don't have insurance that covers prescriptions, you're hunting for work, or you're barely making enough to support yourselves. Sure, everyone gets the same care and if you're dying it's covered. However, I'm pretty sure income does play some role in it. You must also consider other factors like the environment a child will be raised in at different income levels.

I am not sure about the rest of Canada, but as far as prescription medications go there is a provincially-administrated program that significantly helps cover the costs of prescription medications for those who have financially difficulty affording them. In Ontario it's called the Trillium Drug Program, and I would assume that similar programs exist in other provinces and territories that are also administered the provincial/territorial health ministries. So in Ontario, and likely across Canada, your assertion that lack access to prescription medications based on prohibitive costs, increasing infant mortality, is moot.

I'm with M. Dancer, I don't buy into the spurious argumentation that income disparity increases infant mortality statistics.