Canada's richest 1% getting richer

[Moonlight Graham]

The data also shows the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider. In 1982, the median income of Canada's one per cent was $191,600. That was seven times higher than the $28,000 median for everybody else.

By 2010, that ratio had widened to 10 times, from $28,400 for everybody else to $283,400 for the one per cent.

The report uses 2010 constant dollars, so it's an apples-to-apples comparison. The 99 per cent of people were actually taking in much less than $28,000 in 1982, but in terms of buying power, their share is essentially the same today as it was then.

But Canada's one per cent are also shouldering a higher percentage of the tax burden than they used to. In 1982, the richest one per cent were paying 13.4 per cent of all tax paid in Canada. By 2007, that percentage had risen to a peak of 23.3 per cent, before slipping somewhat in the following years to 21.2 per cent by 2010.

...

Among numerous findings, the proportion of women in that group [the 1%] nearly doubled over the time period, from 11 per cent in 1982, to 21 per cent by 2010. That's 53,200 individuals.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...igh-income.html

Good news for the improved gender equality #'s, but the other numbers are virtually the same stats as in the US since 1980. The rich have gotten richer, the rest have stayed the same (and, my guess is the poorest of them may have indeed gotten poorer). 30 years of economic/GDP growth, and the rich are the only ones to benefit in income with everyone else running on a streadmill. These #'s are absolutely unacceptable. What a scheme. More education is needed to enter the workplace today as employment benefits have decreased along with this stagnant income. Looks like virtually none of these extra profits made in the last 30 years have "trickled down" to the non-rich, as free-marketeers (the upper class and their fooled apologists) without a clue of ecnomics would want us to believe. Cheers to greatly increased income inequality!

Edit: I'm not arguing for some Communist redistribution scheme of pure equality. The rich deserve to be have much more money than most people because they are often the most valuable people (per head) in the workplace. I'm arguing that as per the stats (inflation-adjusted here), the 1% earners do not deserve to receive virtually all of the increases in income derived from Canada's economic growth the last 30 years while the other 99% group receives virtually zero income increase, when it took the work of both owners/investers etc. and the wage-workers to create these profits.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

How does somebody "rich" stop getting richer each year?

[guyser]

How does somebody "rich" stop getting richer each year?

Ask Conrad Black.

or

Latrell Sprewell

or

Eugene Melnyk

or

my mother and her stock since 2008.

[bush_cheney2004]

How does somebody "rich" stop getting richer each year?

By comparing stats to the "U.S." since 1980 ?

[Argus]

It isn't the 1% really. It's the 1-2% of the 1% which account for most of the growth in wealth.

It's not the people making $190k a year that are controlling the world. It's the people making $190m a year.

[TimG]

The rich have gotten richer, the rest have stayed the same (and, my guess is the poorest of them may have indeed gotten poorer).

Says who? How many of the people in that group were in that group in 1982? How many in that group in 1982 are not there today. You cannot make gross generalizations without understanding the dynamics.

These #'s are absolutely unacceptable.

Why? Because you are jealous? We live in a capitalist society - that requires that inequality exist. The level of 'acceptable' inequality is a purely subjective measure. Edited January 29, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Says who? How many of the people in that group were in that group in 1982? How many in that group in 1982 are not there today. You cannot make gross generalizations without understanding the dynamics.

Agreed....people haved moved in and out of income quintiles over that time. The upper quintile, much larger than 1%, has not become "poorer".

Why? Because you are jealous? We live in a capitalist society - that requires that inequality exist. The level of 'acceptable' inequality is a purely subjective measure.

Hang the rich !

[blueblood]

Says who? How many of the people in that group were in that group in 1982? How many in that group in 1982 are not there today. You cannot make gross generalizations without understanding the dynamics.

Why? Because you are jealous? We live in a capitalist society - that requires that inequality exist. The level of 'acceptable' inequality is a purely subjective measure.

Agreed in today's society we have people owning things that only the super rich could afford, namely computers.

Remember the days when it was only one tv in the house and it cost a fortune. What's a good flatscreen worth these days? The "99%" should take a little adventure to Africa to see what real poverty is.

[blueblood]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...igh-income.html

Good news for the improved gender equality #'s, but the other numbers are virtually the same stats as in the US since 1980. The rich have gotten richer, the rest have stayed the same (and, my guess is the poorest of them may have indeed gotten poorer). 30 years of economic/GDP growth, and the rich are the only ones to benefit in income with everyone else running on a streadmill. These #'s are absolutely unacceptable. What a scheme. More education is needed to enter the workplace today as employment benefits have decreased along with this stagnant income. Looks like virtually none of these extra profits made in the last 30 years have "trickled down" to the non-rich, as free-marketeers (the upper class and their fooled apologists) without a clue of ecnomics would want us to believe.

Cheers to greatly increased income inequality!

Cheers to getting a better education than a liberal arts degree and cheers to going to the resource sector/trades where the real money is.

Typical leftist attitude, blame a scapegoat for many people's laziness.

Over the past decade I've been able to replace/add on machinery, hire part time employees, buy "toys", vacations withoud going into debt. We aren't stuffing money into a mattress, it gets spent, saved in a bank, and invested.

[CPCFTW]

Says who? How many of the people in that group were in that group in 1982? How many in that group in 1982 are not there today. You cannot make gross generalizations without understanding the dynamics.

Something the left constantly seems to misunderstand. To the left, the 1% is some sinister group of people who control the world. In reality, many of the current 1% are people who may have grown up in a poor family and worked hard to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer or banker, etc.

Even many of the super-wealthy were not rich in 1980. How many of the "dragons" from dragon's den or the "sharks" from shark tank were wealthy back then?

The reality that the left can't accept is that most of the 1% worked their asses off to get there.

[Michael Hardner]

The reality that the left can't accept is that most of the 1% worked their asses off to get there.

Yes, you're talking about the Gini Index - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

At extreme levels of disparity, then you don't have incentive for people to work hard to lift themselves up. The upper reaches of wealth are closed. At negligible levels of disparity then you also don't have incentive to work hard because the results are the same.

There are limits on both sides.

[blueblood]

Yes, you're talking about the Gini Index - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

At extreme levels of disparity, then you don't have incentive for people to work hard to lift themselves up. The upper reaches of wealth are closed. At negligible levels of disparity then you also don't have incentive to work hard because the results are the same.

There are limits on both sides.

thats making excuses, Its never closed. The disparity is the incentive.

[punked]

thats making excuses, Its never closed. The disparity is the incentive.

That must be what they told my Coal minner great grand dad when he went to work in the mine at 13 because his family owed the company store so much. "If you dig the same amount as 15 men you will get your family out of dept....that disparity is an incentive so get to work because otherwise you mom is going to jail."

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[Michael Hardner]

thats making excuses, Its never closed. The disparity is the incentive.

You're arguing with economics here, not me. If you have no incentive to improve - if it's impossible then fewer people try. That's just how it works.

[Moonlight Graham]

Here come the typical rightwingers here to defend the status quo for which they have been ideologically brainwashed by the wealthy to be seen as "just" based on "liberty" and the that wonderful and always fair & perfect "invisible hand" of the market. I love it.

Cheers to getting a better education than a liberal arts degree and cheers to going to the resource sector/trades where the real money is.

It's wonderful to get a better education. But when you pay over 20k for a typical degree, plus the increasing need for a masters degree (so spending 2-3 more years and school plus the money/debt for it) for which you are required to get if you want a half-decent job these days, this requirement for more education and more money/years spent in school would mean that it would be nice if people's income actually increased a bit to compensate for this upgraded skill/knowledge over a 30 year period of profits that both the business owners and workers have worked together to produce. But no, the investors & business owners etc. have kept virtually all of the profits (minus some increased tax-hikes on the rich) even though the 99% have done 99% of the work.

Innovative business owners deserve to be rich, to be well compensated because they are well-arguably the most valuable workers to the economy on a per-head basis. My argument is that the 99% deserve at a bit better share of the increase in profits that would not be had without their labour and innovation as well. Virtually a 0% profit share is BS.

Typical leftist attitude, blame a scapegoat for many people's laziness.

Typical rightwing attitude. Blame "laziness" on the exploitation & greed of the wealthy their political allies. Please explain how laziness has caused this increased income inequality with statistics or some legit sources.

Over the past decade I've been able to replace/add on machinery, hire part time employees, buy "toys", vacations withoud going into debt. We aren't stuffing money into a mattress, it gets spent, saved in a bank, and invested.

Oh ok, so you reckon yourself as one who makes over $150k or whatever was used in the study to denote the 1% cut-off. That's great that you have a business. Yes, investors & business owners help spur the economy. But so do consumers, the vast majority of which are statistically the 99%. If consumers didn't buy your goods/services, you would be out of business. If you didn't build your business, consumers wouldn't have your services/goods. If you didn't have any employees, your profits would be much smaller if non-existant. It's a 2-way street. One connot exist without the other, yet only one group has been compensated inincreased income based on the profits all parties have helped create the last 30 years.

Why don't you pay your employees more money? Because you can. That's how the system works, which needs to be tinkered with to create more income equality.

[TimG]

Here come the typical rightwingers here to defend the status quo for which they have been ideologically brainwashed by the wealthy to be seen as "just" based on "liberty" and the that wonderful and always fair & perfect "invisible hand" of the market.

You are the one ranting about the 'increase' in disparity. Why is the increase necessarily bad other than it makes you jealous?

if people's income actually increased a bit to compensate for this upgraded skill/knowledge over a 30 year period of profits that both the business owners and workers have worked together to produce.

People with skills have seen their income increase. The main issue is the vast majority of paid work requires no special skills and this category of workers have seen their wages stagnant.

But no, the investors & business owners etc. have kept virtually all of the profits (minus some increased tax-hikes on the rich) even though the 99% have done 99% of the work.

The investor and owners took the risk. Why shouldn't they get most of the rewards? Edited January 29, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Poverty is getting richer all the time. Ten years ago, a home broadband connection was a rare luxury. Now school kids can’t do their homework without it.

...

The present generation takes things for granted that past generations never had. In our world even the poor have access to a cheap and widely available universe of information and connectivity that would have been impossible just a decade or two ago.

http://blogs.the-ame...ow-a-necessity/ Edited January 29, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Says who? How many of the people in that group were in that group in 1982? How many in that group in 1982 are not there today. You cannot make gross generalizations without understanding the dynamics.

Says the statistics, very clearly. Yes, labels like "1%" and "99%" are very particular stats that would generalize "rich" and "the rest", and it's not that back-and-white, but if the "rich" and "the rest" are operationalized/defined as the 1% vs 99% income, the stats don't lie.

Why? Because you are jealous? We live in a capitalist society - that requires that inequality exist. The level of 'acceptable' inequality is a purely subjective measure.

No, because given the large profits created over the last 30 years, workers deserve at least some reasonable level of increase in income i compensation since they greatly helped produce this profit, together with the owners of business. But since the owners have a monopoly over the means of production, they are in control of these profits and keep it for themselves.

Inequality is arguably inherent in our capitalist system, but I'm not arguing for perfect income inequality because that would be ineffecient and unjust, I'm saying the rich should stay rich but that the rise in income inequality with only one side beneftting is unjust. Levels of acceptable inequality is indeed subjective, & my argument from the OP is that the 1% getting virtually 100% of the income increase from the last 30yrs of economic growth compared to the 99% is unjust. It also arguably harms economic growth since consumers drive the economy, and them havingless money for consumption means less money/profits for business owners & less jobs etc. (its a virtuous cycle of growth via production-consumption, like Fordism).

So why did you clearly react negatively to this thread? What do you think is an acceptable level of inequality? Why? Do you feel the distribution numbers from the last 30 years are just? Why or why not?

[TimG]

the stats don't lie.

You missed the point. A society where the composition of the richest 1% changed every few years would be very different than a society where the richest 1% is the same generation after generation. What matters in a capitalist society is equality of opportunity and social mobility - not equality of outcomes.

No, because given the large profits created over the last 30 years, workers deserve at least some reasonable level of increase in income i compensation since they greatly helped produce this profit, together with the owners of business.

A business owner is helped because he buys computers - should he/she volunteer to pay more to the computer maker because the computer maker 'deserves' a share of the profits? Labour is no different - people are paid based on market wages and how much the company makes from that labour is irrelevant.

Levels of acceptable inequality is indeed subjective, & my argument from the OP is that the 1% getting virtually 100% of the income increase from the last 30yrs of economic growth compared to the 99% is unjust.

Why? Because it changed? Why couldn't you say that the levels of 30 years ago where unjust and now the system has corrected itself to the point where it is just? You are getting hot and bothered by a relative statistic that has no connection to anything real.

So why did you clearly react negatively to this thread? What do you think is an acceptable level of inequality? Why? Do you feel the distribution numbers from the last 30 years are just? Why or why not?

I think the obsession with the 1% is absurd and driven by jealously. Any policy driven by jealously is going to be bad policy. If we want to have a rational discussion about what we should be doing it should be based on ensuring equality of opportunity for as many people as possible. We cannot have that discussion as long as people think they are entitled to something just because someone else has more than them. Edited January 29, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Agreed in today's society we have people owning things that only the super rich could afford, namely computers.

Remember the days when it was only one tv in the house and it cost a fortune. What's a good flatscreen worth these days?

The cost of technology very often reduces as time goes on. I could buy a cell phone, tv, computer etc. from 5 years ago for virtually nothing. Also, those are the days of single-income families. 2 incomes for a home often these days, but how much has standard of living in a home increased?

We are also not comparing 50 years ago, we are comparing the last 30 years, since 1982 in the stats the study focuses on. Taking debt into account, has the economic standard of living for most people in Canada gone up since 1982? It probably has for various reasons, but its not because they're making more money.

The "99%" should take a little adventure to Africa to see what real poverty is.

Are you aware that market liberalization schemes (thanks Reagan & Thatcher) from the 1980's and 90's forced onto many African countries as conditionality for restructing their debt repayments and new loans from international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank (SAP's), along with foreign aid conditionality from western governments like the US, UK, and whomever, was a significant reason that Sub-Sahara African countries on average produced negative GDP growth in those 2 decades, whereas the same region produced positive GDP growth in the decade prior and afterwards (1970's and 2000's)? Almost similar story with most Latin America/Carribean countries in those decades. With income inequality inherent with increased market liberalization, rich/elites gained a hugely unequal portion of the wealth generated in those countries, while in Sub-Saharan Africa the large poorer pop. saw income generally drop. There are other variables to consider obviously but neoliberal reforms are one of the biggest.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/International_Macroeconomic_Data/Historical_Data_Files/historicalRealPerCapitaGDPValues.xls

[Moonlight Graham]

You are the one ranting about the 'increase' in disparity. Why is the increase necessarily bad other than it makes you jealous?

Explained in my 1st response to you. It's not a question of jealously, it's a question of just compensation, economic health, and social equality.

Again, why are you so aggresively negative towards my comments? Why do you defend the income inequality? Just because owners have control of the profits that come in, do you think they deserve to keep all of them pre-tax (or even post-taxes, as in the US)?

People with skills have seen their income increase.

Stats for this? Define "people with skills".

The investor and owners took the risk. Why shouldn't they get most of the rewards?

They should, I never argued otherwise. I'm claiming they shouldn't get virtually ALL of the rewards, in terms of income.

[Moonlight Graham]

http://blogs.the-ame...ow-a-necessity/

As I already stated, the cost of technology very often reduces as time goes on. I could buy a cell phone, tv, computer etc. with technology from 5 years ago for virtually nothing. Standard of living goes up because technology improves & then reduces in price so more people can afford tech items, but since 1982 the income for the the 99% income group hasn't gone up vs he 1%, both in Canada and the US. Standard of living has improved, buying power has not for most.

Please continue trying to defend the status quo, for reasons I'm baffled.

[Moonlight Graham]

http://blogs.the-ame...ow-a-necessity/

I'll also point out this from the OP article:

The report uses 2010 constant dollars, so it's an apples-to-apples comparison. The 99 per cent of people were actually taking in much less than $28,000 in 1982, but in terms of buying power, their share is essentially the same today as it was then.

This is key. I missed this in my analysis. Income has actually gone up for both the 99% and 1%, but buying power has not (essentially, the incomes are adjusted for inflation). This means that, adjusted for inflation, the average person working in 1982 would not be making any more money in 2010, while for the average 1% his income would have increased about 50%!

[Michael Hardner]

This is key. I missed this in my analysis. Income has actually gone up for both the 99% and 1%, but buying power has not (essentially, the incomes are adjusted for inflation). This means that, adjusted for inflation, the average person working in 1982 would not be making any more money in 2010, while for the average 1% his income would have increased about 50%!

The thing that is key about your comparison is that life isn't materially getting much better for the 99% but all gains are going to the 1%.

How would one change that without chasing away investors ?

[bush_cheney2004]

The thing that is key about your comparison is that life isn't materially getting much better for the 99% but all gains are going to the 1%.

The comparison is fundamentally flawed, as all gains have not gone to just the "1%".

Moreover, there is no wide and growing income gap in Canada.....Canada is not the United States, ergo, U.S. data does not apply.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Myth+widening+income+persists/7704819/story.html