Poverty rate’ drops to lowest level ever and media turns a blind eye

[PIK]

And people say there is no media biased in this country. Just imagine if this happened under chretien , there would be a statue of the man built. And what does this say about the people living in parks screaming about poverty being out of control in this country? Now imagine if those people went out and got a job the rate would even be lower. Now let the spin begin.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/canada/Poverty+rate+drops+lowest+level+ever+media+turns+blind/8697076/story.html

In 2011, the latest year for which StatsCan has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income — that is, with incomes below the agency’s Low Income Cut-off (LICO) — fell to its lowest level … well, ever. At just 8.8 per cent, it beat the previous record of 9.0 per cent, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2 per cent. In 1965, the first year for which LICO rates were calculated, it was 25 per cent.

Edited July 24, 2013 by PIK

[carepov]

And people say there is no media biased in this country. Just imagine if this happened under chretien , there would be a statue of the man built. And what does this say about the people living in parks screaming about poverty being out of control in this country? Now imagine if those people went out and got a job the rate would even be lower. Now let the spin begin.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/canada/Poverty+rate+drops+lowest+level+ever+media+turns+blind/8697076/story.html

In 2011, the latest year for which StatsCan has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income — that is, with incomes below the agency’s Low Income Cut-off (LICO) — fell to its lowest level … well, ever. At just 8.8 per cent, it beat the previous record of 9.0 per cent, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2 per cent. In 1965, the first year for which LICO rates were calculated, it was 25 per cent.

This is indeed good news and shame on the media for not reporting it.

This is not however a sign of media bias as provincial government policies have as much or more effect on poverty than the federal government.

Also, poverty activist groups should be speaking out, congratulating government programs and policies that are working and pushing for more progress, perhaps with a focus on aboriginal children.

[PIK]

This is indeed good news and shame on the media for not reporting it.

This is not however a sign of media bias as provincial government policies have as much or more effect on poverty than the federal government.

Also, poverty activist groups should be speaking out, congratulating government programs and policies that are working and pushing for more progress, perhaps with a focus on aboriginal children.

Exactly, lets take this and make it even better.

[The_Squid]

Setting aside that they measure poverty differently than what they used to, which accounts for some of the "good news" (other indicators arent so positive); Didn't you find out about the story through the media?

[PIK]

I 1st heard it on the sun news, like usual. The other will be forced to follow suit.Funny how poverty is such a hot topic till this. lol

[guyser]

I 1st heard it on the sun news, like usual. The other will be forced to follow suit.Funny how poverty is such a hot topic till this. lol

The Vancouver Sun? Sun News has no coverage on any of its editions.

[The_Squid]

Great... So the media reported it. Why are you so hot and bothered about which media, where and when reported it?

[scribblet]

I don't see anyone getting hot and bothered but he's right. I heard it on the Sunnews so looked it up, didn't find it in the Star or other major papers.

[The_Squid]

I don't see anyone getting hot and bothered but he's right. I heard it on the Sunnews so looked it up, didn't find it in the Star or other major papers.

Here is why there have been no statues of Harper erected for being a warrior for the impoverished:

To demonstrate a supposed trend, Coyne takes the lowest point of an economic downturn (1996), compares it to today and says: Voilà amazing progress has been made! The percentage of people below the low-income cutoff has been nearly halved, from 15.5 per cent to 8.8 per cent!

A less selective use of statistics might have noted that the percentage of those below the low-income cutoff stood at 10.2 in 1989, revealing a much less impressive rate of progress than Coynes figures would lead us to believe. At this rate, it will take us another 150 years to eliminate poverty in Canada.

He also concedes that, according to the Low-Income Measurement (the most widely used international poverty metric), the results in Canada have been less impressive. How much less? Well, the poverty rate is 20 per cent higher today than it was in 1989 (12.6 per cent vs. 10.5 per cent), according to that yardstick.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Opinion+There+been+extraordinary+drop+poverty/8702298/story.html

So the stats aren't as clear.... And may even be worse if you use a more internationally used measure.

Edited July 24, 2013 by The_Squid

[PIK]

Here is why there have been no statues of Harper erected for being a warrior for the impoverished:

So the stats aren't as clear.... And may even be worse if you use a more internationally used measure.

Like the so called gap between rich and poor. All they use is income but not assets. Put both together and that gap is pretty well gone. So anyways if this was a lib government it would be all over the news, 24/7. Edited July 24, 2013 by PIK

[The_Squid]

Like the so called gap between rich and poor. All they use is income but not assets. Put both together and that gap is pretty well gone. So anyways if this was a lib government it would be all over the news, 24/7.

No it wouldn't because it is a made-up story.

[guyser]

Great... So the media reported it. Why are you so hot and bothered about which media, where and when reported it?

If the sun prints it .....and no one else does, , regardless of lame content or whatever, it means there is the old MSM conspiracy against the Conservatives.

(just to advise you further, if the Star prints something and the Sun prints it too, it will always be a TO Star conspiracy of 'out to get him/her" - See Rob Ford)

[carepov]

Here is why there have been no statues of Harper erected for being a warrior for the impoverished:

So the stats aren't as clear.... And may even be worse if you use a more internationally used measure.

I agree that nobody deserves statues, but the results are an indication of at least some very good work by all levels of government - especially considering the Great Recession.

I love how the Gazette writer criticises Coyne for cherry picking data and then goes on to do it himself... I wish that these reporters would just post the graph:

[Moonlight Graham]

I love how the Gazette writer criticises Coyne for cherry picking data and then goes on to do it himself... I wish that these reporters would just post the graph:

Yup I caught that too. Totally ridiculous by the Gazette writer.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree that nobody deserves statues, but the results are an indication of at least some very good work by all levels of government - especially considering the Great Recession.

I love how the Gazette writer criticises Coyne for cherry picking data and then goes on to do it himself... I wish that these reporters would just post the graph:

I’m a dyed in the wool Tory, but some credit has to be given to the steep incline started under Chrétien……I wonder where we’d be if we didn’t just go through a recession, today?

[Sandy MacNab]

No it wouldn't because it is a made-up story.

Oh yes it would - especially if it was a made-up story favourable to them. The plethora of made-up stories (smears) arising from the MSM with respect to Harper is out of control.

[Moonlight Graham]

First, it must be said that the title of this thread (taken from the title of Coyne's op-ed) is not accurate as to what Stats Canada reported. Nowhere in the June 27 StatsCan report does it mention anything about "poverty" or "poverty rate", let alone poverty in Canada decreasing. Coyne incorrectly began his op-ed with:

It’s been almost a month since Statistics Canada released its latest report on poverty in Canada (“Income of Canadians,” June 27).

It wasn't a report on poverty, it was a report on income. Stats Canada is careful to note the difference in another report, and also to note that LICO in itself ideally shouldn't be used to measure low income in Canada, but be combined in an analysis with other stats such as 'Low Income Measures' (LIMs) and 'Market Basket Measure' (MBM):

In order to provide a holographic or complete picture of low income, Statistics Canada implements an approach that uses three complementary low income lines: the Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs), the Low Income Measures (LIMs) and the Market Basket Measure (MBM). While the first two lines were developed by Statistics Canada, the MBM is based on concepts developed by Human Resources and Skill Development Canada. Though these measures differ from one another, they give a generally consistent picture of low income status over time. None of these measures is the best. Each contributes its own perspective and its own strengths to the study of low income, so that cumulatively, the three provide a better understanding of the phenomenon of low income as a whole. These measures are not measures of poverty, but strictly measures of low income.

(emphasis mine). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/75f0002m2013002-eng.htm

On the other hand, it's almost certainly is a good thing to see % of people below the LICO staying low (relatively speaking). However, as the report itself admits, a drop of 0.2% isn't very significant, and the report regards both 2010 and 2011 income #'s as the same. Given the drop of 0.2%, that very likely is within the margin of error in this study given that it's based on survey samples. Given the report (below) says the % of people living in low income has remained unchanged since the previous year, I'm not sure why Coyne is so upset. Why would the media report no change, since that's not really news?:

Incidence of low income:

According to the after-tax low income cut-offs, 3 million Canadians, or 8.8% of the population, lived in low income in 2011, unchanged from 2010. This compares with 3.4 million Canadians, or 11.2% of the population in 2001. About 571,000 children aged 17 and under, or 8.5% lived in low income in 2011, also unchanged from 2010. For children in lone-parent families headed by a woman, the incidence was 23.0%, while for children living in two-parent families, the incidence was 5.9%, both unchanged from 2010.

Among those living alone, about 199,000 seniors (14.9%) and 1.2 million persons under the age of 65 (32.3%) lived in low income in 2011, unchanged from 2010.

I'd like to see a peer-reviewed scholarly analysis of what these numbers mean for poverty in Canada, not just Coyne's superficial analysis. As the Gazette article mentions, there are many more stats to consider when analyzing income & poverty in Canada, beyond LICO, that don't paint such as nice a picture.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Before this discussion goes any further, anyone that cares to participate ought to inform themselves of these measures.

Here's the website with a free-to-view document that explains these measures and the position of StatCan: "At the heart of the debate is the use of the low income cut-offs as poverty lines even though Statistics Canada has clearly stated, since their publication began over 25 years ago, that they are not."

People are certainly opinionated without really knowing what they're talking about here, so it's tough to even say anything and it would be pointless to do so until everyone's on the same page.

Link: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=13F0027XIE&CHROPG=1〈=eng

Please read that.

[cybercoma]

The LICO statistics are created using SLID, SCF, and LFS. The longitudinal portion, SLID, was defunded and discontinued by the Harper Government. SLID was incorporated into the LICO methodology so that the estimates were more consistent. A longitudinal survey follows the same households or individuals over a period of time, rather than collecting a series of random individuals or households at each reporting period.

Perhaps more important than whether the surveys are cross-sectional or longitudinal is the target populations for the surveys. SLID and indeed many of the big "national" surveys from StatCan do not gather data from the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Natives living on reserves, or military families. If we're going to be talking about poverty in Canada and we're using StatCan's LICO measurements, which ignore the First Nations, Aboriginal, Inuit, and Métis population, we might as well just forget even having the discussion. These are some of the most impoverished people in our country and these measure completely ignore them. So let's keep that in mind too.

Edited July 25, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Wow. That's an eye-opener, Cyber. Thank you. I have changed my position on this result.

Indeed, if Canada is weathering the recession (that's IF) then we should start turning our focus on what to do about the plight of first nations people, as a group, IMO.

[Topaz]

This may be true for now, but wait until the interest rates start to go up and theres the increases in property taxes in some areas of the country. Home owners are having a tough time ,where hydro rates, natural gas rates etc keeps going up, along with not many workers are getting increases on their wages either. Its the calm before the storm.

[scribblet]

In Ontario property taxes will go up 10% a year because of MPAC. The big problem is too much debt, people are buying homes with mortgages they will not be able to manage when the rates go up. Ontario hydro rate increases have been massive thanks to Mr. McGuinty.

[PIK]

Wow. That's an eye-opener, Cyber. Thank you. I have changed my position on this result.

Indeed, if Canada is weathering the recession (that's IF) then we should start turning our focus on what to do about the plight of first nations people, as a group, IMO.

Like throwing thier band councils in jail???

[PIK]

This may be true for now, but wait until the interest rates start to go up and theres the increases in property taxes in some areas of the country. Home owners are having a tough time ,where hydro rates, natural gas rates etc keeps going up, along with not many workers are getting increases on their wages either. Its the calm before the storm.

Mine went up 550 dollars this year. I am paying 2100 for a 3/4 arce lot with a small cottage on it.

[Moonlight Graham]

I edited my above post to add the important point: Given the report says the % of people living in low income has remained unchanged since the previous year, I'm not sure why Coyne is so upset. Why would the media report no change, since that's not really news?

Coyne treats the stats as if the % of people in low income has dropped, but Stats Canada reports it as "unchanged". Coyne can't expect the media to report on a StatsCan analysis that reports no change in % of Canadians in low income.