Canada's middle class forges ahead of US - NY Times

[Bonam]

Uhh... the data in the link shows that Americans at the 95th percentile in 2010 have a take home income of $58k. That is just plain wrong. People at the 95% make over $100k according to any other data set. Not sure how much I believe the rest of the data in the NYT article based on that.

[Boges]

I wonder if the New York Times has a similar definition as Justin Trudeau?

[waldo]

Uhh... the data in the link shows that Americans at the 95th percentile in 2010 have a take home income of $58k. That is just plain wrong. People at the 95% make over $100k according to any other data set. Not sure how much I believe the rest of the data in the NYT article based on that.

with the study emphasis on distribution of income... not particularly the "world's richest country" emphasis, per the study's related LIS db entries, your referenced figure derives as:

- PPP means (2005 PPP dollars):

- U.S. 2010 per capita mean income => $58,441

- U.S. 2010 mean equivalized income => $88,766

- U.S. 2010 mean household income => $144,452

on edit: numbers reflect upon 'decile 10' as distinct from the 95th percentile... in this regard, the last/largest 10% breakout grouping

Edited April 24, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

I wonder if the New York Times has a similar definition as Justin Trudeau?

don't bother to attempt to actually add to a thread!

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhh... the data in the link shows that Americans at the 95th percentile in 2010 have a take home income of $58k. That is just plain wrong. People at the 95% make over $100k according to any other data set. Not sure how much I believe the rest of the data in the NYT article based on that.

Yep...that was my first take as well. Frankly, I am quite surprised to find that Canada's middle class had not gained parity with the U.S. years ago. The NYT has gift wrapped a talking point for the CPC and PM Harper, and this wasn't their target audience.

[waldo]

Right - this means that Harper has been relatively less mean than other countries I guess.

no - in spite of your glib comment, you do know the focus on the study isn't how well Canada (or other countries) are performing relative to the U.S.; rather, the study and its emphasis speaks to how poorly the U.S. 'middle class' is doing.

[Michael Hardner]

no - in spite of your glib comment, you do know the focus on the study isn't how well Canada (or other countries) are performing relative to the U.S.; rather, the study and its emphasis speaks to how poorly the U.S. 'middle class' is doing.

Ok, but ... the thread is also about Harper's relative success with fighting for middle class incomes.

And... now I'm wondering about your claim about the 1980 to 2010 period. The NYT article explicitly states that gains are adjusted for inflation, which would mean that middle class families are indeed doing better. Am I wrong there ?

[waldo]

with the study/data emphasis on after-tax medium family income (up to 2010)... just what have your favoured Harper Conservatives done for the 'middle class'?

per StatsCan data, median after-tax family income rose a measly 17% over 30 years (1980-to-2010):

- 1980 => $59,600

- 2010 => $69,860

Simple, I'll let you run the numbers from 2006 to 2010... really show us the "impact" Harper Conservatives have had on median after-tax family income.

on edit: in line with the study reference to a 2010 end point, adjusted StatsCan data (from 2011 to 2010)... percentage calc rises from 14 to 17 percent over the 30 year period

Ok, but ... the thread is also about Harper's relative success with fighting for middle class incomes.

And... now I'm wondering about your claim about the 1980 to 2010 period. The NYT article explicitly states that gains are adjusted for inflation, which would mean that middle class families are indeed doing better. Am I wrong there ?

about that 'absolute versus relative' thingee... the StatsCan data is obviously not a relative comparative measure to anything within the study proper. Additionally, that data (as stated) is median data... the study references mean data.

in that same regard, speaking to Canadian data (per StatsCan), median after-tax family income rose 5% between 2007 (the first effective impact year of Harper Conservative governance) and 2010:

- 2007 => $66,550

- 2010 => $69,860

with this Canadian only focus, in terms of the 'success' you speak to, how do you rate that 5% rise in median after-tax family income?

[Michael Hardner]

with this Canadian only focus, in terms of the 'success' you speak to, how do you rate that 5% rise in median after-tax family income?

I rate it as adequate, I guess.

[waldo]

I rate it as adequate, I guess.

adequate success? Really, a little over a 1%/per year increase in after-tax median income... is 'adequate', particularly in relation to all manner of other rising costs the Canadian 'middle class' faces?

in any case, to the other point you didn't speak to; the point that the OP chooses to tailor a post that really ignores the principal impetus/results of the referenced study... that is to say, on a relative comparison basis, the OP presumes to over-emphasize gains for Canada/other countries rather than speak to the study's real findings that emphasize the U.S. middle-class failing to keep up with Canada/other countries. In that vein, some of the study reasons given for the ever decreasing wealth disparity in the U.S and resulting negative income growth impacts on the U.S. middle class:

- reduced educational attainment

- decreased worker skill levels

- reduced creation of well paying jobs

- greater toleration of inequality

- lower minimum wage

- reduced redistribution of money by the U.S. government

[Bryan]

I rate it as adequate, I guess.

Adequate? It was the middle of the global economic meltdown, and our middle class went UP not down. That's spectacular.

[waldo]

Adequate? It was the middle of the global economic meltdown, and our middle class went UP not down. That's spectacular.

it's always the same ready reach "global economic meltdown" you Harper Conservaive partisans always reach for! Of course, you never seem to acknowledge just how relatively less impacted Canada was... that Canada fared considerably better than the balance of countries:

- per the Economist: by 2010 Canada had already been well into recovery from one of its mildest recessions on record while the rest of the developed world was struggling to keep from plunging headlong into economic chaos.

- per StatsCan: Canada's recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7

.

[Bryan]

You keep making my point for me. The period you quoted was 2007-2010. Canada was already well into recovery by 2010. Yes.

[waldo]

no; again per StatsCan: Canada's recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!

[Bryan]

That's what I'm saying, thanks for backing me up.

[PIK]

Bryan they will never ever give harper credit for anything, so don't waste your time. When the election comes people voting for substance will win over the people voting for style.

[waldo]

That's what I'm saying, thanks for backing me up.

no - via the StatsCan statements/findings, I highlighted that the ever present goto, "recession meltdown", that Harper Conservative supporters, like you, reach for to attempt to cover the inadequacies of their favoured party... wasn't, in Canada, anything even approaching a meltdown. Again: "per StatsCan: Canada's recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!"

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Canada's Brenda Lafleur has a better perspective:

“Let’s just stop agonizing about the United States. We can learn from many other countries in what they’re doing as well. If we’re truly global, we have to stop just focusing with blinders on the U.S."

[waldo]

focusing on the actual topic of this thread... the 'middle-class', is there a definition for 'middle-class'; one that might readily translate into identifying/associating after-tax 'middle-class' incomes to income level percentile categorizations?

[CPCFTW]

It was a global economic meltdown that spanned approximately 3 years. Canada weathered it better than its g7 counterparts and thus had a shorter period of recession. That's Bryan's point. It's not complicated.

no - via the StatsCan statements/findings, I highlighted that the ever present goto, "recession meltdown", that Harper Conservative supporters, like you, reach for to attempt to cover the inadequacies of their favoured party... wasn't, in Canada, anything even approaching a meltdown. Again: "per StatsCan: Canada's recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!"

[waldo]

It was a global economic meltdown that spanned approximately 3 years. Canada weathered it better than its g7 counterparts and thus had a shorter period of recession. That's Bryan's point. It's not complicated.

that's right! I explained why it's not complicated at all. The impact on Canada was relatively insignificant... "short and mild"... 3 quarters worth of mild! As I also related, member 'Bryan's' point was to simply follow the tried-&-true talking point position of Harper Conservative partisans. You know it well - you know, the one that purposely over-emphasizes a "meltdown" impact on Canada.

[Keepitsimple]

I see old Waldo is spinning in circles again - crushing his own arguments. As he pointed out - in the middle of a three year recession, Canada limited it's own recession to three quarters - while every other G7 country were hit far more seriously. If that's not a testament to sound stewardship of the economy, I don't know what is. At the very least, we can give the government credit for "doing no harm".

[waldo]

I see old Waldo is spinning in circles again - crushing his own arguments. As he pointed out - in the middle of a three year recession, Canada limited it's own recession to three quarters - while every other G7 country were hit far more seriously. If that's not a testament to sound stewardship of the economy, I don't know what is. At the very least, we can give the government credit for "doing no harm".

"limited it's own recession"? All rightee then..... can we dispense with the "meltdown talking point' now? Finally, once and for all, dispense with it? Good on ya, Simple! Make sure member 'Bryan' gets the word, hey!

as for the "limiting" actions... are you speaking to the other talking point about being forced into subsidies by those wascally Opposition forces? That one? If not, if not that talking point, care to provide just what Harper Conservative "limiting actions"... "directly applied limiting actions"... held the Canadian recession to it's mild 3 quarter impact?

[CPCFTW]

"limited it's own recession"? All rightee then..... can we dispense with the "meltdown talking point' now? Finally, once and for all, dispense with it? Good on ya, Simple! Make sure member 'Bryan' gets the word, hey!

as for the "limiting" actions... are you speaking to the other talking point about being forced into subsidies by those wascally Opposition forces? That one? If not, if not that talking point, care to provide just what Harper Conservative "limiting actions"... "directly applied limiting actions"... held the Canadian recession to it's mild 3 quarter impact?

Federal corporate tax rates decreased from 22% in 2007 to 15% in 2012. Stimulus spending was much less than the spending the opposition demanded. Introduction of tfsa. $20-25B personal income tax breaks. Etc.

[eyeball]

Federal corporate tax rates decreased from 22% in 2007 to 15% in 2012. Stimulus spending was much less than the spending the opposition demanded. Introduction of tfsa. $20-25B personal income tax breaks. Etc.

Things that basically protect the already well-to-do in other words.

Like the TFW program for example.