Canadian Workers Poorer Today Than Yesterday

Written By: eugene
Date: 2006-12-14 09:10:36
<a href="/article/221035395-canadian-workers-poorer-today-than-yesterday">Article Link</a>

.... while the median wealth of families rose 26 per cent between 1984 and 2005, it fell among families where the major income earner was between 25 and 34. In 2005, these families had median wealth holdings of $13,400, much lower than $27,000 in 1984

<a href="http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/12/canadian-workers-poorer-today-than.html">http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/12/canadian-workers-poorer-today-than.html</a>

I heard that the average middle class per capita income today should be around #95,000 in order to have the same buying power as that of 50 years ago............

---
"No kingdom could be ruled without lies - - for lies are the things we use to build our reputations."........
King Arthur

If you listen to Klein, Campbell, Harper etc. you'd probably hear that it's because the people in question "fail to take full advantage of the "opportunities" that they come across, and as a result fail to enhance their personal wealth and purchasing power".

The truth is probably that all a lot of these people can only find McJobs or worse because 1) downsizing,"off shoring", and "righsizing". 2) a crappy economy in a lot of areas across Canada, and 3) so called "Free Trade" that sees factories, plants, and other industrial assets being sent elsewhere so the owners can take advantage of less effective safety and environmental laws.

Surprising? Sadly, it isn't.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Actually, what you would hear them say is that 80% of Canadians did take advantage of opportunities, and that as a result their net worth increased. Only the bottom quintile did not experience an increase in net worth. 
 
<a href="http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/13F0026MIE/13F0026MIE2006001.pdf">http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/13F0026MIE/13F0026MIE2006001.pdf</a> 
 
Total net worth rose in every quintile but our poorest, where it declined. Table 1, page 9 
 
The most disturbing trend, to me, was that the net worth of people making between $20-30K declined significantly. (Table 2, page 10). It rose in every other category, including in the case of those making less than $10K. The increase in net worth as a percentage was greatest in the middle income bracket (between $40K and $75K) notwithstanding the astronomical growth in the lowest category (75% net worth growth - however if you only have 1 nickel and you double it, you still are left with virtually nothing so this is nothing to crow about). 
 
Chart 1, page 11 shows that net worth is concentrated in our pre-retirement and after retirement population. So maybe we need to change the statement to "the old get richer and the young get poorer"? This age disparity makes sense in that the accumulation of wealth usually follows an exponential track. The slight decline of pre-35 net worth may be explained by the larger segment of this population staying in school longer (thus incurring more debt and having less income to pay it off), but I am guessing at that point. 
 
A very encouraging trend was the substantial rise in private pensions (including RSP's) generated through employers. I'm sure that someone will find fault in the corporate plans, but on the whole this savings vehicle is good for Canadians, good for the economy and good for Canada. Something that needs to be addressed is how the "high, low income" earners can save as well since that group is not reaping the benefits that the vast majority of Canadians are receiving. 
 
I'm going to abandon analysis of the other 30+ pages of the report and digress into an arguement on how to plug the disparity with the $20K-$30K earners, since that I believe is the crux of this posting. It seems that the very poor are making some headway (those earning less than $20K) and the middle and high income earners are making substantial headway in net worth. There are two reasons for the middle to be making strides and that is the tendency for Canadians to buy real estate which has made decent gains in the last few years and also the relatively new private pension plans - employers taking money from salary to place into a personal savings vehicle for the employee. While not an entirely new invention, this form of savings has exploded in the last 5 years. For the poorest of the poor, it seems that charitable and government programs are having postive effects as evidenced by the increase in net worth. It should be noted that the % of the overall population that is included within the low income range (less than $30K) has decreased, however not significantly. From almost 15% to slightly less than 14% between 2000 and 2002... if anyone can find trends more recent than that it would be appreciated. 
 
<a href="http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/2002-000662/page05.shtml">http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/2002-000662/page05.shtml</a> 
 
So it would seem that charity and government are not assisting those in the $20-30K bracket appropriately and because of the jobs that one would be taking to make this income, they are most likely not candidates for employer contributed RSP's and the like. So, what can we (or private enterprise or government) do about this? I can think of 3 specific items: 
 
1.) Governments can expand programs to include not only the poorest, but also the high-low income earners. The goal here being to provide these people with a leg up without building a dependency on the program that prevents them from getting to that next step. The net worth equations provided in the document specifically do not provide any data regarding CPP benefits. I don't actually know how CPP benefits work - if you make virtually no contributions, do you still get CPP? I'm assuming I'll get no CPP when I retire, so I've never looked into it. 
 
2.) Governments can reduce/eliminate taxes for this bracket. While the blog advocates elimination of tax for those people making 100K and below, I wouldn't go that far. However, anyone making $30K or less definitely needs the money more than the government. Write off the first $30K (instead of the $6K+ currently) would be the easiest implementation of the policy. 
 
3.) Private companies can offer RSP contributions for hourly workers. While it is very common for salaried employees to participate in these type of programs, I know of no such program for those paid hourly. This may require some sort of encouragement from government since the gut reaction is that since these jobs don't afford much in the way of cash flow, there would be little to no interest for these employees in making these sort of contributions. 
 
There are obviously other things that governments can do to improve the state of affairs for those in the lower brakets, but I was limiting the arguement to be specifically about net worth. 
 
I have no problem with the rich getting richer, or anyone getting richer for that matter... but I would also like the poorest quintile to be getting richer as well which does not seem to be happening. In this time of relative prosperity, where the vast majority of Canadians are doing well, the fact that the number of poor as a percentage are remaining virtually stable is the real problem. What happens if we hit a recession? From the stats presented, there seems to be a glass ceiling at the $30K mark, where people are actually held back at that point. Below $20K, you can get government/charitable assistance. Above $30K it seems that you have sufficient cash flow to start making relative headway in savings (thus it suggests that above $30K there is sufficient cash flow to meet basic needs and start to afford "luxury items" such as savings). $20-30K seems to have been abandoned by all. Not poor enough to make the news and thus garner sympathy or support and not rich enough to make ends meet.

And of course, this really says it all, good Christian nation that we are.............

---
"No kingdom could be ruled without lies - - for lies are the things we use to build our reputations."........
King Arthur

good Christian nation that we areN'T............ 
 
 
<a href="http://www.anthonyflood.com/jesusanarchist00.htm">http://www.anthonyflood.com/jesusanarchist00.htm</a> 
 
Jesus Is an Anarchist 
 
James Redford 
 
 
 
Introduction 
 
 
 
The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right? 
 
But you read correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this point you may be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite serious. 
 
If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge is. For if the above comes as news to you then you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and deception... 
 
...For as the 16th century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie observed in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (see bibliography), all governments ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictatorships... 
 
...16. Jesus on the Rich 
 
Jesus had this to say about the rich:--- Diogenes said: 
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

Jesus were a good ol' boy....it were what them apostles did when he took a hike............

---
"No kingdom could be ruled without lies - - for lies are the things we use to build our reputations."........
King Arthur

Don't be gettin the idea I am an adherent.
I am not!

however it does seem to me that those who are are believing some weird assd stuff
Like I am fond of sayin' Shampoo or real poo?

---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

I know what you mean Dio, some of it is almost as odd as believing that time and space came into being all by itself and suddenly exploded into a spontaneously generated universe with no source matter, energy, plasma, or material of any sort to start with.

Getting back to neo-Con Christians, the two are theologically mutually exclusive. A real Christian would never do to others what neo-Cons and their ilk do.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

You are both hacking all over the real point. Anyone with
at least half a sense of what the fuck is happenening
would know that money talks.
i for one am working class Canadian thouroughly
disgruntled at the fact that in order to access some of
these "opportunities" calls for the means to be able to
ante up. Good faith and an honest character means shit
theses days its what is in the wallet that counts PERIOD!
Even in death the tax man takes. The amount of shit to
wade through on the death of my mother to make sure the
fucking gov gets its due is unfuckingbelievable.
MOS^T CERTAINLY THE RICH ARE RICHER AND THE POOR ARE
POORER!

---
A little peice of heaven is found in good deeds.