Another myth blown away

[hobbyguy]

I agree with you about our standard of living, poor Canadians would be middle class in many countries, that of course doesn't mean I condone the fact that the income gap has widened, and continues to widen.

The whole mobility issue that is cited as exploding the myth of income stagnation is a red herring though. The most mobile group will be will quite naturally be lowest quintile. The lowest quintile will naturally contain large numbers of students and new immigrants starting out. Both of these groups are very mobile in income group by nature. (I worry about those who can't find their way out though.)

More telling about income stagnation (real terms) is that between 1989 and 2007, median incomes for the lowest quintile grew by only 7.6%, and median income for the upper quintile by 30%. I couldn't find one for Canada, so I used a US inflation calculator, and it says $1 in 1989 is worth $1.85 today. By that number, incomes, to keep up with inflation ought to have risen 75% in 2007.

Add into that the high debt levels of Canadians (trying to maintain a standard of living their incomes won't support???).

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0917-e.htm#ftn24

This publication gives a lot of raw data to think on.

[erinmore3775]

You data estimares seem to be about right for Canada. The article you recommned makes good camparable reading to the original Fraser Institute document. What commenters here seem to ignore is that the Fraser Institute document points out in their charts is that there was nearly compable mobility going from the "bottom percentiles" up as there was from the "top percentile" down. Income mobility has always been part of the Canadian mosaic.
You analysis puts things in a better perspective.

[Artofthedeal]

*posting style inappropriate for this area/Jo*

[hobbyguy]

The Koch brothers are well known to have an extremist right wing outlook (some would say oligarchist). They only pay for what they want.

If you give me a set of data, and say to me, cherry pick this and spin it to say XXXX, and I'll pay you $500,000, then here you go - I've spun a web of nonsense that takes some unravelling.

What they count on this folks won't have the time or inclination to unravel the spin and expose it for what it is.

There are interest groups from all sides that use these tactics, as you point out. I find it reprehensible as most folks are just looking to get a reasonable assessment of complicated sets of facts. Whereas these groups, and the Koch bros. are infamous for funding this type of nonsense, start with a conclusion and massage, omit, obfuscate, and spin the information to suit their purpose.

Rather like the stuff the tobacco industry put out saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer etc.

It's an old but valid cliche "follow the money".

It is therefore very relevant to note that the Fraser Institute receives substantial funding from folks like the Koch brothers - it speaks to a lack of credibility. Just as it would be relevant to note that a study on education policy was funded by the BCTF.

[Captain Awesome]

Well, I guess some people just don't want to believe in prosperity in Canada, don't want to believe in success, or consequences of working hard and reaching the goals. Few months ago, somebody kept going on and on how pointless the hard work in today's society is - apparently nobody still guarantees that you'll even rise up from min. wage territory. Well, a study shows you have 20% chance of becoming a millionaire in Canada even if you start at the very bottom and almost guaranteed (87%) to move up into middle class - and it's still not good enough.

[Artofthedeal]

Well, I guess some people just don't want to believe in prosperity in Canada, don't want to believe in success, or consequences of working hard and reaching the goals. Few months ago, somebody kept going on and on how pointless the hard work in today's society is - apparently nobody still guarantees that you'll even rise up from min. wage territory. Well, a study shows you have 20% chance of becoming a millionaire in Canada even if you start at the very bottom and almost guaranteed (87%) to move up into middle class - and it's still not good enough.

great post! This is what the advocacy groups don't want people to hear. They just want everyone to think there is this great percentage of the population mired in poverty with no options other than the government spending billions upon billions of dollars, most of that money being funneled into said advocacy groups, as their "solution". They don't want to hear success stories, only failure stories. That's why a study like this is so dangerous - it shows that if people believe in themselves and take advantage of what is offered, there are very real options to move up the ladder of society, for everybody, without the help of advocacy groups and government largesse.

[Nebula]

Well, a study shows you have 20% chance of becoming a millionaire in Canada...

I don't believe that is what the study shows. It talks about people moving up into the highest tax bracket, which is something like $132,000/year plus. No?

[maryjane48]

i agree wit nebula

[Artofthedeal]

Well, a study shows you have 20% chance of becoming a millionaire in Canada...

I don't believe that is what the study shows. It talks about people moving up into the highest tax bracket, which is something like $132,000/year plus. No?

I think you are right.

[Artofthedeal]

The Koch brothers are well known to have an extremist right wing outlook (some would say oligarchist). They only pay for what they want.

You have a point I guess - just as it's no surprise that a majority of "studies" that come out of the CCPA and stories written by websites like the Tyee are extremely leftist and slanted to favour certain political parties, given where most of their funding comes from.

[Captain Awesome]

I don't believe that is what the study shows. It talks about people moving up into the highest tax bracket, which is something like $132,000/year plus. No?

You're right, I got a bit dramatic here. Yes, 20% chance of getting into the highest income bracket.

[GrooveTunes]

Well, I guess some people just don't want to believe in prosperity in Canada, don't want to believe in success, or consequences of working hard and reaching the goals. Few months ago, somebody kept going on and on how pointless the hard work in today's society is - apparently nobody still guarantees that you'll even rise up from min. wage territory. Well, a study shows you have 20% chance of becoming a millionaire in Canada even if you start at the very bottom and almost guaranteed (87%) to move up into middle class - and it's still not good enough.

great post! This is what the advocacy groups don't want people to hear. They just want everyone to think there is this great percentage of the population mired in poverty with no options other than the government spending billions upon billions of dollars, most of that money being funneled into said advocacy groups, as their "solution".

They don't want to hear success stories, only failure stories. That's why a study like this is so dangerous - it shows that if people believe in themselves and take advantage of what is offered, there are very real options to move up the ladder of society, for everybody, without the help of advocacy groups and government largesse.

Tell that to a person that is mentally ill. The percentage is greater then you realize. No fault of their own.

[Artofthedeal]

Tell that to a person that is mentally ill. The percentage is greater then you realize. No fault of their own.

That's a whole different kettle of fish - there is mentally ill advocacy, and there's poverty advocacy, which I realize can be one in the same sometimes. There's mentally ill, and physically lazy. I happen to know a few of the latter and if they devoted half their mental energy to an actual job that they do to scamming the system to get a free lunch off the government teat, they'd be a lot higher on the income tax bracket. But a free lunch is too irresistible for some people.

[GrooveTunes]

Tell that to a person that is mentally ill. The percentage is greater then you realize. No fault of their own.

That's a whole different kettle of fish - there is mentally ill advocacy, and there's poverty advocacy, which I realize can be one in the same sometimes. There's mentally ill, and physically lazy. I happen to know a few of the latter and if they devoted half their mental energy to an actual job that they do to scamming the system to get a free lunch off the government teat, they'd be a lot higher on the income tax bracket. But a free lunch is too irresistible for some people.

So the survey didn't include mentally ill persons? How do you know that? You don't. There are 1000s of people not diagnosed that make poverty wages.

[Artofthedeal]

So the survey didn't include mentally ill persons? How do you know that? You don't. There are 1000s of people not diagnosed that make poverty wages.

Once again, I believe you are either deliberately or mistakenly throwing in a red herring here to detract from the main message, that people, if they apply themselves, and are not mentally ill, have a better than even shot of getting out of a poverty level tax bracket and into a much higher one. People do not stay in static abject poverty, as many of the media, those with a doom and gloom outlook on life (mostly leftists for some reason) and those with a financial stake to benefit from the myth that this is true like government-funded advocacy groups, want us to believe.