I assume this will almost certainly cause bb...

[Obvious Li]

to light her hair on fire.....lol@stupidoccupiers.com.......



This research ­overthrows the claims of Occupy ­protesters



It's hard to blame Canadians for believing the great myth of income stagnation given the continuous stream of reports pointing to the low growth in average incomes over the past several decades.



Others have taken the narrative even further. For example, in a recent op-ed, Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau claimed: "In the past 30 years, the Canadian economy has more than doubled in size. But unlike times before, virtually all of the benefit of that growth has accrued to a small number of wealthy Canadians."



Or take the Conference Board of Canada's recent How Canada Performs report that finds that: "most gains have gone to a very small group of 'super-rich,' " and "the average income level of the poorest group of people in Canada rose over the time period ... but only marginally."



Thankfully, the story of stagnating incomes in Canada is just that, a great fictional tale. The reality is that most Canadians, including those initially in the poorest group, have experienced marked increases in their income over the past two decades.



Using Statistics Canada's Longitudinal Administrative Databank, a new study, Measuring Income Mobility in Canada, tracks a sample of a million Canadians to see how their incomes change over time.



The results are jaw dropping.



Poor today, rich tomorrow: Canada has no permanent underclass, study reveals



In 1990, the lowest 20% of income earners (Canadians were put into five income groups from lowest to highest income, with each group containing 20% of the total) earned an average income of just $6,000 in wages and salaries.



By 2009 (the last year for which we have data), 87% of those in the bottom income group moved to a higher group. In other words, almost nine out of 10 Canadians who started in the bottom 20% had moved out of low income.



Of those from the bottom 20% in 1990 that moved up, an almost equal proportion moved into each of the four higher groups; 21% moved up to the second income group; 24% moved to the third income group; 21% ended in the second-highest income group; and 21% of those who began in the bottom income group in 1990 ended up in the top 20% by 2009.



Remarkably, two of every five Canadians in the bottom income group in 1990 ended up in the top 40% of income earners by 2009.



What about the income levels of the poorest individuals that so many of us worry about? The individuals that began the 19-year period in the bottom 20% started with an average income of $6,000, but by the end of the period their incomes had increased to an average of $44,100 (see nearby table).



Clearly the "poor" aren't getting poorer; they're getting significantly richer.



And as the table shows, the largest gains in income occurred for the lowest earners, not the "rich."



Individuals in the top 20% experienced a gain in their average incomes of $17,700 or 23% during this period, which pales in comparison to the $38,100 or 635% increase in the average income of those initially in the bottom income group. Indeed, the dollar income gain by the top 20% was the smallest growth in average income among the five groups.



Perhaps the most powerful conclusion, however, is with respect to income inequality. Consider that the average income of those initially in the top 20% in 1990 ($77,200) was 13 times that of those initially in the bottom 20 % ($6,000). By 2009, those who were initially in the top 20% had an average income ($94,900) that was only twice as high as the income ($44,100) of those who were initially in the bottom 20% in 1990. Put simply, income inequality for the same people decreased, not increased from 1990 to 2009.



Of course, this differs significantly from the perception of Occupy protesters and other prominent voices in the income inequality debate. Unfortunately, they wrongly assume that Canadians are permanently stuck in the same income groups year after year. Appropriate measures of income inequality should follow the incomes of specific people rather than compare the average income of different groups of people at different points in time.



Most Canadians start off with a relatively low income because they are young, new to the workforce, and lack work and life experience. Once they acquire education and job-related skills, their income typically increases until it peaks in middle age and then drops again once they pass their peak earning years and prepare for retirement.



The conclusion that Canadian incomes have stagnated and that inequality is on the rise couldn't be further from the truth and misses one of the great Canadian virtues: We live in a dynamic society where the majority of us experience significant upward income mobility over the course of our lives.



Financial Post

[Obvious Li]

more.......







"Lower-income Canadians are not permanently stuck with a low income — that's a myth," Mr. Lammam said. "Where you are today is not where you're going to be five, 10 or 20 years down the road."



The 60-page report is based on Statistics Canada income data for more than one million Canadians, today aged 39 through 64, whose tax returns were linked with Social Insurance Numbers to track their earnings over the course of five, 10 and 19 years. And the findings, Mr. Lammam said, are remarkable: In the 19-year period between 1990 and 2009, one in five Canadians in the lowest of five income groups eventually moved up to the highest-income camp, and nine out of 10 people in the lowest-income group rose out of the bottom.



"The results are extremely encouraging, especially when we're bombarded with myths of stagnating Canadian incomes or that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," he said, adding that more than a third of top earners in 1990 slipped to a lower income category by 2009. "This study blows those myths out of the water."

Related

[Romero]

This research ­overthrows the claims of Occupy ­protesters

Ugh. Cherry picked Fraser Institute falsehoods. No, the poor are not getting richer and the rich are not getting poorer. Inequality is a continuing problem in Canada. Back to reality:

In 2010, the average after-tax income in Canada for the bottom 20% of family units (after-tax income of $24,300 or less) was $14,600, and for the top 20% (after-tax income of $89,300 or more) was $135,500. The difference between these two groups has increased in recent years.



Income disparities (expressed in 2010 constant dollars) rose between 1995 and 2010. While average after-tax incomes increased by 12% for families with incomes in the bottom 20% and by 23% for families with incomes in the middle 60%, it rose by 37% for those in the top income group. Consequently, the difference between the top 20% income group and the bottom 20% rose by 41%, increasing from $85,700 in 1995 to $120,900 in 2010. Similarly, the difference between the average income of the top 20% and the middle 60% increased from $56,500 to $83,533, or by 48% over the same period.



http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_4_22_2_1_eng.png?20121002200135533">



http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=22">//http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=22

[Obvious Li]

that's what i love about you homy....you could fuck up the lord's prayer,,,,if you knew it.....but we forgive you....mostly because you stopped being relevant a long time ago...so go ahead...you,bb,mimi,rw and friends can keep bleating away in the wilderness....no one listens to you anymore.......your numbers just don't add up

[Obvious Li]

The piece that Obvious posted focuses on income mobility while the federal one looks at the income gap.

seoulbro...don't confuse homero with facts...it just winds him up  



 by the way...nice nik...my first one on here was Seoulman...as i started posting when i lived in seoul...but eventually changed it when DV folded up

[Obvious Li]

The piece that Obvious posted focuses on income mobility while the federal one looks at the income gap.

seoulbro...don't confuse homero with facts...it just winds him up  



 by the way...nice nik...my first one on here was Seoulman...as i started posting when i lived in seoul...but eventually changed it when DV folded up

Thanks, but I like Romero he's good folks. I agree with him on most issues, but since I started making more money I really want to keep it.

lol..then you really DON`T agree with him on most issues....as he wants to take your money and give it to one of his welfare buddies.......he`s likeable enough, just out to lunch

[Leopardsocks]

that's what i love about you homy....you could fuck up the lord's prayer,,,,if you knew it.....but we forgive you....mostly because you stopped being relevant a long time ago...so go ahead...you,bb,mimi,rw and friends can keep bleating away in the wilderness....no one listens to you anymore.......your numbers just don't add up

No-one can accuse me of being a member of Romey's inner circle insofar as his political and social views are concerned.



But he is right.



That crap is another distortion of statistics to confuse and deceive.



By every measure the income gap is widening, and the middle class is shrinking.



Much like Obvious' credibility. If he'd had any.

[Obvious Li]

that's what i love about you homy....you could fuck up the lord's prayer,,,,if you knew it.....but we forgive you....mostly because you stopped being relevant a long time ago...so go ahead...you,bb,mimi,rw and friends can keep bleating away in the wilderness....no one listens to you anymore.......your numbers just don't add up

No-one can accuse me of being a member of Romey's inner circle insofar as his political and social views are concerned.



But he is right.



That crap is another distortion of statistics to confuse and deceive.



By every measure the income gap is widening, and the middle class is shrinking.



Much like Obvious' credibility. If he'd had any.

 my credibility on this issue is of no consequence........i merely post the facts as presented....your problem however is one of gullibility and ignorance....if you took off the tin foil hat...maybe the signals would clear up and reality would enter....well in your case...probably not

[Leopardsocks]

I really find it hard to motivate myself to debate with someone who cannot even spell an ellipsis.



You posted CONCLUSIONS drawn from a statistical analysis. That is NOT fact - and had you possessed the intellect to undertake tertiary study that included statistics, you would know that statistics does not deal in FACT but PROBABILITY. Using statistical analysis to support a FACT is irrational. You use it to support a hypothesis, which in turn must have some basis in reality, not just numbers.



Let me help you here...over 1% of the population of a small pacific island have won Olympic medals.



The US ration is 0.000000001% of the population.



By your reasoning, that small pacific island is far better at sporting endeavour than the US.



Now apply reality. The population of that nation is 100. The population of the US is 350,000,000. Now, what is the fact you can derive from that?



See how it works.



I've just endowed you with a year of study in a few short lines. That is the sort of generous and gregarious man I am...(look up gregarious...there's not a chance in hell you know what it means).



You're welcome.

[Obvious Li]

I really find it hard to motivate myself to debate with someone who cannot even spell an ellipsis.



You posted CONCLUSIONS drawn from a statistical analysis. That is NOT fact - and had you possessed the intellect to undertake tertiary study that included statistics, you would know that statistics does not deal in FACT but PROBABILITY. Using statistical analysis to support a FACT is irrational. You use it to support a hypothesis, which in turn must have some basis in reality, not just numbers.



Let me help you here...over 1% of the population of a small pacific island have won Olympic medals.



The US ration is 0.000000001% of the population.



By your reasoning, that small pacific island is far better at sporting endeavour than the US.



Now apply reality. The population of that nation is 100. The population of the US is 350,000,000. Now, what is the fact you can derive from that?



See how it works.



I've just endowed you with a year of study in a few short lines. That is the sort of generous and gregarious man I am...(look up gregarious...there's not a chance in hell you know what it means).



You're welcome.

having a few more ...awkward asian moments...ÉÉé..more likely just another of your stupid posts

[Leopardsocks]

Avoidance and deflection noted. Son, making noise is not being intelligent. Even a dog can bark.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting topic and I thank Obvious for posting it and Romero for countering the op.



I can only speak for my own family and what I see here in Calgary.



We would be classified as upper middle income, but we call ourselves working class.



Our financial situation is much better than when we were married 13 years ago.



Both of us have progressed in our careers and wages over that time.



We have a house with a mortgage, save money for retirement, our children's education and don't have car payments.



A big problem we see today is people using credit irresponsibly.



We don't have car payments, but we also only have only one car which is a big saving. We live near a C Train station, so my husband takes that to his office in downtown Calgary, while I take the car to work.



I do not have Obvious Li's knowledge of finance nor Romero's passion for social issues, but I do know how to balance a family budget.



My husband and I know people that have higher incomes than us but are drowning in debt..



If you are not a millionaire please don't try to live like one.

[Obvious Li]

This is an interesting topic and I thank Obvious for posting it and Romero for countering the op.



I can only speak for my own family and what I see here in Calgary.



We would be classified as upper middle income, but we call ourselves working class.



Our financial situation is much better than when we were married 13 years ago.



Both of us have progressed in our careers and wages over that time.



We have a house with a mortgage, save money for retirement, our children's education and don't have car payments.



A big problem we see today is people using credit irresponsibly.



We don't have car payments, but we also only have only one car which is a big saving. We live near a C Train station, so my husband takes that to his office in downtown Calgary, while I take the car to work.



I do not have Obvious Li's knowledge of finance nor Romero's passion for social issues, but I do know how to balance a family budget.



My husband and I know people that have higher incomes than us but are drowning in debt..



If you are not a millionaire please don't try to live like one.

all very true....please dont let any financial advisor try and give you advice..you are already smarter than 99.99% of them......good work..........debt is always the key...just dont have any(mortgage aside)

[Vancouver]

Nobody wants to be poor. Have you ever been poor Shen Li?

[Anonymous]

Nobody wants to be poor. Have you ever been poor Shen Li?

I have known Shen Li for almost a decade and she has told me her family struggled financially their first few years in Canada.



My parents did too when they came from Taiwan.