Social Development

The Globe and Mail has created the Wealth Paradox series to educate Canadians about the enormous impact of income inequality in our nation today.  The piece is extremely readable and filled with edifying examples of how inequality is negatively affecting Canadians’ access to education, health care, and even recreation.  Further, it looks at solutions.  While the simplicity and directness of the series may be criticized by some who expect more nuance in such discussions, I believe that its strength lies in its accessibility (to those who can afford to subscribe to the Globe and Mail, but that’s a conversation for another time).  This is something that we need to be talking about.

Stats Can released the Income of Canadians report from the National Household Survey. The report indicates that 7 in 10 Canadians are on welfare, i.e., receiving some form of social assistance (reminds me of famous Ambramovitz article; Abramovitz, M. (2001). Everyone is still on welfare: The role of redistribution in social policy. Social Work, 46(4), 297–308.).

Focusing on the lower income Canadians, the report suggests:

The majority of income for people in the lowest two income deciles came from government transfers (55.1% in the second decile and 67.5% in the lowest decile). In contrast, government transfers represented 5.0% of total income in the ninth decile and 2.1% in the top decile.

Almost one-third of those in the second decile were aged 65 and over, so OAS/GIS (21.1%) and other government income (12.3%) were among the main sources of transfer income for this group. Government assistance to people in the bottom income decile came mainly from child benefits (17.3%) and other government income (35.0%).

And, I now see that Stats Can has a video with infographics on Income.

@ArmineYalnizyan posts a commentary in the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/national-household-survey-provides-blurred-look-at-housing/article14271791/

In 1897, Herbet Brown Ames published the first known studies of poverty in Canada. The study looked at the present day Griffintown neighborhood of Montreal. In addition to chapters on composition of family, homes, rental market, density and crowding, religions and deathrates, Ames conducted an analysis of income poverty. His work bears some resemblance to the later developed low income lines we study today.

We have already learned that there are 7671 families resident within ‘the city below the hill’. As near as can be ascertained these families receive, each week, an aggregate amount of not less than eight-five thousand dollars. This means eleven dollars per week to each family. We have also found that these families include 37,652 persons. This gives, on average, an allowance of two dollars and a quarter per week to each individual. Eleven dollars per family, two and a quarter dollars per individual, these then are the standards of average living in ‘the city below the hill’. (p. 32.)

Dylan Matthews at the Washington Post wonkblog pasted a chart based on World Bank data.

The chart puts within country income distribution position on X axis plotted against worldwide position in the distribution on the Y axis. A lot of information here.

Some questions:
1. Does this graph change the way you think about inequality in America? In other countries?
2. How does this graph influence the way you think about relative v. absolute poverty?
3. What additional information would you need to know to change your mind?

I will be recreating this chart, including Canada, the World Income Distribution data via Branco Milanovic.