The One Percent In Canada

The real point of the Occupy movement… is that the powerful and wealthy ruling class in Canada – perhaps 10 or 15 per cent, not 1 per cent, of the population – have been appropriating the resources belonging to the rest of us for more than 30 years.

Via.

I asked my wife the question: who are the one percent in Canada? She said anyone making over $400,000 per year.

I can see why she responded that way. Armine Yalnizyan, writing for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, made the following observation about the rich in Canada:

This generation of rich Canadians is staking claim to a larger share of economic growth than any generation that has preceded it in recorded history. An examination of income trends over the past 90 years reveals that incomes are as concentrated in the hands of the richest 1% today as they were in the Roaring Twenties.

And even then, Canada’s elite didn’t experience as rapid a growth in their income share as has occurred in the past 20 years. Canada’s richest 1% — the 246,000 privileged few whose average income is $405,000 — took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes in the fastest growing decade in this generation, 1997 to 2007.

The full pdf report can be downloaded here.

246,000 privileged few with an average income of $405,000 is a bit misleading. It turns out that to be included in that number the income level drops down to about $170,000. And, if you want to include the top ten percent of the population — those folks who have been appropriating the resources “belonging to the rest of us for more than 30 years” — you enter that group with an income level that drops down to about $65,000.

Hardly the view that most of us would have of the super rich. I would consider incomes between $65,000 and $200,000 as good incomes but not super rich incomes.

That said, the very top of the income scale in Canada kicks in at about $620,000 per year in income. That amounts to 0.01 percent or about 2,500 people. And that is a very high income for most of us. However, there does not seem to be a definition for high income. Statistics Canada made the following observation:

There is no agreed-upon definition of high income, either in terms of absolute dollar thresholds or as a fixed percentage of the population. While defining poverty exhibits similar difficulties, numerous studies have discussed concepts such as ‘deprivation’ and ‘straitened circumstances,’ providing some general support for selecting a threshold below which one is considered to be in low income. No corresponding literature exists for defining high income.

Their 2007 report on High Income Canadians (download the pdf file here) is interesting. And Andrew Coyne tries to make a few points about whether the Occupy movement is really just about income envy:

It’s still not clear why so many should be so upset that so few are so rich—other than the obvious reason: envy. It’s worth noting that to be in the top 10 per cent of earners in Canada you only have to make about $65,000 or so. That would include most of the media covering these events, and a good number of the protesters, or their parents. The sight of the near-rich casting covetous eyes at the rich—all in the name of denouncing “greed?—is, you’ll forgive me, a bit rich.

Via.

I’m not sure what the Occupy movement is really about but I was surprised to find that the one percent in Canada, and the top ten percent, are not as rich as I would have thought — except of course for the very top income earners. Perhaps a better indicator of being rich is not based on income but on net worth.

Comments

  1. says

    My impression has been that Occupy (at least in the US) is about the large and growing wealth disparity (which is much worse in the US than here), but it’s also about the huge influence which that wealth has on government (again, not as bad here in Canada).

    It seems that once you’re a wealthy enough corporation or individual in the US, you can pretty well buy yourself whatever legislation you want, be it emminent-domain seizures to build Wal-Marts, hundreds of billions in bailout funds to cover Wall Street oopsies, drug approvals, favourable tax laws, obviously anti-consumer laws like SOPA and Protect IP, etc. This immense control is seen as a contributing factor in the growth of the wealth disparity–that the advantage conveyed by preexisting wealth tilts the table against the middle class.

    I haven’t been under the impression that these or any of the other issues are nearly as bad here, and your numbers here and Andrew Coyne’s article do seem to confirm that.

    • says

      The sense that I have of the concerns being raised by the occupy movement include economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporations and lobbyists on government.

      For a different perspective, there is always the view from the top one percent here.

  2. rad rat says

    I think the “occupy” deadbeats should put the signs down, take down your tents and work harder. If you want more money, instead of complaining, work more. Don’t like your job? Look for another. I have to leave my wife and 3 kids to work out of province. It sucks, and it’s no fun. But when i do get home (sometimes months away at a time), i can afford to take some quality time with the family.
    When I am working, i make between $10,000 and $16,000 a week. And on another note, when I am not away working, I don’t collect EI.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>