this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
123 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7273 readers
794 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

The gap was driven by the top 20 per cent of income earners, who saw the largest increase in their share of disposable income, the report said. That increase was driven largely by investment gains, which the statistics agency attributed to high interest rates.

This is true for me. About 40% of my income came from investments.

The Statistics Canada report said that in the second quarter, the top 20 per cent of Canadians held more than two-thirds of the country's wealth, averaging $3.4 million per household. By comparison, the bottom 40 per cent of Canadians accounted for only 2.8 per cent of Canada's wealth.

This is massively skewed, probably well beyond what most people think and would intuitively envision. I’ve done some work studying businesses and their wealth distributions, what you see is the top 1% is 10x higher than the top 10%, 0.1% is 10x higher than 1%, etc.

Wealth generally creates power law distributions, as the factors that increase wealth multiply wealth, not add to wealth.

I don’t think our government can stop this, as most of my investments are US based. What we can do is try and drive better results for that middle 60% of households who are seeing lifestyle eroded by inflation and stagnant wages (while the floor of minimum wage shifts upwards).

We need to encourage more investment in Canada, and we need to encourage Canadian companies to pay more on-par with US companies. The fact that 60% of CS grads leave and Canadian companies are generally living 20 years in the past is a huge problem for our productivity. We really need bring back manufacturing and high tech work that improves productivity with high leverage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

Only gonna get worse if Poilievre ends up in power. It still blows my mind how much support that guy has.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

Solid take πŸ‘

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My U.S. relatives: "But isn't Canada a Socialist country!?!?!?"

yeah, right....

[–] [email protected] 9 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I wish Canada was as cool as Conservatives make us out to be

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago

I want this as a bumper sticker

This is the best thing I’ve read all week

[–] FireRetardant 7 points 16 hours ago

We pretend to be socialist while often being even worse in terms of capitalism, oligarchy, and monopoly. They threaten to take away the little bit of social services we do have if we ever complain or even acknowledge the flaws and exploitation in the system

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago (2 children)

in the second quarter, the top 20 per cent of Canadians held more than two-thirds of the country's wealth, averaging $3.4 million per household. By comparison, the bottom 40 per cent of Canadians accounted for only 2.8 per cent of Canada's wealth.

I'd love to see that broken down further. I'm guessing there's a bunch of really rich households at the top that skew the average.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Without diving into the data behind this, I'm willing to bet that there's a plateau around the $1 million mark, caused by simply owning a detached home in certain markets.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It's a good thought, but I'd take that bet with you. Houses can be remortgaged, or alternately converted to a rental while you get a second place. I suspect any bump is pretty small because people just continue to accumulate if they can.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can always find a smaller and vastly wealthier subset, right until you're down to the single digits of people.

There's no dividing line like some people imagine, though; it's a continuous distribution that we're all somewhere (lower) on. Probably because it's produced by a random walk.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Note the article is from two months ago, on October 10, but it's still relevant. I was confused when I saw Chrystia Freeland quoted.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wealth inequality is flashy and gets all the attention, but at least in the short term the income version hurts way more people.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think we focus on wealth inequality lately because we're all on the same page about income inequality, and also because a common argument against income inequality is that "but their income isn't that huge, they just have investments." Wealth inequality deals with that ackchyuallity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

You think everyone is on the same page about that? People hate on billionaires all the time, but seem to be way more nuanced about someone who just makes a lot from their actual job. (And mostly ignore or avoid people who make way less)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Are you talking about people in r/CanadaPost hating on posties for making more than minimum wage? πŸ₯Ή

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

A actually haven't been back to Reddit, but that sounds about right.

A good chunk of NIMBYism falls under there too. Middle-class Karen doesn't want cheap apartments or a homeless shelter anywhere near her, but has no better suggestions. If she wins and you're one of the people who needs that, it leaves you in a weird Kafkaesque limbo where you're told you have rights, but you're not really allowed to exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Makes sense and form that perspective you're absolutely right. I wish people understood it's better for them when someone else in the working class is paid more. But for that to be commonplace, the idea that people aren't necessarily paid what they deserve has to take hold.