Age eclipsing gender as Canada's major income gap
September 23, 2014 12:35 PM   Subscribe

Age as the new inequality. Full report here.
posted by cyml (36 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
As this is from a "sloppy" (at best) think tank, I feel obliged to ask who paid for the study.
posted by Poldo at 1:03 PM on September 23, 2014 [3 favorites]


I seem to recall that the late 80's were also a pretty bad time for entry-level/youth employment, although a lot of factors probably make it worse this time round.

FiveThirtyEight did a similar analysis of US incomes just the other day.
Their similar conclusion was that the real issue is that young people are facing a worse employment situation although they were asking a different question to begin with.
posted by GuyZero at 1:08 PM on September 23, 2014 [2 favorites]


“It’s frustrating when I hear my parents talking how they got jobs coming out of university compared to the struggles I’m having,” said Ms. Hodgson, who is working part-time at a technology company as she hunts for a full-time work. “But I can’t blame them for the fact that the economy has changed. It’s not like someone planned it that way.

Agreed that a single entity has been pulled it off, but I don't think you've been paying attention if you believe that the actions of the powerful are aimed at expanding opportunities to join (or remain within) the middle class.
posted by 6ATR at 1:17 PM on September 23, 2014 [3 favorites]


Honestly, I'm pretty damn sick of completely useless unsolicited job search advice from people who haven't had to look for work since the 80s. "Send a snail mail copy of your resume to every organization you've ever heard of!!" "You just need to apply for one of the less competitive full-time jobs with benefits!!"
posted by threeants at 1:26 PM on September 23, 2014 [25 favorites]


Yeah, I'm not impressed with this. "... leaving today’s twentysomethings the first generation of Canadians to be worse off than their parents."? I first heard this when I graduated from college in 1991 (US).
posted by Melismata at 1:30 PM on September 23, 2014 [5 favorites]


From that "sloppy" link:
It released a report related to copyright regulations in Canada, which plagiarised papers published by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (the primary movie, music, and software lobby in the US)
I don't have any words.
posted by el io at 1:36 PM on September 23, 2014


Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was a generation born in the 1910's that was a lot worse off than their parents in their 20's. Not the first generation to deal with a down economy, not the last.
posted by GuyZero at 1:37 PM on September 23, 2014 [2 favorites]


Not the first generation to deal with a down economy, not the last

That's part of the problem. We aren't in a down economy.

The lie that the economy is bad is the very thing that's being used to justify reduced wages and benefits and general austerity programs. But the reality is that the DJIA has been growing at a breakneck pace and is up over 100 percent in the five and a half years since it bottomed out.

The economy has never been better for the corporate world. We're suffering because the rules have fundamentally changed, and the growth of business profits is no longer connected to employee pay.
posted by rocket88 at 1:55 PM on September 23, 2014 [47 favorites]


Speaking as an oldster, all I can say is that there are a bunch of old, wealthy fuckers out there who are throwing-off the numbers. Trust me...We aren't all rolling in good jobs and pay. There's far more of us who really aren't much better-off than the poor youngsters. We're the ones those other old bastards laid-off to make room for the lucky, cheaper, few youngsters who have jobs.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:06 PM on September 23, 2014 [8 favorites]


I'd argue that "The Economy" as a whole is stagnant, if not constricting. But the success of the Investing Class to get a larger 'piece of the pie' is incredible, greater than even during the often-compared-to Gilded Age. The DJIA, if anything, is a CONTA-indicator for the Health of the Economy, and I've felt so since the Black Monday of 1987.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:15 PM on September 23, 2014


The lie that the economy is bad is the very thing that's being used to justify reduced wages and benefits and general austerity programs. But the reality is that the DJIA has been growing at a breakneck pace and is up over 100 percent in the five and a half years since it bottomed out.

The DJIA is not "the economy." Its movements are certainly not entirely independent of the overall health of the economy, but it's laughably simplistic to just point at the Dow and say "the economy is doing great!"
posted by yoink at 2:25 PM on September 23, 2014 [5 favorites]


Of course it isn't "the economy", but "the economy", by which I'm guessing you mean GDP or whatever other measure, isn't a good indicator of how much private employers should be paying their workers. When it comes to yearly salary reviews and union negotiations, the "times are tough" line is invariably trotted out even when profits and company fortunes are good.
(Even by GDP standards, we aren't in a down economy. In fact it's been not far off its long-term average. )
posted by rocket88 at 2:36 PM on September 23, 2014


If you look at employment numbers, things are not good. We are coming off a pretty serious recession and if I personally knew all the reasons why we see some economic growth but no corresponding increase in employment I'd have a much better job as a presidential economics advisor.

Nevertheless, this is not the first period of high unemployment for young people and it will not be the last.
posted by GuyZero at 2:44 PM on September 23, 2014


Anecdotal, but I definitely saw this in IT at a major US university. The older generation of workers would often make double what the younger generation did for the exact same work. Sometimes for easier, less advanced work. It wasn't a matter of age or experience but when you happened to be hired, and the people that were hired in the 80s and early 90s were naturally older. Some of the compromises unions are agreeing to now do the same thing - long time workers have one system while newer ones have another.
posted by Candleman at 2:50 PM on September 23, 2014 [2 favorites]


Nevertheless, this is not the first period of high unemployment for young people and it will not be the last.

What if it's a permanent period of high unemployment, though? As in, employers have jettisoned jobs and they aren't going to be replaced by anything else?

I've gradually come to the opinion/fear that the US economy has permanently shifted, and what we are seeing today is more-or-less going to be the normal economy from here on.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:51 PM on September 23, 2014 [6 favorites]


As long as the young vote at half the rate (37%) that the old vote (75%), Canada, like the U.S., will continue to elective Conservative governments and the inequality situation will get worse.

These inequality changes aren't "structural", they aren't some mysterious "economics" or "demographics" or "automation" or "skills gap." The cause is a plain down and dirty power and wealth struggle through the political system. The powerful and wealthy are winning and will continue to win until they are voted out.
posted by JackFlash at 2:57 PM on September 23, 2014 [1 favorite]


... It wasn't a matter of age or experience but when you happened to be hired, and the people that were hired in the 80s and early 90s were naturally older. Some of the compromises unions are agreeing to now do the same thing - long time workers have one system while newer ones have another.

I think this is the heart of it. The disparity isn't age discrimination so much as it's a reflection of how much the balance of power has shifted between employers and employees. Employers hold all the cards now and can dictate terms that are much harsher for new hires than in years past. In response, job seekers have become better trained and educated than previous generations, but it still isn't enough to increase demand for new workers.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:08 PM on September 23, 2014 [3 favorites]


I've gradually come to the opinion/fear that the US economy has permanently shifted

You might even be right. But if you look back through history you'll find that every single time we've been in either an up phase or a down phase or an extended 'tootlin' along about average' phase there is somebody somewhere saying "this time it's permanent!" Over the years, betting against reversion to the mean over the medium term has been something of a sucker's bet.
posted by yoink at 3:22 PM on September 23, 2014 [3 favorites]


Which generation put the first round of neolibs into power in the '80s?
posted by Apocryphon at 3:32 PM on September 23, 2014


I've gradually come to the opinion/fear that the US economy has permanently shifted

Increasingly the labor for US and Canada companies is done overseas by unorganized low-paid workers. The stock markets are admiring the new efficiencies, eliminating those overpaid unionized US and Canada workers who demanded their rights, such a burden when workers had middle-class aspirations.
posted by koebelin at 3:55 PM on September 23, 2014 [1 favorite]


rocket88: Even by GDP standards, we aren't in a down economy. In fact it's been not far off its long-term average.

What is "the economy"? Is it just a set of abstract benchmarks (GDP, DJIA, S&P 500, etc), or is it still to do with how people are doing? I think it's pretty clear that the the economy represented by the above abstractions is itself increasingly abstract, recording the gains made by wealthy people moving their wealth back and forth, and not as much from stuff being made.

While I won't call it a down economy, it's pretty clearly not an up economy with good prospects for most people.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:11 PM on September 23, 2014


More on-topic, degrees in medicine, computer science, engineering or business are still tickets to employment, and healthcare will be a growth industry til the last boomer shuffles off.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:27 PM on September 23, 2014


As an aging North American, I heartily support the redistribution of age and am willing to give much of my age to many youngsters.
posted by Angleton at 5:30 PM on September 23, 2014 [1 favorite]


Economists have been reacting of late to evidence of prolonged structural unemployment by raising the science-fiction specter of robots taking over all sorts of human jobs. What has attracted far less attention is the way in which robots have been taking over modern economics. -- Philip Mirowski

This article might be a bit of a tangent apart from his remarks about unemployment, but it offers a different perspective on "the economy" and who we think is running it.
posted by sneebler at 5:55 PM on September 23, 2014


There was a really good podcast episode from Jesse Brown called "The Geritocracy" about the subject. Still, Gen-X really just wants a beer.
posted by jade east at 8:10 PM on September 23, 2014


Don't worry my Canadian friends. I'm pretty sure the US will be the first country to win the race to the bottom. We're already in debt up to our eyeballs, and you know sure as hell that the ultra-wealthy are not going to pay that debt back. That's what us little people are for.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 1:30 AM on September 24, 2014


Don't worry my Canadian friends. I'm pretty sure the US will be the first country to win the race to the bottom. We're already in debt up to our eyeballs

Canada's debt as a fraction of GDP is larger than the United States'.
posted by Justinian at 7:08 AM on September 24, 2014


Justinian: "Canada's debt as a fraction of GDP is larger than the United States'."

Yikes! I obviously did not know that. That is some scary info.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:20 AM on September 24, 2014


Canada is currently in the midst of a much larger housing bubble than the one that blew up the US economy a few years back, so the age-wage disparity only tells a small portion of the extreme intergenerational inequality described in the article. This debt-to-income chart pretty much tells the entire story. Not only do Canadian young people have to make do with pitiful wages and generally higher consumer goods prices, but housing has skyrocketed to such a degree it's a wonder anyone I know has a roof over their head. But for the older generations who were able to get on the property ladder at feasible prices (aided by actual living wages), on paper they are rich as kings, able to remortgage their existing homes to buy ever more property. I've witnessed very little sympathy or true culpability from the older beneficiaries for the predicament of the young, a predicament where their profit comes directly from the loss of recent generations. It used to be that we were told that any day now the oldest workers with the cushiest jobs would be retiring and there would gradually be room for others to work their way up, but at this point retirement becomes more and more of a mirage and while something has to give, there's no indication this will be resolved at all soon or painlessly.

Some light reading:

Why banks want saving from themselves:
It’s a sign of the insanity in our housing-obsessed, household debt-driven economy that bankers want government to restrain banks.


Canadians among world’s richest but debts ‘anything but sustainable'

Seniors and the generation spending gap:
Why are we doing so much to try to help seniors when they’re already the wealthiest generation in history?

posted by kaspen at 9:55 AM on September 24, 2014


Kaspen, does that debt-to-income chart include mortgage debt, or is it only showing consumer debt?
posted by kitcat at 10:18 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]


Definitely includes mortgage debt as housing is the single largest driver of spending in the country. This is complicated slightly by the prevalence of HELOC loans (home-equity line of credit) whereby those who've profited from inflated house values reborrow the gains to finance the rest of their lives and/or more property. The chart is taken from here, which includes a bit of further discussion: Household Debt-to-Income Ratio, USA vs Canada
posted by kaspen at 11:27 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]


Isn't the property bubble mostly confined to Vancouver and Toronto? Here in Edmonton the prices still seem pretty normal, and we have a genuine housing shortage.
posted by Kevin Street at 12:23 PM on September 24, 2014


Houses in Edmonton are at record highs. The average right now is $435,430 and the median is $402,750 (cite), which I wouldn't really call reasonable. We're just used to it now. But yes, Vancouver and Toronto are insane. Thank god we plan to buy a home in Halifax.
posted by kitcat at 2:28 PM on September 24, 2014


In terms of housing costs:
- London (the UK one) is expensive.
- Paris is expensive.
- San Francisco is expensive.
- NYC is expensive.
- and so on.

... why wouldn't Toronto and Vancouver also be expensive? (Van especially since the supply of land is so limited).

I grant you that the rate of price increases of the past few years is unsustainable, and it's quite likely that there will be a slight correction coming... but calling this a 'bubble' is inaccurate.

The fundamentals underlying the US housing bubble vs what's happening in Canada are different. Plus Toronto and Vancouver continue to be attractive to immigrant investors.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:09 PM on September 25, 2014


It's pretty bizarre to compare an age gap to a gender gap and decide that age is suddenly the one we need to be focusing on because there's a numerically greater gap. An average 25 year old and an average 50 year old are not going to have remotely similar job titles, responsibilities, skills, social connections, job experience, personality, etc etc etc. There's a lot less rationale for why the average wages for the 50-year-old women are so much lower - in fact, nearly as low as for the 25-year old men. These women at the peaks of their careers are barely out-earning fresh college grads - the male ones, anyway.

It's also interesting that they say Canada has made "huge strides narrowing the pay gap between men and women" while at the bottom of the page is a graph showing barely any change in the gender gap between 1984 and 2010 - eyeballing, it looks around 43k vs 25k in 1984-1989 (i.e. all-ages women earning 58% of all-ages men) and 49k vs 32k in 2006-2010 (going up to 65%). Broad enough categories to be almost meaningless, of course, and an improvement, sure, but not exactly supporting their assertion that the gender gap has basically been eradicated and therefore we should move on to the next "big challenge" of fixing the age gap.

It is interesting and probably bad that the gap is increasing between the (older) top-earners and the (younger) lowest-earners, but we don't need to pretend that the gender equality problem has been solved before thinking about other problems like this one.
posted by randomnity at 8:30 PM on September 25, 2014


It's pretty bizarre to compare an age gap to a gender gap and decide that age is suddenly the one we need to be focusing on.

This isn't about healing the age gap. The importance of the current 'age' gap in earnings is that it underscores the extent to which the economic outlook for the young of either gender is worsening. That there's something fundamentally wrong with the current state of things if the prospects for future generations are getting worse, not better.

If the economic outlook for young people is worsening, don't expect rapid strides in resolving the gender gap.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:25 AM on September 26, 2014


« Older "The decisions you make in the game should be...   |   Non-ebola care Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments