What's at work here? Perhaps it's that the nature of work is changing so
rapidly that only those who are in a position to adjust will benefit, and
many people - perhaps a growing proportion of the population - is in no
position to do so.
Adjust to what? Some fifty years ago, work in Canada was still mainly about
the production of goods - tangible things that people could make without
much formal education. You didn't have to finish school because you could
get a job at the mill or the mine, or stay on the farm, or you could support
a family by selling insurance or opening a small repair shop. Now many of
the mills have been moved to Southeast Asia, the mines have shut down, and
the repair shops have been consolidated into large retail chains. Farmers,
while still social and political icons, have become economic dinosaurs.
Anyone with a bit of sense moved off the farm a generation ago.
Perhaps, and this is just a guess, the world of lucrative work and the
opportunity to build wealth belongs increasingly to the flexible, educated,
mobile people who live in large urban centres. This would leave a lot of
people out.
Ed
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> >
> > Friday 16 March 2001
> >Median Canadian wealth hits $81,000
> >Many Canadians are better off, but news isn't so good for the poor
> >Eric Beauchesne and Bev Wake
> >The Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press
> >
> >If Canada's Joe Ordinary sold off all his belongings and paid off all his
> >debts, he'd be left with $81,000, a new Statistics Canada report reveals.
> >
> >That median figure is also the dividing line between Canada's wealthiest
6.1
> >million households -- and its less well-off 6.1 million households,
> >according to the report, the first of its kind since 1984.
> >
> >While that figure represents an increase of 11 per cent over 15 years for
> >Canada's median family, that increase wasn't shared across the wealth
> >spectrum. The richest 20 per cent of families saw their worth increase
> >almost 40 per cent over 15 years, while the poorest 40 per cent of
families
> >saw little change.
> >
> >"The rich are getting richer in Canada and the poor have not improved
their
> >position one iota," said Jim Stanford, an economist with Canadian Auto
> >Workers. "It also shows that whatever government has done to try and stop
> >inequality over the last decade is not working. Inequality is actually
> >getting worse."
> >
> >The study found that the wealthiest 10 per cent of families owned about
53
> >per cent of Canada's $2.9 trillion in net worth in 1999.
> >
> >When families were ranked from the highest net worth to the lowest, the
> >median wealth of the richest 10 per cent of families was $703,500. The
> >poorest 10 per cent owed about $2,100 more than they own.
> >
> >"These figures show there is a very significant wealth divide in Canada,"
> >said John Anderson, researcher with the Toronto-based Centre for Social
> >Justice. "The bottom half of families have only six per cent of the
wealth
> >in Canada and that cannot be good for any society."
> >
> >By comparison, the top 10 per cent of families in the United States held
> >about two-thirds of all personal wealth in 1998.
> >
> >"Wealth and assets, at least in gross terms, are more evenly distributed
in
> >Canada than the U.S.," said Bob Glossob, executive director of programs
for
> >the Vanier Institute of the Family. "The bad news is we're moving in the
> >direction of the States."
> >
> >The wealth of families also varied provincially, from a median high of
> >$101,400 in Ontario to a low of $53,000 in Newfoundland.
> >
> >Couples with children fared less well than any other type of family,
their
> >net worth decreasing slightly over the 15-year span. Elderly people and
> >couples with no children at home fared the best, with single elderly
people
> >recording a 69 per cent increase in wealth since 1984, while elderly
> >families and couples with no children at home saw a growth of 42 per
cent.
> >
> >Although lone-parent families gained between 1984 and 1999, in both years
> >they were significantly less well off financially than any other type of
> >family.
> >
> >The study suggests the home remains the most valuable asset, accounting
for
> >almost 40 per cent of family wealth, while mortgages make up about 75 per
> >cent of the $458 billion owed.
> >
> >The most notable difference in terms of assets since 1984 is the growth
in
> >RRSPs, which accounted for about 15 per cent of a family's assets in
1999.
> >
> >The amount of money invested in RRSPs was 6.4 times larger in 1999 than
in
> >1984. Fifty-five per cent of families held RRSPs in 1999, up from 28 per
> >cent in 1984. Canadians aged 25 to 34 recorded the biggest jump, with 59
per
> >cent of families in that age group reporting RRSPs, more than double the
23
> >per cent in 1984.
> >
> >The other significant change was in student loans. The study suggests the
> >total amount of outstanding loans was 6.2 times higher in 1999 than in
1984.
> >More than 1.4 million families reported such debt, up from 490,000 in
1984.
> >
> >Education, however, continued to be a key to wealth. Someone with a
> >bachelor's degree, for example, had a median net worth 70 per cent higher
> >than someone with a high school diploma. Net worth climbed even further
with
> >subsequent degrees.
> >
> >For the purpose of the study, "families" were defined as single people or
> >two or more individuals who are related to each other by blood, marriage,
> >common-law or adoption living together in the same dwelling. Median
figures
> >were calculated by ranking all families in order, from highest to lowest
> >worth, to find the family in the middle of the range.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Workfare-defeat: a list for discussion about the international
> > resistance to workfare To subscribe, post to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with
> > "subscribe workfare-defeat" in the BODY of the message
> > ** This material may be freely distributed, provided this **
> > ** footer is included in full. **
> >
>
>
>
>
