Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
I just read through the actual report, and as others suspect, this is an income cycle at work far more than social mobility. A rich kid whose parents are paying all of his expenses is going to have barely any income through school. If he then gets a good job and moves into the higher brackets, that's not upward mobility. This quote pretty much says it all:
So basically a bunch of people in the study temporarily had low income while they were in school, or apprenticing, or just starting out, or having children, and then eventually made normal wages. That's their mobility.
Unsurprisingly, not once in the 48 page study is the average age of each income group or the age range of the people who experienced the greatest mobility revealed. In fact, age is probably the biggest factor and they completely ignored it, I suspect because it would largely nullify their argument.
That said, income mobility is generally fairly good in Canada and it'd have been nice to see a proper study which illustrated this. I would have been much more impressed if the Fraser Institute had actually tackled this issue correctly rather than putting together a crap study just so they could proclaim huge numbers of social mobility and income equality.
|
Well, of course we know they had to take the data from Statistics Canada so whether they tied an age to an income level is not indicated. Do you know that they have this information in the data?
I mean, the bottom line here is that 9/10 people in the bottom income bracket (lowest 20%) had moved OUT of that bracket in that period. Are you alleging that 90% of the 'poor' are students?
Of considerable note is that the average income in that bottom 20% has moved up over 600% in the short period of the study. That in itself is fantastic news.