'Canadian dream' is a myth more than a reality"

[Flash Walken]

The middle class used to be largely defined by your ability to provide for your family on a single income.

Oh, how times have changed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The middle class used to be largely defined by your ability to provide for your family on a single income.

Oh, how times have changed.

There's the rub eh?


What does that term mean?

You ask 200 people you could get 200 responses. Are two new vehicles every 3-4 years, a sandy vacation, a trailer, providing for your family?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Middle class is difficult to put an exact # on because you have an upper and a lower middle class imo. Just off the top of my head I think if you make more than 40k a year you're entering the lower middle class. Once you get outside of 100,000k a year in personal income, not combined, you start to exit the middle class.

If you make enough money to own where you live, or, rent and save money comfortably, you're middle class.

If you live paycheque to paycheque, don't own your home, and have to struggle with bills, you aren't middle class. Again this is clearly not a science, but much like porn you know it when you see it. And a doctor making over 100k a year isn't middle class no matter the spin (or a guy making sandwiches for 12 dollars an hour)

$100k is totally middle class for a lot of people making that.

$100K is maybe $75K after taxes. If you have two kids, the minimum you can save for an RESP to receive the maximum government contribution is $420/month (x 12 months = $5040). That's puts you at $70K.

Less say 10% at a minimum (of the gross $100K) for RRSPs and you're down to $60K.

Car, mortgage, groceries, vacation, clothes, electricity, gas, insurance, etc. for your remaining $5000/month and you're not left with a whole lot. $100K is without a doubt middle class in a lot of scenarios for a lot of people.

It's not 1990 anymore. $100K doesn't put you on easy street.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm curious if the stagnant wages are regional specific or across the entire country.

I'm kind of curious what they look like outside the period of 1993-2007 as well. Those were almost exclusively Liberal government years.

[SebC]

The closest thing to a standardized definition of middle class is the middle 60% of families sorted by income. Obviously, by this defintion, the middle class cannot grow or shrinking in terms of the number of people in contains, so a "shrinking middle class" refers to the economic size of the middle class shrinking.

Here's a chart that's relevant to the thread.

(Source - StatsCan)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by SebC

The closest thing to a standardized definition of middle class is the middle 60% of families sorted by income. Obviously, by this defintion, the middle class cannot grow or shrinking in terms of the number of people in contains, so a "shrinking middle class" refers to the economic size of the middle class shrinking.

Here's a chart that shows middle-class and lower class stagnation.

(Source - StatsCan)

Haha, top 20%, suck it suck it long and hard!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There's the rub eh?


What does that term mean?

You ask 200 people you could get 200 responses. Are two new vehicles every 3-4 years, a sandy vacation, a trailer, providing for your family?

I think this is a big red herring, sort of like appealing to 'welfare queens' etc.

I don't know if there are that many destitutely poor people who are buying new cars every year. I don't know if there are that many people who are even upper middle class who buy new cars yearly. What with credit checks, etc.

Consequently, I think similar arguments (like we saw in the baby boomers thread), like the 'starter home' etc. are also red herrings.

Consider this, people bought new cars and appliances wildly during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Those are big consumer consumption decades. We see conspicuous consumption more because of cell phones etc, but the real crippling costs are what they were in the middle ages: rent, sustenance, medical care.

Somehow, as a society we had things arranged where one salary would be enough to provide adequately (including things like vacations and luxury items) for a family of 4 or 5. Now, we have things arranged where a salary of 2 people is difficult to provide for a family of 4 or 5. The biggest components of that are housing, food, and related costs (medical costs, education costs).

That's a hell of a lot of granite counter tops, cars, and luxury items to make up that gap. In fact, that's like saying over one whole wage brought into the house is spent frivolously. That's just not true, and only serves to impart blame onto the poor for being poor. The purchasing power for the average canadian is roughly 30 percent less than it would be for the same person in the late 1970s.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think this is a big red herring, sort of like appealing to 'welfare queens' etc.

I don't know if there are that many destitutely poor people who are buying new cars every year. I don't know if there are that many people who are even upper middle class who buy new cars yearly. What with credit checks, etc.

Consequently, I think similar arguments (like we saw in the baby boomers thread), like the 'starter home' etc. are also red herrings.

Consider this, people bought new cars and appliances wildly during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Those are big consumer consumption decades. We see conspicuous consumption more because of cell phones etc, but the real crippling costs are what they were in the middle ages: rent, sustenance, medical care.

Somehow, as a society we had things arranged where one salary would be enough to provide adequately (including things like vacations and luxury items) for a family of 4 or 5. Now, we have things arranged where a salary of 2 people is difficult to provide for a family of 4 or 5. The biggest components of that are housing, food, and related costs (medical costs, education costs).

That's a hell of a lot of granite counter tops, cars, and luxury items to make up that gap. In fact, that's like saying over one whole wage brought into the house is spent frivolously. That's just not true, and only serves to impart blame onto the poor for being poor. The purchasing power for the average canadian is roughly 30 percent less than it would be for the same person in the late 1970s.

I didn't say a new car every year, but most leases are 3-4 yrs. It is on uncommon that you seem people rolling their lease.

My point was that the term "provide for the family" is subjective and difficult to quantify, which might be fitting for a purely subjective topic, that lacks real objective terms/measurements.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I didn't say a new car every year, but most leases are 3-4 yrs. It is on uncommon that you seem people rolling their lease.

My point was that the term "provide for the family" is subjective and difficult to quantify, which might be fitting for a purely subjective topic, that lacks real objective terms/measurements.

Right, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.

One thing we can agree on is that it's essentially impossible to raise a family of 4 comfortably on a single income. That's not subjective.

30, even 20 years ago, this wasn't the case.

What changed? Where did that money go?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The purchasing power for the average canadian is roughly 30 percent less than it would be for the same person in the late 1970s.

That's the thing. The things that matter though, like home ownership, energy/utilities and food have outpaced income by a fair margin. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, my immigrant laborer father was making about the same amount of money that I was as a newly university educated professional in the late 2000s (and without a decade+ of crippling student loan payments that make other investments almost impossible). He was able to pay cash for everything (a nice home was less than 2 years salary).

There is a lot "fake wealth" these days though. Credit is super easy to get. You have people driving around in nice new cars when they really shouldn't be. Also, things like traveling are a lot cheaper. Young people look like jet set playboys to old timers in that regard. Not only are the necessities becoming further out of reach for many "middle class" Canadians, but the temptations of cheap luxuries and credit complicate the issue. For example, the mentality starts to set in for a lot of people that because they will never be able to afford a home, they might as well drown themselves with retail therapy in the short term.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.

One thing we can agree on is that it's essentially impossible to raise a family of 4 comfortably on a single income. That's not subjective.

30, even 20 years ago, this wasn't the case.

What changed? Where did that money go?

Correct you can't raise a family of 4 on a single income, we agree.

[Brannigans Law]

i think this whole thing boils down to some people thinking that were talking combined or single income.

we live in a world where single income just doesn't cut it for 95% + of families.

Combined income over 150k or more I suggest you are no longer middle class. You can comfortably live in a 600,000 dollar home. Upper middle class? Seems a stretch to me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

1 person making 100k (as I stated not combined income) is a lot of god damn money. If you choose to have your partner stay at home and raise your kids you have no day car costs. You aren't welathy, and yes middle class but living well.
100k isn't wealthy by todays standards I agree, but if you're making 100k and you're spouse is making even 50k a year... you aren't middle class. Sorry. With really really quick and probably inaccurate math that means each paycheque the family is bringing in around 3200 dollars. That means the household income monthly is 6400: clear. And that's with 2 extra pay periods a year in 3 paycheque months.

6400 dollars monthly after tax gives you enough money for a very sizable mortgage for a very nice home that's worth 3 quarters of a million dollars, and leaves your 2660 to feed your kids pay a car payment and do whatever else.

If you can comfortably live in a 750,000 dollar home you aren't middle class.

I believe 85-125k is the threshold for entering the 4th quintile of income in Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is it a war on the middle class, or is it governments at all levels providing way to many social programs and jacking up the tax rates on the middle class?

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Is it a war on the middle class, or is it governments at all levels providing way to many social programs and jacking up the tax rates on the middle class?

Why would tax rates on the middle class be responsible for wages stagnating?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

i think this whole thing boils down to some people thinking that were talking combined or single income.

we live in a world where single income just doesn't cut it for 95% + of families.

Combined income over 150k or more I suggest you are no longer middle class. You can comfortably live in a 600,000 dollar home.

Home prices that a 150k/yr household income can live comfortably in took a rather quick nosedive by about $150k

[burn_this_city]

The definition of middle class changes depending where you live. I don't think $150k combined income puts you above the middle class in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver or Toronto.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Why would tax rates on the middle class be responsible for wages stagnating?

I'm also interested in hearing this.

[CaptainCrunch]

What's accelerated faster wages or taxation and program spending?

The factor on easing the middle class burden goes to both sides of the equation.

At what point does it become over taxation?

I also don't think that wage acceleration is going to make a difference because the pricing of goods and services will have to increase to support it. And beyond minimum wage setting what does the government have to do with setting wages in the private sector and should they even have a say. The government can't just sweep a wand and increase all salaries by 10%.

The government can increase minimum wage and decrease taxation rates and that's about it. Other then that they can create demand for our products through trade.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.

One thing we can agree on is that it's essentially impossible to raise a family of 4 comfortably on a single income. That's not subjective.

30, even 20 years ago, this wasn't the case.

What changed? Where did that money go?

My guess would be part of it being that the economical competitive advantage the developed countries such as North America and Europe enjoyed in the early part of the the Oil and Gas consumption era is shrinking. The USA is no longer buying resources from developing countries for a pittance, manufacturing goods and selling those back to the consumers at high profits. Developing countries are designing and manufacturing their own goods, so competition is driving up resource costs while at the same time the developed world loses manufacturing jobs.


The other part would be changing expectations. If you don't care about having new cars, yearly vacations to tropical countries, eating out in restaurants frequently, designer goods, a family can probably still get by on a single income.

I don't think the average family went to Mexico every year, or even at all in the 1970's. My father never bought a new vehicle until he was in his 40's. My sister and brothers all had purchased new vehicles before they were 25.

I think people's perceptions of what they need to "own" in order to be middle class has changed greatly over the years.