Some years ago I was giving a talk in Red Deer on the farm crisis. Afterward, I was approached by a young man who had always wanted to be a farmer. Recently he had put in an offer on a half section of land but he was outbid by a Calgary lawyer.
The lawyer wanted to build a country house for his family to use on weekends and holidays.
Now the lawyer wanted to hire the young man to work the land for him. The young farmer was confused and distraught. I wondered: why isn’t he mad as hell? He was trying to be his own boss and now he was being offered a job as a hired hand. This is really a taboo subject, I thought to myself, because this is a problem of class.
Read Also
Growth plates are instrumental in shaping a horse’s life
Young horse training plans and workloads must match their skeletal development. Failing to plan around growth plates can create lifelong physical problems.
In the first half of the 20th century, there were dramatic declines in the share of the national income earned by the richest members of various countries.
This was a consequence of the power of organized labour to bargain for a greater share of corporate profits. Even though most farmers aren’t unionized, they benefited from there being fewer rich city types outbidding them for land.
However, in the last two or three decades in the U.S. there has been an almost complete recovery of income shared by the richest 10 percent of the population and a corresponding decline in union membership and power.
Income inequality in the United States is the worst of all the developed countries. By the middle of the last decade, the top 20 percent of income earners earned almost half the total national income, which was 13 times the share of the poorest 20 percent.
The trend in Canada has been similar. Since 1998, Canada’s top 100 CEOs saw a 262 percent increase in compensation, pocketing an average of $9.1 million in 2005 compared to $3.5 million in 1998.
Meanwhile, the average Canadian worker made slightly more than $38,000 in a year, a 15 percent increase over the average earnings of $33,000 in 1998.
According to economist Armine Yalnizian, in 2004, the average earnings of the richest 10 percent of Canada’s families raising children was 82 times that earned by the poorest 10 percent of Canada’s families. This is almost three times the ratio of 1976 when it was approximately 31 times.
Some people think that social class is “the issue that dare not speak its name” but I’m beginning to wonder. We now find ourselves in the middle of a federal election campaign.
In spite of a lot of posturing the issues have not yet been defined. Is it possible the election could be fought on the question of whether we want to build a Canada that is more equal rather than less?
In 2004 the Leger Marketing Group surveyed Canadians and asked whether it is possible to fight against social inequality. A remarkable 74 percent said yes.
When asked which kind of inequality was the most serious, 28 percent of Canadians said income inequality, 27 percent said health care, 17 percent said education and 12 percent said housing.
If I could wave my magic wand I would ask Canadian voters which political platform is more likely to shift income away from the corporate dragons of Bay Street and toward my neighbours who live from one pay-cheque to the next.
Christopher Lind is executive director of the Sorrento Centre in British Columbia.
