« The macroeconomics of doing nothing | Main | The inverse function theorem and the monetary policy instrument »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Livio - this is (for the most part) pre-tax, post-transfer income. That is, it includes transfers such as OAS, CPP, social assistance, EI, but not refundable tax credits i.e. sales tax credits etc. It would be interesting to compare this to changes in employment income, to see the extent to which transfers offset employment income declines.

It might also be worth noting that census family concept excludes singles - this data is only for couples+ children under 16 or 18 (don't recal) and lone-parents.

I found this additional table interesting:


It shows that the reduction in family income is concentrated entirely among couple-families. On average, lone-parent families saw no change in their family incomes between 2008 and 2009.

Since much of the recession's pain is felt in youth unemployment, it would be interesting to have those #s also.

Lone-parent families do seem to have come through the recession in somewhat better shape in terms of income decline though again ones in Ontario and Alberta seem to have been hit harder. The census family concept according to the Stats Can release is: "a married or a common-law couple, with or without children at home, or a lone-parent of any marital status, with at least one child living at home. There is no restriction on age of children."

I'd only note that the Windsor and Subury numbers are probably not directly linked to the recession, but are likely the result of length strikes involving significant employers in those cities (Inco-Vale, in Sudbury, which started mid-2009 and lasted a year, and the Windsor Civic workers strike, which lasted over three months). Those strikes would have significantly depressed pre-tax income in those cities (though,it would have had a smaller effect on after-tax income, since "strike pay" is not taxed). I suppose one might be able to make the case that the recession would have made it harder for employers to concede to their workers demands (i.e., as a result of reduced commodity prices, or tax revenue), so indirectly contributed to the strikes.

Livio, yes, you're right, the definition has changed:

In the previous standard, children were defined as "under the age of 25". In this standard, the age limit has been removed.

But I still don't know how accurate their matching of adults/children at the same address would be. How does CRA know whether or not the 20-year-old basement dweller is my biological child? Also students will file their income taxes from their home address, even if they don't actually live there most of the time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad