Canada’s income inequality has reached a record high, according to the newest OECD report on Canada released today. Here is a summary of the Report on Canada.
The OECD summarizes the cause of the growing gap as follows:
The rise in inequality was largely due to widening disparities in labor earnings between high and low-paid workers, but also to less redistribution. Taxes and benefits reduce inequality less in Canada than in most OECD countries (see figure right-hand panel).
Some other interesting findings:
These findings are very interesting, because they indicate that income inequality is largely (though not exclusively) influenced by deliberate policy and strategic choices made by governments and businesses.
Firstly, Cutting taxes, especially in the higher income brackets will lead to the rich getting richer and the middle class being squeezed. That is why the OECD recommends higher taxes on top earners, which is needed to pay for services that are crucial for a healthy economy and society, including education, health care, and family care:
The growing share of income going to top earners means that this group now has a greater capacity to pay taxes. In this context governments may re-examine the redistributive role of taxation to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. The provision of freely accessible and high-quality public services, such as education, health, and family care, is important.
Considering this, on what basis do you think that the Conservative government in Ottawa and the Liberal government in Ontario insist that continued tax cuts represent good public policy?
Secondly, the shift away from full-time employment to what HR folks like to call “flexible work arrangements” and “self” employment is harmful to society, even if it is beneficial to corporate bottom lines. I’ve made this point before. HRM literature often describes the shift to ‘flexible’ work as a positive development, as if it benefits workers and employers alike. Legal scholars usually describe this as a cost-cutting measure causing a shift towards precarious employment.
My question for the HRM profession, and for my HRM students, is whose side is HRM on?
HRM needs to be self-critical. While the profession likes to argue that it is the mechanism that advocates for decent work and respect for workers within organizations, it is often the HRM departments that propose or at least implement the shift away from stable full-time employment towards part-time work or the re-branding of employment to “independent contractor” status that many employees have experienced over the past two decades. The OECD pins the growth in income inequality in Canada in large measure on this development in employment practices.
So, is HRM part of the problem of growing income inequality in Canada? Should HRM be lobbying hard for a move back towards regular full-time employment? Why or why not? And lastly, does HRM have any power to influence the trend towards ‘flexible’ work or not?