Rather like last week, this post is about a personal situation in which I currently find myself. It has to do with whether or not, and if so, then how much, you should try to influence your child’s interests. That’s the macro. Here’s the micro:
As the summer approaches, many a parents’ fancies turn to thoughts of daycamps. As I live in a major urban centre, there is no limit to the choice of daycamps my wife and I can send our daughter to.
As a child, my parents sent me to a few daycamps in the summer months, and I never thought too much about it. I honestly can’t say how much they thought about which daycamp to send me to, but I’d be surprised if their deliberations were more involved than confirming that the cost, hours, and location were all suitable. I doubt they spent much time considering the theme or purpose of the daycamp, let alone whether it would help me in my career. Then again, they have surprized me before, so who knows.
My work is not particularly reliable, and does not pay as well as it should. I want to be able to provide a better life for my family than I currently can.
Instead of complaining (although I do some of that too) I decided to try to look for some alternative sources of income.
This blog is one such endeavour. By my reckoning, if things continue as they are, I should be able to cover the costs involved with writing this blog by about 2050. That’s not a typo; I really don’t make much money with this blog, but it gives me a reason and venue to focus on finances, so that is enough of a benefit for me. But that’s not actually the biggest benefit I derived from starting Loonie Lover.
The New York Times recently published some original research about the relative wealth of different countries’ middle class. For the first time in history, the USA did not come out on top; we up in the Great White North did. While this is interesting, it is not what I wanted to write about.
What struck me was the angles of inclination of the bars showing changes in income levels from 1980 to 2010. There has always been income inequality, and there always will be. That is not the problem. The problem is the incredible increase in income inequality over the past 30 years, and more specifically, the rate at which income inequality is galloping ahead. Adjusted for inflation, American up to the 10th percentile are actually making less than they were in 1980. From the 10th to the 40th percentile, growth has been mediocre. From the 50th to the 95th percentiles, growth in income has been much more pronounced, with the angle of inclination getting steeper as the percentile increases.
The picture isn’t quite as dire in Canada. (You’re going to need to open the graph in a separate window to follow along. Follow the above link to the original graph, and then hover over the various grey bars to see other countries compared to the USA.)
For one thing, the bars in the Canadian graph all go from lower left to upper right. This means that we are all better off, in a relative sense, than we were in 1980. The troubling aspect for me is that the observation about the angle of inclination getting steeper as one’s income rises still holds true for Canada. Granted, the difference in angles isn’t quite as steep as it is in the US, but the contrast from the left side to the right side of the graph is striking nevertheless.