What is the average salary in ontario 2010

According to the after-tax low income cut-offs, 3 million Canadians, or 9. In , this proportion was About , children aged 17 and under, or 8. This compares with For children in lone-parent families headed by a woman, the incidence was The incidence of low income for children living in two-parent families was 5. Absolute mobility measures changes in individual after-tax income over time.

It shows how many people had an increase in income and how many experienced a decline. Between and , after-tax income rose for Between and , before the economic downturn, income rose for Relative mobility shows changes from one income level to another. For this purpose, the population was divided into five equal-sized groups from the lowest after-tax income to the highest. Between and , Median after-tax income for families with two or more people was unchanged in in all provinces.

This report examines the income of families and unattached individuals, as well as low income and income mobility in Canada. It is based on annual income information provided by the participants in the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics.

Because a large proportion of the participants have provided information for several years, a closer look at how individual incomes change over time is possible. As estimates are based on probability samples, analyses throughout this report take into account the random aspect of the results.

Chapter 4 examines the apparent break in the link between economic growth and gains in the median incomes of working-age Ontarians. Between and , output per worker in Ontario has grown by 49 per cent. In sharp contrast, the market income of the median, working-age Ontarian increased by just 3 per cent. Accessible description. The stronger growth of average market income, compared with the median, implies that Ontarians in the upper half of the income distribution are benefiting from much stronger income growth than those in the lower half as explored in Chapter 2.

However, the even stronger gains in economy-wide income imply that the income being generated through economic growth is not being broadly shared with all Ontarians. Chapter 4 goes on to examine two broad, inter-related areas of structural change that have contributed to these trends in Ontario incomes. Manufacturing currently accounts for just over one in 10 Ontario jobs, down from almost one in four jobs in the late s.

According to the OECD, the increased integration of the global economy has contributed to a similar shift in the industrial composition of many developed economies. Non-standard work, including part-time and temporary jobs, has become increasingly common, while the share of unionized jobs has declined. The OECD notes that these labour market changes have contributed to slower income growth, rising income inequality and declining income mobility in many developed economies. Importantly, the pay gap between standard employment and non-standard work is much wider in Canada than the average across OECD countries.

In addition, dramatic scientific advances, particularly in information technologies, have contributed to increased automation in many industries and occupations. Taken together, these trends have led to uneven wage growth among occupations in Ontario.

Since , average wages for the highest-paying occupations outpaced more modest wage gains in middle-paying jobs. In contrast, average wages for the lowest-paying occupations have stagnated, except for natural resource-based occupations. Recent research by the International Monetary Fund IMF and the OECD [10] has shown that slower income growth, higher income inequality and declining income mobility can be mutually reinforcing trends. When children in lower-income families have fewer opportunities and face greater challenges in acquiring skills and education, their future potential may go unrealized.

This can lower their potential productivity and reduce future economic growth, which in turn lowers income gains and ultimately reinforces income inequality. OECD research has also shown that these trends can negatively impact overall well-being, and in particular the well-being of lower-income citizens. It can also negatively impact social cohesion and civic engagement. This, in turn, can undermine confidence in public institutions and discourage democratic participation.

In Ontario, slow income growth for lower-income families, an unequal distribution of market incomes and reduced income mobility raise important questions about the appropriate role of government in ensuring that all individuals have access to similar opportunities to improve their economic circumstances. In , there were In this report, market income refers to earnings from employment, investment returns, private pension income and other sources, but excludes taxes and government transfers.

After-tax income is defined as market income plus government transfers less taxes paid. Note: Shaded areas indicate recession. In the 25 years before , median family income in Ontario experienced dramatic swings. During the recessions of the early s and s, it declined significantly, then recovered partially during the boom of the late s.

Notably, the market income of the median Ontario family in remained below its level in , after adjusting for inflation. After-tax median family income declined during and following the recession, but has since recovered to reach new highs.

Since , the median after-tax income of Ontario families has increased at an average annual pace of 0. Since , changes in median income in Ontario have been influenced by many overlapping factors. Ontarians receive income from a variety of sources, including employment, investments, private retirement savings and government transfers.

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. The composition of income has evolved over the past four decades. The rising proportion of Ontario seniors has increased the share of income earned from investments, retirement income and government transfers. At the same time, the share of employment income has decreased from 85 per cent of total income in to 72 per cent in Figure 1. Trends in family incomes over the past four decades reflect not only an aging population and significant changes in the labour market, but also ongoing shifts in the structure and make-up of Ontario families.

Since , Ontario experienced a gradual decline in the average family size, while more individuals are living alone. The share of single-person families increased from 26 per cent in to 30 per cent in , and continued increasing to 34 per cent in These demographic shifts have contributed to changes in family incomes over the past several decades. As a result, caution should be used when comparing historical family incomes with more recent values.

Ontario families both multi-person families and individuals can be divided into those headed by a senior aged 65 and older and working-age families in which the family head is aged 64 or younger.

The median employment income of working-age families has grown slowly since Specifically, employment income of working-age families increased at an annual average rate of 0. However, for working-age singles living alone, modest employment income gains in the period prior to have reversed, with median employment income declining by 0. The underlying economic factors that contributed to this weak growth since are analyzed further in Chapter 4.

As noted at the outset of this chapter, the median market income of Ontario families declined between and , while median after-tax income increased modestly. The modest growth in after-tax incomes partly reflects changes to the tax and transfer system that benefited middle-income Ontarians.

The tax and transfer system includes both federal and provincial income taxes as well as social benefit programs administered by all levels of government. The Ontario government collects about 40 per cent of personal income taxes paid by Ontario residents.

However, most major transfers are administered by the federal government. The Ontario government administers two primary social assistance programs: the Ontario Disability Support Program and the Ontario Works Program, as well as other smaller transfers. However, it also reflects enhancements to government income support programs, as well as a number of tax changes that benefited middle-income Ontarians.

The combined effect of these and other tax changes has lowered the median tax burden for middle-income Ontario families. Note: This represents the 50 th percentile amount of income tax paid by Ontario families. Shaded areas indicate recession.

In addition, both the provincial and federal governments have made changes to social transfer programs. These include:.

Taken together, changes to government transfers have raised the amount of government-funded income support for middle-income Ontario families. Note: This represents the 50 th percentile amount of government transfers received by Ontario families. Between and , the median after-tax incomes of Ontario families both senior and working-age recorded reasonably strong growth. For senior families, median after-tax income increased by a robust 1.

Similarly, for working-age families, growth has also been relatively solid; median after-tax income increased at an annual average rate of 0. For single-parent families, median after-tax income increased strongly from to Working-age Ontarians living alone also experienced declines in after-tax incomes. In , single-parent families and working-age singles combined represented about 2.

Not only did these two groups experience outright declines in after-tax median incomes since , they were also much more likely to be living in low income than other Ontario families. In , fewer than 10 per cent of Ontario families on average both senior families and working-age families were considered living in low income, regardless of the low-income measure used. In general, incomes of the poorest Ontario families have recorded relatively weak growth since Between and , the average after-tax income of the poorest 40 per cent of Ontario families increased at an annual average rate of 0.

Notably, during the same time frame, the average market income of the poorest 40 per cent of Ontario families declined by an average of 0. Significantly, this was the slowest pace of growth among all provinces Figure 1. This relatively weak performance can largely be attributed to the outright decline in median market incomes in Ontario, compared to relatively solid gains in median market incomes in all other provinces.

On average, median market earnings in the rest of Canada grew by a relatively robust 1. Note: Income data for the rest of Canada are weighted by population.

However, the commodity price boom of the early s led to strong income gains in the resource rich provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

By , the gap between Ontario and the rest of Canada had narrowed. In , Ontarians in the highest quintile the 20 per cent of Ontarians with the highest incomes received 47 per cent of total market income, compared to 39 per cent of income on an after-tax basis.

At the same time, the 20 per cent of Ontarians in the lowest income quintile received just 2. A common way of assessing income inequality is to calculate the ratio of incomes accruing to the top quintile with the incomes of those in the bottom quintile. In , the average market earnings of the top quintile were 16 times higher than those of the bottom quintile.

By , earnings in the top quintile were more than 19 times higher. This ratio has remained relatively constant from to The relatively stable ratio for after-tax incomes reflects the fact that the tax and transfer system comprising both federal and provincial components has played an important role in reducing income inequality by transferring income from higher- to lower-income Ontarians.

The higher the value of the Gini coefficient, the more unequal is the distribution of incomes. From to the mids, market income inequality increased in Ontario, reflected in an upward trend in the Gini coefficient. This rising income inequality was in part a result of the recessions of the early s and s, which affected lower-income Ontarians more severely than richer Ontarians. Importantly, the Gini coefficient based on after-tax incomes was largely unchanged over the to period, as the tax and transfer system effectively offset much of the rising inequality of market incomes Figure 2.

Note: Shaded areas indicate recessions. Changes in the tax and transfer system can have significant impacts on the distribution of income. During the s, the federal government reduced the generosity of Employment Insurance, while the Ontario government lowered social assistance payments. These policy changes contributed to a steady rise in after-tax income inequality in the s, even as market income inequality was stabilizing.

Since , after-tax income inequality — as measured by the Gini coefficient — has largely plateaued close to its current level. Despite a fairly constant level of after-tax income inequality in Ontario since , the incomes of higher-earning Ontarians increased much more substantially than for lower-income Ontarians, on an after-tax basis. Overall, the tax and transfer system in Ontario contributes to a roughly 30 per cent reduction in income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient.

By comparison, the tax and transfer systems of OECD countries reduce income inequality by roughly 35 per cent on average Figure 2. The tax and transfer system in Ontario includes both federal and provincial income taxes, as well as social benefit programs administered by all levels of government.

These estimates have also been echoed by similar research from the US Federal Reserve. Note: Arrows represent correlation between these trends and not necessarily causation. Investments in education and knowledge can improve the quality of the workforce, and contribute to more innovation and initiative, spurring economic growth.

Children from more affluent families tend to develop better skills in reading and problem-solving, are less likely to drop out of school without a diploma and are more likely to complete tertiary education. Higher income inequality can lead to less investment in the educational attainment of lower income families, eventually lowering their potential productivity. In this report, relative income mobility compares the income quintile of an individual in a starting year to their income quintile five years later.

Higher income mobility implies that more Ontarians are transitioning in and out of low income or moving in and out of higher income brackets. A more dynamic income distribution, with more individuals shifting from one quintile to another over time, can mitigate some of the negative implications of income inequality.

Based on the after-tax income of working-age Ontario tax filers [41] , about 50 per cent of working-age Ontarians moved from one quintile in the income distribution to another between and Income mobility includes both upward mobility those who moved up at least one quintile in a five-year period and downward mobility those who moved down at least one quintile in a five-year period.

Of those who experienced mobility either up or down , most moved by only one quintile. Only 9 per cent of working-age Ontarians moved up by two quintiles or more, while just 5 per cent moved down by more than one quintile.

Income immobility — the share of working-age Ontarians remaining in the same income quintile over a given five-year period — has been steadily increasing over the past three decades. That is, the share of Ontarians moving up or down the income distribution has declined. Between and , roughly 42 per cent of working-age Ontarians remained in the same income quintile. Income immobility remained relatively constant until the early s when it began to increase.

During the five-year period from to , however, 50 per cent of working-age Ontarians remained in the same income quintile, an increase of 8 percentage points from the s Figure 3. More importantly, income immobility is becoming more common for the poorest Ontarians. StatsCan defines after-tax income as the total of market income — from wages and investments — plus payments in the form of government transfers such as pensions or employment insurance less income tax.

In , almost 20 million people aged 16 and over received some form of government transfer, an This gain was driven by a Between and , after-tax income rose for