Explaining the Gap between Productivity and Median Wage Growth in Canada, 1976-2014
Cite this article as:
Uguccioni, James. 2016. “Explaining the Gap between Productivity and Median Wage Growth in Canada, 1976-2014.” International Productivity Monitor, No. 31 (Fall 2016): 37–56. https://www.csls.ca/ipm-archive/ipm-issue-31/explaining-the-gap-between-productivity-and-median-wage-growth-in-canada-1976-2014/
Abstract
Résumé
Canadian labour is more productive than ever before, but there is a pervasive sense among Canadians that the living standards of the ‘middle class’ have been stagnating. Indeed, between 1976 and 2014, median real hourly earnings grew by only 0.09 per cent per year, compared to labour productivity growth of 1.12 per cent per year. We decompose this 1.03 percentage-point growth gap into four components: rising earnings inequality; changes in employer contributions to social insurance programs; rising relative prices for consumer goods; and a decline in labour’s share of aggregate income. Our main result is that rising earnings inequality accounts for half the 1.03 percentage-point gap, with a decline in labour’s income share and a deterioration of labour’s purchasing power accounting for the remaining half. Further analysis of the inequality component reveals that real wage growth in recent decades has been fastest at the top and at the bottom of the earnings distribution, with relative stagnation in the middle. Our findings are consistent with a ‘hollowing out of the middle’ story, rather than a ‘super-rich pulling away from everyone else’ story. efitted the middle class. Too often, the benefits
La main-d’œuvre canadienne est plus productive que jamais, mais il existe un sentiment généralisé parmi les Canadiens que le niveau de vie de la « classe moyenne » stagne. En effet, entre 1976 et 2014, les gains horaires réels médians n’ont augmenté que de 0,09 % par année, comparativement à une croissance de la productivité du travail de 1,12 % par année. Nous décomposons cet écart de croissance de 1,03 point de pourcentage en quatre composantes : la hausse de l’inégalité des gains; les variations des cotisations des employeurs aux programmes d’assurance sociale; la hausse des prix relatifs des biens de consommation; et un recul de la part du travail dans le revenu global. Notre principal résultat est que la hausse de l’inégalité des gains explique la moitié de l’écart de 1,03 point de pourcentage, le recul de la part du revenu du travail et la détérioration du pouvoir d’achat du travail expliquant la moitié restante.