Table 1: Working Poverty
Working poverty is defined as individuals with an after-tax income below the Low Income Measure (LIM AT) and earning an annual individual working income of over $3,000.
Please see the document included with the data for the definition of Working Poverty. The notes on this definition have changed since previous years, clarifying the population that is excluded from counts of working poor. Also please read the included note regarding the data at the Census Subdivision level of geography.
Please read the note below regarding data suppression in these tables.
Procedures to build the income inequality table:
- Exclude persons in Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, non-residents and Indian Reserves and dead filers in the year of death
- Calculate income decile groups for each individual within each geography as follows:
- Assign the adult equivalized Census Family after tax income to every person.. This income, which is assigned to all family members, including children, is calculated by dividing family income by the square root of family size. This is the same method for calculating the income deciles used in the NHS profiles and for calculating the Low income measure.
- Determine the decile thresholds for each geography across all individuals.
- Group individuals into decile groups using these thresholds and their census family income.
For more information, see the methodology document included with the tables. Please also read the included document regarding the data at the Census Subdivision level of geography.
Place Names are included in the data tables.
Note that "Rural Postal Code (not in city)" and "Rural Community" are interchangeable.
Users have noted that some cells in the Income Inequality tables are suppressed. Below are the reasons given by Statistics Canada for suppression in these tables:
Issue 1: Counts of observation per cell.
As a basic suppression rule, and data cell that represents less than 15 individuals gests suppressed in our custom or standard T1FF tables. This means that if you are creating deciles that counting individuals, you need at least just over 150 indicial in that area if you don’t want all the deciles to be suppressed (150 pop divided by 10 = 15 individuals hence all the deciles have to be suppressed.
Issue 2: Programming and allocation of individuals and income values for areas just around 150 individuals.
Let’s assume that we have an area where the unrounded counts is 157 individuals (the rounded count would be 160). When you allocate this by deciles, what the programming does (without getting into too much of the technical details) is the equivalent of assigning 16 individuals to some deciles while others only get 15 individuals. The ones for which only 15 individuals were assigned will be suppressed, while the other that have been assign 16 individuals (meets the minimum rule described in issue 1) will not be suppressed and be rounded to 20 individuals.
Issue 3: Dominance for top and bottom deciles.
Our suppression rules for dominance dictates that if one value within a data cell (extremely low or extremely high) has too much of an impact as compared to the other values within that cell, then that cell is suppressed. A good example of this would be if we have one extremely rich individual in a small rural region. For example, if you have 19 individuals the top decile and the individuals in that deciles have incomes around $40,000, but the 20th individual has an income of a few million dollars, then the cell gets suppressed. This is done in order to protect the confidentiality. Someone familiar with the area who knows that only one individual there truly has a high income would be able to breach the confidentially that we guarantee to our survey respondents or, in the case T1FF, tax filers.
Years within data: