Income inequality, status seeking, and savings rates in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses Canadian provincial-level data and a variant of James uesenberry’s relative income hypothesis proposed by Frank et al. (2010) to examine the relationship between income inequality and savings rates. The theory predicts that increased expenditure of top income earners leads those just below them in the income scale to spend more as well, then the next group also spends more, and so on. This phenomenon is due to people’s status seeking behaviour. Hence, increased income inequality will trigger increases in consumption by individuals in all income groups, which in turn leads to declining personal savings rates. The empirical analysis based on this theory led to some interesting findings. First, at the national level, increased income inequality has a significant negative effect on personal savings rates. At the provincial level, the relationship also emerges in eight of ten provinces. Second, both the national and provincial results imply that growth in per capita income that worsens income inequality impacts negatively on personal savings rates. I interpret the results as evidence that social factors such as status-seeking generate consumption interdependence and are significant determinants of consumption and savings decisions of Canadians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".