Older Workers and the Diminishing Return of Employment: Changes in Age-Based Income Inequality in Canada, 1996–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses age-based income inequality among employed Canadians using Canadian Census data over a 15-year period from 1996 to 2011. We show that income inequality has risen for groups of older workers since 1996 and that incomes have polarized based on level of education and occupation. More specifically, we find that wages have stagnated for those with lower levels of education and those not employed in management or upper-level professional occupations. Few Canadians experienced noticeable income gains (and this is more pronounced for men than for women) suggesting that many older workers have fallen into relative economic hardship since 1996. We argue that this is because, at least in part, Canadian policies have failed to adequately consider the dilemma that older workers face when they lose their jobs in an economy that requires more highly skilled workers now than was true in the past. We argue that increasing the pension eligibility age for Old Age Security (OAS) may put older Canadian workers at heightened risk of experiencing income insecurity. Hence, changes to OAS must be linked to new labor market and education policy so that older workers can gain the skills they need to remain in and compete for well-paying jobs later life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".