Jonathan Kay responds to Gawker’s taunts over his Toronto Life feature “Almost Rich”
When you argue that a household income of $196,000 is “positively middle class,” as Jonathan Kay did in an essay from Toronto Life’s February edition, you expect a little backlash. After the story went live on the Interwebs on Wednesday, first Twitter users and commenters offered their (often choice) thoughts on Kay’s piece, then Torontoist and BlogTO both pounced, before Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan posted a characteristically witty screed that summed up Kay’s argument as “Money: once you spend it all, you don’t feel rich any more.” Kay responds in kind in the National Post, maintaining that his essay is more a look at a growing debt phenomenon among the upper classes than an apology for whiny rich people. That said, Kay admits he understands—and even kind of enjoys—the criticism: “If I didn’t know that the ‘Jonathan Kay’ [Nolan] savages is actually me, I’d have joined the ranks of the Tweeters and Gawker commenters echoing his bon mots.” Read the entire story [National Post] »
Mr. Kay’s original article never mentions if any of the profiled families are actually in debt or not (we don’t know what their total assets are – if any – however I’m guessing their credit cards are probably maxed out). And, none of the families are complaining they have no money. They are only stating their very quesionable spending habits. By noting that these folks are spending $800 a month on wine and $400 a month at Shoppers, he knew exactly what kind of reaction there would be. So of course he is enjoying the criticism. Any publicity is good.
Whatever taunts Mr Kay is receiving, his portrayal of these families as representing the “top 1%” is grossly inaccurate. While $196,000 might put you in the top 1% of *individual earners*, the original article portrays that as household income. In fact, household income to place you in the 1% is closer to $400,000. Check statscan reports:
(note these are from several years ago and income in the top 1% has grown since 2004) http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2007109/article/10350-eng.pdf
Recent data also from this CCPA report: http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000192.pdf
The figure used to define the “rich” in Mr. Kay’s article would place these families into the top 5% NOT the top 1%. Gross errors and misleading figures like those in this article make the reader suspicious of the motives and agenda of the author.