The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Has Inequality Grown Since the Great Recession?

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

The first episode of The Agenda aired in September of 2006. Two years later we were in the midst of the Great Financial Crisis. From there, the Occupy movement put the concept of the 1% and the issue of inequality front-and-centre. In the nearly two decades we've been having conversations about the economy and politics here on The Agenda, have we become a more or less equal society? Have we become a more or less fair society? And how has the anger and fallout from the financial crisis fueled the populism and seismic political shifts we are seeing today?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The first episode of The Agenda aired in September 2006. Two years later, we were in the midst of the great financial crisis. From there, the Occupy movement put the concept of the 1% and the issue of inequality front and center. In the nearly two decades, we've been having conversations about the economy and politics here on The Agenda. Have we become a more or less equal society? Have we become a more or less fair society? Let's look back and take the long view with, in Nepean, Ontario, Armin Yalnesian, Atkinson Fellow on the Future of Workers and Business Columnist for the Toronto Star. And with us here in studio, Quann McKenzie, CEO of

the Wellesley Institute, Professor of of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and Brian Dykeman. He is president of Cardus Canada and senior editor of Comment Magazine. And it's great to have you here. Quam, back for your umpteenth appearance. First time for you? First time. First time. Just in the nick of time.

There we go. And Armin, as always, a delight to have you on the line from the nation's capital. Okay, let's do, we'll just put some background in place here. In the year 2024, the gap in disposable income between the richest 40% of Canadians and the bottom 40% of Canadians grew to 47%. That is the largest gap since StatsCan began recording it more than a quarter century ago. And the top 20% of Canadian households controlled almost 65% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% held only 3.3% of the total wealth. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office in 2024, the richest 1% controlled nearly

a quarter of Canada's wealth. But in what has become a standard measure for income inequality, the Gini coefficient I dream of Gini. The Gini coefficient, the story is a little different. Since 2006, it has remained relatively stable and even got better starting in 2020 as that chart, which folks who are watching on television can see. All right, let's get into this. Armeen, start us off.

As we suggested, this program debuted in 2006. Have we become a more or less equal country since then? I would say less equal since 2006, but in the interim, we saw a little bit of improvement in inequality. And the Gini coefficient measures what's happening right in the centre of the distribution. The real story is what's happening at the two ends of the distribution. And that's what we should get.

That's what we should be talking about. And we shall. Quam, what say you? I think we've become more unequal. I think we've become more unequal in a number of ways. We've become more unequal from an income and wealth perspective. We've become more unequal with regards to opportunity. We've become more unequal with regards to health.

And we've become more unequal with regards to whether people are living dignity. So I think we've become more unequal in many ways, and it's not an even distribution, as Armin said. So racialized populations, younger people, so under 35s, and they're the people who've been really taking the brunt of what's happening. Much to pick up on on there. Brian, what do you say?

I think in some ways we have. I think the question of inequality is not necessarily the best one to ask. There may be occasions where people are making lots of money or doing very well. LeBron James is one example. But there is no way I'll be equal with him playing basketball. And I think there are some things that that's fine. I think what we should be concerned about

is the prospects and the quality of life for those who are most vulnerable and at the lowest end of the sphere. That's what I'm most interested in are those who are the poorest and the most vulnerable. Do they have opportunity and are they being taken care of? And more importantly, do we have the structures in place that allow those people to thrive? That's what I'm most concerned about. Well, let me follow up. Let me get you to answer those questions. And I think on that we've got lots of work to do. As Quam said, I think there are some

major challenges between the old and the young and there's growing inequality there. And I think in Canada there's some significant challenges with inequality amongst those who have university degrees or college certificates and those who are working class. And I think we've seen some major changes there. And so hopefully we'll have a chance to discuss that. But that's where I'm looking. That's the plan. Okay. This, I want to ask this next question, acknowledging off the top that it may be a distinction without

a difference, but maybe there is a difference here. Armin, what matters more here, reducing poverty or reducing inequality? Well, to Brian's point, I mean, I think there isn't a person alive that doesn't wish to make things better for the most vulnerable, but I don't think you can pay for it unless you ask those at the top of the spectrum to actually put their shoulders to the wheel a bit more. To all the points that you raised in the opening segment, there's more money than ever sloshing around at the very top end of the distribution. And like we're constantly told that the cupboard is fair.

We can't do it without us all pitching in if we're going to deal with the issues of the vulnerable and all the groups that Quam and Brian both identified. Brian, is that a distinction without a difference, reducing poverty versus reducing inequality? No, I think they're both important and sometimes inequality can be a marker of the things that cause the poor to be there. And I would say in Canada that is one of the cases. I think where I disagree with with Armin, and this is a conversation we've had for a long time even in our own offices at Cardus, is that I think one of our challenges is that we often think that we need to redistribute those things through the state through taxes and what-have-you

and I'm not sure that that what you know some people talk about trickle-down socialism I think the same thing applies at the policy level and I think we've seen that in Canada with a number of policies that we said okay we're gonna redistribute things we're gonna use the state to do that but what has happened actually is that those goods that are being redistributed tend to go to those who are doing well, because those who are making the policies are the ones who are doing well.

And so that's an area that I'm looking at on things like education, on child care, on opportunities for work. I don't think we're there yet. And in fact, I think we have some structural challenges, likewise with health care spending and housing. We have structural challenges where incumbents are doing well and the incumbents are the ones making the policy and they tend to be making policy that works for them and I think some people are getting lost.

Okay, point taken as it relates to let's say child care because the National Child Care Plan has been very disproportionately oversubscribed by those who are at the top end of the income scale. However, QAM, the Canadian Child Benefit, which the previous Liberal government brought in, I mean that was aimed at bringing children out of poverty, and it worked, right? It worked. It worked. And I think one of the things when we're talking about, do we want poverty or do we want to deal with inequality, I mean they're different things. And I think everybody agrees that inequality itself, when

it gets out of control, is a social cancer. It decreases social cohesion. It increases political polarization, and it actually slows down your economy. So I think that the idea that you do one or the other, it doesn't really make too much sense to me. You do have to think about the whole thing. And I think there's always been a case where whatever social policy that you're putting in place, that there are people who have better access to information, better access and more time, and are more likely to be able to take up,

whether it's child care or whatever. And you just have to produce your social policy knowing that if you want to make sure that it really gets to everybody, that you might have to put in particular processes to make sure that people get it. Let me get to Armin on that. How concerned are you about the notion that when governments make policies, the people who can disproportionately benefit from those policies tend to be those who are a little

savvier about how society and government work, etc.? So much of our society runs around, how much money do I have in my pocket? So when we were doing the child care, for the first time in 50 years, we decided to tackle this issue, which has got economic and social benefits that actually spur growth if you do it right and increase both today's

potential and tomorrow's potential for the next generation. We didn't do any of it other than cut the price of it. So of course it went to the people who already had care in licensed facilities and we didn't expand it and we didn't put guardrails around how we paid the people that provided the care. It was just about how much are you spending? And that endless focus on how much money do I have in my pocket, then

bleeds over into give me my money back through tax cuts. That is the overriding thing that the incumbent governments have promised. Look, we are entering into a period where inevitably we are going to face a recession because of the Trump policies. And every single party across the political spectrum at the federal level and in Ontario that both have elections since Trump has been in power have promised some version of tax cuts, which is absolutely folly. So if there is one policy that every incumbent government gives that benefits hugely those who already have, it's the tax cut policy.

And then that's what legitimates, oh, the cupboards bear for everything else. Well, Brian, yeah, go ahead. Can I just jump in there? Yeah, because I think I wanna point out a fact that we haven't mentioned, is that saying, well, we haven't designed it properly. No, I think what we're seeing is exactly how it's designed.

We are seeing that there were occasions where they said, look, we're going to put an envelope towards those who are most vulnerable. But the fact is that the preferred approach that the government's taking, just on this issue alone, and it shows up in education too, we can talk about expenditures on university versus trade schools and what have you, but the reality is the structure that the government preferred, the licensed not-for-profit daycare, works best for those who are nine to five workers

with regular jobs, who are basically those in offices with university degrees and wearing white collars like I am. And so it's by design. A licensed not-for-profit is two to three times less likely, two to 300% less likely to offer evening or morning care early, which is the people that are working the shifts providing that care for those who are old in retirement homes or what have you, don't get it. They're nine hundred percent less likely to offer weekend

care and so the reality is it's not designed for them. People who need it, the working class, simply opt out and they get nothing through it other than through the CCB, which was a great program and something I think all three of us the Canadian Child Benefit we don't like acronyms here okay let me I want to move on to the politics of the inequality here because one play two clips the first clip is by I'm sure a fellow you all remember his name is Micah White he was one of the co-creators of Occupy the Occupy movement and then we're going to hear from our friend in Nepean, who

was on this program back in 2011 and had a few things to say about all of this. So two clips back to back, Sheldon, if you would. At that time, it sounds naive now, but they had toppled the Tunisian dictator. They had toppled the dictator of Egypt. We thought we could topple the financial dictator of America. And how much of that plan do you think actually came true?

Well, we didn't achieve that goal for sure, you know, and that's why I call Occupy Wall Street a constructive failure. There's a big structural issue that's going on that involves you, me, everybody that's watching and all the people that aren't watching. At the median level, 50% of the workers actually are working at a lower inflation-adjusted rate than they were in the late 1970s. They're better educated, they're working longer hours. What gives?

This is about the social contract. I don't want to actually overstate this, but there's something going on around the world. When you take a look at how far you can push people into saying, play by the rules of the game, but only we're going to win, and you're going to fuel the way we are winning. I guess the question here is you know who's entitled to what and what's the rules of the game now? The rules of the game are up for grabs in terms of question. We should have been raising these questions after the financial crisis. We didn't. Now what's going on in other parts of the world are

actually making us think again, wait a minute, how are we all tied to one another? What's the deal? Okay, let's pick up on that conversation almost a decade and a half later, Armeen. To what extent has the growing anger that you were pointing out defined our politics since then? Well, to the clip that you had from the leader of the Occupy, it was an agenda. Sorry, it was a movement without an agenda. It was an uprising that saying, absolutely identifying and actually echoing language about the growing inequality that was the sea we were swimming in. But because there was no focus on how you addressed inequality, like the fact of it was not enough.

You needed to have a solution, an answer, and the answer came from the Tea Party. Then the Tea Party got completely railroaded by the Koch brothers. So the answer to inequality actually fed greater inequality, which was some of the stuff Brian's talking about, put more money in my pocket. Whereas the answer to inequality is not more money in your pocket. It's more affordability.

The Tahrir Square emulation that led to the Arab Spring uprising was about affordability. We are in an affordability crisis again now. And to Brian's earlier point about you're not getting at the people that need access to the services that will make their lives more affordable and better quality are unable to access it. Yes, it's a matter of design, when you are not putting as much of an emphasis on expanding access, as you are on reducing the cost to the people who already have it. And we know that nonprofit care is the way to go forward in the care economy, which is the largest part of the economy.

And what we all rely on, it isn't how much money I've got in my pocket, it's what kind of life am I being assured by my elected representatives that I have a guarantee for in the ninth largest economy on the surface of the planet. If we can't do it, who can do it? Quam, your view on the role that inequality has played in the political anger we've seen over the last decade and a half? I spent some time speaking to people.

I sit on the National Advisory Council on Poverty and every year we go around the country speaking to people and listening to what poverty means to them. And the number of people I've spoken to who believe that they've been cut adrift, they're voiceless, they don't know how to make any change, and they're angry is significant. And so I do believe, you know, I think I started off by saying that the theory is that income inequality leads to political polarization through increased, decreased social cohesion. And it seems to be coming true.

And certainly when I was here, when I first came here in 2007, we're all talking about income inequality being a social cancer and how it would make everything fall to pieces. And it does seem to be going that way. It doesn't need to, but it does seem to be going that way. So I think it is important. Do you think the election of Donald Trump is the logical extension of all of this? I think that's the one thing that we need to talk about here is how those who are in

the lower end of the income spectrum, the working class, new immigrants to Canada, refugees, across the Anglosphere, it's not just in the United States but it's in Canada, it's in the UK, they have almost all started to vote for right-wing parties. So the parties that used to call themselves the parties of the working class, the NDP, the liberals used to be the social justice party, they have become the parties of the rich and the elite at this point. That's very true for the Democrats as well. And statistically that shows up in voting patterns.

Well, hang on, Brian. All the bro billionaires are with Trump, except for the richest guy in the world until last week. But they've all, the richest people in the world have all been with Trump. Yeah, but those are very, there are very few of them. They don't throw a lot of votes. But if you look at the votes who get people put into positions of power and the voters of the block of those who are on the lower income, they're absolutely going to the right.

And so I've got a good thing to say about that and a bad thing to say about that. The bad thing is, I think, that we've seen the right in some places adopt the same type of binary lens on which to view politics, which is victim and oppressor. And they've adopted that, the sort of victim mentality. And I think that's a net loss. I think that leads to the polarization that Quam was noting. And it just leads to a sort of dissolution of civil discourse in our society.

But what I think is good, though, is a recognition that the right that used to say, look, all we need to do is just let business take care of things. No, they're realizing, actually, that in order for people to be successful and to thrive, there are a whole host of other institutions, families, access to education, safe communities that allow people to do that. And what I find fascinating is the shift of the working class almost entirely to the right. And I think part of that comes out of a realization that there's a growing inequality.

So those in Canada, we did a study on fertility. How many babies do people have and how many babies do people want? And in Canada, which is unlike many other places in the world, getting married and having children is increasingly the province of the rich. And if you're somebody who's had children, who has a family, understands the love and the beauty that that is,

that's something that is increasingly being seen as a rich person's luxury good. And I think that that is, that's something that is increasingly being seen as a rich person's luxury good. And I think that that's a real problem. Quinn. I think there's some things in what you say, but I'm wondering whether we're overstating the situation. It is not true that the working class have all

gone to the right in across the world. I mean, yes, there has been a shift in some working class people to the right, which has tipped the balance. But generally, the working class are not voting for right-wing parties, not even in states. So I think it's important. Not even in the states? No, they are.

But it's not that Trump got in just because he won the working class vote. Actually, more people who are richer voted for Trump first time round and second time round. So we just need to balance that. There is a movement where the right wing have captured the aspirations of some working class people. But I think it's an overstatement to say that the right wing parties

are now the party of the working class. But I think... But statistically that's not true. Yeah. No, statistically what you said wasn't true. Yeah. Armin, come on in. I think it's really important to not just talk about how many voters voted, but just

for either flavor. But the issue here is the cultural sea that we all swim in. And we have been swimming in a sea that for the last 40 years, since the arrival of Margaret, over 40 years now, the arrival of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has basically said less government, more market. That's your ticket to freedom. That's your ticket to wealth. That is your ticket to a job. And it did not play out. We've had over 40 years of that formula for people. And the other significant part of the sea we swim

in is that demographically speaking, the last 40 years because of the baby boom, and because women thought they were just as good as men, we have had a 40-year era of labor surplus everywhere that there was a baby boom after the Second World War. And we are entering a period where we don't want immigrants and we have had a falling birth rate. And so this combination of an aging workforce, more people aging out of a labor market than moving into a labor market for as far as the eye can see, means that we are revaluing the workers party. So who has read that? Conservative movements

and right-wing movements everywhere have understood that they need to be seen as working for workers. And what does that mean? Nobody wants to pay more taxes. Nobody trusts government. That's a 40-year information or misinformation message is you can't trust governments, trust your family, trust your community, trust yourself. Really, me first is not just a political moment for protectionism and, you know, nationalization of politics. It's about the only person you can count on is yourself. And that may be true because all governments are doing

is giving your money back instead of doing what they need to do to work for you. And working for you, whether you are a worker or unemployed or too old, too young and too sick to care for yourself requires more investment in the care economy. That is how we are going to maximize our individual and social potential. And a conversation revolution is about to take place

as the lights go on in our heads about what it takes to do better. And it isn't more money in your pocket. It's being healthier, it's being better educated, it's being more in connection with others and is being able to live up to your own personal and our societal potential. And that's a new conversation that's coming up.

That chapter hasn't yet been written. Ryan wants to weigh in on that. Yeah, I do, because I think what we've heard from Armin is actually not actually the reality for the last decade. We have had massive growth in government expenditure. We've had massive growth in government programs over the last decade. And we're worse off now than we were a decade ago. And so I want to say, and forgive me for bringing up my liberal arts here,

but I want to say I'm on Team Mercutio, a pox on both their houses, the trickle down notion of capitalist economy where you only give it to the richest. Or if you just get the state to do it and you let the state do it, neither of them are working. Neither of them are working. We have had a decade, over a decade, of a liberal government that has spent more and more and more. And things are worse today than when they began. For my kids, who are 18, for young people in their 30s,

what we need is a realization of what is the role of the state, what is the role of the economy, and how do those things foster the rich lives that we all want? Families, communities, arts and culture. We need to have a productive economy to do that, but the productive economy that comes and the taxes that are come to pay for the programs we actually do need are going to come out of a culture that is a richer one and is not simply turning to the state or turning to the economy.

And I think for too long, that's been the state of Canadian public discourse. It's state or market, and we need a much richer, much richer, deeper society. Clem. Over the last years, if we look at where we were and where we are now, we might say that things have got worse. over the years, if we look at where we were and where we are now, we might say that things have got worse. But one of the things that was interesting about the diagram you showed about the Gini coefficients, it showed that there were fluctuations.

It showed that we'd actually, so one thing about the Gini coefficient, when you get to 0.3, if it goes over 0.3, you have an impact on health. So that's when you start getting increased infant mortality, increased chronic diseases, and lower life expectancy when you get above 0.3. Where are we now? We're at about 0.3, if you can believe the Gini coefficient, because as people get richer they hide more

of their income and so the Gini coefficient over a period of time has become less useful. But the interesting thing was when you look at the first part of the pandemic when they brought in the CERB the Gini coefficient dived and we got to a point where in many ways, where we... And also if you look at poverty levels, poverty levels came down to, I think, 7% lowest in history. But we ran deficits of $300 billion. You can't do that every day. No, you can't. But part of that was because of the Serb. Part of that was also because of the economic situation that we found in because of the pandemic. But the interesting thing was that we have had fluctuations where we have been able to make things better. So if we just look at where we were and where we are, we say, hey, everything's gone to, everything's got worse. Not everything. Yeah, but everything hasn't got worse.

Yes, that's true. Yeah, a lot of things have got better. Up until two years ago, we were starting to see significant increases in our life expectancy. Actually, as Armin said, there's a lot of money in Canada, and Canada's a great place to be, right? Well, what... And so there are loads of positives, and we have to think of how we balance that rather than trying to sensationalize where we are. When we played that clip of Armin earlier, particularly eagle-eyed viewers may have noticed when they went to a foreshot that there was somebody in the bottom left-hand corner

who was a mere journalist back then, but who may actually be sitting at the cabinet table today. And that of course was Krisha Freeland. Here's what she had to say about this and more back in 2011. Sheldon, if you would. It's part of what is sort of paradoxical and difficult about what's going on. Because actually income inequality between countries is decreasing. And that is terrific. You know, one thing that we're seeing is hundreds of millions of people, particularly in India and China, who are living in absolute poverty being raised up. That's terrific.

What makes this a more difficult and complicated process is that at the same time we're seeing stagnation for the middle class in the Western industrialized countries. And what is sort of a scary conclusion for me is maybe these processes aren't disconnected and maybe this global super elite are the ones who are figuring out the most how to kind of ride this wave of globalization and technological change. And then the people at the very bottom in the whole world are also benefiting.

The people in the middle who happen to be most of the people in Canada and the United States are getting squeezed. Let's do some more stats here. According to the World Bank, global income inequality between countries has been declining since 1990. And the percentage of people living in extreme poverty, check this out, people living in

extreme poverty around the world fell from 38% in 1990 to 8. a half percent in 2024. Armin, almost a decade and a half later, is there any doubt that we are now today globally more equal? No, no, there is no doubt. And part of it is what the average worker can do. So in India and China, they went from subsistence existence to either working in the tech industry in India and China, they went from subsistence existence to either working in the tech industry

in India or working to be the factory of the world in China. So they moved from rural to urban. They moved even when they didn't move. They were more in the formal economy than they had been previously. So of course that gives you a clue on why did inequalities, to Quam's point about the ups and downs of the Gini coefficient. I wrote my first document about growing inequality in Canada. It was published in 1998. And there you look at the 20 years from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. and the average person saw no wage gains.

Like no wage gains. Inflation adjusted, zero wage gains for a generation for 20 years. Right after I wrote that report, Canada was part of a global super cycle led by China. China coming on stream as an industrial power soaked up more and more commodities from all over the world, including Canada. And then we were also the birthplace of Blackberry and the rise of the meme generation of I get to have a mini computer in my hand and have control over the world. And that whole, those two reasons for Canada being at the forefront of the global developments, both digitally and industrially, meant that wage growth did rise from the late 1990s to around the time of the global financial crisis.

And then everything collapsed, everything stopped. And then around 2017, we saw again, solid wage growth. This is before CERN. Solid wage growth because of the demographic squeeze play I was telling you about earlier that we know when you have less labor, you have to pay more for it. And across the entire income spectrum, we saw a massive change in the composition

of what kind of jobs were available for people. And of course, it's working people that pay the taxes for the services that everybody needs. And to Brian's point, we're spending money like a drunken sailor. Well, that's what happens when demographics comes to town. It's the slowest move in train on the planet, but you're going to be spending more on the elderly. You're going to be spending more on care. And if you, if you have, as we do in Canada, half the working population

on payroll are women. You cannot afford to let most of that care for raising kids, taking care of people that are sick, taking care of people that are elderly, you can't lose a significant part of your payroll because we're now doing more unpaid care. So, you know, pick a lane. You want slowing economy? You go for it. Make it family first. But if you want to not go into long-term decline, you need to support the population. There is a silver lining in this, which is the care economy is the juggernaut in our economy. And yes, we're paying for it collectively, but we can pay for it collectively both publicly and through non-profit mechanisms.

We do not have to pay for it collectively through profits that get siphoned offshore. That's our choice. With just a couple of minutes to go here, can you tell us, Brian, where you believe we are better off today than we were two decades ago? I think the Canada child benefit, not the CCB, but I think that's one example, child poverty has gone down. I think that is a straight up thing that we should rejoice in.

And bringing up my religious background, we should say rejoice hallelujah for the decline of global inequality as well. The fact that every person with potential is able to do more now, is something we should be thankful about. So I'd say child poverty, I think there's a growing realization too able to do more now, something we should be thankful about. So I'd say child poverty.

I think there's a growing realization, too, that some of these questions that have framed our dialogue, and which I think continue to about more states or what have you, that we're going to need better solutions to that that are going to be more complicated, and that we're going to maybe need to redistribute the way we do policy to give people more agency.

And the focus, I think, is going to be on the need for greater equality of agency amongst those who don't have it right now who feel like they're cut off and I feel if we can master that and I think some of that is going to mean it'd be typical conservative stuff which is getting rid of regulations allowing people to do the things they're capable of doing and I think some of this is going to be thinking about how do we set up programs so that we give more agency to people whether it's in education or other places. It is true those who are in their 30s who had hoped to buy a home and may never be able to buy a home because of the situation right now, they certainly, not inappropriately, take up a great deal of the oxygen

when we have these conversations. But I guess we should not let that obscure the fact that there are some victories out there. Are there not? And where would they be? What do you want to tell us? Well, I think that we've got lower levels of poverty, definitely, since 2006. We have lower levels of inequality in the world. We do need to be careful about that, though, because actually most of that is driven by India and China and sub-Saharan Africa is still struggling significantly. So we need to think about that. We have been able to show that we can decrease income inequality through progressive taxes.

And there have been a number of wins, be it child care, be it disability benefits that are coming in, be it the workers benefit, all of which have been trying to decrease both poverty and inequality. So we know that we can do it and the next, our next iteration as Canadians is, are we going to do it? Because we know we can make it better. I personally think the idea of decreasing regulation in order to somehow produce a better Canada is probably a bad idea.

I think governments are there to govern. I think you do need rules. Otherwise you get the unfettered capitalism, which I think is problematic. But I do think that we don't need to forget that we are one of the greatest nations in the world. And this is people like me choose to be in Canada because we believe that increased equality and increased opportunity in a diverse multicultural population is the way to move things forward. And we believe that the idea of turbocharging care and the care economy is really important

and is typically Canadian. And so I think I'm always worried when we look back and we say, you know, things are worse now than they were, that we need to be careful. And I think that we need to remember that there have been a whole lot of successes. And lastly, on worlds and world, if you look at the world inequality, the world was less equal in 2025 than it was in 1925. Hugely less equal in 2025 than it was in 1925. And if we can flip the script and start saying, hey, what did we do to have a world that was

more equal back then? The world was more equal before the Industrial Revolution. What does that mean? I think we can think of pathways to making a better world, a more equal world. We have to think about that because we have to think about consumption because we've got a climate crisis. Am I plum out of time or have I got 30 seconds I can give to Armin Yelnesian to put a bow on this? Let's do that. Armin, go ahead. Last 30 to you.

Okay, look, globally, we are firmly in an era of a politics of revenge and there's lots of money behind making sure everybody's angry with everybody else. But we haven't written the next chapter. And the next chapter with populations aging and the potential of an aging population demographic and indisputably less functional economic growth agendas gives us the opportunity to actually talk about what really matters in life. And it might be family and love and home, but it certainly isn't just GDP growth. And so we have an opportunity right in front of us to reimagine what our future is. And in Canada, we're ahead of the game because we're under attack by the United States. And it has triggered a conversation about what really matters.

What is an economy for, who is it for. I can't wait to have that conversation with all of you again. And I'm so sorry you're leaving, Steve, because this is the best way to have this conversation. I agree. Well, what are we going to do? Hang on. I'm leaving the studio, but I'll show up somewhere else and I'll invite you back.

So don't worry about it. It's going to happen. It's going to happen. I was thinking, Steve, but I was also thinking the agenda. I mean, I came here first on the agenda in, I think, 2007, 2008, welcomed as a newcomer without Canadian experience into the lives of intellectual lives of Canadians and been looked after by the agenda ever since.

And I'm incredibly happy to have been part of your journey, Steve. They can cut this if they want, but I am incredibly happy to be part of your journey. I need five seconds, too, because I want to say, Steve, you absolute beauty, this is one of the top three public affairs shows in maybe the world, definitely in North America.

I think we talk about the need for this stuff. It's all about institutions and having strong media institutions that allow plurality of voices together to have the hard conversations. You've done that. God bless you. And I just hope nothing but the best for you as you move on. You are all far too kind.

No, we're accurate. We'll see each other again. We're accurate. Can I, let's get out of here. Can I get a three-shot please, Mr. Director? There we go. Quent McKenzie from the Wellesley Institute, Professor of Psychiatry at U of T, Brian Dykema, Cardus Canada, Senior Editor of Comment Magazine,

and the incomparable Armin Yelnesian Atkinson Fellow on the Future of Workers. You can read her in the Toronto Star on the Weekends. And she's got the best vinyl collection this side of the Mississippi, or whatever that means. Anyway, thanks so much you three. Thanks Stephen. Thanks very much. Thank you.