The term late-stage capitalism is increasingly used to describe the current phase of capitalism in many high-income countries. It reflects growing concern over systemic issues such as economic inequality, financialization, labor market precarity, and the role of corporate and political power. While the term is often associated with political commentary, it can also be understood through a fact-based analysis of observable economic and social trends.

I examine what is commonly meant by “late-stage capitalism,” explores the empirical data behind these concerns, and includes examples from both the United States and Canada.

Defining Late-Stage Capitalism

While not a technical, economic term, late-stage capitalism refers to a mature form of capitalism characterized by the following:

• Wealth concentration
• Stagnant wages and precarious work
• Privatization of public services
• Financialization of the economy
• Consolidation of corporate power
• Widening disparities in opportunity and outcomes

These patterns are not exclusive to the US—they are increasingly visible in Canada and other advanced economies.

Wealth and Income Inequality: US and Canada

United States

• The top 1% of Americans hold over 32% of national wealth, while the bottom 50% share just 2% (Federal Reserve, 2023).
• In 2022, US CEOs earned 399 times more than the average worker (Economic Policy Institute, 2022).
• About 63% of US adults live paycheck to paycheck (LendingClub, 2023).

Canada

• The top 1% of Canadians own nearly 25% of all wealth, while the bottom 40% collectively own only about 1.2% (Statistics Canada, 2023).
• Between 1999 and 2021, the wealthiest 0.01% of Canadians increased their net worth by $5.5 million per year, on average, while the bottom 50% saw modest or stagnant gains (Osberg, 2023).
• Median income has not kept pace with rising housing, food, and transportation costs, especially in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Housing Affordability and Cost of Living

Canada

• According to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC, 2023), housing affordability is at its worst level in over 30 years.
• In 2021, 1.5 million Canadian households experienced core housing needs, meaning they lived in unsuitable, inadequate, or unaffordable housing.
• Over one-third of renters spend more than 30% of their income on shelter—meeting the threshold for unaffordable housing.

United States

• Homeownership rates are declining among younger Americans, with housing costs outpacing income growth for decades.
• Rent burden (rent exceeding 30% of income) affects nearly 50% of renters in urban centers (US Census Bureau, 2023).

Labor Market Trends: Precarity and Polarization

Precarious Work

In both countries, a growing share of the labor force is engaged in non-standard or gig work, often without traditional benefits or protections.

• In Canada, over one-third of workers are in non-permanent roles (part-time, temporary, or contract), with young people, immigrants, and racialized workers overrepresented in these roles (Statistics Canada, 2022).
• In the US, 16% of adults report earning income from gig platforms, many relying on it as their primary income source (Pew Research, 2021).

Job Polarization

• Both countries are declining in middle-income jobs, with growth concentrated in high-skill and low-skill sectors. This contributes to growing inequality in income and opportunity (Autor & Dorn, 2013; Conference Board of Canada, 2022).

Financialization and Corporate Behavior

One of the hallmarks of late-stage capitalism is the increased reliance on financial markets over productive investment.

• In 2022, US companies spent over $1 trillion on stock buybacks, a record high (S&P Dow Jones, 2023).
• In Canada, non-financial corporate debt reached a record CAD 1.3 trillion in 2022, much of it tied to real estate speculation and financial investment (Bank of Canada, 2023).
• Critics argue this behavior prioritizes short-term shareholder value over long-term investment, wages, or sustainability.

Democracy and Economic Power

Research in both countries suggests growing concern over the relationship between economic concentration and democratic responsiveness.

• In the US, a widely cited study by Gilens and Page (2014) found that the policy preferences of economic elites strongly influenced outcomes, while average citizens had a “near-zero” impact.
• In Canada, lobbying by large industry groups—including fossil fuels, banking, and real estate—has grown steadily. A 2023 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that corporate lobbyists outnumber public interest advocates by 10 to 1 on Parliament Hill.

These patterns raise questions about institutional trust and whether the public interest is adequately represented in policymaking.

Mental Health and Well-Being

Both countries have seen a rise in mental health challenges that correlate with economic stressors:

• The suicide rate in Canada has increased among certain age groups and demographics, particularly among men under 45 and Indigenous communities (Statistics Canada, 2022).
• The US has experienced a sharp increase in “deaths of despair”—from suicide, overdose, and alcohol-related illness—especially among working-class adults without a college education (Case & Deaton, 2020).
• Studies consistently show that countries with higher inequality also report lower average life satisfaction and higher rates of depression (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009).

Policy Responses and Alternatives

Governments, economists, and civil society groups have proposed a range of responses to address structural imbalances, including:

• Universal basic income (UBI) pilots (e.g., Ontario’s 2017–2018 UBI trial)
• Expanded public services, such as pharmacare, child care, and dental care (proposed or implemented in Canada)
• Progressive taxation and wealth taxes (under discussion in both countries)
• Corporate transparency and regulation (including climate disclosure and anti-trust enforcement)
• Promotion of worker co-operatives and social enterprises

While not universally accepted, these policy ideas reflect ongoing debates about how to align economic systems with broader goals of equity, sustainability, and resilience.

How High-Net-Worth Individuals Are Responding

In light of rising public awareness of inequality and increased scrutiny of wealth concentration, many high-net-worth individuals are taking proactive steps to manage both financial and reputational risk. One common strategy is the expansion of philanthropic efforts. Prominent figures have launched large-scale foundations or significantly increased charitable giving, often targeting global health, education, climate change, and social equity. While these initiatives can yield meaningful impact, some critics argue that large-scale philanthropy may shift public influence away from democratic processes and toward private interests.

Wealth managers and institutional investors increasingly allocate funds toward socially responsible businesses and sustainability-focused portfolios. This allows investors to frame their capital as a positive force while aligning with shifting consumer and stakeholder expectations. However, debates continue about the transparency and effectiveness of this approach.

Some wealthy individuals have taken a public-facing approach, advocating for economic reform from within their own ranks. Organizations such as Patriotic Millionaires and Millionaires for Humanity call for measures like wealth taxes, campaign finance reform, and equitable economic policies. These efforts are often positioned as necessary to preserve long-term stability and restore public trust in capitalism. At the same time, others continue to fund political lobbying to maintain current tax structures or influence regulatory policy—particularly in sectors like finance, real estate, and technology.

Some individuals are focused on financial insulation strategies. These include using trusts, shell companies, and other legal vehicles to manage asset visibility. Others explore second citizenship, offshore banking, or relocating assets and tax residency to more favorable jurisdictions. While these steps may be legal, they can contribute to public perceptions of detachment or avoidance.

These responses reflect a growing awareness among the wealthy of the shifting socio-economic climate. Whether oriented toward reform, preservation, or protection, these strategies aim to adapt to an era where economic systems—and those who benefit most from them—face renewed scrutiny.

Conclusion

The term late-stage capitalism is increasingly used to describe the convergence of multiple long-term economic and social dynamics—rising income inequality, the financialization of the economy, housing unaffordability, labor market shifts, and declining institutional trust. These trends are not uniform, but they are observable across many high-income nations, including both the United States and Canada.

The evidence points to a widening gap between economic productivity and lived economic security. While stock markets reach record highs and technological innovation accelerates, many individuals and households face mounting financial strain and reduced access to stable, long-term opportunities. At the same time, public concern around corporate influence, democratic responsiveness, and access to affordable housing and healthcare continues to grow.

Whether or not one embraces the language of "late-stage capitalism," the patterns themselves warrant close attention. The data suggest that without policy adaptation and renewed focus on long-term equity and sustainability, these structural imbalances may contribute to further social fragmentation and reduced economic resilience.

Understanding these trends through a grounded, non-partisan lens is essential. Economic systems are not static—they evolve in response to public priorities, policy decisions, and technological change. As such, thoughtful, data-informed engagement from policymakers, business leaders, researchers, and citizens alike will be critical in shaping systems that are inclusive, stable, and capable of meeting the challenges of the coming decades.

References

Autor, D., & Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553–1597.

Bank of Canada. (2023). Financial System Review.

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2023). Housing Market Outlook.

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. (2023). Corporate Lobbying on Parliament Hill.

Conference Board of Canada. (2022). Labour Market Outlook.

Economic Policy Institute. (2022). CEO Pay in 2021.

Edelman. (2023). Edelman Trust Barometer.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.

LendingClub. (2023). Paycheck-to-Paycheck Report.

Osberg, L. (2023). Wealth and Income Inequality in Canada. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Oxfam. (2023). Survival of the Richest.

Pew Research Center. (2021). Gig Platform Work in the US.

S&P Dow Jones Indices. (2023). Buybacks Quarterly Report.

Statistics Canada. (2022–2023). Labour Force Survey; Canadian Income Survey; Suicide Trends Report.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Press.