Immigration being made easier

Moonbox · August 18, 2008

Whowhere I'll try to keep this a little more diplomatic and just call you completely mis/uninformed.

So the run up in Real Estate prices over the last 20 years is something of my imagination? The average cost of home in a Canada is over 300k. What kind of monthly payment does that require? What about the taxes and utilities on that? What makes a home bought today different from those bought back in the sixties or seventies? You have a home, you pay to keep it, etc, etc. Instead what you have is the gready who have exploited this area and driven up the price.

This is supply and demand. It's not the greedy corporations driving housing prices up in Toronto. It's single families buying homes, building homes and selling homes based on what they're prepared to pay to live in certain neighborhoods. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that generally the closer you get to the important areas of business, the lower housing prices will be. The further away you get from Toronto the cheaper your housing will often be. You can find decent houses in Ontario for around $80,000. They're just not going to be exactly where you want to live. Whining about housing prices is about as useful as whining about the weather. Prices go up because people can and will pay for them. Really.

What we have are those who are keen on driving up all living costs while at the same time driving down incomes. This is accomplished by Controlling the supply. Whether this is Oil, Housing, etc, etc. To drive up demand for this Controlled supply, the gready support lax immigration policies because the gready are about themselves and their money.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you talk like this. You're not really connecting any of the dots. Nobody is arguing the oil companies are screwing us. What does that have to do with immigration??? Oil supply is based on world demand and thus would have nothing to do with immigration at all. I can't argue that housing prices would be influenced by a rising population, but that's all there is to it. The fact is we NEED a rising population and a growing economy because of the economic policy of the esteemed (I'm laughing when I say that) Pierre Trudeau and his Keynsian economic theories. Our current level of debt is in large part thanks to him and if not for that we wouldn't need a constantly growing population to support A) The debt and Baby Boomer Pensions.

Canada, apart from Quebec (they have a daycare program) is not family friendly. To get a sense of how family unfriendly Canada is, listen to your local media on the level of families looking for food and clothing from the various organizations. This situation is progressively getting worse. I wonder who's economy you are trying to sustain? The average Canadian who wants just enjoy life by doing what their parents and grandparents did?

Once again you have failed to make the connection that links our 'apparent' family-unfriendliness to immigration. I'll repeat once again: We are not having large familes any more because:

a) Women have a choice now and aren't expected to just stay at home and pop babies out

Families are choosing to live extravagant (relatively) lifestyles and they can't afford to do so with large families.

Here's another thing you'll find interesting. Low income, uneducated families, on average have MORE children than higher income and educated families. Why? It's hard to say, but it's certainly not because the lower income family somehow has more money to raise a child with. It's likely just a phenomenon of the educated western world. It probably has a lot to do with the focus on individual achievement in Canada/US/Europe as opposed to the focus on family and social achievements in Asia and elsewhere in the World.

I'm probably wasting my breath trying to convince you, because all you've been able to offer is doom-mongering CPC conspiracy theories and you haven't backed it up with anything aside from "The Conservatives hate Canada".

The CPC are not looking to increase the number of immigrants we get in Canada. By making it easier for people with work permits and Canadian university educations to become landed immigrants, we ensure that we don't have to bring in as many non english speaking welfare seekers from outside.

Wild Bill · August 18, 2008

Yes, really!! See m response below.
You may disagree but your ancedotal evidence based upon your experience does not agree with the facts. Statistics Canada: Median total income They have posted back to 1987. If you dig you can find the income back to the 60s. You will see that in general incomes (as measured in constant dollars) have risen.

Actually, I couldn't give 2 fits to encourage larger families. People should have kids if they want to and can support them and shouldn't have them if not. I'm not looking to encourage or discourage them and neither should taxpayers in general.

Well, median income is only half the story. What about cost of living? Shouldn't one consider disposable income?

To give an extreme example, if your median income doubles but your cost of living trebles or quadruples then your living standard drops...

whowhere · August 18, 2008

It's not the greedy corporations driving housing prices up in Toronto. It's single families buying homes, building homes and selling homes based on what they're prepared to pay to live in certain neighborhoods. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that generally the closer you get to the important areas of business, the lower housing prices will be. The further away you get from Toronto the cheaper your housing will often be. You can find decent houses in Ontario for around $80,000.

It's so obvious how clueless you are. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the sub prime mess in the US. Sub Prime is also here in Canada but it is being covered up. Hmmm easy financing for mortagages plus mass immigration = artificial demand. Artificial demand equals ever increasing housing prices. I know its rocket science to you but think about it. As for your assertion you can find a house for 80,000 in Ontario, BS! In case you haven't noticed, housing is big business. Mortgages interest is big business. Real Estate Commission is Big Business. Housing Taxes fuels employment for the Civil useless. Alot of players involve in going after dead money. Given the fact these areas were the net economic beneficiaries over the years will ultimately explain the bottom falling out of the US and Canada economies. These areas do nothing to nuture and grow the GDP of a Country. These areas are as beneficial as the money thrown away everytime you fill up your car. Gone forever no reciprocating benefits whatsoever.

Banks Do not provide jobs they take them away. Housing Developers are fly by night job creators. Taxes are mismanaged and there never is enough.

WHERE'S THE INCOME GENERATION EINSTEIN????

Half of Canada's TSX is made up of Resources. Canada is nothing more than a banana Republic steered to immolation by the Conservatives. The sooner the Conservatives are bounced out of office the sooner Canada can heal towards a Canada that values its people, nurtures innovation, grows its skill base, and understands business.

The conservatives immigration policy makes it obvious they are pandering to a small group of Employers. The Conservatives are so stooopid they don't see that by pandering to these employers they are keeping Canada a resouce based economy. The fact is NAFTA is North America wide. I guarantee whatever is required to be done for a Company there is company who is able to provide the service, solution, or product to help this employer get whatever it is they are doing done!!

My observation of job postings is there are companies who fish postings similar to email spam. These employers are fishing for skills because they are an upstart company with no knowledge of what they are trying to get done or they are trying to save money by not contracting a business which specializes in that area.

Once Again,

WHERE'S THE INCOME GENERATION EINSTEIN????

What does Canada do better than anyone else in the World?? What does Canada do to justifies the cultural immolation inflicted upon it by the Boomer generation? I see how Canada has added up since the signing of the 1982 constitution. The politicians have made a farce at Canada's step into democracy. Canada's democracy has been fragmented and watered downed to meaningless. The only way out is for an appeal to the Queen to repeal the Statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the supervision of the British Parliament. Regardless of the timeline, given what Canada is doingm It's not a question if this will happen, it is a matter of when this will happen.

HistoryBuff44 · August 18, 2008

What does Canada do better than anyone else in the World?? What does Canada do to justifies the cultural immolation inflicted upon it by the Boomer generation? I see how Canada has added up since the signing of the 1982 constitution. The politicians have made a farce at Canada's step into democracy. Canada's democracy has been fragmented and watered downed to meaningless. The only way out is for an appeal to the Queen to repeal the Statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the supervision of the British Parliament. Regardless of the timeline, given what Canada is doingm It's not a question if this will happen, it is a matter of when this will happen.

Why do you believe this will solve anything? The policies in the UK are not all that different from ours, their minorities are growing just like ours are. And they certainly arent letting in rocket scientists only.

One of the fears right now is the statistic saying that when the baby boomers retire there will be massive labor shortages, much of the western world is facing the same problem. That is why its hard to let in only the highly educated, were all competing for the same people and the places those people are coming from are booming thus there is more room for them to stay at home and work.

Drea · August 18, 2008

It's so obvious how clueless you are. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the sub prime mess in the US. Sub Prime is also here in Canada but it is being covered up. Hmmm easy
WHERE'S THE INCOME GENERATION EINSTEIN????

Holy temper, Batman!

LOL

And no "It" is not happening in Canada. We do not have 7/11's issuing mortgages LOL. In Canada one needs government approval to get a mortgage.. in the US one can be on welfare and still "buy" a house. *I shake my head at the stupidity of this!*

The poor losers are the people who got sucked in. As far as I'm concerned they should get their houses for FREE because they were duped by money grubbin' mortgage providers.

Caveat Emptor should NOT apply in these cases. Especially when the damn president (or his minions) told the people they were not "patriotic citizens" unless they own; that renters shouldn't really have a vote...

The president of the USA owes every single one of those foreclosed homes in the USA a free house. Personally he can afford it so he should buck up for his people.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Drea

whowhere · August 19, 2008

Holy temper, Batman!
LOL

And no "It" is not happening in Canada. We do not have 7/11's issuing mortgages LOL. In Canada one needs government approval to get a mortgage.. in the US one can be on welfare and still "buy" a house. *I shake my head at the stupidity of this!*

The poor losers are the people who got sucked in. As far as I'm concerned they should get their houses for FREE because they were duped by money grubbin' mortgage providers.

Caveat Emptor should NOT apply in these cases. Especially when the damn president (or his minions) told the people they were not "patriotic citizens" unless they own; that renters shouldn't really have a vote...

The president of the USA owes every single one of those foreclosed homes in the USA a free house. Personally he can afford it so he should buck up for his people.

The Funny thing about those stimulus cheques issued by bush was that they were added to the US national debt. It did nothing but contribute to the hole the US keeps digging itself with its national debt. The sub prime was an elaborate fraud orchestrated by the Real Estate Companies, Mortgage brokers, and investment houses. What has been done in the US has been done in Canada as well. The only difference to the US is they went for the dive first. Canada's turn is just around the corner. If people believe all those resource based companies are going to prop up the GDP to sustain Canada through this questionable period they are in for a shock. It amazes me how the media champions and boasts the gains of these resource companies. However, who's really benefiting from these resource companies?? Canada in general? Not really. The fact is, Canada is an effed up Country. It never used to be. In the early eighties, Canada was indeed the best country. It's amazing what twenty some odd years has done to this Country and its all the conservatives fault.

whowhere · August 19, 2008

Why do you believe this will solve anything? The policies in the UK are not all that different from ours, their minorities are growing just like ours are. And they certainly arent letting in rocket scientists only.

The problem is, Canadians of old are now the minorities. Canada's democracy has been lost to the economic migrants. Their quo is to their pay cheque and the employer who brought them to Canada thanks to the Conservatives. Thanks to the conservatives, the Canadians of old are all unemployed and on the road to welfare. But that's ok as long as the skilled newcomers live the red carpet life rolled out to them by the conservatives.

Renegade · August 19, 2008

Well, median income is only half the story. What about cost of living? Shouldn't one consider disposable income?
To give an extreme example, if your median income doubles but your cost of living trebles or quadruples then your living standard drops...

That's why the figures are in constant dollars. To include for cost of living increases due to inflation. If you have some evidence to prove differently, I'm interested, but all the figures I've seen are indisputable

Wild Bill · August 19, 2008

That's why the figures are in constant dollars. To include for cost of living increases due to inflation. If you have some evidence to prove differently, I'm interested, but all the figures I've seen are indisputable

Well, one paper is hardly overwhelming proof of a different view but if you're interested you might want to go to this site and d/l the .pdf file.

It seems rational and persuasive. A tinfoil hat doesn't seem necessary, at least! :lol:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/sls/resrep/02td.html

Renegade · August 19, 2008

Well, one paper is hardly overwhelming proof of a different view but if you're interested you might want to go to this site and d/l the .pdf file.
It seems rational and persuasive. A tinfoil hat doesn't seem necessary, at least!

http://ideas.repec.org/p/sls/resrep/02td.html

I really don't see how this paper supports your contention. Even if we use disposal income as a measure, it further reinforces what I have said. From Table 3 Pg 25, Personal Disposal Income (per capita) has gone from $9,256 in 1946 to $22,909 in 2001 in constant 1996 dollars. How is this any different than what I have stated?

Edited August 19, 2008 by Renegade

Wild Bill · August 19, 2008

I really don't see how this paper supports your contention. Even if we use disposal income as a measure, it further reinforces what I have said. From Table 3 Pg 25, Personal Disposal Income (per capita) has gone from $9,256 in 1946 to $22,909 in 2001 in constant 1996 dollars. How is this any different than what I have stated?

Did I miss something? I thought your original premise was that our living standard ranking has increased, not decreased, and that we have a higher living standard than the Americans.

From what I read this paper seemed to be saying that our ranking has slipped and that we are even lower when ranked against the Americans.

But then, I don't get out much anymore.

Renegade · August 19, 2008

Did I miss something? I thought your original premise was that our living standard ranking has increased, not decreased, and that we have a higher living standard than the Americans.
From what I read this paper seemed to be saying that our ranking has slipped and that we are even lower when ranked against the Americans.

But then, I don't get out much anymore.

1. Yes our living standard has increased. The paper confirms it. (how is ranking relevant? Do we get absolutely poorer because others get richer?)

2. No, I never said anything about the Americans. It is quite possible that their standard of living has increased more than ours.

The original point put forward (was it by you?) was that people can't afford to have as many kids as they used to. Stats show otherwise. If they could afford them before, they are considerably better off financially now then they were before. The reason they don't have more kids is simple: its because they CHOOSE not to have more kids.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Renegade

Argus · August 19, 2008

This is not true. People are on average richer than they were decades ago when the birth-rates were high.

How many decades ago? Ten? How many men today can have three or more kids, with a stay at home wife and pay off a mortgage and car loan on a moderate low-middle income salary? It was the norm in the 50s-60s.

The difference is choice. Birth-control and the availability of abortion has given potential parents choice.

Indeed. Now they opt for more vacations and newer cars, for larger TVs and more time out at restaurants.

Not sure that makes them richer, though.

In addition expectations on lifestyle have changed. Children are expensive and many parents have chosen to live a more luxurious lifestyle over opting to have children.

What does that say about our culture that people don't have kids because they won't be able to afford as many electronci toys then?

Argus · August 19, 2008

Yes, really!! See m response below.
You may disagree but your ancedotal evidence based upon your experience does not agree with the facts. Statistics Canada: Median total income They have posted back to 1987. If you dig you can find the income back to the 60s. You will see that in general incomes (as measured in constant dollars) have risen.

A comparison with the cost of living increase would be of more value.

Actually, I couldn't give 2 fits to encourage larger families. People should have kids if they want to and can support them and shouldn't have them if not. I'm not looking to encourage or discourage them and neither should taxpayers in general.

Those of us who do care about the future of this country feel otherwise.

Renegade · August 19, 2008

A comparison with the cost of living increase would be of more value.

Do you have one to reference which shows a different result? Does not the fact that the amounts are in constant dollars reflect the impact of inflation on cost of living increases?

Those of us who do care about the future of this country feel otherwise.

And those of you who think that generating larger families is somehow beneficial to the future of this country should do so, and should do it on your own dime.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Renegade

Renegade · August 19, 2008

How many decades ago? Ten? How many men today can have three or more kids, with a stay at home wife and pay off a mortgage and car loan on a moderate low-middle income salary? It was the norm in the 50s-60s.

Probably very few because their expectations both for themselves and their kids are different. Many expect to send their kids to university today (and fund it). Cost they didn't have then. Same goes for clothes, phones, ipods, and whatever. A kid doesn't cost what he used to, and people don't want to give kids the kind of life they used to.

It would be an interesting question to determine if given a low-middle income salary today, could you live the lifestyle of the 50s-60s in a similarly sized community (including a smaller house, single car, less toys, less social programs, etc). The price of some things have gone up, of others have gone down. I don't know of any study which make that comparison.

Indeed. Now they opt for more vacations and newer cars, for larger TVs and more time out at restaurants.

Agreed.

Not sure that makes them richer, though.

Possibly not, but it doesn't matter if they are richer. Their choice indicates a preference.

What does that say about our culture that people don't have kids because they won't be able to afford as many electronci toys then?

That our values have changed? That we have more choices now? That we have different expectations? That we have become more selfish?

Edited August 19, 2008 by Renegade

Wild Bill · August 19, 2008

Probably very few because their expectations both for themselves and their kids are different. Many expect to send their kids to university today (and fund it). Cost they didn't have then. Same goes for clothes, phones, ipods, and whatever. A kid doesn't cost what he used to, and people don't want to give kids the kind of life they used to.
It would be an interesting question to determine if given a low-middle income salary today, could you live the lifestyle of the 50s-60s in a similarly sized community (including a smaller house, single car, less toys, less social programs, etc). The price of some things have gone up, of others have gone down. I don't know of any study which make that comparison.

Agreed.

Possibly not, but it doesn't matter if they are richer. Their choice indicates a preference.

That our values have changed? That we have more choices now? That we have different expectations? That we have become more selfish?

There's still the issue of time available when both partners have to work to maintain their standard of living, at whatever level.

How feasible is it for Mom to stay home and raise a couple more kids, in this day and age?

Smallc · August 19, 2008

There's still the issue of time available when both partners have to work to maintain their standard of living, at whatever level.
How feasible is it for Mom to stay home and raise a couple more kids, in this day and age?

Your looking at the past with rose coloured glasses. You forget how many more expenses there are today, the wants that people have. That is the only real difference. As far as I'm concerned, we're better off now than we've ever been before.

Renegade · August 19, 2008

There's still the issue of time available when both partners have to work to maintain their standard of living, at whatever level.
How feasible is it for Mom to stay home and raise a couple more kids, in this day and age?

Can't really say. Some of it depends upon whether Mom and Dad are willing to give up some of the comforts they have been used to for themselves and their kids. Also I'm betting while Mothers are working more outside the home, I'm pretty sure that fathers are working less. The 40 hour work week is a relatively modern invention. You can bet when the typical occupation was farming, the fathers were working a lot longer than 40 hours a week.

Moonbox · August 19, 2008

It's so obvious how clueless you are. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the sub prime mess in the US. Sub Prime is also here in Canada but it is being covered up. Hmmm easy financing for mortagages plus mass immigration = artificial demand. Artificial demand equals ever increasing housing prices. I know its rocket science to you but think about it.

While we're pointing out the obvious, how about we mention that you've not supportted a single point you've made with any sort of relevant facts. Period. Also, I'm well aware of the sub-prime crisis in the US and certainly understand it better than you do. Canadian banks are regulated much more heavily. In the US people were getting mortgages without having to even provide confirmation of income. The banks deserve what they got there, and the people did too for being dumb enough to buy a house they can't afford. That's common sense. When your mortgage payment by itself is 40% of your gross monthly income, it doesn't take a genius to figure out it's probably not a good idea.

As for your assertion you can find a house for 80,000 in Ontario, BS!

Check the MLS listings (if you even know what that is) and you could find more than you could count. If that's beyond you, I could link some to you. It took me literally 30 seconds to find 10 houses in Ontario under $80,000.00. Sure, they're not exactly 2000 sqft in Toronto or anything, but that's pretty affordable.

In case you haven't noticed, housing is big business. Mortgages interest is big business. Real Estate Commission is Big Business. Housing Taxes fuels employment for the Civil useless. Alot of players involve in going after dead money. Given the fact these areas were the net economic beneficiaries over the years will ultimately explain the bottom falling out of the US and Canada economies. These areas do nothing to nuture and grow the GDP of a Country. These areas are as beneficial as the money thrown away everytime you fill up your car. Gone forever no reciprocating benefits whatsoever.
Banks Do not provide jobs they take them away. Housing Developers are fly by night job creators. Taxes are mismanaged and there never is enough.

Again you show you're really having trouble grasping simple logic. People are paying what they can AFFORD for housing and building the houses they can AFFORD to live in with the lifestyle THEY WANT. It's simple supply and demand here. You can whine and carry on all you want about artificial demand, and about the vampire lawyers, ghoulish bankers and leeching real estate agents, but they provide a service that most people can't do on their own. All you've really done in this thread is cry that you don't like things the way they are and you've failed at every chance to link the effect to the cause.

Half of Canada's TSX is made up of Resources. Canada is nothing more than a banana Republic steered to immolation by the Conservatives. The sooner the Conservatives are bounced out of office the sooner Canada can heal towards a Canada that values its people, nurtures innovation, grows its skill base, and understands business.

Yes, our economy relies on resources to a great extent and more so than it recently has. That being said, this has helped ensure that our unemployment rates haven't skyrocketed over the last year and ensured that our economy hasn't gone into recession. With oil, food and mineral prices at record highs, I think you're putting too much stock in the TSX too. How does that relate back to immigration again??

The conservatives immigration policy makes it obvious they are pandering to a small group of Employers. The Conservatives are so stooopid they don't see that by pandering to these employers they are keeping Canada a resouce based economy.

You're not even making sense. If you're going to make ridiculous claims like this you have to elaborate and provide proof of some sort. What you've told us has no more substance to it than a fart in the wind.

The fact is NAFTA is North America wide. I guarantee whatever is required to be done for a Company there is company who is able to provide the service, solution, or product to help this employer get whatever it is they are doing done!!

That doesn't even make sense. Well done.

My observation of job postings is there are companies who fish postings similar to email spam. These employers are fishing for skills because they are an upstart company with no knowledge of what they are trying to get done or they are trying to save money by not contracting a business which specializes in that area.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your observations mean squat. My observation is that employers fish for skills because they believe that skilled employees would be better for their company. It's stupid not to do so. Once again, however, you're not making a lot of sense.

What does Canada do better than anyone else in the World?? What does Canada do to justifies the cultural immolation inflicted upon it by the Boomer generation?

Immolation. Maybe if you keep repeating yourself people will start to think you're even making sense. I suppose you are the one to tell us what Canadian culture 'should' be right?

I see how Canada has added up since the signing of the 1982 constitution. The politicians have made a farce at Canada's step into democracy. Canada's democracy has been fragmented and watered downed to meaningless. The only way out is for an appeal to the Queen to repeal the Statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the supervision of the British Parliament. Regardless of the timeline, given what Canada is doingm It's not a question if this will happen, it is a matter of when this will happen.

HEY! GUESS WHAT? BRITAIN HASN'T REALLY HAD ANY HAND IN THE GOVERNING OF OUR COUNTRY SINCE AFTER WW1. WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????

This is the most ignorant collection of postings I've seen on a forum like this in forever. You make me sad that Canada even has people like you in it.

TINFOIL HAT!!!!!!

Edited August 19, 2008 by Moonbox

M.Dancer · August 19, 2008

This is the most ignorant collection of postings I've seen on a forum like this in forever. You make me sad that Canada even has people like you in it.
TINFOIL HAT!!!!!!

I don't. Someone has to provide the yuck yuck material, why not him?

whowhere · August 19, 2008

Maybe if you keep repeating yourself people will start to think you're even making sense. I suppose you are the one to tell us what Canadian culture 'should' be right?
HEY! GUESS WHAT? BRITAIN HASN'T REALLY HAD ANY HAND IN THE GOVERNING OF OUR COUNTRY SINCE AFTER WW1. WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????

This is the most ignorant collection of postings I've seen on a forum like this in forever. You make me sad that Canada even has people like you in it.

TINFOIL HAT!!!!!!

Oh, what was the 1982 constitution all about? The queen still makes her rounds every so often. Pay attention!

It is quite obvious you are a card carrying conservative. Tell harper to get his head out of his ass and you to because you are delusional. This thread is about the conservatives selling Canadians out. The conservatives want to sell out old and new Canadians alike by pandering to special interest employers and deny and deprive Canadians employment opportunities. It is obvious the conservatives vision for Canadians is the serving of coffee at tim hortons as all the newcomers will be getting the jobs that Canadians are rightly entitled to get or be trained for. It is obvious the conservative hate Canada, hate Canadians, and has zero confidence in the educational systems and employment experience gained by Canadians.

The fact is NAFTA is North America wide. I guarantee whatever is required to be done for a Company there is company who is able to provide the service, solution, or product to help this employer get whatever it is they are doing done!!

Let me explain this to you. Look around there are countless employment agencies around. If an employer truly requires somebody they will get that somebody in Canada. These employers will likely balk at the terms and conditions put forward but that's another matter. Pick up a business directory of Canadian and American Companies and you will find services and products offered. There is nothing that cannot be found in Canada or the US. What it comes down to is cost! These employers don't want to pay the cost. Who's listening to these whining employers? The conservatives!! The conservatives and these cheap ass employers can go eff themselves. It is obvious what the conservatives will do for their own gain. The sooner the conservatives are sent packing the better Canada will be.

Black Dog · August 19, 2008

The only way out is for an appeal to the Queen to repeal the Statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the supervision of the British Parliament.

"Dear Elizabeth.

Our country (Canada) is a fucked up mess. Please clean it up.

Signed,

whowhere.

ps I am not a crank."

Yeah, that'll work.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Black Dog

Argus · August 20, 2008

Your looking at the past with rose coloured glasses. You forget how many more expenses there are today, the wants that people have.

Just what extra expenses are there today, really? I don't think we have extra expenses. I think that expenses (gas, heating, electricity, food, rent/mortgage) are simply higher now in relation to salaries.

Let me use my uncle as an example. He was an armored car guard. That's not exactly a job that commands top pay. Yet he had three kids, a stay-at-home wife, bought a nice house with an in-ground swimming pool, a car, built himself a nice den with bar, pool table, TV, etc. He's retired now, of course, but not poor as he managed to put away enough in savings.

How many armored car guards do you think can do this today without pocketing the money they're transporting?

Smallc · August 20, 2008

Just what extra expenses are there today, really? I don't think we have extra expenses. I think that expenses (gas, heating, electricity, food, rent/mortgage) are simply higher now in relation to salaries.
Let me use my uncle as an example. He was an armored car guard. That's not exactly a job that commands top pay. Yet he had three kids, a stay-at-home wife, bought a nice house with an in-ground swimming pool, a car, built himself a nice den with bar, pool table, TV, etc. He's retired now, of course, but not poor as he managed to put away enough in savings.

How many armored car guards do you think can do this today without pocketing the money they're transporting?

How many iPods did the kids have? How fast was their computer? How many cell phones? Internet? cable? satellite? Did they have 2 cars? 3? 5? Did they always have new vehicles or did they keep them for long periods of time? Did the girls in his house buy several pairs of clothes per week? etc.

There are many more things that people but today that are wants and add to the c ost of living. It quite easy to see when your not trying to convince everyone that we all have things so bad right now and that they used to be better. Sorry, but I don't buy it.