Dear boomers: I’m a millennial, 36, and it looks like I will never get to retire

[CdnFox]

 

Quote

 

https://archive.ph/YudQv

Rising costs of living deny the luxury of squirrelling funds away to serve a far-off future. I’ve felt that older generations take this “spend today, worry later” attitude as blithe ignorance. Instead, it’s a necessity to survive. As grocery bills increase, hunger pangs speak louder than the little voice echoing in our heads about the life-changing magic of compound interest.

 

Well then i guess you shouldn't have voted liberal should you.

This is a serious problem for kids today but there is NOTHING LEFT that can be done. With the debt that's piled up and the mismanagement of the gov't the damage is so deep that these kids will be well into their 50's by the time things get back to 'normal' and they have a chance, and it'll be a little late for them at that point.

People think elections dont' matter and who's in gov't doesn't matter - but it matters. We need to get back to fiscal responsibility.

Oh and PS kid - Justin promised you that he'd take action on housing - did you see that great plan in this recent budget to build a bunch more houses so homes can be affordable? Yeah, me neither. Sucker.

[Aristides]

Not sure why you blame Boomers for JT. Most I know don't like him.

[eyeball]

Parkinson's Law is a fact of life.

Work expands so as to fill the time available for it's completion.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Not sure why you blame Boomers for JT. Most I know don't like him.

Actually he's most popular amongst boomers, and my comment would have been blaming the millenials for him.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Parkinson's Law is a fact of life.

Work expands so as to fill the time available for it's completion.

That's true, but i'm not sure that's the issue here tho is it? It's more of an increase in the cost of living. or are you suggesting the bureaucracy and such expansion is what the cost of living increase results from?

[Aristides]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Actually he's most popular amongst boomers, and my comment would have been blaming the millenials for him.

Not the ones I know. Boomers weren't the big recipients of the 600+ billion in new debt JT has racked up. I blame Canadians for him, I don't pick and choose.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Not the ones I know. Boomers weren't the big recipients of the 600+ billion in new debt JT has racked up. I blame Canadians for him, I don't pick and choose.

Well the ones who respond to numerous polls do  

In fact that's one of the weirdest things politically in the last while - traditionally the older people are pro conservative and younger people are pro lib/ndp.  For about the last year it's flopped, and younger people are flocking to the CPC banner while older people are going liberal.

I wonder if it has to do with PP's presence on social media, whcih is more likely to be seen by younger people. But yeah - you hit 65 and his approvals go down.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's true, but i'm not sure that's the issue here tho is it? It's more of an increase in the cost of living. or are you suggesting the bureaucracy and such expansion is what the cost of living increase results from?

I suppose some results from these but I think more and more of these increases are resulting from the inherently anti-social and environmentally unsustainable nature of our economy. Life is going to be a more hardscrabble experience for everyone. It's inescapable.

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well the ones who respond to numerous polls do  

In fact that's one of the weirdest things politically in the last while - traditionally the older people are pro conservative and younger people are pro lib/ndp.  For about the last year it's flopped, and younger people are flocking to the CPC banner while older people are going liberal.

I wonder if it has to do with PP's presence on social media, whcih is more likely to be seen by younger people. But yeah - you hit 65 and his approvals go down.

I'm not on social media other than with friends and relatives, this is as close as I come.  I just don't like Trudeau. Although I wasn't a big fan, I was OK with Scheer and O'Toole.  I'm waiting for an election platform before I make up my mind about PP.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm not on social media other than with friends and relatives, this is as close as I come.  I just don't like Trudeau. Although I wasn't a big fan, I was OK with Scheer and O'Toole.  I'm waiting for an election platform before I make up my mind about PP.

Well it's always wise to keep one's powder dry till all the cards are on the table. But honestly - i'd rather see you vote ndp or green than justin That guy has GOT to go

But - election's a long time off (theoretically). So who knows - perhaps the elderly will get their act together and come around to pp a bit more

[Aristides]

I don't think you need to worry about me voting for Trudeau, it hasn't happened yet.  My attitude toward PP is, I don't like Trudeau so please give me a reason to vote for you. 

[ExFlyer]

You cannot blame any one government for your state in retirement.

The governments have only ever promised CPP and OAS.

Boomers have nothing to do with poor planing or your lifestyle. We lived mostly in the days of single income families. We did without for many years as well and knew retirement was our problem. No going anywhere let alone vacations south, no fancy cars (let alone 2 cars), no designer clothes, rented for years, worked hard and long and even 2 or more jobs. Credit cards?? What were they? The banks decided if you could afford a house or get a car loan. I you did not have cash, you generally did not get whatever you desired. We lived within our means. Yup, the boomer plight was just like yours.

Somehow, I get the impression you seem to think that it is the governments problem that you should be better off in retirement.

Like the song goes "no one ever promised you a rose garden".

Edited April 6, 2023 by ExFlyer

[reason10]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Well then i guess you shouldn't have voted liberal should you.

This is a serious problem for kids today but there is NOTHING LEFT that can be done. With the debt that's piled up and the mismanagement of the gov't the damage is so deep that these kids will be well into their 50's by the time things get back to 'normal' and they have a chance, and it'll be a little late for them at that point.

People think elections dont' matter and who's in gov't doesn't matter - but it matters. We need to get back to fiscal responsibility.

Oh and PS kid - Justin promised you that he'd take action on housing - did you see that great plan in this recent budget to build a bunch more houses so homes can be affordable? Yeah, me neither. Sucker.

1. Don't retire. It's not good for you. I don't care how much money you squirrel away, you get bored and things go downhill.

2. If you think Canada's debt problem is a ticking time bomb (and it probably is), the Kerrey/Danforth report says that if nothing is done about entitlement spending in the United States, by the year 2030 the ENTIRE US budget will be just interest on Social Security, and taxation will be at 90 percent across the board. NO military, NO roads, NO welfare, NOTHING but interest on JUST SOCIAL SECURITY DEBT.

(Obviously, the night after our Macroeconomics instructor laid that time bomb at our feet in 1996, a lot of us didn't sleep too well that night.)

[Michael Hardner]

Looking at us and Canadian governments over the past generation or so, since 2000, it seems to be pretty even splits between conservative and liberal type governments.

I wouldn't be surprised if that went back to the last 50 years also.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You cannot blame any one government for your state in retirement.

The governments have only ever promised CPP and OAS.

They also promised a level playing field. I think we can definately blame the government for not doing a lot more to ensure that happened, but then that's on us for not doing more to ensure our government was an honest broker.

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They also promised a level playing field. I think we can definately blame the government for not doing a lot more to ensure that happened, but then that's on us for not doing more to ensure our government was an honest broker.

Who is "they"  and when did any government ever offer a "level playing field"?

Inflation has been going on every year since the beginning of time. There are low inflation years and high inflation years. There were 20 years (1971 to 1990) of higher inflation than now.

I lived through years of 15% + inflation and 18% mortgages in the 80's.. So, Boomers had it a lot tougher than folks now and they survived.

Edited April 6, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Nationalist]

While its true that the cost of housing and just about everything else has gone up exponentially. Even before Pixie-Dust went on his Rona spending spree, while doing his best to trample on the base of our economy, my wife and I saw this coming. Thus, we did what too many younger folks won't even think of...we "sacrificed" some things in our life, in order to provide homes for our kids.

Now...admittedly I have been rather lucky in my professional life. But we create our own luck quite often, with hard work and..."sacrifice".

I hear my daughter say things like, 'I don't know if we can afford to have kids and we want to travel and be free as long as we can.' I hold my tongue because I don't want a family squabble, but when I hear such things, I just shake my head and go have another beer.

"Sacrifice"...is a noble act...at least it was. Or have the younger generation simply forsaken nobility?

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

While its true that the cost of housing and just about everything else has gone up exponentially.

Your points about sacrifice were spot on but i did want to address this.

Many things have gone up recently like food ,but lets take a look at housing for a second

It's true sale prices have gone up. I  think in the mid 80's it was 110 k for the average home  and these days it's 600 or so. 

But - back then inflation was 13 percent.  So - homes were cheaper if you could pay cash, but for 90 percent of people out there, you had to get a mortgage. Your monthly payment would have been about. $1,212.65  per month

the 600k was largely at about 1.5 percent interest in recent years. That's $2,398.30.

Adjust for inflation between 1985 and 2019  and it's actually pretty darn close - the actual cost of a home after financing for most people have gone up but not by much at all.

But of course - in the 80's there wasn't cell phone bills for every member of the house, lots of people still only had 12 channels on their tv, you didn't buy late's and starbucks, "essential oil" meant checking your dipstick now and then to ake sure the engine had enough lube

Oh - and no carbon taxes etc etc.

And yeah - people sacrificed. And they also didn't buy a brand new home in the middle of the city as there first house.

So i question a little bit if it's REALLY that much harder today if you really want to to get ahead.

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your points about sacrifice were spot on but i did want to address this.

Many things have gone up recently like food ,but lets take a look at housing for a second

It's true sale prices have gone up. I  think in the mid 80's it was 110 k for the average home  and these days it's 600 or so. 

But - back then inflation was 13 percent.  So - homes were cheaper if you could pay cash, but for 90 percent of people out there, you had to get a mortgage. Your monthly payment would have been about. $1,212.65  per month

the 600k was largely at about 1.5 percent interest in recent years. That's $2,398.30.

Adjust for inflation between 1985 and 2019  and it's actually pretty darn close - the actual cost of a home after financing for most people have gone up but not by much at all.

But of course - in the 80's there wasn't cell phone bills for every member of the house, lots of people still only had 12 channels on their tv, you didn't buy late's and starbucks, "essential oil" meant checking your dipstick now and then to ake sure the engine had enough lube

Oh - and no carbon taxes etc etc.

And yeah - people sacrificed. And they also didn't buy a brand new home in the middle of the city as there first house.

So i question a little bit if it's REALLY that much harder today if you really want to to get ahead.

Good points.

In about 1965, my parents bought their first house. Brand new it cost them $25,000. My father's salary at the time was...$25,000.  I bought my first house in 2001...in the middle of the city ...it cost $230,000. My salary at the time was...$60,000. So what happened? Well...lots of things but, 2 very significant things happened.

1. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" welfare programs.

2. Nixon leaving the gold standard.

The first made it necessary to spend WAY more money than was available.

The second provided a method for generating the cash to pay for it all.

The result...inflation. The '70's. We've been paying for those 2 bad decisions all along. The currency is devalued and prices go up. Wages did too, but not to the extent of inflation.

On a side note...I find the Liberal ideals very contradictory for this very reason. "Oh you old fcks ruined everything for us with your conservatism." No...it is Liberal ideals that got us into this mess. We need to stop spending like spoiled brats and go to Gawd Damn work. Oh and...actually reintroducing the ideals of 'family' and 'responsibility' might help a tad as well...

 

[Michael Hardner]

The questions in this thread are economic, so we should use objective sourcing and talk about numbers not "we had a lawn mower in 1972 etc."  The sources below are linked (underlined) and seem to come from real sources.

1. Are things worse for working people than in the past ?
2. Who is to blame

1. This Bank of Canada document shows that things have been getting progressively worse since 1976.  I think that year was a lot worse than 1966 but THIS says maybe not... the 1950s was the time to be a Canadian worker.

2. Blaming our political leaders is probably something to discuss.  Blaming the political leaders of a single country is probably a little harder to justify.  Blaming a political leader elected recently probably pretty hard to justify in any sense I would say.

Here are the US numbers since 1975.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US 
 

 

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The questions in this thread are economic, so we should use objective sourcing and talk about numbers not "we had a lawn mower in 1972 etc."  The sources below are linked (underlined) and seem to come from real sources.

1. Are things worse for working people than in the past ?
2. Who is to blame

1. This Bank of Canada document shows that things have been getting progressively worse since 1976.  I think that year was a lot worse than 1966 but THIS says maybe not... the 1950s was the time to be a Canadian worker.

2. Blaming our political leaders is probably something to discuss.  Blaming the political leaders of a single country is probably a little harder to justify.  Blaming a political leader elected recently probably pretty hard to justify in any sense I would say.

Here are the US numbers since 1975.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US 
 

 

Also good points. However...we must consider the effect of the USA being the owners of the "Petro-Dollar" by the mid '70's. And how did that happen. Why it happened to be the most abundant currency in the world...by far. Still is.

When the USA sneezes...Canada gets a cold.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The questions in this thread are economic, so we should use objective sourcing and talk about numbers not "we had a lawn mower in 1972 etc."  The sources below are linked (underlined) and seem to come from real sources.

1. Are things worse for working people than in the past ?
2. Who is to blame

1. This Bank of Canada document shows that things have been getting progressively worse since 1976.  I think that year was a lot worse than 1966 but THIS says maybe not... the 1950s was the time to be a Canadian worker.

2. Blaming our political leaders is probably something to discuss.  Blaming the political leaders of a single country is probably a little harder to justify.  Blaming a political leader elected recently probably pretty hard to justify in any sense I would say.

Here are the US numbers since 1975.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US 
 

 

That was due ot the inclusion of women in credit consideratons. 

Prior to the mid 60's women's income was not allowed to be considered for things like mortages even for married couples. It was assumed that they would get pregnant and leave the workforce.

Understandably women's rights groups fought against that. In the late 60's that changed. Now - the income a woman earned at the time would be considered when the couple was looking to buy a house etc.

Well, even tho that was the right thing to do it had the unintended consequence of suddenly meaning people could afford to pay more for a house. Guess what happened to house prices.

Over time it's come to the point where a family NEEDS two incomes to get buy and the idea of a stay at home wife is fading.

It's not so much the workers or the work or even the pay - it's that changes to our society have lead to inflation that we simply can't take back. If you double the income you double the price of things - which means women spend less time giving birth to try to keep up and familes are smaller and our population growth is threatened.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That was due ot the inclusion of women in credit consideratons. 

Ascribing the arrival of women's rights into the question of our economic challenges is something I haven't heard before.  I don't feel qualified enough in economics to address your points, though.

[Boges]

It's refreshing to know that Wage Stagnation, Perpetual Deficit Spending, and Unsustainable Real Estate values only began in 2015. ?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ascribing the arrival of women's rights into the question of our economic challenges is something I haven't heard before.  I don't feel qualified enough in economics to address your points, though.

Well, something to research when you have a bit of spare time - it's actually quite interesting.

Only a troglodyte would suggest that women's rights shouldn't have advanced like that or that it was wrong to give them equal standing financially. BUT - it does highlight how strong changes in society can have radical and unexpected impacts on the economic model too.  And this has been the case in a LOT of countries.

It's one of the reasons why birthrates in first world countries are suffering.

We should have done the women's rights thing - but we need to be better moving forward at managing the changes that inevitably come with large social change.