Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Boges said:

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

actually they did, Wages were going up faster than inflation for years before then. Deficits were well under control - for most of the late 90's and all the way up to 2015 with a blip of a few years during the great recession deficits were either tiny or non existant. And real estate values were climbing but they hadn't gone ballistic or become unaffordable in 2015. The problems were there but it hadn't crossed that affordability threshold. I guarantee you a lot of people today would love to be able to have 2015 pricing again.

Now the genesis of some of the problems like housing go back farther and aren't entirely federal to begin with. But a lot of it - deficit spending, inflation, wage stagnation... yeah, that's kinda 'post '15'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

actually they did, Wages were going up faster than inflation for years before then. Deficits were well under control - for most of the late 90's and all the way up to 2015 with a blip of a few years during the great recession deficits were either tiny or non existant. And real estate values were climbing but they hadn't gone ballistic or become unaffordable in 2015. The problems were there but it hadn't crossed that affordability threshold. I guarantee you a lot of people today would love to be able to have 2015 pricing again.

Now the genesis of some of the problems like housing go back farther and aren't entirely federal to begin with. But a lot of it - deficit spending, inflation, wage stagnation... yeah, that's kinda 'post '15'.

Deficit Spending became "normalized" after the 2008 Recession. Up until then it was, more or less, expected to try for a balanced budget.

Remember when Harper tried to balance the budget even though the entire world was going into a huge recession and the opposition parties threatened to form a coalition to force him into Keynsian spending.  

Inflation is a byproduct of the pandemic, and Russia. It's became harder to get stuff as demand rebounded faster than supply. 

I've actually already noticed a normalizing of grocery prices. However that may be because the Grocery barrons are being shamed that they've maintained profit margins through a heavy inflationary period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Deficit Spending became "normalized" after the 2008 Recession. Up until then it was, more or less, expected to try for a balanced budget.

Well nothing could be further from the truth. the recession forced a deficit but there was HUGE fights over returning back to balance as soon as possible. The conservatives wanted to do it faster and the libs and ndp almost forced an election over it. In the end Harper promised a five year plan to get back to balance and people voted him in a majority. NOBODY accepted the idea of deficits being 'normal'.

There was nothing "normalized' about it - deficits got smaller and smaller every year till they were at zero in five years and that's what the public demanded.

They didn't become 'normal' till Trudeau, who inherited a balanced budget.

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

Remember when Harper tried to balance the budget even though the entire world was going into a huge recession and the opposition parties threatened to form a coalition to force him into Keynsian spending. 

And they failed and he won. And he balanced the budget.  so how can you even suggest it was 'normalized'.

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

Inflation is a byproduct of the pandemic, and Russia. It's became harder to get stuff as demand rebounded faster than supply. 

Those are factors - and we would have gone up a small amount with those alone for sure. But - a significant amount of the inflation especially in Canada and the US is due to bad money policy. We should have been about 2 points lower or more the whole way through. That makes a huge difference when you consider the effects of compounding.

14 minutes ago, Boges said:

I've actually already noticed a normalizing of grocery prices. However that may be because the Grocery barrons are being shamed that they've maintained profit margins through a heavy inflationary period. 

First off - i'm not sure you know what 'normalizing' means, maybe pick a different word.

Second off if you're trying to say that grocery prices aren't going up, that does not appear to be accurate. Particular items you favor may experience periods of rise and plateau but overall grocery prices are going up much faster than the overall inflation rate.

And we never really get that back as a rule. if chicken prices rise to 20 dollars a chicken from ten, they tend to stay around there even after inflation stops. So - this is going to be a problem for people until wages catch up which is going to take a while.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Deficit Spending became "normalized" after the 2008 Recession. Up until then it was, more or less, expected to try for a balanced budget.

Remember when Harper tried to balance the budget even though the entire world was going into a huge recession and the opposition parties threatened to form a coalition to force him into Keynsian spending.  

Inflation is a byproduct of the pandemic, and Russia. It's became harder to get stuff as demand rebounded faster than supply. 

I've actually already noticed a normalizing of grocery prices. However that may be because the Grocery barrons are being shamed that they've maintained profit margins through a heavy inflationary period. 

Actually...deficit spending started with Trudeau Sr.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...deficit spending started with Trudeau Sr.

There was a time of it then but that did end thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade act.  For about 23 year other than the great recession we were all about balances and gov'ts knew it was important. So the next trudeau that came along changed that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...deficit spending started with Trudeau Sr.

Actually it didn't.  

From Fraser Institute:

  • Historical context is vital to understanding the debt legacies of each prime minister. For instance, global conflicts such as World War I and World War II and multiple economic downturns contributed significantly to the substantial growth in debt per person that occurred during the tenures of Sir Robert Borden (188.1 percent) and William Lyon Mackenzie King (145.2 percent).

I know it's tempting to blame everything on anybody named Trudeau, but it's also lazy and ignores facts and in this case, history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There was a time of it then but that did end thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade act.  For about 23 year other than the great recession we were all about balances and gov'ts knew it was important. So the next trudeau that came along changed that again.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

If I'm reading the chart on that URL correctly, the Cretien/Martin years had a surplus. But there had been deficit from Trudeau to Cretien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Actually it didn't.  

From Fraser Institute:

  • Historical context is vital to understanding the debt legacies of each prime minister. For instance, global conflicts such as World War I and World War II and multiple economic downturns contributed significantly to the substantial growth in debt per person that occurred during the tenures of Sir Robert Borden (188.1 percent) and William Lyon Mackenzie King (145.2 percent).

I know it's tempting to blame everything on anybody named Trudeau, but it's also lazy and ignores facts and in this case, history.

True...yet from the Fraser Institute...

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-really-quick-history-of-canada-s-federal-debt

Check the graph. When did the debt explode?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

You are wrong about what it was like in the early 80's

In the early 80's wages, mine was about $30K per year. Yes, houses were about $100K bit interest rates were 15 to 18%. Developers played games like selling you a house but keeping the land out of the price for up to 5 years so you could afford to buy. Buying a house was up to the bank, they had almost total control of mortgages back then. In Alberta, people bought houses but then many defaulted. A industry grew up and they called it dollar dealers. they would buy your house for $1 and then you paid rent. They never paid the mortgage, just collected rent and eventually the banks repossessed the homes.

Inflation was 7 to 12% for many years, not just a blip. Inflation rates for the 70's till well it the 90's was over 5"% and higher and mortgage rates, as I mentioned went over 18%.

Point is, we have gotten very used to low inflation and interest, we bathed in luxuries and ourselves and when the reality hammer hit, we panic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

If I'm reading the chart on that URL correctly, the Cretien/Martin years had a surplus. But there had been deficit from Trudeau to Cretien.

Yes - chretien managed to reap the benefits of the unpopular gst and free trade deal mulroney put in place. Those two things did much to wipe out the deficit, along with falling interest rates (which got as high as 20 percent in the 80's Imagine putting the entire national debt on a credit card and keeping up with the payments :) )

Trade wiht the us increased 10 fold and the gst was designed specifically to be a deficit killer. But - such things take time. Chretien took over just as the payoff was happening, and combined with some transfers to the provinces he balanced the books. His "surpluses" basically were the money he stole from the EI fund, but he legit did balance the books.

So it would be fair to say that even in Muroney's time deficits had come to be seen as unacceptable, and gov'ts were moving to eliminate it. But certanly by chretien's time they were eliminated and stayed that way till the great recession, and then we went back to balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - chretien managed to reap the benefits of the unpopular gst and free trade deal mulroney put in place. Those two things did much to wipe out the deficit, along with falling interest rates (which got as high as 20 percent in the 80's Imagine putting the entire national debt on a credit card and keeping up with the payments :) )

Trade wiht the us increased 10 fold and the gst was designed specifically to be a deficit killer. But - such things take time. Chretien took over just as the payoff was happening, and combined with some transfers to the provinces he balanced the books. His "surpluses" basically were the money he stole from the EI fund, but he legit did balance the books.

So it would be fair to say that even in Muroney's time deficits had come to be seen as unacceptable, and gov'ts were moving to eliminate it. But certanly by chretien's time they were eliminated and stayed that way till the great recession, and then we went back to balance.

That's reasonable.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

You are wrong about what it was like in the early 80's

In the early 80's wages, mine was about $30K per year. Yes, houses were about $100K bit interest rates were 15 to 18%.

This is pretty much what i said. Interest rates averaged about 13 during the 80's, higher early on and lower later but other than that how is this different than what i mentioned?

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Developers played games like selling you a house but keeping the land out of the price for up to 5 years so you could afford to buy. Buying a house was up to the bank, they had almost total control of mortgages back then. In Alberta, people bought houses but then many defaulted.

I feel like you're just making my point stronger - the point being it wasn't radically easier to become a home buyer then than now.

 

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

A industry grew up and they called it dollar dealers. they would buy your house for $1 and then you paid rent. They never paid the mortgage, just collected rent and eventually the banks repossessed the homes.

That wasn't common or normal across the country. But - there WERE a number of unusual schemes during those times that would pop up here and there. Lease to own was popular for a while. But lots of people bought homes the same way eveyrone does - get a mortgage, by the house. That was still the most common.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Inflation was 7 to 12% for many years, not just a blip. Inflation rates for the 70's till well it the 90's was over 5"% and higher and mortgage rates, as I mentioned went over 18%.

Well not for that entire time, no. Inflation was bad for a while (that's what triggered higher interest same as now) but the 18 percent (peaking at 20 i believe) only happened for 2 or so years.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Point is, we have gotten very used to low inflation and interest, we bathed in luxuries and ourselves and when the reality hammer hit, we panic.

We panicked then - who are you kidding :)

And once again we see the weird little schemes to buy houses pop up, etc.

But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


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 
 



 

So are you saying that our political leaders have no effect on what happens in our nation economic future, that economics are more a global thing that no one has control over. I think that Crietiens debt reduction did have an effect on our economy be it short term but his actions did and while history does give him credit for this, why can't history also record the lack of action or failed economy by another PM, or as you put it place the blame on the man in charge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is pretty much what i said. Interest rates averaged about 13 during the 80's, higher early on and lower later but other than that how is this different than what i mentioned?

I feel like you're just making my point stronger - the point being it wasn't radically easier to become a home buyer then than now.

 

That wasn't common or normal across the country. But - there WERE a number of unusual schemes during those times that would pop up here and there. Lease to own was popular for a while. But lots of people bought homes the same way eveyrone does - get a mortgage, by the house. That was still the most common.

Well not for that entire time, no. Inflation was bad for a while (that's what triggered higher interest same as now) but the 18 percent (peaking at 20 i believe) only happened for 2 or so years.

We panicked then - who are you kidding :)

And once again we see the weird little schemes to buy houses pop up, etc.

But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.

Inflation rates were higher for a long time

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/inflation-rate-cpi

Mortgage rates, a lot higher and for a lot longer than you think.

https://www.superbrokers.ca/tools/mortgage-rate-history

Too many people say it was easier back then to buy a home and that is what I am disputing. It was not.

I am saying, inflation and rates are a little thing now and people are panicking whining and crying. Inflation and mortgages are interfering with their lifestyle. So sad.

Boomers paid a price, a heavy price.

Predate? By how many years. I gave you links that go back 80 and 50 years.

 

 

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're better off retiring young via business ownership. 

IE find a country where your currency is multiplied at least 20 times, and buy property and business, and live off of it. So many retired people have done so in places like Mexico. 

Want a true retirement, make the investment real estate, and build a portfolio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Inflation rates were higher for a long time

Irrelevant unless you compare them with income as well. The relevant number is  income increase vs inflation. 

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Mortgage rates, a lot higher and for a lot longer than you think.

https://www.superbrokers.ca/tools/mortgage-rate-history

No - they're actually exactly what i said. They were high in the first part of the 80's, down around 10 percent in the latter part, averaged around 13. An they reduced going into the 90's, which was a much lower average than the 80s.  This is precisely what i said

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Too many people say it was easier back then to buy a home and that is what I am disputing. It was not.

That is ALSO PRECISELY what i said :)   Glad you agree.  And you're right, when you look at the actual cost of ownership after financing there's not much daylight between then and now.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am saying, inflation and rates are a little thing now and people are panicking whining and crying. Inflation and mortgages are interfering with their lifestyle. So sad.

Yeah - but they are right to do so. Sudden increases in those two things are very hard on people. Believe me - people were panicking plenty in the beginning of the 80's

And part of it this time was the bank and the gov'ts fault - they said for years there's NO chance of increased interest rates in the forseeable future. I had a big argument on line with a guy about that in 2021, and he pulled out all kinds of BoC and gov't reports and interviews stating that - no WAY interest rates were going up.  I told him that he was wrong and precisely why it had to - but a lot of people believed as he did - there's NO chance,

So when interest rates shoot up like a rocket then next year... of course people who believed the BoC and gov't are like "WOT HOPPEN!!!!! (Derp!)"

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Boomers paid a price, a heavy price.

For sure. And we haven't even touched on the stagflation of the 80's.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Predate? By how many years. I gave you links that go back 80 and 50 years.

Sigh - letsl look at what i said:

But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.

The problems the kid is talking about are things like housing affordability. The reason it's so hard to afford a home now compared for example to 1995 or 2005  or even 2010 did not start in the last few years.

Yes, the 80s were very bad. The 90's were better by far and wages began to outstrip inflation and homes were pretty affordable with a little work and sacrifice. So it got better for a time, then it got worse. And the reason it got worse again predates the current inflation and interest spiral.

So the stuff from the 70's 80's and 90's aren't relevant to the cause of TODAY"S issues - those began just after the 2000's for the most part. It's like how the recession that happened in the 80's doesn't tell us anything about the recession that happened in 09.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Irrelevant unless you compare them with income as well. The relevant number is  income increase vs inflation. 

No - they're actually exactly what i said. They were high in the first part of the 80's, down around 10 percent in the latter part, averaged around 13. An they reduced going into the 90's, which was a much lower average than the 80s.  This is precisely what i said

That is ALSO PRECISELY what i said :)   Glad you agree.  And you're right, when you look at the actual cost of ownership after financing there's not much daylight between then and now.

Yeah - but they are right to do so. Sudden increases in those two things are very hard on people. Believe me - people were panicking plenty in the beginning of the 80's

And part of it this time was the bank and the gov'ts fault - they said for years there's NO chance of increased interest rates in the forseeable future. I had a big argument on line with a guy about that in 2021, and he pulled out all kinds of BoC and gov't reports and interviews stating that - no WAY interest rates were going up.  I told him that he was wrong and precisely why it had to - but a lot of people believed as he did - there's NO chance,

So when interest rates shoot up like a rocket then next year... of course people who believed the BoC and gov't are like "WOT HOPPEN!!!!! (Derp!)"

For sure. And we haven't even touched on the stagflation of the 80's.

Sigh - letsl look at what i said:

But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.

The problems the kid is talking about are things like housing affordability. The reason it's so hard to afford a home now compared for example to 1995 or 2005  or even 2010 did not start in the last few years.

Yes, the 80s were very bad. The 90's were better by far and wages began to outstrip inflation and homes were pretty affordable with a little work and sacrifice. So it got better for a time, then it got worse. And the reason it got worse again predates the current inflation and interest spiral.

So the stuff from the 70's 80's and 90's aren't relevant to the cause of TODAY"S issues - those began just after the 2000's for the most part. It's like how the recession that happened in the 80's doesn't tell us anything about the recession that happened in 09.

 

My responses were to your post titled "Dear boomers: I’m a millennial, 36, and it looks like I will never get to retire".

My point is that no one ever promised you or the boomers anything but CPP and OAS.

I also stated that us Boomers had a difficult time of it in the 70's, 80's and 890's so as a millennial, stop whining, your "sorrow" is not new and has been flt before.

So, you can and will retire. How and when and with how much is totally up to you, as it was to us Boomers. We boomers looked to the future, you millennials seem to look no farther than your next vacation south or new car. My opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2023 at 9:51 AM, CdnFox said:

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

That's quite a leap.  There has been increasing globalization of economy and cheaper wages paid by other countries.  More outsourcing of what was once North American goods and services to cheaper markets.

 

Also isn't it interesting that the top 1% of income earners earnings are skyrocketing vs the rest of the income earners.  1-13-20pov-f2.png

 

Big business lobbyists and corrupt government officials are having a heyday making big bucks while we little peon wage slaves blame eachother and infight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2023 at 8:24 AM, ExFlyer said:

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.

I'm talking about the same government you are - it has most certainly fed the expectation that it's an honest broker that doesn't tilt the playing field.  I think easier metrics that indicate how much and far the field gets and stays tilted are the income and wealth gaps.  

Take Galen Weston for example.  I suppose defenders of our capitalistic economy will tell millennials they have all the same opportunity to roll up their sleeves, sharpen their pencils, work hard and one day be just like him.  No. Galen Weston stands as a better testament to tilted playing fields.  His inflated fortune is built on a foundation of influence within government, in the Weston family's fortune that would be through lobbying DFO to ensure as much fish as possible made it into the Weston's fishing fleet's nets, canneries and grocery stores.

Perhaps what we need is an Act of Parliament that formalizes that expectation with more exact precise language. The Acts we have such as the Transparency and Accountability Act and Lobbying Act are obviously still missing the mark.  So I guess we need a Level Playing Field Act that clearly spells it out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm talking about the same government you are - it has most certainly fed the expectation that it's an honest broker that doesn't tilt the playing field.  I think easier metrics that indicate how much and far the field gets and stays tilted are the income and wealth gaps.  

Take Galen Weston for example.  I suppose defenders of our capitalistic economy will tell millennials they have all the same opportunity to roll up their sleeves, sharpen their pencils, work hard and one day be just like him.  No. Galen Weston stands as a better testament to tilted playing fields.  His inflated fortune is built on a foundation of influence within government, in the Weston family's fortune that would be through lobbying DFO to ensure as much fish as possible made it into the Weston's fishing fleet's nets, canneries and grocery stores.

Perhaps what we need is an Act of Parliament that formalizes that expectation with more exact precise language. The Acts we have such as the Transparency and Accountability Act and Lobbying Act are obviously still missing the mark.  So I guess we need a Level Playing Field Act that clearly spells it out.

 

I asked you who "They" were when you made your post "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. "

If you blame Canadian  government for inflation, you are most likely wrong. Canada is actually a small player int en world economy and follows the inflationary trends of the world. It goes up in the US and it goes up here. We do not control our inflation, we produce very little and we consume so, higher costs in other nations drive our inflation.

As for the Galen Weston  issue you seem to have (along with others that complain about wages of CEO's), it is stupid. CEO are recruited and offered positions and salaries because the corporate board deems it need the specific person to guide and lead the corporation. Governments have nothing to do with CEO contacts or salaries. A salary comes with that offer. An obsession with their salaries is unfounded and myopic.

Do governments kowtow to these major corporations? Of course. Why? Well, because they employ tens to hundreds of thousands of people. Keep the corporations happy and they keep Canadians happy with employment.

What precise language and of and for what??

"Level Playing Field Act" of what???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...