# Young generations are poorer than their parents



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Thoughts?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Not from what I see, all the young to middle aged are pretty much the same as before.


----------



## Gothenburg83 (Dec 30, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> Thoughts?


Eric Weinstein also touches on this when he talks about topics such as tenured professors. How many holiday homes do you actually need FFS while you watch the younger generation ( your own kids ) struggle to pay off student debt and get a deposit for a house.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not from what I see, all the young to middle aged are pretty much the same as before.


Maybe what you're seeing is debt? Even then, I'm certainly not seeing what you are.

On the other hand, it depends where you are. In low cost of living areas, it may still be possible for the younger generations to attain a similar standard of living.

But I still think it's largely dependent on debt. Canadian household debt-to-income is at record levels right now.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

This is, IMHO, what truly changed nowadays, comparing to past generations: the "Canadian" feudal lords got greedier and greedier ;-).


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

A great video and channel which tries to give rational explanations of cause and effect for our current economic situation in Western society without pointing too many fingers. I have watched other vids from Economics Explained and although I may agree or disagree with some concepts I think they are well presented. Hopefully this thread sees meaningful discussion and does not devolve into a boomer vs millennial feud that is all too common especially when we are talking about home ownership. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Well the question isn't whether boomers (at age 65) are wealthier than young people age 30 or 40... obviously older people with more years in their career tend to be wealthier. Peak income earning years come pretty late in the career.

Question is whether the boomers at age 30 were wealthier than their kids are at age 30.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Question is whether the boomers at age 30 were wealthier than their kids are at age 30.


Also *if* their parents are better off how much of that money is going to their kids?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Also *if* their parents are better off how much of that money is going to their kids?


It is discussed in the video.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Another important point to consider is what the lifestyle of a 30 year old boomer was like compared to a 30 year old today.

The younger generation today likes to dine out a lot more, travel, cell phones, etc.

I am not saying one or the other is better, but rather just highlighting the difference.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

The younger gen of today (and this can go into the future) is poorer than their parents only because they want this and that NOW and without saving for it. As simple as that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gator13 said:


> Another important point to consider is what the lifestyle of a 30 year old boomer was like compared to a 30 year old today.
> 
> The younger generation today likes to dine out a lot more, travel, cell phones, etc.
> 
> I am not saying one or the other is better, but rather just highlighting the difference.


I think expectations have also changed wildly.

I look at the taxpayer funded affordable housing. Every parking spot is full, most with newer cars. A few years ago lots of satellite TV's etc. 
This isn't the "low income" I grew up with.

That being said, I know lunch helpers at the elementary schools, lots of kids aren't getting lunches, etc.
Unfortunately that has gotten worse

I see a lot of people want to "blame the boomers", but it isn't as simple as that.
The victim culture also and lack of personal responsibility doesn't help.
Personal responsibility in the frame of "this is my situation what can I do", vs "this situation isn't my fault".

Also, this incessant comparison with other people, in different situations is NOT HEALTHY. What are YOUR goals, and what do YOU want, and are you working to get there?
Almost everyone I know in the constant comparison game is unhappy with their situation.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

Only tangentially related but I for one would just like to thank our overlords for locking us all down, tossing some milk money to those who got put out of work, inflating a housing and asset bubble to put equity as far out of reach as possible for younger people, letting inflation run hot to make saving impossible, and now fighting inflation by hiking us into slowdown (sorry about your wages). And who thinks we'll actually get to see truly depressed asset prices that younger people can actually feel good about buying and without any leverage before we get a pivot on tightening. Just so grateful really.

In full disclosure I am older than the likes of Blackhill who I guess from posting history is probably a millenial. Personally I am very, very grateful to have been able to start making my way in the world in an older time. Our overleveraged world tells a very simple story -- productivity from way out in the future was pulled to the present through leverage. Who will pay the piper in the years to come is the question

This thread will probably degenerate into insults and such so I will try my best to give some positive energy here. If you are young and pissed, you likely have some justification for your views, but the positive EV play is not to be pissed. No boomer (except maybe your parents) is going to be like "Oh yeah, I see your point. Here, have some of my Apple stock and take my cottage too." Even your parents after a couple of years of wall to wall coverage on a novel pandemic that's especially dangerous for old people are probably looking to spend a bunch now because, well, YOLO. And even if they're not like that and they happen to have money, pointing out how much easier they had it is bad energy. It is useful to read financial history, to try to understand how we got where we are and other such things but you really dont get much benefit from analyzing whether this group of people had it better than you, because then what? You're still f--ked. Better to direct your energy towards how to get unf--ked or at least maybe a little less f--ked.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> The younger gen of today (and this can go into the future) is poorer than their parents only because they want this and that NOW and without saving for it. As simple as that.


How come my aunt and uncle who are 55-60 retired with a typical working class job (no education) all their lives with two kids already have their house paid a long time ago while today young adults with university level education stay at home until 25+ to be able to buy a house around 30-35-40 and then wonder if they'll be able to pay for two kids and will retire at 60-65?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

wayward__son said:


> In full disclosure I am older than the likes of Blackhill who I guess from posting history is probably a millenial.


I don't think you can realistically assume demographics from ones statements.
There is a certain level of understanding and "getting it" that aligns with particular ages, or life experience, but I've observed significant deviation.

I hear the same nonsensical political crap from teens as retirees, and every age in between, irrespective of political affiliation.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I think expectations have also changed wildly.
> 
> I look at the taxpayer funded affordable housing. Every parking spot is full, most with newer cars. A few years ago lots of satellite TV's etc.
> This isn't the "low income" I grew up with.
> ...


Some great, and accurate, points.

I feel society is spiraling in the wrong direction with little chance of correcting the mistakes that have been made.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think you can realistically assume demographics from ones statements.
> There is a certain level of understanding and "getting it" that aligns with particular ages, or life experience, but I've observed significant deviation.
> 
> I hear the same nonsensical political crap from teens as retirees, and every age in between, irrespective of political affiliation.


I didn't mean it as an insult at all, nor did I mean to infer it from opinions or level of understanding and such. It was more an inference from posts about actual life circumstances.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> Also, this incessant comparison with other people, in different situations is NOT HEALTHY. What are YOUR goals, and what do YOU want, and are you working to get there?
> Almost everyone I know in the constant comparison game is unhappy with their situation.


I agree with this a lot too, and I've personally gained a lot from working on mindfulness. For many in the middle class, it will be the only way out of a life of resentment and bitterness, but many won't see how satisfying their lives can be if they figure this out. 

Sadly, this probably means long self-help quackery as a secular trend will be a profitable trade if you can figure out a way to put it on.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Also please note that in the video they don't try to blame, they try to explain.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

wayward__son said:


> I didn't mean it as an insult at all, nor did I mean to infer it from opinions or level of understanding and such. It was more an inference from posts about actual life circumstances.


I find people that disparage people based on demographics are at best lazy.
I would suggest not treating people differently because of assumed characteristics or beliefs based on *"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability*."

I believe it is okay assume the beliefs of someone who announces themselves as a member of a chosen group of people with shared beliefs.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> I find people that disparage people based on demographics are at best lazy.
> I would suggest not treating people differently because of assumed characteristics or beliefs based on *"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability*."
> 
> I believe it is okay assume the beliefs of someone who announces themselves as a member of a chosen group of people with shared beliefs.


I have no idea what you're on about.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> How come my aunt and uncle who are 55-60 retired with a typical working class job (no education) all their lives with two kids already have their house paid a long time ago while today young adults with university level education stay at home until 25+ to be able to buy a house around 30-35-40 and then wonder if they'll be able to pay for two kids and will retire at 60-65?


 ... huh? Wondering is different than actually "doing".

If you want my "honest" opinion, the generations of today are spoiled. 

Re-read your post - "young adults" staying at home until 25+ ... I would presume this is done on a "rent-free" basis so how are they "actually be poorer"? Only reasons I see are those cell/cars payments, if not student loans. And then the dreams of them gold at the RE housing rainbow with the OPM's of "low interest" rates. Ie. too well-educated to 'feel' poor but in reality hell alot richer than their parents and their fore-parents.

Moreover, I don't suppose their parents got student loans when they had "no education" even. It's all in the young gens' heads about not being able to afford kids and then retire at age 65. That's because they want to be spoon-fed and with the "woeful me" mentalily. I don't suppose their parents were able to live in their grandpa/grandma's house until they were age 25+? And were able to play CandyCrush on their cellphones, Twittering or Instagramming all night? I'm sure their grandpys told their kids (aka the young gen's parents) this "You don't get off your butts and work them fields or what have you - you ain't getting paid to buy your own toys" ... simple.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... huh? Wondering is different than actually "doing".
> 
> If you want my "honest" opinion, the generations of today are spoiled.
> 
> ...


That's your biased opinion about a generation, there's no argument I could do that would change your beliefs, so there's no point that I try to show you how this just a stereotype of yours.

I don't think I can do more than the analysis provided in the video.

Tell me, how many people in the 90s were replying to their job emails during the mornings, evenings and weekends compared to this "spoiled generation", how many were answering the texts and calls of their bosses outside working hours? You know, those cell payments you mentioned? And the internet that we pay?

How many people today are able to pay their bills and have a decent job with a high school education? Maybe that's why people stay at school and have loans.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's your biased opinion about a generation, there's no argument I could do that would change your beliefs, so there's no point that I try to show you how this just a stereotype of yours.


 .... would you not agree "bias" mean experience here? Care to ask other "older" members on this forum if that's NOT their experience? And what "stereotyping" of mine's - care to clarify here?



> I don't think I can do more than the analysis provided in the video.


 ... why do I need an analysis for when the experience is there? too much time on my hands?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I find people that disparage people based on demographics are at best lazy.
> I would suggest not treating people differently because of assumed characteristics or beliefs based on *"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability*."
> 
> I believe it is okay assume the beliefs of someone who announces themselves as a member of a chosen group of people with shared beliefs.


The the older generations were and still are by far the most guilty of this let's be honest

Not only that but they are also by far the most sensitive to any criticism or feedback of themselves 😂 Even fair reasonable criticism elicits an emotional response. They don't listen or hear any explanation that challenges their world view and go immediately on the attack

Boomers get triggered by the slightest fair criticism and yet have no issue denigrating on any other demographic


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't think I can do more than the analysis provided in the video.


I would hope you could, it starts out with selective data and biased conclusions.

Start with 
Chapter 1, how is it that a world that is richer overall, producing generations that are poorer than the ones that preceded the?

Chapter one starts basically arguing that boomers are selfish and voting in their narrow self interest.
They never even attempted to prove their premise that subsequent generations are poorer.
I stopped watching after 4 minutes.

So yeah, I'll dismiss it as crap.
They never defined what they mean by poorer, or shown how they are poorer. Or even who they're talking about.
It's easy to make people poorer or richer by not defining who you're actually comparing.

The debating "tactic" of never actually explaining what you're talking about seems to be a giveaway that it's crap. Often partisan crap IMO.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's your biased opinion about a generation, there's no argument I could do that would change your beliefs, so there's no point that I try to show you how this just a stereotype of yours.
> 
> I don't think I can do more than the analysis provided in the video.
> 
> Tell me, how many people in the 90s were replying to their job emails during the mornings, evenings and weekends compared to this "spoiled generation", how many were answering the texts and calls of their bosses outside working hours?


 ... how about this. If you think it's bad having to answer emails outside of business hours (which was the considered the "norm" when I was working btw and yes it was in 1990s), then being told in your face by your boss of what he/she thinks of you as "a dime by the dozen" ... and wait ... more of this "... from an X country" without going into real 'stereoptyping if that's not considered a racist rant'. Don't forget a recession is looming if you're feeling so pitied.

At least now there're "laws" that require employer to allow employees to "turn-off" for the day. I can't help it if the so-called "educated" gens don't follow them laws or don't have the guts to follow up on it.



> You know, those cell payments you mentioned?


 ... that would be like WAH and it's expected the employer reimburse you for those "business" costs, including your cell payments if that's the tool you use 'for work'. Unless ... you were playing CandyCrush ... or how about this ... trolling on CMF like a couple of posters do here 24/7.



> How many people today are able to pay their bills and have a decent job with a high school education?


 ... plenty. Maybe you should be asking the question - how many of their parents even had an opportunity for an education? Or even get to stay at home until 25+ so as to save money for whatever endeavours? See your own earlier post.



> Maybe that's why people stay at school and have loans.


 ... well ya, if you want to get an education. Just as you want that hot-rod, you have to either "earn" for it if you have poor parents or stick out your hands from rich parents. And in most cases, the parents these days are alot richer than their parents which are alot richer than their parents .... in terms of opportunities if not monetary. 

Bottomline: Do you want your kids to be whining to you as to how poor they feel so you can pass them a hand-out?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> why do I need an analysis for when the experience is there? too much time on my hands?


Your personal experience is worth more than an economical analysis from experts?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> How come my aunt and uncle who are 55-60 retired with a typical working class job (no education) all their lives with two kids already have their house paid a long time ago while today young adults with university level education stay at home until 25+ to be able to buy a house around 30-35-40 and then wonder if they'll be able to pay for two kids and will retire at 60-65?


I can think of a few reasons:

cell phone plan. Didn't exist back then. Neither did expensive computers.
netflix/etc. We had an antenna on the house when I was young.
Travel. I see a lot of young adults (18-25) traveling around the world. When my parents were in their 30s, vacation was a couple of hours drive to the beach. Before 25? lol I don't think they flew out of the country before retirement.
Too many people have university education. Especially pointless education. It doesn't mean anything by itself. Both my parents worked in more than one domain, completely unrelated, to follow where the available work was. Kids these days do it backwards: they decide what work they want to do and then complain when there isn't any.
University education requires that you don't start working for real until you're well into your 20s. Especially if you change your mind along the way. If you just pick a trade, you can start earning money a lot earlier. Without student debt. Yeah, you usually make up for it over a lifetime but it's normal to be "behind" in your 20s.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Your personal experience is worth more than an economical analysis from experts?


 ... not just my personal experience but thousands of others. And yes, an aggregate of experiences is worth a hell LOTS more than an economical analysis from "experts". Do and talk are different things.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... not just my personal experience but thousands of others. And yes, an aggregate of experiences is worth a hell LOTS more than an economical analysis from "experts". Do and talk are different things.


This thread is not about which generation is the laziest and the most spoiled, this thread is about the economical context which has lead this generation to be poorer.

I can tell you that laziness and spoiled was seen in other generations as well, that's not the point. I could also tell you my experience when I was a teen working in a shop in 2000 with adults in their 30s, 40s 50s and at that time they were paid $30/hour, they had big trucks in the parking lot, they all had a house and kids, no education, yet a working class job with a very high pay. They took 45 minutes break twice a day, plus 1h lunch. And you know your comment about Instagram? They didn't have that obviously, so there were a few desks in the shop with drawers filled with erotics magazines. Because in-between their pauses and lunch break, they still had lots of free time to go through those magazines while working. Obviously, because it was the kind of job that I learned on the first day and mastered on the second day, as a teen.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> cell phone plan. Didn't exist back then. Neither did expensive computers.


Yes, but it's now a must, not a luxury. For instance, living without internet today is like living without electricity. I don't own a computer because I have a cell phone.

And anyways, employers expect to be able to contact you 24/7 on your cellphone.



off.by.10 said:


> netflix/etc. We had an antenna on the house when I was young


My parents pay $120/month for Internet+TV, while I pay $15/month for Netflix + $35/month for Internet.

TV is a choice, maybe people had only an antenna. I don't even have a TV and I'm trying to convince my wife to get rid of Netflix. So we would have less than what we had when we were young with an antenna TV.



off.by.10 said:


> Travel. I see a lot of young adults (18-25) traveling around the world. When my parents were in their 30s, vacation was a couple of hours drive to the beach. Before 25? lol I don't think they flew out of the country before retirement.


That's a life balance choice. I'm happy that kids make that financial sacrifice while they have time during their studies because once we start working and having a family, there's no more time. Yet, I'm in my mid 30s and took a plane for the first time in my mid 20s. I took more planes due to my job than for my own vacations.



off.by.10 said:


> Too many people have university education. Especially pointless education. It doesn't mean anything by itself.





off.by.10 said:


> University education requires that you don't start working for real until you're well into your 20s.


True and that's an issue. Because that's what *employers* want. In the past, it was easier to start on the floor with a working class job and then ramp up. Me and my cousin have the same education path, but I continued with the university and while he started working 5 years before me. We then both ramped up. I can tell you my opportunities were much greater and I made much more money even though I've worked 5 years less than him. And that's after 10 years for me vs 15 years for him.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

off.by.10 said:


> I can think of a few reasons:
> 
> cell phone plan. Didn't exist back then. Neither did expensive computers


Yes, there are many expenses today (most optional) that didn't exist back then. 

Cell phone costs can be a big expense but talk/text can be reasonable. Actually computers back then were very expensive and very cheap now. My first computer purchase in the mid 80's was $4000 and now that can easily be had for 1/4 of that price.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Your personal experience is worth more than an economical analysis from experts?


Which experts is a good question and what is the expert's aganda? Certainly you're not suggesting a youtube video as being an "expert opinion" right?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Today's generation inherited a world built by the physical labor and hard work of previous generations, but there are still challenges to this world.

I would prefer to have this generation striving to solve those challenges than complaining that they exist.

There are some young adults doing that, but far too many are absorbed in dysfunctional interests like social media apps or cyptocurrencies.

Canada has too much debt......some say. I would respond to say......look around and consider what that debt has built.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> The younger gen of today (and this can go into the future) is poorer than their parents only because they want this and that NOW and without saving for it. As simple as that.


Yeah, because the boomers had stagnating wages and 500k+ townhomes, right?

The boomers had 400,000+ immigrants coming to the country every year, right?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

sags said:


> Today's generation inherited a world built by the physical labor and hard work of previous generations, but there are still challenges to this world.
> 
> I would prefer to have this generation striving to solve those challenges than complaining that they exist.
> 
> There are some young adults doing that, but far too many are absorbed in dysfunctional interests in things like social media apps or cyptocurrencies.


The younger generation doesn't care because they are already drained and exhausted.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> The younger generation doesn't care because they are already drained and exhausted.


I see the younger generation making their way through life just like us older folks did. Some succeed, some don't ... just like before.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Drained and exhausted ?

They should plow the grain fields of Saskatchewan in the hot summer sun behind a horse drawn plow, like my wife's father did.

They should "pick rock" by hand for their summer vacations, like my wife did. They should fetch water and wood for the wood stove.....like her siblings did.

Drained and exhausted ? Today's generation join fitness clubs and buy expensive machines to get any exercise at all.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Drained and exhausted ?
> 
> They should plow the grain fields of Saskatchewan in the hot summer sun behind a horse drawn plow, like my wife's father did.
> 
> ...


I picked rocks, piled hay and split wood every summer growing up. Besides the high school summer I did basic training for a break from hay but still had to cut/split/pile wood and fall harvest before winter

I find physical work much more rewarding and less draining than modern day working in a/c with fluorescent lighting all day. You can't make any money doing physical labour though. Working for money is a fruitless endeavor nowadays thanks to all the inflation from endless money printing. Thank god smart kids have created crypto and defi

The boomer way of life is unsustainable. It's unfortunate that they won't even acknowledge the environmental disaster and debt load they leave for their grandchildren. Hopefully they get to witness the results of their actions from somewhere


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Our son was told he would never amount to much by the VP of the high school, because he said he wanted to work in construction.

A couple of other parents on sports teams told me our son wouldn't amount to much because he wasn't going to college or university.

Yea well, our son learned several trades, is a licensed heavy equipment operator, has a commercial drivers licence, has a binder full of certificates, and has a pay package of $80 an hour as a supervisor.......without acquiring any student debt.

Their kids went to university and college, .owed student debt, and work in an Italian grocery store stocking fruit, and the other one works for an alternative lender. While they were in school, he was already working and building up CPP credits, pension credits, and learning valuable skills that produce income.

Hard work doesn't pay well if all you can do is dig ditches, but if you have a trade or two........you can earn a nice 6 figure income.

Learning trades also helps people become more self sufficient. They can do most everything themselves and don't have to call a plumber to stop a leak.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> You can't make any money doing physical labour though.


You most certainly can ... if you know how.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> I picked rocks, piled hay and split wood every summer growing up. Besides the high school summer I did basic training for a break from hay but still had to cut/split/pile wood and fall harvest before winter
> 
> I find physical work much more rewarding and less draining than modern day working in a/c with fluorescent lighting all day. You can't make any money doing physical labour though. Working for money is a fruitless endeavor nowadays thanks to all the inflation from endless money printing. Thank god smart kids have created crypto and defi
> 
> The boomer way of life is unsustainable. It's unfortunate that they won't even acknowledge the environmental disaster and debt load they leave for their grandchildren. Hopefully they get to witness the results of their actions from somewhere


Then you have skills that many others lack. A lot of young adults wouldn't know which end of the axe to hold. They go to the store and buy a bag of wood.

We gave our son a good well rounded start......camping, motorcycles, boats, fishing, atvs, working on the inlaws farm for summers, and my wife taught him skills in cooking, baking, laundry, cleaning etc. There isn't much that he doesn't or can't do for himself. He is often helping out some of his "college" friends.

We were really disappointed when he didn't go to university or college at the time, but we were as uninformed as many other parents.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Your personal experience is worth more than an economical analysis from experts?


Not sure who this is directed at, but as I said in the first 4 minutes there was literally no "economic analysis" laying out the case.
They made an claim, without explaining what they meant, or providing ANY data to support it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> You most certainly can ... if you know how.


Now that all the trades people have retired trades are looking pretty good. 20 years ago when I was starting it wasn't that clear. Tech jobs were all the rage and family farms/business were being dismantled

The rock picking and that kind of manual labour has all been replaced with heavy machinery and temporary foreign workers who don't have the same labour protection laws for overtime and conditions etc. Not allowed to use your kids as physical labour anymore or haul them around on open hay wagons in the back of pickup trucks or let them operate heavy machinery. Probably for good reason because many of my neighbours kids died, broke backs, physically disabled for life etc. Statistically manual labour and heavy machinery is extremely dangerous and at best you end up with worn out joints at 40

Even if you start a trade today as 20 something now you need 6 figures just for a downpayment on a million dollar town home with no yard lol. And work overtime to pay the hot water rental fee


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Which experts is a good question and what is the expert's aganda? Certainly you're not suggesting a youtube video as being an "expert opinion" right?


No, I don't rely on YouTube unless the content on that video was made by an expert of his field and I didn't post this video as an expert content but more as good basis to start a discussion.

About expert's agenda, at some point we won't trust anyone if we believe every expert is pushing its agenda, which will lead to more conspiracy theories because we wouldn't trust anyone.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

m3s said:


> I picked rocks, piled hay and split wood every summer growing up. Besides the high school summer I did basic training for a break from hay but still had to cut/split/pile wood and fall harvest before winter
> 
> I find physical work much more rewarding and less draining than modern day working in a/c with fluorescent lighting all day.


Same thing for me. I started working at the farm when I was 12. It was much more rewarding. The physical job I did was much less exhausting than being in an office surrounded by pointless stress and pressure at delivering a project.

Ending your day mentally drained but not physically drained is much harder than ending your day physically drained but not mentally drained.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrBlackhill said:


> Ending your day mentally drained but not physically drained is much harder than ending your day physically drained but not mentally drained.


I agree


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Even if you start a trade today as 20 something now you need 6 figures just for a downpayment on a million dollar town home with no yard lo _

I agree with that sentiment and understand it. We have undermined a social committment to this generation of providing upward mobility in housing.

But why did that happen ?

Yes it was fueled by record low interest rates, but that wasn't the only factor. There was absolutely no financial gain to building 'affordable" housing.

I knew many people involved in home construction, from land speculators, home builders, and heavy equipment guys who dug foundations.

They all became multi-millionaires in real estate.........except for most of the real estate agents who barely scraped out a living.

None of them were the least interested in spending 6 months building a house to sell for $250,000 when they could build one to sell for $800,000.

The government dropped the ball. They allowed low interest rates to drive up home prices, without providing any competition to the building industry.

They should have built "government projects" of affordable small homes. It could have been done at $0 cost to the government by selling the homes.

It was done successfully many times in the past, but for some reason no government or political party has any interest in it today.

Honestly, I don't know why that is except that politicians are lazy and search for quick, easy solutions that don't require much thinking.

Until that changes......homes may never be affordable to most Canadians, and that will be a constant burr in the saddle of young adults.

It is also a huge problem for the cohesion of society. Home ownership is a "goal".......a marker that you are moving forward, your own bit of land.

Take that away from people, have them fighting over an affordable rental property, and society will have problems.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> No, I don't rely on YouTube unless the content on that video was made by an expert of his field and I didn't post this video as an expert content but more as good basis to start a discussion.
> 
> About expert's agenda, at some point we won't trust anyone if we believe every expert is pushing its agenda, which will lead to more conspiracy theories because we wouldn't trust anyone.


My position is that the premise is based on an opinion, not fact, and this is merely an emotional propaganda piece.
For example the sad excuse for this "economic analysis" shows.









Let me offer my interpretation.
There has been a significant increase in real hourly wage for generations.
Across all time periods shown above, the median real wage of children was higher, and often substantially higher than that of their parents at the same age.

Contrast that to the claim of the video "successive generations are not becoming wealthier than their parents" (they don't substantiate this claim)

So the question really is, what are we even talking about?
I think this video is propaganda.

But a few thoughts.
1. I think the doubling of median wages in a decade that we saw in the 50% is simply unlikely to continue going forward, those are absolutely insane levels of productivity increase.
2. Global wealth is increasing dramatically.- This is also claimed in the video
3. Global poverty is falling at an astonishing rate

What I think is happening is that young people today aren't very happy, and they don't seem to know why.
We've never been richer, or had a higher standard of living, or strong protected rights.
We've got rampant mental illness, lower mental and physical health by many measures, despite tremendous advantages in care (physical and mental)

They're saying they have it hard, or the deck is stacked against them, it's impossible to get ahead, other people had it easier. 
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I know lots of people who had it easy who failed, and those who had it hard and were successful.

They're looking for reasons, while some will say they're looking for excuses.
I think the problem is something else, people are lacking purpose and meaning, and this is essential for humans to flourish.

I think there was a poster on this board who was lamenting that they just had no drive or feel any need to do something. 
I think this is a common feeling, and we see the symptoms.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> Even if you start a trade today as 20 something now you need 6 figures just for a downpayment on a million dollar town home with no yard lol.


And I think this image of "I need a million dollar home" is what causes the perceived "my generation is worse off" situation.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> About expert's agenda, at some point we won't trust anyone if we believe every expert is pushing its agenda, which will lead to more conspiracy theories because we wouldn't trust anyone.


Point being that not all expert opinions are equal. Some are well thought out (with supporting data) while others are clearly are not objective and have some agenda.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Ending your day mentally drained but not physically drained is much harder than ending your day physically drained but not mentally drained.


Having done both types of work in my life I prefer the mentally drained. The physically drained comes via my regular exercise/hobbies which is at my discretion. To be fair though I've never really been effected by "pointless stress" in my places of work.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> And I think this image of "I need a million dollar home" is what causes the perceived "my generation is worse off" situation.


What? You live in Ontario? Does that include a hot water tank?

I bought a decent size house for $100k in the 00s with no backyard neighbours. Never did anyone think "I need a million dollar home" which would have been a ridiculous mansion. Come to think of it my first house was much smaller than my parents first house but still far better than you'd get for a million today. Salaries did not 10x in that time

People who can't comprehend how different the situation is today aren't exposed to how different things are


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> People who can't comprehend how different the situation is today aren't exposed to how different things are


And some people today think we all had it "easy" back then and everything was affordable.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> And some people today think we all had it "easy" back then and everything was affordable.


Just divide RE by salary

There are studies on this and yes RE is far more expensive now adjusted for wages. Canada, Australia etc have the most expensive RE in the world adjusted for wages. I also lived in Europe where RE is far more reasonable

It's really not rocket science


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are lots of cheap homes in Canada but nobody wants to live there.

I recently saw homes for sale for $40k in Saskatchewan.

My wife is from there and has no interest even though we could buy a really nice home for $150 k and don’t need to work.

Our son says his partner won’t go either even though they could buy a home, find some kind of work, and it would be good place to raise kids.

I would go in a heartbeat but nobody else wants to.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

cainvest said:


> Actually computers back then were very expensive and very cheap now. My first computer purchase in the mid 80's was $4000 and now that can easily be had for 1/4 of that price.


Fair point, I should have worded that as "computers weren't an expense for most people back then". Many other things weren't. People make different choices today and complain they can't have it all.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> I would go in a heartbeat but nobody else wants to.


You don't want to go to Saskatchewan. I've spent a fair bit of time there

You could move to a country with better climate, lower taxes, better food, interesting culture and things to do etc

Like your neighbour who moved to Spain. That guy is smart


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> Just divide RE by salary
> 
> There are studies on this and yes RE is far more expensive now adjusted for wages.


A question remains though ... which RE?

If you were to compare the average middle class home in the '70s to now, what would that be? Of course this is location specific but let's just go by sq. ft. size.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> A question remains though ... which RE?
> 
> If you were to compare the average middle class home in the '70s to now, what would that be? Of course this is location specific but let's just go by sq. ft. size.


Household affordability has been studied ad nauseum. Show me a study where RE is becoming more affordable in Canada

Houses last for many decades without sq footage changing. It's the land in a mature neighbourhood the becomes valuable more than the sq footage of the building itself. Just look at your insurance replacement value or property assessment.. it's probably much lower than what you paid or its market value

Even shacks from the '70s can go for a million now even if they would cost $100k to rebuild


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Household affordability has been studied ad nauseum. Show me a study where RE is becoming more affordable in Canada


Yes, offset in other costs, like food.








Your Grandparents Spent More Of Their Money On Food Than You Do


Shelling out dough at the grocery store can often feel painful. But Americans on average actually spend far less on food relative to their income than they did 50 years ago.




www.npr.org













I think that the argument is overly simplistic,.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> This thread is not about which generation is the laziest and the most spoiled, this thread is about the economical context which has lead this generation to be poorer.


But this generation isn't necessarily poorer.
As I pointed out, your video only talked about how they have higher incomes than their parents did at the same age.

I agree that it's worth discussing the economical context, and personal situations.

But this generation by many measures has higher incomes than their parents. I'm still questioning EXACTLY what you mean when they say are "poorer".

My understanding is that there is widespread agreement that there is a housing affordability problem, but beyond that I don't see it.
Necessities such as food are far cheaper, and our incomes are higher. 

Can you explain what you mean by poorer, and how that can be, despite the higher wages.
If the primary issue is housing, couldn't we fix this with by going pro-housing, instead of our current anti-housing policies?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

American food used to be more than high fructose corn syrup, plastic cheese and chemicals

European food is still expensive but it's well worth it. Tastes much better and much healthier


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Even shacks from the '70s can go for a million now even if they would cost $100k to rebuild


I think that's the point, the shortage (housing and desirable property location) is the $900k difference in your example.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Learn a trade and don't be afraid to work. I still don't see that going out of favor any time soon. It still gives opportunity to further education without incurring huge student debt to boot.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> People make different choices today and complain they can't have it all.


Having internet is not a choice today.

You know the things that I don't own in my 30s but that my parents owned in their 30s or 40s? A camera, a video camera, a walkman, a radio, a landline phone & service, a fax, a TV & service, a VHS player.

All that because... oh yes because I own that "super expensive" smart phone that replaced all of those things. So, yeah, my parents didn't own a smart phone obviously because it didn't existed, but spent on many other things that I don't.

All that while owning a bigger house on a bigger land and a bigger car than me. While being in the working class on one income, while I'm a 6-figure professional and we're on two incomes.

There's literally nothing that I own today that my parent didn't (or equivalent). Other than internet, there's no service that I pay for that my parent didn't.

Oh I pay for a cloud storage service for my photos for $25/year... but my parents paid for 24-exposure films, photo printing and albums.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I’ve often wondered how much of “today” is due to 9/11. A tremendous shock led to massive consumerism, encouraged spending, low rates…….all to make us feel better. I’m Quite certain 9/11 played a large part in the 2008 economic crisis. From there it was low, low rates used to prop up (save) the global economy. Wonder where we would be without COVID….would low rates have stayed low longer? Feels like people were saying “rates are going up” for the last 20 years. It never really happened until COVID. But I think 9/11 was still the economic trigger that led us much of the way here.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

US poured a lot of resources into defense and war post 9/11. Their domestic public services and infrastructure is slowly collapsing

US already tried to raise rates in 2018 and it failed. That was the famous J-Pow Pivot. There was already huge financial warning signs in 2019 as well specifically in the repo market

US has never really ended QE since 2008 and now it will be even more painful to do


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> US poured a lot of resources into defense and war post 9/11. Their domestic public services and infrastructure is slowly collapsing


I don't think that is 9/11 based.

I think they spent a generation building infrastructure the first time.
But replacing and maintaining infrastructure isn't a vote getter.

It's time to rebuild that infrastructure, and people don't want to pay for a lot of it.
We've been benefitting from decades of already built infrastructure, and we basically have to stop building new stuff, and switch to rebuilding, but nobody wants to do that.


It makes sense though, spending a pile of money to build a new bridge, great. Spending a bigger pile of money to tear down and replace a bridge, not great.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I'm over blaming "the boomers" for whatever undeserved economic plights young people are facing today. Financial and political machinations far more powerful than any block of voters could ever hope to influence has directed us to this current state of affairs - not the voting and social habits of the presently retired generation, composed of mostly good men and women.

If you're under 30 and blaming your middle class elders for today's worldly problems, I totally get it; but it's just your own youthful and optimistic delusions of grandeur that's showing... Soon you'll be 35+ with kids, trying to get by and raise them as well as you're able without becoming financially destitute, and then you'll be 50+ and still fairly broke, trying to save for your rapidly approaching old age. Nowhere along the way will there be any opportunities for you to "fix the world". Then when you're 60+ and your own kids are young adults, you'll sure be hoping that they aren't blaming you for all the world's problems in the year 2055..


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> Household affordability has been studied ad nauseum. Show me a study where RE is becoming more affordable in Canada


 I don't think it is more affordable but not as bad as many make it out to be. I see my friends kids move into homes with modest jobs (trades, etc) and even upsize to larger homes for their second one.



m3s said:


> Houses last for many decades without sq footage changing. It's the land in a mature neighbourhood the becomes valuable more than the sq footage of the building itself. Just look at your insurance replacement value or property assessment.. it's probably much lower than what you paid or its market value


New(er) houses have come along way since the '70-80s gen and from what I see have increased not only in size but also energy efficiency. All that costs money.



m3s said:


> Even shacks from the '70s can go for a million now even if they would cost $100k to rebuild


$100k to rebuild an entire house is pipe dream.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> I don't think it is more affordable but not as bad as many make it out to be. I see my friends kids move into homes with modest jobs (trades, etc) and even upsize to larger homes for their second one.


Seeing friends kids doesn't tell me anything. Are they dual income and how much debt are they taking? Nowadays people are leveraging more time and money banking on RE appreciating forever



cainvest said:


> New(er) houses have come along way since the '70-80s gen and from what I see have increased not only in size but also energy efficiency. All that costs money.
> 
> $100k to rebuild an entire house is pipe dream.


Insurance knows how to value the replacement cost. If I could buy a new home for $100k in 00s that means they built it for less and it was efficient. Nowadays maybe $200k with inflation

Then again in Ontario who knows. Sounds like all kinds of scams and corruption going on in that province. Not to mention money printing nobody knows what CAD buys nowadays


----------



## prisoner24601 (May 27, 2018)

MrBlackhill said:


> Thoughts?


Seems this article could benefit from some actual data and a broader perspective of well-being across the generations. Here is one from the narrators homeland that is recent. Spoiler alert - Cohorts belonging to the Baby Boomer generation and Generation X are, in general, below the long-run trend of satisfaction with finances, housing, and leisure. Millennials report higher satisfaction on all dimensions of well-being except for employment opportunities.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> I don't think it is more affordable but not as bad as many make it out to be.


"Not that bad" is pure denial. Canada is in the top most expensive housing in the world based on price-to-income and rent-to-income ratios.




















cainvest said:


> I see my friends kids move into homes with modest jobs (trades, etc) and even upsize to larger homes for their second one.


Yeah we need more information. Are they living in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal? If not, are they living in an urban area? How much debt do they have? What's their household income percentile compared within the area they live in? Did they have help from family or inheritance?

I live in Montreal which is definitely not as hot as Toronto let alone Vancouver. We bought in 2019. We're at the 90th percentile household income. Yet we could only afford a property which needed renovations. Our mortgage, renovation debt and property taxes represents 38% of our *net* income. And now my wife is back from her maternity leave and had a 45% income drop as a welcome back. So we're now more around the 85th household income percentile and our mortgage, debt and taxes now represents 45% of our *net* income. We live in a 2 bedrooms, 900 sq.ft unit. We have a bit of land, a garage and a basement. And the other unit which is rented (included in our income). We live at 40 minutes in bus or bike of downtown. It was simply the lowest price that anyone would have to pay to own a property, unless it's a condo in a smaller unit.

PS: Do we great higher interests? Not a all, we're not struggling.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> "Not that bad" is pure denial. Canada is in the top most expensive housing in the world based on price-to-income and rent-to-income ratios.


Yes, because all levels of government have unintentionally conspired to create a housing crisis.

The point remains, nobody has made the case that current generations are less wealthy than their parents.
The video you posted showed they have higher incomes. But no data explaining how this HIGHER INCOME group is "Poor".




> I live in Montreal which is definitely not as hot as Toronto let alone Vancouver. We bought in 2019. We're at the 90th percentile household income. Yet we could only afford a property which needed renovations. Our mortgage, renovation debt and property taxes represents 38% of our *net* income. And now my wife is back from her maternity leave and had a 45% income drop as a welcome back. So we're now more around the 85th household income percentile and our mortgage, debt and taxes now represents 45% of our *net* income. We live in a 2 bedrooms, 900 sq.ft unit. We have a bit of land, a garage and a basement. And another unit which is rented (included in our income). We live at 40 minutes in bus or bike of downtown. It was simply the lowest price that anyone would have to pay to own a property, unless it's a condo in a smaller unit.


Not sure of your age, but you own a home, AND an income property in the third most expensive city in Canada, and you think you're poor?
Heck paying for 2 properties and it's only 45% of your net income, which puts it inside 30% of your gross income ( or less), and that's for *2 HOMES!!!*

This is why I ask, what EXACTLY do you mean by "Poor"?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

MrBlackhill said:


> I live in Montreal


That's your problem right there. There's a very finite amount of land in Montreal. You can only build so many houses a reasonable distance from downtown. In fact, they were all built a long time ago, I don't think the city allows much low density development anymore. Yet everyone wants the nice house with a yard on a quiet street a few minutes walk from a metro station. The prices reflect a basic reality of the physical world: it ain't gonna happen. Ever.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> you own a home, AND an income property





MrMatt said:


> Heck paying for 2 properties





MrMatt said:


> and that's for 2 HOMES!!!


No. I own one property with two units, called a duplex. I live in one unit and rent the other. Most properties in Montreal are plex (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) unless you buy a condo. If you buy a detached house in Montreal, then you're probably rich or very far away downtown.

Fake figures just for illustration purposes, I could either buy a $400,000 condo for $2000/month mortgage or buy a $600,000 duplex for $3000/month mortgage and $1000/month rental income. Bought the duplex.



MrMatt said:


> and you think you're poor?


I never said I was poor. I said we've been ranging between 80th and 90th household income percentile. That's certainly not poor. But we're in a thread comparing financial situation over the different generations. And I'm saying I had to be in the 80-90th percentile income to afford what my parents, uncles and aunts could afford while being in the 40-60th percentile income.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> That's your problem right there. There's a very finite amount of land in Montreal. You can only build so many houses a reasonable distance from downtown. In fact, they were all built a long time ago, I don't think the city allows much low density development anymore. Yet everyone wants the nice house with a yard on a quiet street a few minutes walk from a metro station. The prices reflect a basic reality of the physical world: it ain't gonna happen. Ever.


Totally agree that's the problem. We all want to live in the cities. There's a reason why, that's where the jobs are for those who have a professional career.

We need to develop other nice cities where people will want to live and will be able to have at least a job and hopefully a career. In history, that mostly happens when companies invest in those cities by buying/building offices/industries in those cities.

I have friends living in cheap house outside Montreal area. It takes a 1h30 train ride to get downtown.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> The point remains, nobody has made the case that current generations are less wealthy than their parents.
> The video you posted showed they have higher incomes. But no data explaining how this HIGHER INCOME group is "Poor".


Here's another article:

Millennials Age 40 With No Home, More Debt Run Out of Time to Build Wealth Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Or this:








Millennials are much poorer than their parents


Forget the "avocado toast" stereotype -- young adults spend their money no differently than past generations did




www.cbsnews.com





Or this:








Why Aren't Millennials Spending? They're Poorer Than Previous Generations, Fed Says


Millennials are less well off than members of earlier generations when they were young. They have lower earnings, fewer assets and less wealth, a new Federal Reserve study says.




www.npr.org





More?








Generation Screwed


Why millennials are facing the scariest financial future of any generation since the Great Depression.



highline.huffingtonpost.com













Poorer than their parents. What's gone wrong for this generation?


Between 2005 and 2014, up to 70% of households in advanced economies saw their real incomes flatten or fall.




www.weforum.org





And many different sources, different types of analysis and studies do you want?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I never said I was poor. I said we've been ranging between 80th and 90th household income percentile. That's certainly not poor. But we're in a thread comparing financial situation over the different generations.


You literally titled the thread.
"Young generations are poorer than their parents"
You started with a video
"Young Generations are poorer than their parents..."

But neither you or the video define "poor"



> And I'm saying I had to be in the 80-90th percentile income to afford what my parents, uncles and aunts could afford while being in the 40-60th percentile income.


I think that's a concern, but I think there are multiple things going on here.

1st point, are you talking about being poorer, not as well off, or simply the housing market is a mess. It seems the "boomers destroyed my life" crowd are deliberately vague here.
(FYI, neither I, nor my parents are boomers)

1. Housing is one of the most government interfered aspects of our economy, and is VERY broken for that reason.
2. The limited supply is being bid up in price.
3. The real estate you are purchasing is NOT the same as that your parents purchased.

Outside of housing, I'm not sure what the issue is, food is MUCH cheaper.

CCPA actually published a Fraiser institute graph showing the cost of basic needs has dropped from over 50% to less than 40% of net income.
Have taxes changed all that much over the past half century? 
FYI, CCPA & Fraiser institute represent left & right leaning perspectives respectively. IMO they're both quite biased, but numerically rather competent.











My question is.
On what basis do you claim people are poorer than their parents?
I agree that the housing market is a mess, but otherwise, what's the problem?

Pretend I don't know anything, explain to me how in a world where children make more than their parents (your video), and the cost of basic needs is lower (Fraiser/CCPA graph), how they're poorer?

I think they FEEL poorer, likely because they are using different standards. When you compare apples and oranges, you can get all sorts of results.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> "Not that bad" is pure denial. Canada is in the top most expensive housing in the world based on price-to-income and rent-to-income ratios.


Not looking at the rest of the world, just our sandbox and more specifically my area.




MrBlackhill said:


> Yeah we need more information. Are they living in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal? If not, are they living in an urban area? How much debt do they have? What's their household income percentile compared within the area they live in? Did they have help from family or inheritance?


They are all in Winnipeg with one exception and they are in a town just outside the city. And while this is a small sample of people I know I can see them getting by with their mortgages without external money. I'm sure none of them could afford to live in Van/To.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> This thread is not about which generation is the laziest and the most spoiled, this thread is about the economical context which has lead this generation to be poorer.


 ... I didn't say "lazy". I said "spoiled". And what economic context leading the younger generations (not just this one, but also future ones if you care to re-read my original post again)? No opportunity? No hand-outs? 



> I can tell you that laziness and spoiled was seen in other generations as well, that's not the point. I could also tell you my experience when I was a teen working in a shop in 2000 with adults in their 30s, 40s 50s and at that time they were paid $30/hour, they had big trucks in the parking lot, they all had a house and kids, no education, yet a working class job with a very high pay. They took 45 minutes break twice a day, plus 1h lunch. And you know your comment about Instagram? They didn't have that obviously, so there were a few desks in the shop with drawers filled with erotics magazines. Because in-between their pauses and lunch break, they still had lots of free time to go through those magazines while working. Obviously, because it was the kind of job that I learned on the first day and mastered on the second day, as a teen.


 . .. repeat I did not say "lazy", that's your intepretation. Repeat, I said "spoiled". And so what you worked your axx off to get where you are here today (or not). Do the youths of today and future generations care? That's the problem with viewing those economic experts' "analyses" ... for one do you think "they" care. Also, you haven't answered my very basic question: Do you want your kids (or the future gens) whining to you as to how "poor" they feel so you can give them a hand-out so they can retire BEFORE age 65 or have whats.

As for those "non-educated" slacking adults you observed - all gens have a bunch of that. It's all dependent on how those "adults" were brought up or what values were instill in them. Those adults were kids once just as the young gens will grow up to become adults. 

Btw, I'm still waiting for an clarification of my "stereotyping" in my posts.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Yeah, because the boomers had stagnating wages and 500k+ townhomes, right?
> 
> The boomers had 400,000+ immigrants coming to the country every year, right?


 ... cry me a river and this is still Canada you're living in.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> But neither you or the video define "poor"


Because we don't have to define "poor" in the absolute when using a word like "poor*er*" which is in the relative, a comparison.

And the word "poor" is meaningless when using "poorer" because a kid with $2M at 30 is _poorer_ than his parents with $5M at 30.

In my title I clearly used the word "poorer". Never said that my generation was "poor".



cainvest said:


> They are all in Winnipeg with one exception and they are in a town just outside the city.


Yup, Winnipeg is affordable. Much more affordable than Montreal, and Montreal is much more affordable than Canada as a whole, and Canada as a whole is much more affordable than Toronto, which itself is much more affordable than Vancouver.

So, yeah, no wonder your friends in Winnipeg are able to own a house.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> CCPA actually published a Fraiser institute graph showing the cost of basic needs has dropped from over 50% to less than 40% of net income.


You understand that this graph shows a percentage of income, right? Therefore it doesn't tell the full story.

Maybe the parents had $50k income and spent 50% on basic needs and now their kids making $45k and spend 40% on basic needs, which means even though their income decreased, they still worked out on spending less than their parents. They squeezed more.

I've posted multiple articles on post #80 to answer all your questions with different perspectives for each.

One of the articles is titled Why Aren't Millennials Spending? They're Poorer Than Previous Generations, Fed Says



> Their consumption habits are similar to their parents' and grandparents' — millennials just have less money to spend.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

You're wasting your time arguing with those whose egos who are too wrapped up in their own sense of accomplishment to admit that they may have had advantages over later generations. No amount of data will convince them to see what they don't want to see.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yup, Winnipeg is affordable. Much more affordable than Montreal, and Montreal is much more affordable than Canada as a whole, and Canada as a whole is much more affordable than Toronto, which itself is much more affordable than Vancouver.
> 
> So, yeah, no wonder your friends in Winnipeg are able to own a house.


For sure location makes all the difference. When I was younger and just starting my career there is no way I could afford to buy a home in Van or To.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> You're wasting your time arguing with those whose egos who are too wrapped up in their own sense of accomplishment to admit that they may have had advantages over later generations. No amount of data will convince them to see what they don't want to see.


Problem I see with many graphs is not all things are equal. Highly desired locations will attack big money driving prices up even further and they build bigger houses making matters even worse. So yes, over time some areas will transform and no doubt will become out of reach. 

Prime example was an area in Kelowna a number of years back, near lake front property. You had brand new over 2500 sq. ft. homes right going up right beside old 900 sq. ft. homes built long ago. I'm sure now that whole area is waaaay out of reach for the average person and those owning the older homes got paid a pretty penny for their lots. While this drives up overall prices there is still much lower pricing in other areas.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Parents with equity in their homes are the difference maker in Toronto......and likely Vancouver.

My wife's cousin bought a home on the West Vancouver coastline in the 1960s for likely $25,000. It was assessed to be worth $6 million a couple years ago.

That gave parents a lot of built up equity when gifting their kids large down payments to bring the monthly payments down.

A lot of homes were bought with the financial aid of parents, and now their kids have a lot of home equity of their own.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If home prices in Toronto, Vancouver and many other urban areas drop by 50%, but interest rates double.....people still won't qualify to buy homes there.

The point is......higher interest rates are going to create more problems than they solve.

Maybe.....maybe.....if they extend amortizations to 50 to 100 years, people could afford to buy a home, but that will just drive up the prices.

The only solution is for the government to build tens of thousands of affordable homes.

There doesn't appear to be any interest in the solution by the political leaders, so the housing situation will only continue to get worse.

People should ask themselves a simple question. Which political leaders "don't" already own a home purchased long ago ?

Justin Trudeau ? Chrystia Freeland ? Pierre Poilivere ? Doug Ford ?........


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> You're wasting your time arguing with those whose egos who are too wrapped up in their own sense of accomplishment to admit that they may have had advantages over later generations. No amount of data will convince them to see what they don't want to see.


 ... I hope you're aware your post is ironic with those who're agreeing with you here. Start with the identified 2 first. 

One claimed he made 7 figures from crypto and the other who started this thread admitted to having duplexes (not saying not from hard-earned work) which I'm sure will be passed onto his kids when he's gone from this world. Or maybe I'll be proven wrong, both will be donated to charities and both set of kids will be poorer off.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Because we don't have to define "poor" in the absolute when using a word like "poor*er*" which is in the relative, a comparison.


Yes you do, you NEED to define it so we know what you are comparing.
When you say "poorer" what do you mean?


> In my title I clearly used the word "poorer". Never said that my generation was "poor".


And I still ask you to define what you mean.





MrBlackhill said:


> You understand that this graph shows a percentage of income, right? Therefore it doesn't tell the full story.


Yes, that's why I quoted and screenshotted your video showing incomes are even higher.



> Maybe the parents had $50k income and spent 50% on basic needs and now their kids making $45k and spend 40% on basic needs, which means even though their income decreased, they still worked out on spending less than their parents. They squeezed more.


Is that actually the case?
The video doesn't make that claim.



> I've posted multiple articles on post #80 to answer all your questions with different perspectives for each.
> 
> One of the articles is titled Why Aren't Millennials Spending? They're Poorer Than Previous Generations, Fed Says


I'll review some of these.
Quick thoughts.








Millennials are much poorer than their parents


Forget the "avocado toast" stereotype -- young adults spend their money no differently than past generations did




www.cbsnews.com




" even though their household income hasn't changed much, "
Article seems to blame student debt and housing.

The articles seem a bit light on details, and I agree there are challenges, in Canada I think we have a housing problem.
In the US they also have a student debt problem.

But the fact remains, you STILL haven't defined "poorer".
The data in the video shows that millenials make MORE than their parents did at the same age, though less than Gen X did.
I don't think it's entirely accurate.

I'm not saying there aren't challenges, but I think that people are too quick to use them as an excuse.

Incomes are higher, sure we're not as likely to pave that farm to build large subdivisions, so the prices go up.
But we're using landfills instead of dumps, and they didn't grow up breathing exhaust from leaded gas.

Trends that are a problem, we've offshored and continue to offshore a lot of our production, giving our manufacturing jobs to China and India, which have them seeing massive wealth growth.

So yeah, when people shut down a coal plant in Ontario, the factory and it's jobs moved to China, where they are still building new coal plants with cheap electricity, then we buy the products here, that's going to have an impact.
We've done pretty good at moving people up (evidenced by the higher incomes), but it is becoming more challenging as even white collar jobs are shifting offshore.

Globally it's unarguably that people are wealthier, not poorer.
If you take a sufficiently specific subset of the population, you'll likely be able to find the opposite.

I think to correct this we need to.
1. Become globally competitive to justify the massive wage differential between Canada and the rest of the world.

I'm actually shocked we have been able to maintain (and even increase) our wages as this happens.
This means more people doing productive stuff. We need to find a way to get as many people in Canada to create as much value as possible.
We can't sustain a high value lifestyle, unless we generate that value.
2. Figure out how to manage housing so we don't keep bidding up a the limited supply of housing.
- I don't think we should pave all our farmland, but that will increase costs.
3. Get people to stop going into massive debt. This just drags you down. We need a massive Dave Ramsey plan.

Irrespective of all the broad challenges, young people need to shake the victim mentality. If I was to pick any time in history to be born, I pick today.
If I've got to pick a time in the past, as close to today as possible.

I, like all good parents worry about the future for my kids, they'll have challenges, different ones than I did for sure


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You could pick a time to be born as today......but home ownership would likely not be in your future, unless you wanted to live in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> You're wasting your time arguing with those whose egos who are too wrapped up in their own sense of accomplishment to admit that they may have had advantages over later generations. No amount of data will convince them to see what they don't want to see.


That's no excuse not to show any data.

The only data being shown with a problem is the housing data, and even then it's about not being able to buy cheap houses in limited markets.
Vancover and Toronto are full. They don't have broad swaths of land to pave over and build.

Move outside those areas and they get more reasonable.

I'll freely admit, I had some advantages over later generations, but those later generations also have many advantages over what I had.
The funny thing is I know all sorts of people who are doing JUST FINE today, look at Mr Blackhill, who owns 2 properties in the 3rd most expensive city in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have seen technology advanced farming that is devoted to "going up" instead of "spreading out" over vast areas of land.

Food is already being produced in multi-level greenhouse growing operations.

Food produce doesn't require soil. It requires the nutrients in the soil, water and sunlight.

They can all be reproduced while protected from pests and the elements. The work in advanced agriculture has only just begun.

The continual erosion of top soil in the US mid-west farm fields is a critical factor driving the advancing science in agriculture.

We have lots of surplus land available to build homes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ That's one other thing Canada has in abundance aside from water is land. I don't suppose Canada being the 2nd largest country in the world is running out of that.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

nathan79 said:


> You're wasting your time arguing with those whose egos who are too wrapped up in their own sense of accomplishment to admit that they may have had advantages over later generations. No amount of data will convince them to see what they don't want to see.


Not all of us arguing are earlier generations. And I know people even younger than me who barely finished high school yet still manage to live just fine. And yes, own a house. With a yard, pool and dogs.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Yes you do, you NEED to define it so we know what you are comparing.
> 
> When you say "poorer" what do you mean?


You know what "poorer" means, the concept.

Now, I get that what you actually want to be defined are the metrics and indicators.

Take any of them, ideally multiple metrics and indicators.

Some articles show a bit of everything:

Income at the same age
Debt at the same age
Net worth at the same age
Total income earned until the same age
Total debt accumulated until the same age
etc
Some articles also compare their likelihood to improve their situation:

Percentage of home ownership and price-to-income ratio at the same age
Rent-to-income ratio at the same age
Economical context
Stock market market context
etc
There's a lot of content in this article that I've already posted in post #80








Generation Screwed


Why millennials are facing the scariest financial future of any generation since the Great Depression.



highline.huffingtonpost.com







MrMatt said:


> Is that actually the case?
> The video doesn't make that claim


The video was a basis for discussion, not to be taken as hard facts on every data they've shown. Some articles claim that the real income dropped. Wage gap increased, it's the top earners who increased their real wage.









For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades


Adjusted for inflation, today's average hourly wage has about as much purchasing power as it did in 1978. Most wage increases have gone to the highest earners.




www.pewresearch.org


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ That's one other thing Canada has in abundance aside from water is land. I don't suppose Canada being the 2nd largest country in the world is running out of that.


He said you can grow vertically without much soil so you don't need abundance of land. Hydroponics can also recycle water so you don't need abundance of land nor water

You do need sunlight and warmth besides the nutrients and vertical hydroponics setup for the water. Sunlight is extremely expensive to reproduce and Canada severely lacks sun for half the year

That's why most of the world's population lives closer to the equator where the climate is nice and warm with lots of sun


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

m3s said:


> He said you can grow vertically without much soil so you don't need abundance of land. Hydroponics can also recycle water so you don't need abundance of land nor water
> 
> You do need sunlight and warmth besides the nutrients and vertical hydroponics setup for the water. Sunlight is extremely expensive to reproduce and Canada severely lacks sun for half the year
> 
> That's why most of the world's population lives closer to the equator where the climate is nice and warm with lots of sun


 ... yes, we have lots of them greenhouses. In fact, I'm invested in one and no it's the NOT the MaryJane type but your plain old tomatoes and cucumbers. If you read the last sentence, he said:



> ... _We have lots of surplus *land available to build homes.*_


 .. and this posts talks about the poor future gens kids without housing.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> who owns 2 properties in the 3rd most expensive city in Canada.


So you don't even read the replies. I don't own two properties. I own one property of two units. Post #78


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> So you don't even read the replies. I don't own two properties. Post #78





MrBlackhill said:


> No. I own one property with two units, called a duplex. I live in one unit and rent the other. Most properties in Montreal are plex (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) unless you buy a condo. If you buy a detached house in Montreal, then you're probably rich or very far away downtown.


I did read the reply, which is why I said you own 2 properties.

Here we commonly an individual housing unit as a property. 
So each unit in a *plex would be considered an individual property, and is registered and taxed that way.
Just like a condo.

But language barrier aside, you still own 2 housing units, a personal unit, and a rental unit.


FYI, we have silly names for plexes.
Semi-detached for a duplex, triplex is common, townhouse for 4+


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Here we commonly an individual housing unit as a property


I may not know the exact nuances in English, but I own one building with two residential units. The residential units are not condos, they could NOT be sold separately.

And anyways here it's written "properties with multiple residential units". That's what I own, one property with multiple residential units.






Property type of residential property


'Property type' refers to property characteristics and/or dwelling configuration, on which there can be one or more residential structures. Property types include: single-detached houses, semi-detached houses, row houses, condominium apartments, mobile homes, other property types, properties...




www23.statcan.gc.ca





But anyways, aside from whether in English we should say one or two properties, the point being I don't own two houses, I don't own two buildings and that my net cost was the same as buying a building consisting of a single residential unit. It's just that I took more risk with the leverage and with the need of a rental income to help me pay the mortgage to have the same net cost. ($2000/month vs $3000 minus $1000 per month in my example)

So the focus you had on the fact that I own two residential units as if I needed to be rich doesn't hold because my net cost is the same. The difference is only in the risk and responsibilities.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> this is still Canada you're living in.


Wow, I had no idea. Thanks, Mom!


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No idea. Most of our personal equity came between the age of 48 and 58. 

Neither of our adult children are at that stage. We have different careers and goals. Above all, we want our children to be happy. And healthy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Much wealth comes from "forced savings" and I still believe it is the most productive method of saving for the vast majority of people.

Forced savings via monthly payments on a home that gains equity. Forced savings in DB pension plans. Forced savings in the CPP program.

Some people seek out other opportunities to gain supplementary wealth through investing, but forced savings is a solid financial base for everyone.

If society is going to become more "renters" than "owners" of real estate, perhaps it is time to provide the same level of tax benefits to renters as owners enjoy in tax free capital gains. Perhaps it is time to level the playing field and institute a tax deduction for rent, so renters can also accumulate wealth through real estate and other investments.

The CPP was enhanced, but didn't go far enough in my opinion. They should have allowed people to make voluntary additional contributions to boost their final benefit to a higher % of replacement income. The "first leg" of the retirement income stool could be made stronger through higher contributions and professional management of the capital.

Politicians have to start being creative and thinking outside the box. The world has changed and the solutions need to change with it.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Wow, I had no idea. Thanks, Mom!


 ... you're welcome. From an old mom cow.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Politicians are well paid, contribute to a generous DB pension plan, and many are wealthy. 

When they say they "feel your pain"......it is all poppycock.

The truth is they don't feel the "financial pain" and frustration that many people are experiencing today.

They need to get off their asses and get the job done, or go find a job elsewhere.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Much wealth comes from "forced savings" and I still believe it is the most productive method of saving for the vast majority of people.
> 
> Forced savings via monthly payments on a home that gains equity. Forced payments into DB pension plans. Forced payments into the CPP program.
> 
> Some people seek out other opportunities to gain wealth through investing, but a solid base through forced savings is a valuable start.


 ... totally agree for their own good. But then there're those who're opposed to being "forced" .. you know ... ie. don't tell them what to do. Just like those who support FreeDumbs for them No FreeDumbers.



> If society is going to become more "renters" than "owners" of real estate, perhaps it is time to provide the same level of tax benefits to renters as owners enjoy in tax free capital gain. Perhaps it is time to level the playing field and institute a tax deduction for rent, so renters can also accumulate wealth through real estate.


 .. with this proposal, don't blame me when you hear homeowners (of which renters will become one) lamblast you. I think a better proposal is to limit the number of residences one can "own" in a lifetime to ensure better equality. Not like 5 houses so one can "contribute" to the "housing" market where renters are crying afoul about not being able to own one but able to "rent" one. Talk about an oxymoron here.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The world today is different. Our children have different goals. The economy has been orienting towards a knowledge based economy.

My son just went back and got his post graduate degree. Daughter and SIL are running a construction and wholesale firm. Nephew just was admitted to the NS Bar..others are working toward MBA’s, B Comms, or post grad Heath care studies. They have all worked hard.

Then a less ambitious cadre who finished high school but did not want to leave their small Ontario town, their school high friends, or their mommies aprin strings. They are ones that complain the most, have no ambition, and actually wonder why they cannot move forward in their lives. Oddly enough their parents encourage that poor me business.

Lots of young people working toward their goals…even if those goals are different than my generation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> The world today is different. Our children have different goals. The economy has been orienting towards a knowledge based economy.
> 
> Lots of young people working toward their goals…even if those goals are different than my generation.


The work today is always different.

I remembering as a younger child them talking about we'd be the first generation not to have it better than their parents.. now we're hearing the same thing.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

To preface this i am a gen x er, and have in the past been frustrated by the millenials whining. However i do have some sympathy. If your housing costs are greater don’t you have less disposable income and less money to invest? So aren’t you poorer? I bought my condo at 200,000 in burnaby 7 years ago. Is that even possible today? I’m not saying boomers are to blame for everything, but i don’t understand why they won’t acknowledge the privileged situation they are in. As a single person, i have trouble thinking of myself as privileged but i concede gen x ers benefitted more from housing then the millenials. Just admit it. That said, millenials need to quit whining and get political if they want to accomplish anything.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> To preface this i am a gen x er, and have in the past been frustrated by the millenials whining. However i do have some sympathy. If your housing costs are greater don’t you have less disposable income and less money to invest? So aren’t you poorer? I bought my condo at 200,000 in burnaby 7 years ago. Is that even possible today? I’m not saying boomers are to blame for everything, but i don’t understand why they won’t acknowledge the privileged situation they are in. As a single person, i have trouble thinking of myself as privileged but i concede gen x ers benefitted more from housing then the millenials. Just admit it. That said, millenials need to quit whining and get political if they want to accomplish anything.


Here's the thing:

1) the "boomers" still run things
2) the younger generations are basically brainwashed. They care more about patting themselves on the back and "seeming good" to other people than actually being good or looking out for themselves

I was born in 90, so I'm a millenial.

I admit I ***** and whine more than anyone I know. I do it daily. But it's for good reason. I also work longer and harder than anyone I know, so I feel I get a right to whine. =)

Anyone who says the boomers had it "just as bad" or had "different problems" is fooling themselves.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math. Look at wages, then look at prices.

Also, I hate the interest rate cop out. "I remember 11% interest rates!!" Yeah, that's great. Nobody cares. A high interest rate does not negate a high price. They are not the same. A 100% interest rate on $1 is still cheaper than a 1% interest rate on $100.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

What bothers me is that most boomers won’t admit the generational benefit given to them. They’d probably say something like i made the smart decision to buy at a certain time, not i won the generational lottery when it comes to housing. That said each generation has its own problems and benefits. I am sure there are benefits to being a millenial too.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

latebuyer said:


> What bothers me is that most boomers won’t admit the generational benefit given to them. They’d probably say something like i made the smart decision to buy at a certain time, not i won the generational lottery when it comes to housing. That said each generation has its own problems and benefits. I am sure there are benefits to being a millenial too.


What bothers me is that most people today won't admit the great benefits given to them. 

Too much complaining and "boo hoo" about how hard it is. This cycle has been going on for millenia.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm finding that the 35-50 year old's have it better than their parents in my neck of the woods. At least when I'm looking at some of the people I went to school with. Good paying jobs, house, cottage, regular vacations, toys, etc. Not sure exactly what their finances look like underneath the façade but they sure look to be doing better than their parents. Some came from very little, built their own business, etc. It's fascinating to look back, hear their stories, etc. Likely not the norm, but it's what I see in my neighborhood.

Complaining is just a waste of energy and time.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Synergy said:


> I'm finding that the 35-50 year old's have it better than their parents in my neck of the woods. At least when I'm looking at some of the people I went to school with. Good paying jobs, house, cottage, regular vacations, toys, etc. Not sure exactly what their finances look like underneath the façade but they sure look to be doing better than their parents. Some came from very little, built their own business, etc. It's fascinating to look back, hear their stories, etc. Likely not the norm, but it's what I see in my neighborhood.
> 
> Complaining is just a waste of energy and time.


Most people my age (43) and younger either rent or own condos around here. I do have one high school friend (married) who owns a SFH, but it's nothing extravagant. I know a couple of people a bit older (46-47) who own a house or a townhouse.

I don't know anyone my age who owns a cottage and a bunch of toys, but I'm sure they exist. You're going to find people in the top 10%, top 1%, etc in every generation. You're going to find people who took large risks and leveraged up on RE and were rewarded, where more conservative people didn't take those extreme risks.

I have a couple of friends who moved to Calgary and Ottawa for work, so of course they own SFHs, but they are also dual income couples. They all bought several years ago. They probably wouldn't be buying in Ottawa at today's prices!


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

There's large intra-general employment inequity, I find, among the millennials, which is likely growing among the Gen Zs, and I suspect that is making a lot of under 40s who are "unsuccessful" rather upset.

The relationship between being smart, working hard, and a rising income and life success, is getting very shaky among jobs for which one could find themselves to be employed at, out there.

There's far too many millennials who are very average people but are making 80-150k and working 5-20 hrs per week (while pretending to work 40hrs) because they stepped into some particular field of study/work at university - They aren't exceptional or very hard working but were sucked into the system and came out ahead.

Others work 40+ hours a week of real work, aren't dumb either, and are stuck making <$30/hr.

The former group is predominately white collar and the latter blue collar, and as the years tick on it's becoming increasingly unclear what actual production value the white collar employee group is bringing to the table that earns them 2-4x the salary of blue collar folk, who have very clear and valuable outputs from their labours.

And among the white collar and blue collar work, even, there is large discrepancies as well, depending on employment sector (private vs public, big business vs. small business) where salary differences are huge, arbitrary, and largely unjustified based on the skills/contributions of each employee.

Choice of housing is exacerbating the problem - some overextended themselves in their 20's and bought a house(es) they couldn't afford that has now doubled or tripled, along with getting nice raises along the way that they didn't work hard for or fight to be given. Others chose to rent because it seemed the prudent thing to do, and have been give their 25c raises begrudgingly.

All that said - "Life's not fair" is a good motto to live by when you feel unappreciated. It's very hard to know what's up on the fairness front generation-to-generation.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

nathan79 said:


> Most people my age (43) and younger either rent or own condos around here. I do have one high school friend (married) who owns a SFH, but it's nothing extravagant. I know a couple of people a bit older (46-47) who own a house or a townhouse.


Same here. Around the same age, just about everyone I know either rents, or owns a smallish condo.

Among my close friends (at around age 40) I know just one couple who has a large detached house. There's another guy who owns a very modest townhouse, and it's in kind of a bad part of Toronto.

But as I think through the people I know... yeah, I really think there is only one detached house.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

13 people in my family are millenials. 10 own SFH, 1 owns a condo, 2 rent.
(Here come the yabuts)


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Retired Peasant said:


> 13 people in my family are millenials. 10 own SFH, 1 owns a condo, 2 rent.
> (Here come the yabuts)


People in your family are not statistics. Sample size too small, specific characteristics (jobs, location, etc.). It doesn't bring any value to the argument.

Otherwise, I could also say "people in my wife's family are all millionaires owning SFH, so I don't understand why people complain about housing affordability and inflation".


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Retired Peasant said:


> 13 people in my family are millenials. 10 own SFH, 1 owns a condo, 2 rent.
> (Here come the yabuts)


Owning a house doesn't tell me much about someone's financial situation

They are basically leverage investing or renting money

What are the networth and income potential?


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> People in your family are not statistics. Sample size too small, specific characteristics (jobs, location, etc.). It doesn't bring any value to the argument.





m3s said:


> Owning a house doesn't tell me much about someone's financial situation


Exactly. I was just piling on after the posts by nathan79 and James4beach; funny how neither of you criticized their anecdotes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Retired Peasant said:


> funny how neither of you criticized their anecdotes.


Of course not because the others aligned with their point of view.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I forgot to put my location but it's the Lower Mainland, specifically the area spanning from Vancouver to Abbotsford. Typical detached house price varies, but let's say 1.25M - 2.0M in general (for the normal, non-wealthy areas).


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Of course not because the others aligned with their point of view.


No, it's simply because the statement wasn't as clear about the lack of statistical value and the bias.

Retired Peasant mentioned 13 people from his family.

nathan79 and james4beach said "most people around my age" which could be based on statistics or not. And then talked about people around them, without being specific, which could include family, friends, colleagues, family's friends and colleagues, friends' family and colleagues, colleagues' family and friends, etc.

Personally, when I'm assessing the housing situation of "people around me", it can include the situation of hundreds of people. It's still statistically biased by my location and social environment, but it's not as biased as talking about just a handful of people from my family. That's the only reason why I've pointed it out.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> No, it's simply because the statement wasn't as clear about the lack of statistical value and the bias.
> 
> Retired Peasant mentioned 13 people from his family.
> 
> ...


Both the other posts read to me as "just people I know". Also, whether it be 13 or 100 it isn't a statistically significant amount in a general sense.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Even though home ownership have increased a little bit from 60% to 68%...










...adults of age 20-34 in 2016 own fewer detached house and more apartments than adults of age 20-34 back in 1981.











This could be in part due to more people moving to the cities where there's more career opportunities. Percentage of population living in rural areas is on a decline.










Meanwhile, debt-to-income ratio keeps increasing and increasing, almost doubling in 30 years.










One could argue that interest rates have been decreasing, that's why people took more debt... Well, as rates decreased, house prices increased, so people had to take on more debt risk in order to own just about the same amount of housing, even though buying smaller housing (apartments instead of detached houses).





__





The Daily — Housing in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census


In 2016, more than two-thirds (67.8%) of households in Canada owned their home. The rate of homeownership has been relatively stable over the last decade. In 2006, the rate was 68.4% and in 2011 it was 69.0%. In contrast, over the period 1991 to 2006, the homeownership rate rose from 62.6% to 68.4%.




www150.statcan.gc.ca








__





Canada - Rural Population - 2022 Data 2023 Forecast 1960-2021 Historical


Rural population (% of total population) in Canada was reported at 18.35 % in 2021, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Canada - Rural population - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced...




tradingeconomics.com








__





Debt and financial distress among Canadian families


This study uses data from the 2016 Survey of Financial Security to examine financial distress indicators for Canadian families. Three financial distress indicators are examined: the proportion of Canadian families who skipped or delayed a mortgage payment, the proportion who skipped or delayed a...




www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

They count adult children living with their parents in the 67.8% of "homeowners", and we know that young people are staying at home longer than before. If those children (some approaching 40 years old) were forced to move out as they were in the past, we'd see an increase of renters and a decline in homeownership.

This chart only goes back to 2001, but you can imagine if it went back to the 1970's.










There has also been a rise of multi-generational homes, especially within immigrant families, so there could be two or three couples living in one house. All considered homeowners by Stat Can's measure.

Renting isn't considered sexy anymore, whereas it used to be just something everyone did on their way to home ownership. There wasn't as much pressure to buy a home because prices were generally low and there wasn't the FOMO that exists today. It was much more laid back. The "buy or be priced out" narrative that exists now has pushed many people into homes they can't really afford.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> People in your family are not statistics. Sample size too small, specific characteristics (jobs, location, etc.). It doesn't bring any value to the argument.
> 
> Otherwise, I could also say "people in my wife's family are all millionaires owning SFH, so I don't understand why people complain about housing affordability and inflation".


But you never provided statistics either.

As I pointed out, from the video you put in this thread, the opposite is true.

sure there are challenges, and some things are physically not possible, but your still haven't supported the claim.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> But you never provided statistics either.


You literally said this two posts after I provided more stats.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Those housing type graphs don't represent our city housing at all.

We have very few "apartment" style condos, for lack of interested buyers. There are also very few semi-detached homes.

People here are opting for linked homes.......which are basically single family homes linked by two car garages.......throughout the complex.

They provide a "home like" feel, added privacy with a double garage on each side of the home, and are ideal for people who don't want the chores of landscaping and snow removal. Young professionals and retirees with money are the main buyers of these types of homes.

The most popular ones have a walk out basement which is finished and provides back yard access to a courtyard covered by a main floor wooden deck above it. They are even more desirable if the backyards back onto a green area or park. There is always a perimeter wall around the backs of the units.

They usually are more luxurious than a single family home and represent good value for retirees moving down from a single family home.

These types of homes used to be fairly "affordable" but have gradually gotten larger over time, with more expensive interiors, such as marble and hardwood, and theatre rooms and bars in the lower level. They can cost more than a single family home that isn't as luxuriously appointed.

The people selling in the GTA for $1.5 million come here and buy one of the above homes for $800K......and commute or retire.

People with money aren't interested in buying apartment condos or semi-detached homes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Long term fixed rate mortgages and zero down payments would allow more young adults to enter the housing market.

People don't have to pay off a mortgage entirely to gain equity in a home. Every mortgage payment gains a little equity that adds up over time.

Mortgage caps and no secondary liens allowed against the property would keep the inflationary aspect in check.

If builders want to sell homes to a wide customer base.....they would have to stay within the cap.

The cap could have a built in inflation increase.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> The problem for young adults is primarily the down payment required, *which is rather arbitrary and unnecessary in real estate*, and the ability to pay the monthly mortgage cost due to the lack of long term fixed rate mortgages.


Wow this mindset is very telling. You are more financially challenged than I thought.



sags said:


> Longer term fixed rate mortgages and zero down payments would allow a lot of young adults to enter the housing market.
> 
> People don't have to pay off the mortgage entirely to gain equity in the home. They could have a 50 year mortgage, pay for 30 years, have 20 years remaining on the mortgage, and still have a lot of built up equity.
> 
> Mortgage caps and no liens allowed would keep the inflaitionary aspect in check. If builders want to sell homes.....they would have to stay within the cap.


How do you spend 10 years on a financial forum, think inflation is good for GICs, and that nobody has to pay off their mortgage


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Did the housing market collapse as down payments declined from 25% to 5% ?

There is no requirement for a mortgage to be paid off to extract equity from a home sale.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Here is a completed project by a boomer software programmer for NASA.

That is dedication and a strong work ethic.

She didn’t sit around and complain she was bored, tired, and needed more “fulfillment” from her job.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545638494898462720


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Did the housing market collapse as down payments declined from 25% to 5% ?
> 
> There is no requirement for a mortgage to be paid off to extract equity from a home sale.


Yea no ****

The younger generation will be in debt forever thanks to the reverse mortgages the boomers made popular. Just spend money all the money you don't have to ensure the next generation has it even worse

They'll own nothing and love it as the boomer elite Klaus Schwab claims


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> Here is a completed project by a boomer software programmer for NASA.
> 
> That is dedication and a strong work ethic.
> 
> She didn’t sit around and complain she was bored, tired, and needed more “fulfillment” from her job.


Oh yes because being singularly focused on an amazing scientific expedition isn't in any way more "fulfilling" than your whole career only existing to satisfy some governmental regulatory requirement of questionable necessity, like so many of the "good jobs" that exist for young people out there.

"Stop complaining", "Where's your strong work ethic", "Just get a job with a pension"


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> But you never provided statistics either.
> 
> As I pointed out, from the video you put in this thread, the opposite is true.
> 
> sure there are challenges, and some things are physically not possible, but your still haven't supported the claim.





MrBlackhill said:


> You literally said this two posts after I provided more stats.


You never provided stats showing young generations are poorer than their parents.
You talk a lot about housing, and pointed to debt, but again you didn't show that todays young generation were poorer than their parents.
I will admit that poor financial management isn't making things better, but the argument that todays generation is poorer than their parents because they made bad financial decisions isn't one I'm willing to entertain. Stop eating avacado toast, and maybe don't drop 1/2hr wages on a fancy coffee. Your poor financial choices are a YOU problem.

Now I'll admit that I believe the debate (as framed by the video you initiated with) is at the same points in their lives.
Obviously the typical 4yr old is "poorer" than their parents in their 20's or 30's.

But you actually haven't shown that a a 20yr old today is poorer than their parents were.

Nor have you specifically restricted to subset to clarify what situation this holds true.
There is absolutely no doubt that at the global scale people are far wealthier than their parents generation, and this holds true for many of the national and sub-national breakdowns.

I think part of the problem is that todays generation doesn't know what they're talking about.
Almost a month ago you made a claim, provided a video which shows the opposite of the claim, then you refuse to provide any data to support your claim, and wonder why people don't just agree with you. I even pulled screenshots from your video that counter the point the video was attempting to make.
I don't think we're in the same generation, I simply don't find a flashy video, that presents data contrary to their claim, very convincing. Even citing lots of "experts", and talk about reasons why doesn't convince me, as their numbers show the opposite.

To be completely honest I think it's a very difficult time now, and there are a LOT of issues I've witnessed over the last 10-20 years which are a serious concern.
I even agree that things aren't looking as shining and good for our young people.
But you're the one not presenting data to support your claim.

Finally you seem to be focusing a lot on real estate, but this is an interesting one.
As I've stated previously, the physical reality of real estate makes it a poor measure, in addition decades of bad government policies at all levels have created this problem.
Even today young people, the ones most impacted by bad housing policy, continue to push bad policy.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> You never provided stats showing young generations are poorer than their parents.


I've posted articles with stats and sources, you've just dismissed them.

Here's more. Millennials earning less than Gen X and Boomers, unless they have a bachelor's degree (but still earning less than gen X). So when we say that Millenials earn more, that's mainly due to those with a bachelor's... with increased student debt.










Evolution of earnings by generation... You definitely need a bachelor's degree in order to earn a bit more than previous generations. Otherwise, you earn less. Meaning the wealth gap increased and student debt increased because you need higher education to get ahead.









Kids have to live with their parents to be able to save a bit of money before reaching independence from their parents.










Median net worth of Millenials is definitely less than Boomers. It's also less than Gen X. The trend is going downwards.


> While young adults in general do not have much accumulated wealth, Millennials have slightly less wealth than Boomers did at the same age. The median net worth of households headed by Millennials (ages 20 to 35 in 2016) was about $12,500 in 2016, compared with $20,700 for households headed by Boomers the same age in 1983. Median net worth of Gen X households at the same age was about $15,100.
> 
> This modest difference in wealth can be partly attributed to differences in debt by generation. Compared with earlier generations, more Millennials have outstanding student debt, and the amount of it they owe tends to be greater. The share of young adult households with any student debt doubled from 1998 (when Gen Xers were ages 20 to 35) to 2016 (when Millennials were that age). In addition, the median amount of debt was nearly 50% greater for Millennials with outstanding student debt ($19,000) than for Gen X debt holders when they were young ($12,800).











Millennial life: How young adulthood today compares with prior generations


Now that the youngest Millennials are adults, how do they compare with those who were their age in the generations that came before them?




www.pewresearch.org


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I suspect the bulk of boomer net wealth is in the form of homes and DB pensions, which after decades built up a lot of equity for late boomers especially.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

7


MrBlackhill said:


> I've posted articles with stats and sources, you've just dismissed them.


Why did I dismiss them? I rarely just say "nope"



> Here's more. Millennials earning less than Gen X and Boomers, unless they have a bachelor's degree (but still earning less than gen X). So when we say that Millenials earn more, that's mainly due to those with a bachelor's... with increased student debt.


Okay, finally data that supports your point, at least initially.
Boomers made more than their millenial children, for those with less than a bachelors degree.

That comes close, except for the education differential.
40% of millenials vs 26% of boomers have a bachelors.








Today’s young workers are more likely than ever to have a bachelor’s degree


Four-in-ten Millennial workers 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor’s degree in 2016, compared with 32% of Generation X workers when they were in that age range.




www.pewresearch.org




So lets take some rough extimates that half the remainder have "some college and half the remainder have high school
This gives inclusive averages of 75k & 69k for millenials and boomers.

I think your data is still lacking, but maybe a silver star for effort.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> 7
> Why did I dismiss them? I rarely just say "nope"
> 
> 
> ...


You've forgot to add debt in the picture. As I said, people who stay longer at school have more debt.

Here's a Bloomberg article that I posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Well this explains alot 

_For example, Charles Schwab's Modern Wealth Index for 2017 found, 60% of millennials will buy a cup of coffee that costs more than $4, compared to only 40% of Generation X-ers or 29% of Baby Boomers._


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Well this explains alot
> 
> _For example, Charles Schwab's Modern Wealth Index for 2017 found, 60% of millennials will buy a cup of coffee that costs more than $4, compared to only 40% of Generation X-ers or 29% of Baby Boomers._


I wasn't able to find that statement from the link provided, but anyways pointing out one specific habit is certainly not giving a full picture. I've previously pointed some studies saying that Millennials have about the same spending habits than Boomers.

Meanwhile though, your link provides some nice stats about how Millennials are managing their finances and it's much better than Boomers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> You've forgot to add debt in the picture. As I said, people who stay longer at school have more debt.


They have debt, because they're spending too much money. Did they save in HS, did they work their way through school?

Okay, I'll conceed that due to bad decisions and poor money management, despite their higher incomes, Millenials have spent themselves into a worse financial situation.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> They have debt, because they're spending too much money. Did they save in HS, did they work their way through school?


That's an opinion, not stats, not studies.

Some studies say that Millenials have the same spending habits than Boomers (they want to spend their money on the same things, not saying they do).

Some studies say that Millenials are bad for the economy... because they spend less than previous generations... and that's actually simply because they don't have as much money to spend at the same age than previous generations.

My previous post points out that Millenials are more likely to have a financial plan, to rebalance their portfolio annually and to be aware of brokerage account fees.

All what I've just said in this post could be fine in my previous posts where I pointed to articles including stats and studies.

Now you claim Millenials spend too much, their more than Boomers, please provide the evidence.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> They have debt, because they're spending too much money. Did they save in HS, did they work their way through school?
> 
> Okay, I'll conceed that due to bad decisions and poor money management, despite their higher incomes, Millenials have spent themselves into a worse financial situation.





MrBlackhill said:


> That's an opinion, not stats, not studies.


Yes, it is an opinion.
Based on your data Millenials more money, have higher debt and lower net worth than their parents. (All figures inflation adjustest)
I would suggest that a higher real income, and much higher debt load is due to poor spending habits
Please present an alternate hypothesis.




> Some studies say that Millenials have the same spending habits than Boomers (they want to spend their money on the same things, not saying they do).
> 
> Some studies say that Millenials are bad for the economy... because they spend less than previous generations... and that's actually simply because they don't have as much money to spend at the same age than previous generations.


Then where did the money go?
If they have more coming in, and less in their hands, didn't they spend it?




> All what I've just said in this post could be fine in my previous posts where I pointed to articles including stats and studies.
> 
> Now you claim Millenials spend too much, their more than Boomers, please provide the evidence.


Income - Spending = Wealth
If Income is Higher, and Wealth is Lower, then Spending MUST be higher for the math to work out.
If the claim that wages are stagnet it still follows that Spending must be higher for wealth to be lower.










Again there are a whole bunch of things I'm not claiming.
But the simple reality is that while todays generation has challenges, and evey generation does, I simply don't believe that they are uniquely disadvantaged.

But to be fair, I have conceded that they are, in fact, despite their higher incomes less wealthy than their parents.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I wasn't able to find that statement from the link provided, but anyways pointing out one specific habit is certainly not giving a full picture. I've previously pointed some studies saying that Millennials have about the same spending habits than Boomers.


I find that really doubtful.
I don't think Boomers spent their 20's buying Lattees & Avacado toast on credit cards.

I think it is WAY too easy these days to bury oneself in a pile of debt, which puts you in a really bad situation.

Question for you, if you believe
"Meanwhile though, your link provides some nice stats about how Millennials are managing their finances and it's much better than Boomers."

What's the problem?
Higher incomes, better financial management practices... why aren't they doing better?

I'd suggest that they're not doing a better job managing finances, or that they're spending too much. There has to be a hole somewhere.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I would suggest that a higher real income, and much higher debt load is due to poor spending habits
> Please present an alternate hypothesis.


I already did and the articles already did. More student debt, that's one. Also, what happens when rates go down? House prices go up, so people are taking more debt risk in order to own a house.



MrMatt said:


> Based on your data Millenials more money, have higher debt and lower net worth than their parents. (All figures inflation adjustest)
> I would suggest that a higher real income, and much higher debt load is due to poor spending habits
> Please present an alternate hypothesis.


They don't have more money. Those with a bachelor do. Look at the Bloomberg chart that you've quoted of mine. Median income. Pretty much the same.



MrMatt said:


> Income - Spending = Wealth


Income - Spending = Savings

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth, which is a measure of *Wealth*.



MrMatt said:


> What's the problem?
> Higher incomes, better financial management practices... why aren't they doing better?


First, they don't have higher income unless they have a bachelor. Second, the answer is easy, life cost more.

Another thing. Say we take a Boomer born in 1955, and at 20 years he starts investing $1,000 every year for 20 years in the US market, from 1975 to 1994 included. Say we take a Millennial born in 1981, and at 20 years he starts investing $1,000 every year for 20 years, from 2001 to 2020 included. The Millennial will have $70k, while the Boomer will have $97k, which is 39% more.

Anyways, I'm wasting too much time on this, because you keep asking for stats and data, which I provide, and then you reply only with opinions and doubts, but no stats and data. Come back with evidence next time.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I already did and the articles already did. More student debt, that's one. Also, what happens when rates go down? House prices go up, so people are taking more debt risk in order to own a house.


Exactly, they chose to go into debt, why didn't they save and work it off like previous generations?
They take on way too much debt, then they wonder why things look bad.



> First, they don't have higher income unless they have a bachelor. Second, the answer is easy, life cost more.


Nearly twice as many have that bachelors degree.
They used inflation adjusted dollars which cover the cost of living increase.



> Anyways, I'm wasting too much time on this, because you keep asking for stats and data, which I provide, and then you reply only with opinions and doubts, but no stats and data. Come back with evidence next time.


yes it is a waste of time.
You keep showing data, and I keep showing how it doesn't actually support your claims.

I conceed that they aren't as wealthy, we even agree that the overspending, and going into debt is a problem. 

So we actually agree, stop going into so much damn debt.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Exactly, they chose to go into debt, why didn't they save and work it off like previous generations?
> They take on way too much debt, then they wonder why things look bad.



You saw the data and accepted the data showing that only people with a bachelor earn more
You're saying in the same post that more people have a bachelor, while blaming people for taking more debt, so you don't seem to understand that more education leads to more student debt
House prices go up when rates go down (and rates have been going down for 40 years), so people have to take on more debt in order to buy a house
When house prices go up, you need more down payment, which means more savings, which is hard to accumulate when rates are low (real interests rate in the 80s and early 90s were above 5%, while real interests rate in the 10s were below 3%)
A 20% down payment on today's house prices could buy 100% cash the price the Boomer's house back then... and don't tell me wages went up 5x in 30 years, because they haven't


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> You saw the data and accepted the data showing that only people with a bachelor earn more
> You're saying in the same post that more people have a bachelor, while blaming people for taking more debt, so you don't seem to understand that more education leads to more student debt
> House prices go up when rates go down (and rates have been going down for 40 years), so people have to take on more debt in order to buy a house
> When house prices go up, you need more down payment, which means more savings, which is hard to accumulate when rates are low (real interests rate in the 80s and early 90s were above 5%, while real interests rate in the 10s were below 3%)
> A 20% down payment on today's house prices could buy 100% cash the price the Boomer's house back then... and don't tell me wages went up 5x in 30 years, because they haven't


1. Yes, and I pointed out that there are nearly twice as many vs their parents generation, and showed math suggesting that the average income was still higher.
2. I understand that some people will take on more debt, but student debt isn't particularly onerous (at least in Canada), a bit of saving and work and you can graduate nearly debt free. I did, my wife did, and I know many others that graduated nearly debt free. For example, a good summer job is enough to cover most tuition.


https://www.univcan.ca/universities/facts-and-stats/tuition-fees-by-university/



3,4,5. Yes, there is a supply issue, go back and right from the beginning I pointed out that decades of government interference has made a mess of housing.

So yes, a government mangled housing problem and poor spending habits. That's why they're less wealthy. I agree, you won.

Now if they'd only push for better housing policy, and stop spending like idiots, they'd be back to being wealthier than their parents. Instead they're buying bitcoin and $5 coffee.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Regarding the wealth woes graphic its interesting that generation x doesn’t have much higher wealth than millenials and yet look whose doing all the complaining.

My understanding is that the younger generation spends more on experiences and not things. Not more just different. Lets face it boomers as a generation aren’t known for their thriftiness. Also, there are more double income no kids millenials who are probably spending more on things like vacation and restaurants than there was in the boomer generation.

Sorry i just think when you make a million or more from a home you have a big leg up on subsequent generations.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just to add there are probably more single people too and it is even tougher to buy property if your single.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

However to contradict myself, if there are more double income no kids in the millenial generation shouldn’t they have more disposable income to buy a house?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

latebuyer said:


> However to contradict myself, if there are more double income no kids in the millenial generation shouldn’t they have more disposable income to buy a house?


They spent it on other stuff.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

They sure do have more disposable income. Many sources agree that a child cost on average $10k to $15k a year until 18. Since not every year cost has much, they also point the rule of thumb that a child cost $200k.

And when you're a DINK it's sure easier to buy a house, as you have more savings and you don't need 2-4 bedrooms.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm just a nobody, a random guy on the internet, plus I'm a millennial because I was born in the 80s, so I guess people will say that I'm either biased or not credible, or both.

This presentation was made by a Boomer and he's not a nobody.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm just a nobody, a random guy on the internet, plus I'm a millennial because I was born in the 80s, so I guess people will say that I'm either biased or not credible, or both.
> 
> This presentation was made by a Boomer and he's not a nobody.


you're doing it wrong.
You're supposed to smoke a bunch of pot and raise awareness, not actually solve any of the problems.

Blaming doesn't get anywhere, take responsibility and fix stuff.

We used to have dumps and CFCs, now we have landfills and Ozone Friendly refrigerants.

This is the situation the country/world is in, stop whining and go fix it.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> stop whining and go fix it.


There was a good analogy in the video. You know when the parents leave the house for the weekend, leaving their teenagers in charge and then they trash a huge party and when the parents come back they have to clean the mess and fix what's broken? Do you think the parents are happy about that? That they won't be mad, won't whine and will just fix it and clean the mess? (Okay you'll just tell me that the parents will tell their kids to clean, but keep following me) Now it's the same thing, but the other way around, it's the parents that made a big mess and the kids gotta fix it because their parents aren't.

If you see people in your neighbourhood throwing trash out of their car window, you'll just stay silent and clean their trash?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Now it's the same thing, but the other way around, it's the parents that made a big mess and the kids gotta fix it because their parents aren't.


Bad analogy I think ... I don't recall people I know making a mess rather they were just trying to make a living.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> There was a good analogy in the video. You know when the parents leave the house for the weekend, leaving their teenagers in charge and then they trash a huge party and when the parents come back they have to clean the mess and fix what's broken? Do you think the parents are happy about that? That they won't be mad, won't whine and will just fix it and clean the mess? (Okay you'll just tell me that the parents will tell their kids to clean, but keep following me) Now it's the same thing, but the other way around, it's the parents that made a big mess and the kids gotta fix it because their parents aren't.
> 
> If you see people in your neighbourhood throwing trash out of their car window, you'll just stay silent and clean their trash?


Well the thing is that they didn't necessarily know they were creating a mess.
Secondly they (and the millions before them) did help build this wonderful world we live in.

I might think you're wrong for whatever you're doing, but I don't think it is because you're trying to make things worse.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I don't blame Boomers for everything, that would be stupid. They certainly did great things. But we can't deny for instance that they've had the voting power throughout every stage of their lives to take decisions that would favor them and not the next generations.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

The question on my mind would be why more millenials don’t go into politics if they think that. All whine and no action. I also question they’ll do better. Look at trudeau who is a gen xer. What has he accomplished? (Sorry to get political).


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> ........But we can't deny for instance that they've had the voting power throughout every stage of their lives to take decisions that would favor them and not the next generations.


You have to actually get out and vote if you want to make a difference.

2019 Voter Turnout By Age Group


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> But we can't deny for instance that they've had the voting power throughout every stage of their lives to take decisions that would favor them and not the next generations.


You are assuming the politicians (generally very near sighted) at those times provided forward thinking for future generations? Not only that but for long term goals to be reached usually a specific party would need to stay in control for a very long time to pull off things that would benefit multiple generations ahead.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Random comment. I would think jagmeet singh is older but he’s only 43. Isn’t he a millennial or close to it? I’m not sure if his housing policies are more progressive.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

latebuyer said:


> why more millenials don’t go into politics if they think that


It's not about going into politics, it's about the voting power, Boomers outnumbers Millenials.



Gator13 said:


> You have to actually get out and vote if you want to make a difference.
> 
> 2019 Voter Turnout By Age Group
> 
> View attachment 23412


You are definitely right about this. But we're still outnumbered anyways.



cainvest said:


> You are assuming the politicians (generally very near sighted) at those times provided forward thinking for future generations?


Politicians get elected by the population, so if near-sighted politicians are elected, it's the voters' fault.



cainvest said:


> Not only that but for long term goals to be reached usually a specific party would need to stay in control for a very long time to pull off things that would benefit multiple generations ahead.


True, that's an issue. Yet we've had liberals from 1993 to 2005, then conservatives from 2006 to 2014 and now liberals since 2015. I would hope a government can achieve great things in 8-12 years in power.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Politicians get elected by the population, so if near-sighted politicians are elected, it's the voters' fault.


If they are the only choices available it's kind of a rock and a hard place isn't it? Kind of like the situation we have now, many people voting for the best of the worst.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I'm confused why you would say going into politics is not the problem. Don't you want millenials in power representing your interest? I don't see many in politics now. That voter graph was shocking and i have to say my understanding is millenials are a pretty big cohort, so i don't really see that as an argument that boomers are a bigger cohort anyways A generational portrait of Canada’s aging population from the 2021 Census
You don't vote even though you complain a lot and thats a big problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't blame Boomers for everything, that would be stupid. They certainly did great things. But we can't deny for instance that they've had the voting power throughout every stage of their lives to take decisions that would favor them and not the next generations.


But even today young people are voting short term and not for the future either.
It's not unique to any demographic, people in general are very much near term thinkers.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

latebuyer said:


> Don't you want millenials in power representing your interest?


Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh were born in 1979, almost millennials (starts in 1981).

Soon enough, NDP will be in power.












MrMatt said:


> It's not unique to any demographic, people in general are very much near term thinkers.


Is that why the younger people want to take action against climate change, because they are near-term thinkers?










I also just wanted to add this graph below because it's interesting. CPC supporters keep whining about biased news media in general but it seems like they simply don't trust anything lol... Not trusting the scientists, not trusting the UN and international bodies, not trusting anything!


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

While i don't have a lot to substantiate this, i wonder if millenials are shunning the public sector to make more money where they could effect change in public sector. My friend in the health sector says they've lost a lot of millenials as they can get higher pay cheques in public sector. I had no idea pierre was so young!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pierre P is the youngest MP to ever qualify for a lifetime MP pension. I haven't heard him say he is about to give it up to save taxpayer money either.

I would disagree that Trudeau and the Liberals have done nothing in office.

They have made a lot of changes, from restructuring and increasing child benefits, expanding the CPP, restructuring the EI program, changes to the justice system, returning OAS back to age 65, marijuana legalization, end of life legislation, affordable child care, rebates for carbon taxes, gun control legislation, and managed the Covid pandemic costs and economy better than most other countries.

I don't think if Trudeau is nearly as bad as some continually claim he is, he would have been re-elected twice already by Canadian voters.

Contrary to what some right wing whackos might say.......Canadian voters aren't misled or stupid. They know exactly what they want.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau could well say …..The reports of my incompetence have been greatly exaggerated.

Trudeau is the dean of the G7, serving longer than any other leader .

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547638381189902337


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

A few interesting points from the 2021 StatsCan Census

Boomers make up less than 25% of the population
Millennials are the fastest growing generation (fueled by immigration)
Millennials outnumber Boomers in several Provinces and will be the largest generation in a few years
Millennials outnumber Boomers in Toronto, Vancouver & Montreal


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> A few interesting points from the 2021 StatsCan Census
> 
> Boomers make up less than 25% of the population
> Millennials are the fastest growing generation (fueled by immigration)
> ...


But still, to this date Boomers outnumber Millennials and will continue to outnumber them for a few more years... until Millennials are all well into their 40s. Hopefully Gen Z will help in the voting power, but it's already too late for Millennials.

For decades, there were about +50% more Boomers than Millennials.



> The baby boomer generation, comprising people aged 56 to 75, continues to be the largest in Canada, despite the fact that they are aging.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Population projections suggest that millennials may very soon—by 2029—become the largest generation in the country. For the first time, they would outnumber baby boomers, who would remain the largest generation until then.
















__





A generational portrait of Canada’s aging population from the 2021 Census


This Census in Brief article examines recent trends in the age structure of the Canadian population in 2021 from the angle of generations. It provides some insights on the size and growth of the different generations. This article also provides information on the distribution of generations by...




www12.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

^ Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal account for 116 off 338 ridings. Time for the millennials to get off the couch and vote instead of complaining. Millennials are known for talk as opposed to action.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

A quick Google search came up with Millennials as the largest voting block. Here is one example.









For the 1st time, millennial voters will make up the biggest voting bloc in a federal election - National | Globalnews.ca


For the first time ever, millennial voters will make up the biggest voting bloc in a federal election.




globalnews.ca


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> ^ Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal account for 116 off 338 ridings. Time for the millennials to get off the couch and vote instead of complaining. Millennials are known for talk as opposed to action.


_More than 5,600 Americans were interviewed as part of the study, which looked at attitudes towards taking time off work. Those who, for various reasons – guilt, pride or fear of being replaced – did not use their vacation allowance were identified as “work martyrs”.

The results show that contrary to previous stereotypes, millennials are more likely than other generations to be hooked on work: “More than four in 10 (43%) of work martyrs are millennials, compared to just 29% of overall respondents.”

The study also found that 24% of millennials forfeited vacation last year – meaning they didn’t use holiday days they were entitled to – compared to 19% of generation X and 17% of baby boomers.

Not only are millennials so dedicated to their job (or scared of losing it) that they don’t take holidays – they’re guilt-tripping those who do.

“They are significantly more likely than older generations to say they shame their co-workers (42%, compared to 24%) for taking a vacation.”_









Millennials Aren’t Lazy – They’re Workaholics


As per a study, millennials aren’t lazy. The stereotypes of millennials as lazy, work-shy narcissists couldn't be further from the truth.




www.weforum.org


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

I stand corrected. Millennials are martyrs. LOL


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> I stand corrected. Millennials are martyrs. LOL


Plus, Millennials are so lazy that 69% of couples with children were dual earners in 2015 compared to 36% back in 1976.

Life's pretty easy when you only need a single income to be able to raise kids while your partner is at home during the day taking care of all the chores and kids. As a household, dual earners couple are away a total of 80 to 100+ hours per week, compared to single earners couple who are away a total 40 to 60 hours per week. That's a heck lot more free time.















The rise of the dual-earner family with children







www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

It seems you want pity? So much for being empowered. I see no response to the fact millenials are the largest voting block. It seems they have no one to blame but themselves for not voting.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Sorry as a gen xer i just don’t think i have much sympathy sine we’re not that much better off but you don’t here us complaining all the time. I’m sure some of the women boomers in the workforce would dispute millennials have a more difficult time than they did.
I guess the reason i have trouble trashing people who are boomers are my parents are boomers. Do i agree with their politics? No but they’ve done a lot for me.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm not trashing the Boomers or complaining, I'm just comparing.

If I say that Millenials have it easier than my great-great-great-parent's generation in the 1800s because we have a higher quality of life, am I trashing on the Millenials in this case? Then why saying the Boomers were advantaged compared to the Millenials is trashing and complaining? It's just comparing two situations.

My parents are also Boomers. My stepdad worked super hard as a farmer, he fully deserves his retirement. My mom was at home and helping sometimes at the farm, other times sleeping on the couch during the day (sigh). I started working at the farm 20h/week when I was 12, then more as I got older.

Though my dad worked at the federal as a prison guard, bought a house alone and retired at 48 and never had even the smallest financial struggle. Single earner, nice house, nice car, nice motorcycle, always going out partying, traveling, and sugar daddy of a new girl every few months, a decade or two younger than him. Though life.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

My understanding is that millennials (and some gen ex ers) are supposed to benefit when their parents die from their will, as cold blooded as that sounds. I believe they call it intergenerational wealth transfer. More money than boomers got from their parents. I know my dad got very little. Millennials and gen z also benefiited in the form of monetary gifts towards housing from their parents. I realize this is an unequal benefit as not all kids have parents who benefitted from real estate and got wealthy that way, but that advantage to millennials remains if you want to compare.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

latebuyer said:


> are supposed to benefit when their parents die from their will, as cold blooded as that sounds


Maybe, if they haven't spent it all, like what my dad will likely have done. And if they haven't spent it all, Millenials have to wait their parents death to get some wealth transfer, which will likely occur when they are in their late 50s early 60s I guess. I don't think Millenials want to wait their 60s to have a financial relief from inheritance. I don't think Millenials want to wait their 60s to be able to buy a house. I hope some Boomers are starting a wealth transfer _before_ their death, so their kids can enjoy that money while in their 30s, which is when they need it the most. I know my wife's parents have been doing this (a Boomer mom with a Silent Gen dad). It doesn't have to be that much, I guess they gave somewhere around $30k in total over the past 6 years, mainly during certain events like when we bought a property, when we got married. It certainly helped her/us. My parents (mom & stepdad) didn't give me money, but an interest-free loan to help us with some renovations, which is also definitely helpful.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm not trashing the Boomers or complaining, I'm just comparing.
> 
> If I say that Millenials have it easier than my great-great-great-parent's generation in the 1800s because we have a higher quality of life, am I trashing on the Millenials in this case? Then why saying the Boomers were advantaged compared to the Millenials is trashing and complaining? It's just comparing two situations.


Look at the language 
"Have Boomers stolen their children's future", that's not simply comparing, it's actually suggesting harm has been inflicted on one group by another.

One thing that some of us (I'm not a boomer) think is wrong with society is the victim mentality.
The system is against me, boomers stole my future, all sorts of useless crap that doesn't help anyone.

Even if it was true, it doesn't help you to think this way.
Sure there are issues, and we should fix them. But we should also get on with our lives and move forward.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Look at the language
> "Have Boomers stolen their children's future", that's not simply comparing, it's actually suggesting harm has been inflicted on one group by another.
> 
> One thing that some of us (I'm not a boomer) think is wrong with society is the victim mentality.
> ...


I mean, I agree with you. I don't want to put all the blame on a generation. They sure did some mistakes to blame, but they also did great things and some others things that they couldn't know the impact. And it will be the case for every generation.

I don't agree with blaming titles using words like "stolen". I can agree with comparison words like "poorer", "less advantaged", etc.

There's a purpose for such comparisons, it's to learn from the past and try to avoid some mistakes and make improvements in how we make decisions and share wealth.

I also agree with fixing things and moving forward, but this mentality has its limits. It's also totally healthy to feel some frustration. I mean, for every injustice or mistake you've lived, I'm pretty sure you went through frustration before moving on.

It's kinda the same thing that we see in change management which was taken from the stages of grief by Kübler-Ross. When we face change, we could say that we should already accept it and move forward, but that's obviously not what happens and we can't dismiss the emotional process.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't agree with blaming titles using words like "stolen". I can agree with comparison words like "poorer", "less advantaged", etc.


We can debate 'poorer', because given the higher incomes, it is in part due to bad decisions.

'less advantaged' is just hilarious to me. The advantages for later generations are just incredible.
Sure they have challenges, but the advantages today are simply astonishing.



> There's a purpose for such comparisons, it's to learn from the past and try to avoid some mistakes and make improvements in how we make decisions and share wealth.


That's the fundamental political difference.
You want to share wealth, as though it is a limited sharable thing. 
_"The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money."_

I want to create more wealth, wealth exists in the creation.



> I also agree with fixing things and moving forward, but this mentality has its limits. It's also totally healthy to feel some frustration. I mean, for every injustice or mistake you've lived, I'm pretty sure you went through frustration before moving on.


Yes, but watching things get worse, like systemic discrimination is disheartening.
There are still people who literally think racial quotas are ok, they'll even argue that it isn't racist to treat different races differently.
I grew up in a generation that wanted to end racism, now your generation wants to bring it back. Yes, it's disheartening, but I'm not going to "move on", racism is wrong


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The current employment situation reminds me of when I was a young adult and good jobs were plentiful.

It has been a long time coming, and for most of it the employers held the upper hand.

Paying minimum wages to people who needed work became the "new norm" for a long time.

Today, employers are freaking out that they have to pay "substantial" wage increases to attract workers.

Today's employment scene is what it was like for boomers, back in the day.

Hopefully, today's young adults will get to enjoy a similar economy as we boomers had, where their work is valued.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> The question on my mind would be why more millenials don’t go into politics if they think that. All whine and no action. I also question they’ll do better. Look at trudeau who is a gen xer. What has he accomplished? (Sorry to get political).


Some millennials with strong following are trying to get into politics in the US and get blocked by the boomers

A Youtuber in California was one of the top candidates and was registered for the debate. The security wouldn't let him in and mainstream media never mentioned his name as if he never existed. Young people in mainstream media quit over this but of course mainstream media doesn't cover that either

So long as boomers control the media and the establishment it's impossible


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> So long as boomers control the media and the establishment it's impossible


That's why they're working to block alternatives.

In Canada it is particularly bad.
They are trying to delegitimize critical media, bribing mainstream.

Do you think the media illegally refusing political ads of non-mainstream candidates, then not getting any consequences is an oversight?

Second, it isn't the boomers. It's younger people who don't really comprehend the consequences of these actions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The current employment situation reminds me of when I was a young adult and good jobs were plentiful.
> 
> It has been a long time coming, and for most of it the employers held the upper hand.
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is probably a once in a generation situation.

Workers have to really act aggressively now. They have to demand 10% raises, and line up alternative jobs -- and this is urgent. _You have to do this NOW._

Employers are indeed freaking out. They aren't able to hire at the ridiculously low wages that have been the norm.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

james4beach said:


> They aren't able to hire at the ridiculously low wages that have been the norm.


I've read an article (in French) about an employer who was "frustrated because she was being outbid by the salaries offered by other employers". She was complaining that her employees with a "decent $18/h wage" would quit for an employer offering them $22/h. The social media destroyed her in the comments section.

Meanwhile, other employers are being creative. One of them is offering up to 8 weeks of vacation right from the start. That one got praised by the social media.

(And please I don't want to hear Boomers whine that Millenials are lazy because they want more vacations. Recall that there's 2x more dual earners families now, so Millenials households work twice as much compared to Boomers. Also recall how your employer treated you like sh*t? You should be happy that your Millenials kids don't want to be treated like sh*t anymore by their employers.)


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I wouldn't say millennials work more than the boomers, just a different form of work for some of the women in the boomer generation when they did unpaid work at home. I'm surprised to see a milennial still so sexist.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Millennials seem assertive which is a good thing but they also can come across as entitled. I guess i've always believed in being grateful for what i have. Our standard of living is a lot higher than many countries and i'm grateful for having a roof over my head and the comforts i have. As a delayed comment i was shocked when you said you didn't like inheritances as they weren't convenient. Thats the way it is and you should be grateful for what you get.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Can't you see the irony in what you posted. Your whole thread is how the boomers had it better off than millennials and you are pointing out how working conditions for millennials have improved. Sorry woke up at 5:30 in the morning and am chatty.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> I wouldn't say millennials work more than the boomers, just a different form of work for some of the women in the boomer generation when they did unpaid work at home. I'm surprised to see a milennial still so sexist.


You realize that all "unpaid work" in the house still has to be done even if both are working. It's not like the typical dual income couple has their own live in slaves

Boomers are clueless


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

m3s said:


> You realize that all "unpaid work" in the house still has to be done even if both are working. It's not like the typical dual income couple has their own live in slaves
> 
> Boomers are clueless


You realize that a lot of that work gets contracted out, right? I see neighbors who send their first kid to daycare while on maternity leave at home with the youngest. Because kids are hard work, you know. 

Also cleaning services, prepared food, nannies, dog walkers, etc. Lots of things which were practically unheard of in my parents' generation.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

off.by.10 said:


> Also cleaning services, prepared food, nannies, dog walkers, etc. Lots of things which were practically unheard of in my parents' generation.


You mean back when the gas attendant pumped your gas, washed your windshield, checked your oil, the elevator attendant selected the floor button for you, the shoe shiner shined your shoes and the travel agent booked your travel etc? Lazy entitled boomers barely did anything after work because they didn't have internet and cell phones to work on


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I’m not a boomer. It seems like you are still claiming more work is done and it is not, its just distributed differently. Good point about contracting out work. Hilarious examples. A shoe shiner!?


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Also as millennials have online shopping and banking it seems they are the ones saving time.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

latebuyer said:


> My understanding is that millennials (and some gen ex ers) are supposed to benefit when their parents die from their will, as cold blooded as that sounds. I believe they call it intergenerational wealth transfer. More money than boomers got from their parents. I know my dad got very little. Millennials and gen z also benefiited in the form of monetary gifts towards housing from their parents. I realize this is an unequal benefit as not all kids have parents who benefitted from real estate and got wealthy that way, but that advantage to millennials remains if you want to compare.


The benefit is far greater today than in the past for many. As an example...and of course it doesn't apply to everyone but it's reflective of the situation. I'm 60 and when my parents pass on they have 3 kids to leave their estate to. My wife is in the same situation, 3 kids to share an estate. Most of my friends are in a similar situation...2, 3, or 4 kids to share an estate.

Now let's look at the next generation. I have no kids, my sister has no kids, my brother has 2 kids. His 2 kids potentially have 3 families that could leave an estate to them. The same with my wife, she has 1 kid and her brother and sister have no kids. One or two children could inherit from 3 families as opposed to 3 kids sharing 1 estate. That's 5 -10 times as much inheritance as their parents received. Add to that the ridiculous real estate market and the fact that many people my age have paid off homes, just the houses alone from 3 estates will be around $1.5 million. Much more if you live in a HCOL area. Plus investments and other money, the estates will be $2 million, $3 million or more.

If you gave me $2 million at age 40 or $3 million at 30 I would have quit my job and never worked another day in my life.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> I’m not a boomer. It seems like you are still claiming more work is done and it is not, its just distributed differently. Good point about contracting out work. Hilarious examples. A shoe shiner!?


Where exactly did I say you were a boomer?

I don't think people understand a term boomer is not always used in a literal sense. Like if someone calls you a cow or a pig it doesn't mean you are a literal cow or pig. In this sense I would actually call you a boomer especially now that it triggered you like a clueless old person who doesn't understand.

People constantly do work online that used to be someone's entire job. For example you used to hire a financial advisor, tax preparation, travel agent, insurance broker and many other things that many people will do online. All these things take time and most people don't hire cleaners and dog walkers either

My work is slowly getting rid of many administrative jobs because we just do it ourselves now (which essentially means you need to learn 10 jobs but that's just how it is now) This has led to younger generations never actually disconnecting from work especially because you are expected to answer random **** after hours

Boomers are so clueless as to how the world works now. Again not literal boomer aged people, just clueless old people


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

latebuyer said:


> I wouldn't say millennials work more than the boomers, just a different form of work for some of the women in the boomer generation when they did unpaid work at home. I'm surprised to see a milennial still so sexist.


I meant paid work, obviously, and nothing even sexist as I never mentioned "wife at home", but rather "partner at home" or "parent at home" to be gender neutral. In a single earner family like most Boomers, one parent is out working for money, the other parent stays at home to *work* on the chores, take care of kids, prepare meals, go shopping, etc. In a dual earner family like most Millennials (twice as much compared to Boomers), both parents are out working for money, and when they come back home they still have to *work* on the chores, take care of kids, prepare meals, go shopping, etc. That's why, as a generation, Millennials work more and have less free time.



latebuyer said:


> As a delayed comment i was shocked when you said you didn't like inheritances as they weren't convenient. Thats the way it is and you should be grateful for what you get.


Inheritance when I'll be 60 years old won't help me pay for the roof over my head that I'm currently paying during my 30s, neither for the kids' day care, etc. And I mentioned that I was grateful for the Boomers who understood this, like my wife's parents and my own parents. I mentioned that my wife's parents gifted her a total of maybe $30k over the past 6 years to help her when we bought a property, bought appliances, got married, etc. My parents didn't "gift" me money, but an interest-free loan when we had to do renovations, which I'm also very grateful. But waiting for inheritance at parent's death? That's sad and not the proper way to pass on wealth, in my opinion. Parents want to see their kids enjoy their young years, not their inheritance once they are dead!



latebuyer said:


> Your whole thread is how the boomers had it better off than millennials and you are pointing out how working conditions for millennials have improved.


At work, yes, I mean the work environment. But the irony is when Boomers say that Millennials' working conditions have improved while saying in the same sentence that Millennials are lazy because they want more paid vacations, more perks, more flexibility, more work-life balance, etc.

Boomers had it harder on some aspects, but easier on other aspects, like the economic conditions, the housing situation for instance. Also, how can a Boomer say in the first sentence "I recall the good old times when I could save money at 10%-15% interest rate, risk free" and then in the next sentence "I had my mortgage at much higher rates, so Millennials shouldn't complain about rates rising to only 5%", while also totally dismissing that the 40 years of decreasing rates is the main reason why they could pay their house in less than 20 years and why their house value skyrocketed, meanwhile Millennials can't even afford the down payment and are forced to take on so much debt risk and more stock market risk because bonds have negative real returns. Millennials graduated during the financial crisis, some even during the dot-com crash, meanwhile Boomers were at the peak of their career during the 2010s with high income, higher job security, and owning the most assets during that decade of crazy market performance, low inflation, now the Millennials in their 30s don't even own a house, and the 2020s decade will likely have a flat performance during a period of low rates relative to inflation, negative real yields.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

off.by.10 said:


> You realize that a lot of that work gets contracted out, right? I see neighbors who send their first kid to daycare while on maternity leave at home with the youngest. Because kids are hard work, you know.
> 
> Also cleaning services, prepared food, nannies, dog walkers, etc. Lots of things which were practically unheard of in my parents' generation.


And then Boomers say that Millennials spend more... No, they don't even spend more while they end up being forced to have more expenses like these so they can get back a bit of free time. And anyways only the rich Millennials can afford this. Otherwise, no Millennials can afford to have to expenses for those services, other than day care because both are working... day care costing tens of thousands a year.

Maternity leave exist since the 70s, but it was shorter than today. Though Millennials have to chose between a maternity leave or paying a crazy amount of money to day care.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Complain. Complain. Complain. Complain. No solutions proposed i notice. Its all someone else's fault. And i notice its all about the millennial's and its not like gen xers or gen y are affected by anything at all. I think i'm tired of hearing complaints and will leave the conversation for awhile and take a break.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> Complain. Complain. Complain. Complain. No solutions proposed i notice. Its all someone else's fault. And i notice its all about the millennial's and its not like gen xers are affected by anything at all. I think i'm tired of hearing complaints and will leave the conversation.


Silent generation and gen x are just never mentioned because it doesn't sound as cool/funny as clueless boomer or lazy millennial

Like I said when you refer to someone as a cow or pig or any other term you wouldn't respond with "I'm not a cow, I don't have hooves or horn or weigh 1000 lbs" Ok boomer

Boomers refer to gen x and zoomer as millennials all the time. Difference is the boomers actually think everyone young is millennial


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Just a comment as a single person i have my own frustrations i’ve experienced. I’ve contributed to a political group called singles for tax fairness and that makes me feel i’m doing something. You could probably find a housing related one. I’m not sure if they are referred to as lobbying groups. I also focus on my money management and investing. These things make me feel more empowered and seems more constructive then complaining as as you’ve probably found people aren’t sympathetic anyways,


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> I’ve contributed to a political group called singles for tax fairness and that makes me feel i’m doing something. You could probably find a housing related one. I’m not sure if they are referred to as lobbying groups.


That's a waste of your time and money to be blunt

Housing isn't even my problem. I could buy a house in cash if I wanted to

You're better to move to a country with a tax regime and economy that you prefer


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Thanks i wasn't looking to hijack the thread and to talk about being single, i just thought Mr. Blackhill is clearly frustrated and maybe contributing to a like minded political group may help. Maybe there are facebook groups for millennials as well. I'm a member of a ynab singles group and its a nice to be a member of a like minded group. (Note i don't use ynab but there is a lot of general discussion.)


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> There has been a lot of spirited debate regarding the differences between generations.


I honestly have no clue why every generation will end up hating their child's generation, which is a bit of an irony, as they are the ones who educated them. (Note: it's obviously a generalisation, a statistic, because at the individual level, obviously not every parent end up hating their kid's generation)

I believe the Boomer vs Millennial seems stronger simply because we're in this social media era where everybody can quickly write an article and make it public and where everybody can chat live in the comments, and many anonymously. There's much more publications than ever, much more public debates than ever, because of internet and social media.









A Brief History of Boomer Hating


“Ok Boomer” through the ages




medium.com





"*Then came the millennials, who the media had a blast pitting directly against their parents. Millennials were derided by many a boomer-penned editorial for being selfish, lazy, entitled, whiney, and a host of other unkind adjectives. Since many millennials came of age during the Great Recession, they were left the most vulnerable. Their financial lot has remained bleak: Millennials now make 20% less than Boomers did at their age, despite being better educated. In this climate, is it any wonder that articles about millennials “clapping back” at their elders provide reliable entertainment?*"



> Conversely, adults have always been skeptical, cynical, and downright disgusted by “kids these days.” Ancient Sumerian clay tablets show grown ups grousing about the art of writing being trampled by the then-young, according to author Henry A. Daniels (citing scholar Richard Lloyd Jones). In 1693, author Robert Russell bemoaned, “Children as they have played about the Streets have been heard to curse and swear and call one another Nick-names,” while, in 1790, Reverend Enos Hitchcock complained that romances, novels, and plays had “poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth.” By 1922, the enemy was jazz music, with one doctor writing in the New York Times that the blossoming art form was making young people become “absolutely bad, and some criminal.” Of course, in this case, railing against the young often came with a dose of racism and a fear of black culture. Still, whether the enemy is nicknames, novels, jazz, or TikTok, the olds have always thought the young ‘uns to be a lost cause.





> While every generation somewhat embodies their parents’ worst fears, boomers were a veritable nightmare for their elders. Where their parents willingly banded together to beat Nazi Germany, boomers defiantly burned their Vietnam War draft cards and commandeered university buildings in rage-fueled uprisings. Where their parents dutifully formed nuclear families, boomers scandalously explored premarital sex, drugs, and rock & roll. Their new values were also reflected in powerful antiwar, civil rights, and feminist movements.
> 
> To say their elders were shocked by this rebellion is the height of understatement. During the Columbia University uprising of 1968, the university president Grayson Kirk darkly declared:
> 
> “Our young people, in disturbing numbers, appear to reject all forms of authority, from whatever source derived, and they have taken refuge in a turbulent and inchoate nihilism whose sole objectives are destruction. I know of no time in our history when the gap between the generations has been wider or more potentially dangerous.”





> By the early ’80s, boomers constituted the grand majority of the American electorate, according to Bruce Gibney, author of the 2017 book A Generation of Sociopaths, a less than flattering look at the Boomer legacy. Boomers “inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it,” in Gibney’s words. The way he sees it, boomers, raised in a time of uncompromised prosperity, simply assumed things would always be that easy: that the economy would grow, wages would rise, and the generation below them would grow up to have a better quality of life — a fact which is, for the first time in recent American history, no longer true. Perhaps this unbridled optimism is what led boomers to elect politicians with policies rooted in cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing entitlements.





> Ironically, the flower children of the 1960s slowly became hated for everything they had railed against: middle-class conformity and massive consumerism. In 1990, Time magazine wrote about the rise of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980). The intergenerational hatred is already palpable, with Gen Xers being defined in part by their dislike of all things Boomer: “They hate yuppies, hippies and druggies. They postpone marriage because they dread divorce. They sneer at Range Rovers, Rolexes and red suspenders.”





> The sad and funny thing is this: It even seems like some Baby Boomers sort of hate themselves. In recent commencement speeches, grown-up post-war babies like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and Apple CEO Tim Cook literally apologized for their generation’s legacy. As boomers increasingly reflect on the world their children stand poised to inherit — a world created largely by them — one has to wonder just how ok they feel.











Why Do Many Gen Xers and Millennials Hate Baby Boomers?


Baby boomers believe they were and remain a kind of chosen people.




www.psychologytoday.com


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I guess i don’t understand why the millennials compare themselves to the boomers. For me other than my parents being boomers i don’t give them a second thought. I don’t care how they lived or work. They are in the past. I do find the 80s period interesting but other than that who cares?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

latebuyer said:


> I guess i don’t understand why the millennials compare themselves to the boomers. For me other than my parents being boomers i don’t give them a second thought. I don’t care how they lived or work. They are in the past. I do find the 80s period interesting but other than that who cares?


Those who care about history because that's how we learn lessons so we can try to avoid making the same mistakes, and also so we can try making the same successes.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> I guess i don’t understand why the millennials compare themselves to the boomers. For me other than my parents being boomers i don’t give them a second thought. I don’t care how they lived or work. They are in the past. I do find the 80s period interesting but other than that who cares?


They still control the most powerful positions and their demographics have a massive impact on economies as they age through various stages

Soon their children and grandchildren will be inheriting their vast stockpiles of RE, gold and giant RVs etc. A younger generation will probably sell it off for very different assets

Just like the growing demographics of single women above 30 causes an impact on the sales of vibrators and cat food


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Good points. I thought boomers are close to retiring? I guess my parents are older boomers. I believe things change and evolve and i don't think we can replicate what happened in the past.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> I honestly have no clue why every generation will end up hating their child's generation, which is a bit of an irony, as they are the ones who educated them


Maybe it has something to do with the cynicism and negativity that develops in some people as they age. Not universal of course, but it does seem to happen. I have some older relatives who grumble about everything. Young people and their sex, drugs, crime, etc.

Even in the 1990s (which in hindsight was a great era) some older people were grumbling about homosexuals, disrespectful young people etc. Of course the people who were being criticized back then are now older adults getting close to retirement.

This scene from Seinfeld always made me laugh. 1992. Elaine talks to an older woman who started riding the subway in the 1940s.






"what does ironic mean?"


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The good old days …

I want one of those please.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550420291452809223


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrBlackhill said:


> I honestly have no clue why every generation will end up hating their child's generation, which is a bit of an irony, as they are the ones who educated them. (Note: it's obviously an generalisation, a statistic, because at the individual level, obviously not every parent end up hating their kid's generation)


It's like how girls from strict religious families tend to be pretty freaky

Human nature is to do the opposite of what we are told. We all look at our parents and decide we won't be like them. Reactance (psychology)

"I won't do what you tell me" RATM


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I honestly have no clue why every generation will end up hating their child's generation, which is a bit of an irony, as they are the ones who educated them. (Note: it's obviously a generalisation, a statistic, because at the individual level, obviously not every parent end up hating their kid's generation)


Who hates their kids generation. I honestly kind of like them, the vast majority of them are great people.
What's to hate?



> View attachment 23438


Two things going on here.
1. Grass is greener on the other side.
2. People do a lot to criticize, and if you've already experienced something, it looks like a pretty obvious and stupid mistake.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Who hates their kids generation. I honestly kind of like them, the vast majority of them are great people.
> What's to hate?


Exactly, I have friends in all generations. And if it wasn't for their crappy music, poor clothing choices, weird hair cuts, etc I'm sure I'd have many more younger generation friends!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Exactly, I have friends in all generations. And if it wasn't for their crappy music, poor clothing choices, weird hair cuts, etc I'm sure I'd have many more younger generation friends!


Well actually their clothing choices right now aren't too bad, and the music isn't too bad, also there is a mini resurgences in 30-40 year old music which is pretty nice.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Well actually their clothing choices right now aren't too bad, and the music isn't too bad, also there is a mini resurgences in 30-40 year old music which is pretty nice.


Just to be clear ... I was joking. 

BTW, some of the newer music sucks just like some of the music from my younger years did.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

The worst song ever was written in 1982.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> poor clothing choices


And... Is this how you dressed in the 80s? 😂


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> their crappy music


As a Millenial... Good music stopped when we changed millennia... I don't know what happened starting from 2000, but gosh... Sure, *there's still good music*, but it's harder to find.

As a Millenial... The music I listened the most was from the 80s and 90s, even though I was born in the 80s and a teen in the 2000s.

Music from the 50s, 60s and 70s was also very good. I know all their hits and have them on my playlists. We've been music-poor since 2000.

(See! The Millenials are also poorer in good music than their Boomer parents who had all the good music! )









The Top Songs by Decade, 1890-2019


image from musiccanada.files.wordpress.com Top Songs by Decade: 1890-2019 Dave’s Music Database has compiled the best songs of all-tim...




davesmusicdatabase.blogspot.com


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> As a Millenial... Good music stopped when we changed millennia... I don't know what happened starting from 2000, but gosh... Sure, *there's still good music*, but it's harder to find.


I agree. Incidentally, 2000 was when Napster came onto the scene. That's when I started discovering good music that wasn't getting exposure on the radio. It wasn't long after that I stopped following popular music and began listening to indie rock, electronica, and metal. There is still a lot of good music being made today, but I rarely hear it on the radio or TV. There are many good metal bands in Europe that are mostly ignored in North America. I also listen to some classic rock and metal from the 70's and 80's, and occasionally some 90's rock or pop. I can barely name what bands are popular now, so I guess that means I'm getting old. It's possible that I may be missing out on something good, too.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> And... Is this how you dressed in the 80s? 😂


Actually I've worn pretty much the exact same style of clothes over my entire adult life .... jeans and a t-shirt. One big difference I saw over the years is my ripped (due to wear) jeans were regular price and then I laughed when they started to sell new "pre-ripped" designer jeans for 4-6 times the regular price.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> It's possible that I may be missing out on something good, too.


There is good music but you have to look for it. For example ... Pick a genre, goto youtube music, listen to a whole bunch of different artist/songs that come up in the list and you'll very likely find some.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

There is still great new music being put out today.


----------



## Gothenburg83 (Dec 30, 2021)

Gator13 said:


> The worst song ever was written in 1982.


Which is? I checked and Starship "we built this city" was 1985 so I'm burning with curiosity


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> The worst song ever was written in 1982.





Gothenburg83 said:


> Which is? I checked and Starship "we built this city" was 1985 so I'm burning with curiosity


Ebony & Ivory
Stevie Wonder & Paul McCartney

We built this city is damn close though. lol


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Gothenburg83 said:


> Which is? I checked and Starship "we built this city" was 1985 so I'm burning with curiosity


The Final Countdown?


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

The Final Countdown by Europe wasn't released until 1988.


----------



## Gothenburg83 (Dec 30, 2021)

HappilyRetired said:


> The Final Countdown?


well that certainly would be in my top 10.
Achey breaky heart? 
I stumbled on this list and I fear I will have some of these song in my head for a while. 50 Worst songs ever
#1 is Starship and Ebony and Ivory is #10. The final countdown is 27th. All very subjective but the wife and I grew up in two different countries and two different mother tongues but one thing we do agree on is Starship should never been allowed to happen.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I forgot about this award winning doc which delves into the theme of this thread and gives some context to the differences of our views of wealth over time.

Generation Wealth (2018) - IMDb

It's on Amazon and watched it again today. It does stray a bit into other areas and focuses on our love of a false reality. Fake it till you make it and find the shortcut to fame and wealth.

added: I think there is starting to be a shift though and the emphasis is now about freedom and not things. The goal has morphed and that is why FIRE is so popular. We get to see examples of the very few that find success and extreme wealth but for most that is not the outcome. One may not achieve the status of the 0.1% by saving and investing but definitely still achieve greater wealth than many will achieve.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> But waiting for inheritance at parent's death? That's sad and not the proper way to pass on wealth, in my opinion. Parents want to see their kids enjoy their young years, not their inheritance once they are dead!


Seems like some people agree.









Forget the inheritance. Why cash gifts in early adulthood are a smart financial move – for parents and kids


Cash gifts before 40 can have a massive impact for setting your children up on solid financial footing, even if it means leaving them a smaller amount or no money later, says Bridget Casey




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Be very, very thankful if you get anything, regardless of when. In most cases, parents will want to hang on to their savings in the event they need special care, etc. as time goes along.

We hope and encourage our parents spend their money on themselves


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Gator13 said:


> Be very, very thankful if you get anything, regardless of when. In most cases, parents will want to hang on to their savings in the event they need special care, etc. as time goes along.
> 
> We hope and encourage our parents spend their money on themselves


The article compares giving a large inheritance at death vs progressively gifting money. Obviously if the parents are tight with their retirement, it's not an option.

But if the parents are comfortable and will easily be in the 6 figures or more at death, gifting money is better than keeping it for inheritance.

My family and my wife's family don't have selfish values. We gift and help whenever we're able to. Both of our families have helped us even though we never asked for. *And it goes the other way around also*, if kids are making a lot of money and their parents are tight in retirement, the kids should help their parents. Obviously this assumes a healthy family context, for instance I won't ever help my dad because he never had a healthy relationship with me.

After all, aren't all people in a good financial situation contributing to their kids RESP? That's a gift to their kids. Why should it stop once they are young adults? Why should that gift only be for their education?


----------

