# The Financial Well-being of Millenials



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I found this recent report by Stats Can interesting: Study: Economic well-being across generations of young Canadians: Are millennials better or worse off?
Or as a Pdf link. There is also a CBC article summarizing it: Millennials earn more than their parents did — but owe a lot more

The article refers to millenials as born between 1982-1991 (25-34 in 2016). Other references use from 1981 all the way up to 1996, 1997, even 2004. It compares aspects of the finances of millenials compared to gen-x and boomers.

_"Among the main takeaways in the report are young people are wealthier than previous generations were at the same point in their lives.
The millennial cohort had a median after-tax household income of $44,093 in 2016, by Statistics Canada's calculations. That compares with $33,276 for gen-Xers and $33,350 for boomers at the same age. And those figures are inflation adjusted, which means it's an apples to apples comparison...

But while their incomes were higher on the whole, their overall debt loads were much higher for the most recent generation...

The median mortgage level for a homeowning millennial was $218,000 in 2016, ... more than 2.5 times the average annual income for a young family who owned a home that year."_

I also found the have-have not gap within the group notable. The bottom quartile of millenials have a net worth of only $9.5k while the top quartile are worth $253.9k. That seems like a huge gap to me. Most of this related to 'owning' a home, even with the added mortgage debt, and particularly in GVA or GTA. Top decile millenials have a net worth of $588.6k.

Not a lot of other analysis though. Neither article discusses the challenges of being house rich and income poor for example.


----------



## l1quidfinance (Mar 17, 2017)

An interesting point to add would be the cost of servicing the debt for the respective gernerations.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

l1quidfinance said:


> An interesting point to add would be the cost of servicing the debt for the respective gernerations.


Yes. This handy related infometric notes that millenial's debt-to-after-tax income ratio is 216% compared to 125% for gen-x (in 1999 when they were the same age). I expect that was lower again for boomers.

The most recent debt to service ratio analysis (interest and principal payements as a % of disposable income) appears to be this for 1990 to mid-2014 and unfortunately isn't specific to - or comparative of - a particular generational cohort. 

The DSR over 2007 to mid-2014 looks reasonably level at about 14%. While interest rates dropped during the period, people took on more principal debt:


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

To me this shows that millenials aren't necessarily worse off then gen x ers or boomers as $44,000 vs. $33,000 (adjusted for inflation) is a pretty substantial difference. No doubt all the press will focus on the increased debt millenials hold though. Each generation has their own challenges, despite what the media tells us.

Sorry i realize your subject was the millenials, as a gen xer just get tired of hearing about them.


----------



## *PetePerfectMan* (Jan 24, 2019)

[I said:


> "Among the main takeaways in the report are young people are wealthier than previous generations were at the same point in their lives.
> The millennial cohort had a median after-tax household income of $44,093 in 2016, by Statistics Canada's calculations. That compares with $33,276 for gen-Xers and $33,350 for boomers at the same age. And those figures are inflation adjusted, which means it's an apples to apples comparison...
> 
> But while their incomes were higher on the whole, their overall debt loads were much higher for the most recent generation...
> ...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I don't think simply adjusting the number for inflation can tell you enough to determine who is/was 'wealthier'.

For example, take the average price of a car. As a Baby Boomer, I bought a brand new 1971 Mustang for $3100. Using an inflation calculator I find that inflation since then means $1 should now be $6.26. If you take $3100 and multiply it by 6.26 you get $19,406. Anyone want to try buying a 2019 Mustang for that price?

http://www.in2013dollars.com/ca/inflation/1971?amount=1

https://carcostcanada.com/Canada/Prices/2019-Ford-Mustang/31331

In fact, today's buyer is likely to spend the equivalent of twice as much on a car. So how does that result in a Millennial being 'wealthier'? Wealth is not just having more dollars, it is about having more BUYING POWER is it not? You have to define what 'wealth' and 'wealthier' actually means.

That is what the debt numbers are telling you I believe. On PAPER the Millennial may appear to have more INCOME in terms of adjusted dollars but in the real world, they can only afford less, UNLESS you allow debt to increase considerably. So their WEALTH in terms of what they can afford to buy without going into debt, is in fact lower.

I expect you will find the same with house prices which makes up the two largest purchases the average family makes. A home and a car.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

At the top decile, millenials have a net worth of $588.6k. That strikes me as quite high. I'm 45 and don't even have that net worth. But I agree debt level is concerning. There is no guarantee we will have the run up in real estate prices that we have had and millenials could end up under water. I wonder if investing in the stock market with this current bull market could have provided a better return.


----------



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

Longtimeago said:


> For example, take the average price of a car. As a Baby Boomer, I bought a brand new 1971 Mustang for $3100. Using an inflation calculator I find that inflation since then means $1 should now be $6.26. If you take $3100 and multiply it by 6.26 you get $19,406. Anyone want to try buying a 2019 Mustang for that price?


Perhaps if you take out the seat belts, airbags, ABS, catalytic converter, GPS, a few speakers, power windows, etc. My point being that cars today are very different from cars 50 years ago so this is not a very good example, even if the model still bears the same name. We could build them cheaper. We "chose" not to.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I don't think simply adjusting the number for inflation can tell you enough to determine who is/was 'wealthier'.


I agree, but they were discussing inflation-adjusted household income. You seem to be confusing it with wealth. 



> Wealth is not just having more dollars, it is about having more BUYING POWER is it not? You have to define what 'wealth' and 'wealthier' actually means.


Wealth, in StatsCan's world is measured by median net worth which is total household assets minus total debts. Purchasing power is a different measure and was not part of the analysis. 



> That is what the debt numbers are telling you I believe. On PAPER the Millennial may appear to have more INCOME in terms of adjusted dollars but in the real world, they can only afford less, UNLESS you allow debt to increase considerably. So their WEALTH in terms of what they can afford to buy without going into debt, is in fact lower.


Well, the report says that millenials compared to gen-x have higher inflation-adjusted median incomes, higher median net worth, and higher debt.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

https://montrealgazette.com/persona...rvey/wcm/198019ec-ce1c-4509-a642-1e0fde85441d

apparently lots of us are broke !!!!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

hfp75 said:


> https://montrealgazette.com/persona...rvey/wcm/198019ec-ce1c-4509-a642-1e0fde85441d
> 
> apparently lots of us are broke !!!!


So it would seem. But I'm having trouble buying that nearly half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency each month, and that 26% of Canadians aren't even covering their monthly bills.

Is that the sense you have?

I note that the survey comes from MNP who are in the business of consumer proposals, personal bankrupcy and credit counseling (call 310-DEBT). Perhaps a bit of a self-serving result that keeps them in the newsfeeds every quarter?

This says the survey is based on an Ipsos on-line poll of 2,070 respondents.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know many people living beyond their means. Working on easy payments so they can have all the toys they want but can’t really afford.


----------



## l1quidfinance (Mar 17, 2017)

I would love to know how many cottages are funded through Helocs.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So it would seem. But I'm having trouble buying that nearly half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency each month, and that 26% of Canadians aren't even covering their monthly bills.
> 
> Is that the sense you have?
> 
> ...


When I read these reports, I often think they are over exaggerated. Then I remember that the top 20% of income earners is probably the 'norm' in terms of the people I see and associate with on a day to day basis. These could be people in more jr positions at work, my kids school, activities, etc. The people that I tend to primarily hang out with is closer to the top 5%. Then I hear stories of these people that I know who seem to be living a pretty decent life are well into debt. People are work who make the same or close to me complain they can't pay the bills, have huge mortgage debt or credit card debt. These are supposed to be the topo 20% of income my city. When I consider it this way, I am not surprise that the other 80% is really having problems. 

I know so many people who have much larger, nicer homes than I do, go on multiple vacations a year, and make a lot less than my spouse and I, and I am not surprised they don't have a lot of savings.


----------



## Emjay85 (Nov 9, 2014)

hfp75 said:


> https://montrealgazette.com/persona...rvey/wcm/198019ec-ce1c-4509-a642-1e0fde85441d
> 
> apparently lots of us are broke !!!!


It seems like deja vu reading that article. I could have sworn an almost identical piece was written, same headline and all, not too long ago.

Edit: Quick google search shows the same article was published in May 2017 and another in January of this year. Almost seems like some sort of advertising for the firm MNP.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I agree, but they were discussing inflation-adjusted household income. You seem to be confusing it with wealth.
> 
> 
> Wealth, in StatsCan's world is measured by median net worth which is total household assets minus total debts. Purchasing power is a different measure and was not part of the analysis.
> ...


I think what I was saying was quite clear. In the OP, you quote, "Among the main takeaways in the report are young people are wealthier than previous generations were at the same point in their lives."

I'm disputing that point. I don't see them as having more wealth at all. They can afford less, not more. They just go into greater debt to have what they want. I am sure a lot of millennials would be misled by the report into thinking they are 'better off' when in fact they are not.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

off.by.10 said:


> Perhaps if you take out the seat belts, airbags, ABS, catalytic converter, GPS, a few speakers, power windows, etc. My point being that cars today are very different from cars 50 years ago so this is not a very good example, even if the model still bears the same name. We could build them cheaper. We "chose" not to.


Cars are indeed not the same off.by.10 but that is simply reflected in the average car price. So what? I bought a car to travel from A to B in 1971, what does a millennial buy one for today? The point is that in 1971, I bought my $3100 Mustang for CASH off.by.10. How many millennials buy a new one today for cash do you think? So who was/is 'wealthier' in terms of affordable without debt, them or me? 

When I see tv ads for cars offering 72 months to pay, I just shake my head and wonder how anyone could look at that and not realize that it is ridiculous to consider needing to spend 6 YEARS paying for a car. The car manufacturers aren't offering 6 years of payments because they are nice guys. They do so because they know most of their customers cannot AFFORD what the payments would be if were financed over 2-3 years which was the average financing time period for a car back in the 70s. 

Think of it in those terms. It now take twice as long for the average person to pay for an average priced car than it did in the past. Do you want to call that progress?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Millennials have a lot more income than previous generations. As well, woman job participation is certainly higher than 40 years ago and at much higher incomes. That means couples together also have more money. They also have more access to debt. Really, this means millennials are flush with cash. And their debt is actually cheaper than that of previous generations. So what if you have double the debt if your interest rate is 1/3rd? And you don't own a car and you are less likely to own a house? Even more cash to do things that people only used to be able to do after they retired.

Oh, and yes millennials do buy cars with cash. My partner is a millennial, and she bought her last two that way. Not everyone is paying $50,000 for new mustangs - $15,000 will get you a very nice 3-4 year old car that will last and be a lot safer/reliable/fuel efficient/ABS/AWD than anything built 40 years ago. And she is not the only one being smart with her money. I bought my car on a 5 year payment plan and paid all that ridiculous interest. Five years! That's almost six YEARS! My last payment was 15 years ago, still drive the car daily.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

LTA - I'm not sure then if you disagree with the StatsCan definition of 'wealth' or with the data itself? Or whether the point you are making - which I agree with entirely - is that total wealth alone can't describe a person's situation? 

It reminds me a bit of a post we might see on CMF, where someone has a 'net worth' of $!.0MM, but $800k of that comes from their $1.2MM house. And they only have investable assets/accounts of $200k, a remaining mortgage of $400k, and monthly expenses that leave them with very little discretionary income.

Compare that to someone else with the same $1MM of net worth comprised of a paid off $500k house, invested assets of $900k and a $400k investment loan 

And as you touched on earlier, I agree that higher income does not equate with discretionary income - income available to save/invest or spend on yourself. 

I guess the point would be to remind people that statistical data has both utility and limitations?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So it would seem. But I'm having trouble buying that nearly half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency each month, and that 26% of Canadians aren't even covering their monthly bills.
> 
> Is that the sense you have?
> 
> ...


I don't have any trouble buying it OnlyMyOpinion. I think Plugging Along has got it right in basically saying, you can't just look at yourself and those in your 'circle', you have to look at all the people who are more or less 'invisible' to you. 

Even a family with a median income can easily be $200 away from not making ends meet. Any family with any income can if the difference between their income and their outgoing is that close each month. It's simply called spending as much as you earn. There are plenty of people with a family income of $100k or more who are in that position, it isn't just low income families.

Most posting here understand the simple concept of spending less than you earn but that is not what most of the population does. The spend as much or more than they earn and so are completely vulnerable to getting into financial trouble every single month. They live one pay cheque away from it as the study suggests.

It's like those who retire stilling owing on a mortgage. I could say I find it hard to buy that 20% of Canadian retirees do that and yet it is a fact. Or that 66% of retirees carry credit card debt. Overall, 25% of Canadian retirees are in debt. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-retirement-debt-1.4547125 That's why they are working as Walmart greeters on at MickeyD's.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

doctrine said:


> Millennials have a lot more income than previous generations. As well, woman job participation is certainly higher than 40 years ago and at much higher incomes. That means couples together also have more money. They also have more access to debt. Really, this means millennials are flush with cash. And their debt is actually cheaper than that of previous generations. So what if you have double the debt if your interest rate is 1/3rd? And you don't own a car and you are less likely to own a house? Even more cash to do things that people only used to be able to do after they retired.
> 
> Oh, and yes millennials do buy cars with cash. My partner is a millennial, and she bought her last two that way. Not everyone is paying $50,000 for new mustangs - $15,000 will get you a very nice 3-4 year old car that will last and be a lot safer/reliable/fuel efficient/ABS/AWD than anything built 40 years ago. And she is not the only one being smart with her money. I bought my car on a 5 year payment plan and paid all that ridiculous interest. Five years! That's almost six YEARS! My last payment was 15 years ago, still drive the car daily.


It really is funny how people perceive things. When I was in my 30s doctrine, I was married. My wife did not go out to work, she was a housewife. She did not NEED to go out to work, I could earn enough to support our family with 2 kids, without her having to go out to work.

Now, do you really think it is progress when today, the number of families who can afford for one or the other adult to NOT have to work is far lower than it was in the past? You may have more INCOME but it does not afford you a lifestyle that is better. Can you see what I am saying? Put it another way. You are TIME poorer than a family was when I was 30. To live your life you and your partner have to work let's say 80 hours a week between you. To live my life when I was 30, my partner and I only had to work (me) 40 hours per week. Which do you think is better?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> LTA - I'm not sure then if you disagree with the StatsCan definition of 'wealth' or with the data itself? Or whether the point you are making - which I agree with entirely - is that total wealth alone can't describe a person's situation?
> 
> It reminds me a bit of a post we might see on CMF, where someone has a 'net worth' of $!.0MM, but $800k of that comes from their $1.2MM house. And they only have investable assets/accounts of $200k, a remaining mortgage of $400k, and monthly expenses that leave them with very little discretionary income.
> 
> ...


Yes I disagree with their definition, not the data. Yes, income does not describe a person's situation. I think my response just now to doctrine shows that quite clearly. If an average couple have to work 80 hours to enjoy an average life, that is in fact going backwards from an average couple only having to work 40 hours to enjoy an average life in the past. An average couple today is not twice as happy as an average couple in the past after all.

So I would say that the point might be to consider that statistical data does indeed have both utility and limitations which depend on which statistics you choose to look at. Average household income is up, ok, but what about average family working hours? What about average family happiness? What about average family 'quality time' as they call it, spent with their kids or family and friends?

Then I might ask which is more important, time or money? Millennials may have more income (not wealth which is an entirely different thing to me) but they earn that by giving up more time earning it. Just as people here sometime refer to 'house poor' when someone ends up with no discretionary money due to having to pay a high mortgage, you could refer to people as 'income poor' who end up with no discretionary time due to having to pay in time for the income.

I know which I value more when it comes to choosing between time and money. Time wins every time (no pun intended). Try defining 'wealth' in terms of free time and see who comes out ahead. Wealth to me is not measured in income, it is measured in things like happiness, free time, enjoyment of life. Try this quote on wealth, "Measure your wealth by what you would have left if you lost all your money." H. Jackson Brown Jr.

Health, happiness, contentment in your life, those are the only true wealth.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fkP7Y8Gqys


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wages have been stagnant for decades. The wealth and income gaps continue to widen.

A couple more years and people won't even be $200 from bankruptcy. They will be bankrupt.

Default is relatively easy and painless. Wipe the slate clean and start over again.

It will be a bad time for lenders and those who invest in lenders.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> How many millennials buy a new one today for cash do you think? So who was/is 'wealthier' in terms of affordable without debt, them or me?
> 
> When I see tv ads for cars offering 72 months to pay, I just shake my head and wonder how anyone could look at that and not realize that it is ridiculous to consider needing to spend 6 YEARS paying for a car. The car manufacturers aren't offering 6 years of payments because they are nice guys. They do so because they know most of their customers cannot AFFORD what the payments would be if were financed over 2-3 years which was the average financing time period for a car back in the 70s.
> 
> Think of it in those terms. It now take twice as long for the average person to pay for an average priced car than it did in the past. Do you want to call that progress?


There are a lot of millennials that can buy a used car, or a even a new car for about $15000 or less. I was looking the other day for the cheapest car in Canada new, it was $10K. I can't speak about the 70's, but in the 90's there were 6 and 7 car loans back then. I thought it was crazy then, and the mentality for my of my friends and I were get a cheap beater and not get a car loan p.e.r.i.o.d. I have never had a car loan and drove my car to the ground while saving for a new car. My last few vehicles have all been new and much nicer and fully paid for. I was taught if I needed a loan for the car, then I needed a to bus for a while and save for a cheap car. Fast forward now, the CHOICES millennials are making are a lot different. Many don't see any problem with debt and they take out crazy loans. My brother just bought a 2 years used BMW from essentially their intern who could no longer make the payments. The issue is not affordability but the expectations millennials have on what they should be buying out of school when they don't have an income. I truly believe if a millennial made the same buying decision I made or you made with their current incomes, they would be wealthier than us at the same age. 




Longtimeago said:


> I don't have any trouble buying it OnlyMyOpinion. I think Plugging Along has got it right in basically saying, you can't just look at yourself and those in your 'circle', you have to look at all the people who are more or less 'invisible' to you.
> 
> Even a family with a median income can easily be $200 away from not making ends meet. Any family with any income can if the difference between their income and their outgoing is that close each month. It's simply called spending as much as you earn. There are plenty of people with a family income of $100k or more who are in that position, it isn't just low income families.
> 
> ...


This is a problem not with wealth but GENERAL populations towards debt and spending. We gave our kids cell phones early (long story, but essentially the school and the busses kept losing my children). Their first ones were old phones of ours, and their second was a gift of a NEW $80 android. My kids were so happy as so many of their friends already had phones. Here's the kicker, the other kids were all complaining that their iphones were the crappy older versions (still newer than my kids). Some of the kids are having tantrums because they don't have the latest $1000 phone. 

I was in stupid debt when I first got out of university, strictly due to stubbornness and living the high life I could afford, but I knew better, and figured things out quickly. It has become the new norm for debt and to spend. Parents are barely teaching their kids, millennials think it's normal. Critical thinking is going down, and people with higher incomes are making bad decisions. 




Longtimeago said:


> It really is funny how people perceive things. When I was in my 30s doctrine, I was married. My wife did not go out to work, she was a housewife. She did not NEED to go out to work, I could earn enough to support our family with 2 kids, without her having to go out to work.
> 
> Now, do you really think it is progress when today, the number of families who can afford for one or the other adult to NOT have to work is far lower than it was in the past? You may have more INCOME but it does not afford you a lifestyle that is better. Can you see what I am saying? Put it another way. You are TIME poorer than a family was when I was 30. To live your life you and your partner have to work let's say 80 hours a week between you. To live my life when I was 30, my partner and I only had to work (me) 40 hours per week. Which do you think is better?


I think it's also choice of the lifestyle people expect. Before having kids, I had a great career and income and so did my spouse. We made sure we bought a house we could afford on one income. It is currently a contentious point with me as our house is old and 1/2 the size of all of our friends houses. We waited until we were established and had money to have kids. We have always had to option that one of us doesn't work, but it would mean a lot of sacrifices in other areas. Even with two incomes, we know people not making ends meet, and it's because they choose 3-4 vacations a year, massive houses, etc... Again, it's about choices. My millennial nieces and nephews have all bought their vehicles in cash, and have no debt other than their mortgages, and already have started investing in rentals and other things. They are not the norm, but they have chosen to live the same way their parent did on their current incomes. So good choices and good income. 

I don't think it's a wealth problem, it's critical thinking problem.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I just don't know how helpful a generational comparison really is. My parents are quite a bit wealthier then me and i don't sit around and whine about it, if anything it pushed me to better myself. (It did sting a little when they sold their 1.4 million house and i owned a 200,00 condo.) All you can do is push yourself to rise above your circumstances. I agree it is a little bit of both - housing prices have definitely gone up a lot, but millenials may have unreasonable expectations. They complain about renting yet I know I rented for 5 years before buying a home.

FYI I drive a 1990 toyota corolla and i bet many millenials would turn up their nose at it.

Just a comment again that this report is entirely focused on the millenials. Even a supposedly objective institution like Stats Canada doesn't recognize that gen x ers exist and how they are being impacted by the economy.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> Wages have been stagnant for decades. The wealth and income gaps continue to widen.
> 
> A couple more years and people won't even be $200 from bankruptcy. They will be bankrupt.
> 
> ...


Patience and moderation is also a solution. You don’t “need” a new $1000 cell phone every couple of year, or a big screen tv, or stainless steel appliances, or a travel vacation every six months, or that new car, the quad you use twice a year, etc.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

If everyone would live within their means, no one would be $200 away from insolvency and one article reports.
This applies to all - its not a generational thing.


----------



## emperor (Jul 24, 2011)

As far as I can see housing is all manipulation. 

Make banks shoulder all responsibility for debt, raise interest rates to historic norms, only be able to sell your primary house tax exempt 2 times, ban foreign ownership, remove GST from new home purchases, work with municipalities and builders to build lots of new houses at 3X the average family median income and make sure to keep ahead of new immigration. Do those things and houses will show their true value.

They want the new generation broke, paying over inflated prices for the same thing older generations bought for pennies on the dollar. 
Which will probably lead to more support for communism and socialism, because when the current system doesn't work, you might as well try something new.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You seem to think you can legislate away stupidity. No one forced people to borrow more money than they can afford, no one forced people to bid up housing prices because lower interest rates made them more “affordable”, no matter what legislation is passed there’s always a way around it.


----------



## emperor (Jul 24, 2011)

CMHC, Foreign investors, low interest rates, mass immigration, capital gains exemption. These are all policies used to inflate housing prices and remove the true market value of them. 

I don't really want the government to legislate more, I would be happy if they just quit manipulating the market.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Millennials span a pretty wide range. Some of them were born as early as 1980 or so and are almost age 40, with well paying professional jobs. These people can have high incomes and high net worths. Other millennials are still kids stuck in low paying jobs ... I don't think one can generalize.

I'm one of the lucky millennials, who happened to be in a well paying field, but I'm also on the older range of them and I was able to get some decent work experience before the economy completely changed around 2008.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

I thought Chart 3 from the StatsCan link was pretty interesting:


> Financial characteristics of millennials aged 30 to 34, for those with and without principal residence assets, 2016, 2016 constant dollars
> 
> With a principal residence asset Without a principal residence asset
> Median assets 526,544 32,800
> ...


If the average home owning 30-34 year old millenial in 2016 made $84,100 / year after tax then they made ~ $115,000 / year before tax, IIRC this is much higher than the average 2016 Canadian income.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

protomok said:


> I thought Chart 3 from the StatsCan link was pretty interesting:
> 
> 
> If the average home owning 30-34 year old millenial in 2016 made $84,100 / year after tax then they made ~ $115,000 / year before tax, IIRC this is much higher than the average 2016 Canadian income.


Must be household income. I would guess that most millennial homeowners probably have two incomes.


----------



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

protomok said:


> If the average home owning 30-34 year old millenial in 2016 made $84,100 / year after tax then they made ~ $115,000 / year before tax, IIRC this is much higher than the average 2016 Canadian income.


I think those are household incomes. It's not specified in the chart (shame on stat can) but earlier in the text, we have:


> Specifically, household incomes reached $66,500 for millennials aged 25 to 34 in 2016, compared with $51,000 for young Gen-Xers at the same age in 1999.


 That number sits in the middle of the 84k / 43k pair.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

^ yes, household income would make more sense, thanks.


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

I'm a bit surprised by this:



> Millennials in the top 10% had accumulated $588,600 in net worth


How is it that high? I'm in my mid 30s, earn a good salary, invest in stocks, and am very cheap, and my networth is quite a bit lower than that. How did they do it?

I could understand the top 1% being that high due mainly to dumb luck, but 10%?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Bull market in real estate would be a good start. Of course, that’s a house of cards...


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Earl, as I recall, the report notes most of that value is held in the value of homes bought in GVA and GTA in the past.


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

But the bull market in the GTA (I'm less familiar with the GVA) started almost 15 years ago, when even the oldest millenials were too young to buy real estate (unless they had significant help from parents). I would guess only a small portion of millenials could have taken advantage of that without parental help. I'm guessing the bank of mom and dad is the reason behind the high net worth of most if not all of those top 10% of millenials.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

People didn’t start in the market at the bottom, but there were a lot who bought along the way. More luck than planning. Also remember that 90% of the people didn’t do well...10% isn’t a big number.

Also, building up net worth can happen quite quickly. My son just bought a three bedroom apartment as his first rental. He bought it below market value (70k), it should rent for 1300/month. Figure it’ll appraise at over 100k, so he instantly added 30k+ to his net worth overnight. He’s still in school and got his first summer job...not too bad.


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

Yeah but your son has you to advise him. I'm sure you helped him pick out the property. If the property needs repairs, I'm sure you'll help him with the repairs. If he has any problem with tenants, I'm sure you'll advise him how to handle that as well. If you didn't exist, or didn't know anything about real estate, coudl he have still found an underpriced property to invest in and had the courage and skills to successfully invest in it? Maybe, but unlikely.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s how I started, no mentor, just common sense. His place was move in ready, sure he has the advantage of having me, but it’s not a requirement. I know a guy who owned several rentals while still in high school. Don’t think he had a mentor either. I certainly thought it weird at the time, I didn’t get into real estate until long after. 

You really should read Aesop’s fables, especially the sour grapes one. You certainly sound like the fox.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

GTA/GVA are in 30 year bull markets, not 15. Anyone who has owned there for even 20 years is very likely a millionaire or close to it. I have relatives in North Vancouver who have been there for 35 years. They could sell their house and easily buy 30 of Just a Guy's apartments and take in $500,000 annually in rent and $1.2M in net equity gains.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Earl said:


> Yeah but your son has you to advise him. I'm sure you helped him pick out the property. If the property needs repairs, I'm sure you'll help him with the repairs. If he has any problem with tenants, I'm sure you'll advise him how to handle that as well. If you didn't exist, or didn't know anything about real estate, coudl he have still found an underpriced property to invest in and had the courage and skills to successfully invest in it? Maybe, but unlikely.


I see it differently Earl. However anyone gets into anything is an individual thing. Some may do so through a 'connection' or 'mentor' as you say and some may do so without help or even by accident just 'fall' into something. You write as if it can't be done UNLESS someone has help. That's simply not true. Take Warren Buffett as an example. By the time he finished high school he had a net worth of $100K in today's dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett No one advised him to buy a pinball machine and put it in a barber shop, but that's what he did. Or how about Richard Branson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson No one told him to start selling records by mail order but that's what he did.

It has more to do with the person than with anything else Earl. Some people just have more 'get up and go' as my Mother called it, than others. You can find all kinds of examples of 'self-made' people who started with nothing including any kind of help and managed to succeed regardless. Not everyone is suited to doing that and some who try will fail but what is certain is that without ever trying, you cannot know if you could have been one of those who succeed.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’d add that not everyone is cut out to be a landlord, business owner, stock investor, whatever...but that there are literally an infinite supply of ways to make money (remember the pet rock?). People are too stuck looking for an exact solution which may, or may not work for them.

Instead of looking for problems, look for solutions. In my house, you’re not allowed to use the words “I can’t”. You need to find a solution, it may not be the same one I would do, but you don’t get a chance to dwell on problems, only look for solutions.

My son’s “problem” at the time was he got a very good paying job for the summer and he didn’t want to blow the money like his friends...his “solution” was to use the money and job to start investing. One must admit this isn’t a typical solution. Ironically, his goal is not to get rich, but he doesn’t want to be locked into a bad job his whole life.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> To me this shows that millenials aren't necessarily worse off then gen x ers or boomers as $44,000 vs. $33,000 (adjusted for inflation) is a pretty substantial difference. No doubt all the press will focus on the increased debt millenials hold though. Each generation has their own challenges, despite what the media tells us.
> 
> Sorry i realize your subject was the millenials, as a gen xer just get tired of hearing about them.


This says household income... does this control for # people in households or women employment? It would not be surprising at all that current generation same age households make more money that previous generations same age households... Today you'll have 30 years olds with roommates or a couple who both works.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

There are tons of costs that millennials have today that Gen Xs did not have or were substantially lower, housing being the first and obvious one, technology, the "need" to replace phones every other year, laptops/computers, tablets, social media has been a massive tool to increase ones spending, people look at instagram, facebook, you name it all day and get bombarded with new shiny things all day. Millennial are looking to make a difference, Gen Xrs were looking to make a living, very different... but the worse of things is the damn instant gratification was introduced to millennials, this fucked us up pretty bad.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There are other more subtle costs as well. Most millennials that I know do not have regular, stable jobs. This means they lack routine benefits that most baby boomers are used to. That includes things like dental and vision expenses... and not every millennial gets these benefits, even if they have a "job".

Many employers also require younger workers to bring their own equipment, which means the millennials are on the hook for their own computer and equipment costs. These can be very significant. Imagine if an employer in the 1970s demanded that a new hire bring his own filing cabinet, typewriter, and stacks of stationary to the office... can you imagine such a thing? Computers are essential business equipment in today's economy.

One may not immediately appreciate how many extra costs people are burdened with in this fragile, post-2000 economy without "proper" full time permanent jobs. One reason employers prefer contract positions and short term jobs is precisely because it frees them from paying extra benefit costs. It's sad, and shocking to me that so many employers even demand that their employees buy certain equipment themselves. I've pushed back pretty hard against this myself (refusing to "bring my own smart phone" to work) but I only got away with this because my employer backed down once I refused to use my own equipment.

I told them that if they want me to do <whatever> on the smart phone, that they'd have to buy the phone.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

james4beach said:


> There are other more subtle costs as well. Most millennials that I know do not have regular, stable jobs. This means they lack routine benefits that most baby boomers are used to. That includes things like dental and vision expenses... and not every millennial gets these benefits, even if they have a "job".
> 
> Many employers also require younger workers to bring their own equipment, which means the millennials are on the hook for their own computer and equipment costs. These can be very significant. Imagine if an employer in the 1970s demanded that a new hire bring his own filing cabinet, typewriter, and stacks of stationary to the office... can you imagine such a thing? Computers are essential business equipment in today's economy.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you there. We are in very different times than the Gen Xrs, much more expensive times.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

No, it isn't a bed of roses for gen xers either

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-x-not-ready-for-retirement-no-savings-2019-4


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

An issue I see with the report is that it puts a lot of weight on 1984 and 1999 as being representative years for boomers and gen-x respectively. 1984 was a local minimum for real median income across all age groups and 1999 was fairly close to the 1996 local minimum. Real median incomes have been steadily increasing since 1996, so a big part of the result is driven by the changes in real income that occurred across all age groups and isn’t specific to millennials.

If you used the same methodology as the report and applied it to current gen-Xers it would show that presently Gen-Xers are better off than Boomers were at the same age (18% to 35% higher real incomes depending if early or late Gen-Xer), which I’m sure many Gen-Xers would dispute.

What’s missing is that younger age groups now have a smaller relative income compared to previous generations. The median income for those aged 25-34 is now 10% larger than the median across all age groups compared to 1999 when it was 17% larger, and 1984 when it was 34% larger.

This has a greater impact on purchasing power for anything that’s influenced by scarcity such as houses. Millennials have seen an increase in real incomes but for housing they’re competing against people who have seen an even larger increase.

Essentially, millennials are getting a smaller share of the pie, but the size of the pie has grown so they’re getting more overall than gen-x and comparable amount to boomers. I don’t know if that’s an issue worthy of complaining or not, but it is understandable how that would make someone (or a generation) feel poorer.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... Imagine if an employer in the 1970s demanded that a new hire bring his own filing cabinet, typewriter, and stacks of stationary to the office... can you imagine such a thing?


I don't have to ... my sister was required to fundraise or pay out of her own pocket for pretty much all of the materials for the programs she was running in the '90's. They did give her a desk and telephone that she was at maybe 35% of the working day though. :biggrin:

I seem to recall the trades people commenting how they had to provide their own tools for day to day activities as well.


IOW ... it is a shift in scale and who is affected as opposed to being brand new.


Cheers


*PS*
Come to think of it ... there was also the warehouse I worked in during the '80s. 

First stop after being approved for hiring was to pay out of pocket at the doctor's office for a physical to keep the job. 
Second stop was to be measured for the uniform and steel toed boots that were paid for via deductions off one's pay cheque.

The employer did provide the fork lifts and delivery trucks though.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s hard to compare generations, and I’ve always found that every generation thinks they’ve had it the hardest. Hard to compare to those who lived through the depression, one of the world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Hard to compare to being a refugee, being homeless, having our lives torn apart by civil war...

Yet somehow we manage to continually feel sorry for ourselves. Can’t afford the latest iPhone...the horror.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ I think it mainly the blatant disregard of the rulers who purposefully prevent the people from living amazing and comfortable lives on the backs of all this fantastic technology and productivity increases we've seen over the past 100 years.

There is no good reason that we should not all be able to work 15hrs/week, live on 1/4 acre properties with big beautiful families and retire at age 45. All the while surrounded and enriched by the most amazing infrastructure and beautiful cities every imagined in science fiction or art. But no, we can't have that. Because the political class sold us down the river to non-local corporate interests, welfare interests, and now eco interests, wrecking our societies foundations and frittering away what could have been.

I'm sure people had somewhat similar complaints in the past about how corporate rulers kept them down, or how the government class didn't do enough to make people's lives easier, but all they could ever hope for was incremental change and slow improvement... I doubt it's ever been so acutely apparent that with the simplest of political and social changes, which we are relentlessly prevented from implementing, that we could rapidly turn our lives from plain old struggle and hardship, like all the generations before had to suffer, into living in an unimaginable paradise of unleashed modern technological human good.

That's where I think a lot of millennial dissatisfaction comes form. Well, mine anyways... Suspecting, knowing, what could have been.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It’s easier to blame other people for our misfortunes than to do what is necessary to make changes. There is no law in Canada or the USA which stops people from investing, from buying real estate, from starting their own business...all the things which allowed me to achieve your “dream world” in real life. 

You know what prevents them? Themselves. How many people say “you can’t do that” when hey read my posts, and how many try to do it?

I work a lot with the homeless. They get tons of money and benefits thrown at them, yet they always feel the victim in most cases, they never have “enough” to get out of their situation. I did it with a lot less, but they don’t believe it’s possible so they live in a self fulfilling prophecy.

You can believe you’re being “held back” by leaders or corporations or you, like my son who just bought his first rental at 18 and wants to be financially independent by mid 20’s (he has one year of school, no savings, no work experience, no assets, and he starts his first job on Monday). He did buy his first property and, according to the bank should qualify, on his own (no co-sign which I was expecting), for a mortgage on the property all based on a letter of employment he got for his job. 

If he can do this (to tell the truth it surprised me), what’s your excuse? The difference between the two, he tried to do it, where others didn’t.

My son’s advantage? He was brought up in a family where we aren’t allowed to use the words “I can’t” and you’re never allowed to be “the victim”.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Peterk.........

The advent of vast pools of money (mutual funds, hedge funds) created a situation where short term money took over the control of companies.

In 2005 I was paid $33 an hour. Today my replacement is paid $16 an hour.

Imagine the employees of some of the biggest corporations and employers in North America depend on the government's food banks and social assistance to survive.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The wealthiest 0.1% cannot control the level of wealth that they do without creating problems for everyone else and society in general.

Only a handful of families in Canada own more wealth than all the people in the entire Atlantic Canada Provinces combined.

The situation has to change and it will.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

If your only solution is to look for a job and depend on other people to give you money, nothing will ever change. 

I remember watching a CBC show on Atlantic Canada when they elected their first conservative government. They interviewed a bunch of people and asked what they wanted from their new government. Their standard answer? “Bring back the fish”. 

The second part brought a conservative from Alberta to Newfoundland. He was amazed at all the opportunities he saw available but, when introduced to the Newfoundlanders, all they wanted to do was “fish”. 

The final part of the documentary compared seasonal workers from Newfoundland to Vermont. In Vermont, the guy fished, shovelled, sold Xmas trees, and did all sorts of different jobs, depending on the season. In Newfoundland, they fished and then went on welfare.

I think the documentary clearly showed why the 1% are able to own as much wealth as the Atlantic provinces if this was an accurate portrayal of the average person living there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Harper government made it much more difficult for seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada to collect EI benefits.

The employees had to search a much wider area for jobs. (hundreds of miles away).

People can agree or disagree with that policy, but what happened as a result was that Harper and the PCs got totally destroyed in Atlantic Canada.

Just saying......it will be the voters at the ballot box who enforce change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting that there is an article today on a study by the University of Calgary, that calculated a few changes in tax deductions would allow a significant universal basic income.

Who would have thought a university in Alberta would even contemplate such heresy.........LOL.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-basic-income-1.5119259


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I think that it comes down to choice. There are lots of opportunities but choice is paramount.

I have some nieces and nephews who chose to finish high school, never bothered to look at any post secondary or trades, refused to leave their small Ontario home town where jobs are scarce and wages are low. So guess what? They work at low paying dead end jobs or are prisoners of a one industry town. I have others who were not afraid to leave home. They went to university and chose areas of study that could move them ahead. Not the easy degrees that allow for lots of socializing. The ones that require some hard work and diligence. OR they did trades/apprenticeships. 

These are the people with initiative and who recognize(d) opportunity. Their rewards are a good career, financially able to support a family, and the ability to buy homes and save for retirement. They are the same ones who will most likely successfully change their careers, occupations, and employers over time without a sudden drop in income.

Not much different from when I was their age. Focus, hard work, work smart, education/training and a willingness to grab job and life opportunities.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags, why do people “deserve” universal basic income? Why are people “entitled” to free money? 

Do people who demand these things have no pride? No self respect?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I did find it surprising that it is being touted by a business school known to be very conservative.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

One of the financial arguments for a universal basic income is that it will greatly reduce or eliminate the need for a number of very costly social programs. Apparently the savings achieved by eliminating these programs is estimated to be greater than the cost of a universal basic income. There have been a few studies on this but I do not know the details/assumptions.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

That's great to say millenials should take initiative but i don't think we should deny issues like the housing crisis and the increasing gap between rich and poor exist. Personally i think more millenials should get in politics where they may be able to accomplish more change. Starting small businesses may also give them more control over their work life.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

The mention of seasonal workers on the east coast brings to mind a thread running in tandem here on cmf about the folly of living on a floodplain and the taxpayers subsidizing those who persist in doing do. 

Seems to me that the situation of those who just want to "fish" when the fish are gone and never coming back is about the same. Let them stay there, but don't provide handouts. If there is no way to earn a living on the east coast (and I suspect there is, just not from fishing or conventional "jobs"), then make it clear that those who elect not to move to where they can earn a living, that they are on their own. 

We have made it too easy to be unmotivated. There are legions of people who choose to work only part of every year, claiming EI on the backs of the diligent for the rest of the year. At least I give our government credit for its stroke of candour some years back when they renamed "unemployment insurance" to "employment insurance". That recognizes that insurance usually describes the insured risk. Accident and sickness insurance insures against those risks; fire insurance insures against the risk of loss by fire; theft insurance from that risk, etc. As originally conceived, "unemployment" insurance quite property was seen as being there to protect against the risk of unemployment. Now, as re-cast, it unabashedly guards against the risk of "employment". Heaven forbid, if one job ends, one must go out and seek replacement work. Fortuitously, we now have insurance to protect against that unpalatable notion. Never mind getting motivated to do something to bring in income. We have employment insurance to the rescue, so sit back and relax.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It isn't just people who fish for a living. Tourist industry, construction, seasonal factory work in agriculture, forestry, all depend on EI during the off season.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Heaven forbid, if one job ends, one must go out and seek replacement work. Fortuitously, we now have insurance to protect against that unpalatable notion. Never mind getting motivated to do something to bring in income. We have employment insurance to the rescue, so sit back and relax.


When I got my golden handshake, everyone said to apply for 'unemployment' and I refused as it was voluntary even though I was forced to pay into it. I have never received the dole of any kind. I was out of work for 10 weeks.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> It isn't just people who fish for a living. Tourist industry, construction, seasonal factory work in agriculture, forestry, all depend on EI during the off season.


You think I don't know that? Did you notice I referred to the legions receiving the dole? Certainly not just from the remaining vestiges of a fishing industry in Canada. 
That so many seem to depend on it should be seen as a national disgrace. So many not willing to carry their own weight. 

I am with kcowan. For years paid the max contribution, never took a dime out. My parents would probably have disowned me had I done so. My father was wont to tell us kids "The world doesn't owe you a living." That attitude is, lamentably, a relic of a bygone era.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Kcown and Mukhang pera, I am with you guys. Same deal here when I was unemployed (on the East Coast) twice I did not take a dime. 

I also did not take a dime when the provincial govt was offering a significant sum for nothing when I incorporated my business and was employing others. My lawyer and accountant said it was dumb (maybe it was) but I felt I didn't need it and had to walk the talk because I do not agree with so many government handouts.

Some folks on here focus on how to extract the most from government and others.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

EI benefits for workers keep some of those industries viable.

Employers in those industries wouldn't attract any workers without the EI benefits when there is no work.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Employment insurance is a mandatory insurance program that workers and employers pay premiums into.

Not collecting benefits when eligible is the same as insuring your home and not claiming the insurance if it burns down.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I suppose, but there is a difference between those who chronically go on employment insurance and those using it once or twice in a lifetime.

Personally, I was brought up that you don’t collect handouts, you solve your own problems. Of course, owning a business doesn’t allow me to collect to begin with, but I also am in control of where, when, how I work. Also, if I don’t work, I don’t get paid, unlike a lot of employees I’ve seen over the years. 

Sags, I noticed you avoided the questions I asked before. They weren’t setup questions but real ones. Why do you think people are entitled to “free” money collected from those who actually earned it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't know what the definition of "free money" is. Does it include OAS, child benefits, HST or energy rebates ?

I don't think it would include CPP, EI, WSIB which are insurance schemes funded by the employer/employees.

If it refers to Social assistance (welfare) it is a terribly complex system that needs total revamping.

If there is an issue with individual benefits within any of the programs, that is certainly an issue that could be discussed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe I should reconsider my opinion of a universal basic income.

Implementation of a simple benefit which eliminated all the regulations, interviews, continual reporting and investigations would probably eliminate a lot of jobs and save money.

But, I don't know if that is good or bad.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Free money is pretty clear, money given to someone who did nothing to earn it. Don’t know why you want to complicate it.

What “inspires” people to go out and change instead of continual living off the system.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> EI benefits for workers keep some of those industries viable.
> 
> Employers in those industries wouldn't attract any workers without the EI benefits when there is no work.


And that's a sorry state of affairs. Perhaps if those industries are not viable except through the support of a "social program" then maybe they should fold. Not surprising they can only attract workers with the promise of months on pogey every year. That's because those workers have come to expect it; to take as their due. They have never had to hustle for replacement sources of income in the off season.

Canada has essentially 2 types of inhabitants - the net takers and the net contributors. Those terms require no explanation. We have, over time, created more and more net takers, those who contribute much less than they take out. It will be increasingly difficult for Canada to compete in the world economy with a population becoming increasingly less productive and encouraged by government to be that way.

As I said, when I was growing up, I learned that the world does not owe me a living. From the time I was in grade school, my parents provided well for my basic needs. But if I _wanted_ something, I knew better to ask mom and dad. The answer would be to go out and work for it. So I did. I did all kinds of odd jobs. Cut grass in summer. Raked and burned leaves and cleaned out gardens in fall. Shovelled snow in winter. Dug garden beds in spring. Split and stacked wood. Anything. I did not take the position that I was a grass cutt_or_ and I should get EI in winter when there was no grass to cut. I collected soda and beer bottles and sold them for 2 cents each. A learned to be good at climbing trees (comes easy to most kids) even conifers with very dense foliage, so I got be be known locally as one who could quickly get to the top of a 50-foot blue spruce with a rope in hand, tied to strings of Christmas lights, which I would haul up and place about the boughs on my way down. The art was to make the lights look evenly spaced, without it looking like the strings were wound around the tree in a spiral and not simply left to hang on long straight lines from top to bottom. I see trees decorated with way today, even by parks staff who have equipment I did not have, and the results look crappy. As a kid I was able to develop and sell a simple skill. I was not special. Just motivated.

A fellow in the neighbourhood was renovating his house and wanted the beams he exposed to have a certain patina that he said could be imparted with a lye solution. So I spent a couple of days brushing it on, standing on a ladder and working overhead. I was 12 or 13 years old. I did not know about lye and, while he supplied me with rubber gloves, the stuff soon ran the length of the gloves when working overhead and got soaked into my shirt. Took me awhile to realize what was the skin irritation I was feeling. I still remember seeing the burn welts on my arms that night. So, I learned. Today I expect child welfare authorities would have my employer and my parents put in jail for child abuse/neglect. It was not. It was part of learning, growing up and making a living doing what one has to do.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

To return to the topic, something that hadn't been talked about are the crippling student loans millenials have. This would definitely contribute to the gap between rich and poor if some have their tuition paid for by their parents. On the other hand, some probably get more help from their parents for housing. I've read millenials spend more on experiences and unfortunately vacations are expensive. This blog tells a more positive story of a millenial https://www.myownadvisor.ca/millennial-housing-struggles-it-aint-all-avocado-toast/ In particular, read the comments and he talks about how he borrowed to invest. There are go getters in every generation, they are just not portrayed in the media.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve always wondered why parents spend the child tax credit. It wasn’t money they ever should have expected to get, so they shouldn’t use children as an income source. If you contributed that money to an RESP and even invested conservatively, with the bonus 20% contribution, your child’s education would be more than paid for. The money was supposed to be for the child, you’d get 20% bonus and still have extra money. It’s a no brainer in my opinion, but most people just seem to have no brains. Then they complain they can’t afford post secondary. Please sir, can I have some more.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I tell young people, if you want financial security get a job in the public service that is unionized and has a pension. 

It has been good advice in the past and is good advice today.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

For those too lazy to actually do anything with their lives or have any pride/self respect. You know how many incompetent people are protected by union jobs and the public sector...we have a term for those people...

Work for welfare.

I taught my kids to develop a passive income early so that they could do whatever they want with their lives. I always expected them to work, but they could be a painter, a cook, an engineer or a doctor...heck even a basket weaver and not be a burden on society as they have a steady income. They’d have the freedoms to travel, spend as much time with their family as they want, and do whatever they need to do. 

Can you really think being a union employee is a “better” move?

As for being “able” to do this, I just heard back from the bank (and I’m still in shock), they think they can get him a mortgage all in his name (no co-signing from anyone) for his first rental property. 

This kid is 18, no prior work experience, no assets (his used car, which cost $800 is still in my name), no savings ($400 in the bank), one year of post secondary school, and only a letter of intent for a job that starts Monday (though he landed an amazingly well paying job for the summer, which also has me shaking my head). This isn’t just from one bank either, the mortgage broker I talked to said the same thing. I’ve never seen anything like it before, getting money for my places involves constant rejections and battles even today when I have a proven track record and piles of properties. 

BTW, you still haven’t answered the question...it seems to be fundamental don’t you think?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> I tell young people, if you want financial security get a job in the public service that is unionized and has a pension.
> 
> It has been good advice in the past and is good advice today.



That advice is bad in so many ways it beggars belief. You're telling young people to aim for mediocrity, to settle for a job where you are unlikely to be rewarded based on merit but rather be rewarded simply for 'time serving.'

https://business.financialpost.com/executive/careers/public-sector-stigma

When I was in a position of hiring people and there were say 100 applicants for one job, the first thing I had to do was cut down on the number to a manageable level for interviewing. Like most in the private sector, one of the ways I did that was to immediately throw any resumes with public sector experience as their last job, right into the 'round file'.

I think there are really two kinds of people in regards to what is being discussed in the last few posts. Those with ambition and those without. For those without, your advice sags, probably makes some sense. For those with ambition it does not.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Here is an example of someone who found out about the stigma of public sector employment.
https://business.financialpost.com/...-private-sector-wont-hire-me/article18194422/

Look at the article and read between the lines as if you were an employer. She told an employer when asked, that she took that job for 'family reasons'. The employer asked why she had taken a job so 'out of character with her previous experience?' In fact, what she really told the person who bothered to take the time to ask her, was that she had not considered her previous job track as a career, only as a job. As an employer, is that what you want in an employee? 

Obviously, in telling her story, she can't see the message she was giving an employer. If she also told the person who phoned that she took it because it was 'close to home', as she says in the article, well that's just more reason to kick her resume to the curb.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

That fpost link does not work for me. Maybe because I am using Apple equipment. It just takes me to a silly-*** message: "Oh bananas! I can't find the page you're looking for!"

The link in the post immediately before that one does work for me. Not sure why the difference.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Hah, that's because I messed up the link. Here is the correct link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...-private-sector-wont-hire-me/article18194422/


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

A note you missed is it also says a private sector employee would have a difficult time breaking in to the public sector. I think ideally you would have experience in both sectors so you can keep your options open.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

latebuyer said:


> A note you missed is it also says a private sector employee would have a difficult time breaking in to the public sector. I think ideally you would have experience in both sectors so you can keep your options open.


Nope the assumption you are making there latebuyer is that you can do as well financially in the public sector as in the private sector. That simply isn't true, there is always more money to be made in the private sector for the right person. The public sector does not encourage individualism, they do not pay based on merit and those working in the public sector are generally not the type of people who want to be paid on their merit.

So those in the private sector who do want paid on merit, would never contemplate taking a public sector job. It would take away their options, not give them options. If I produce twice as much as the next person, I expect to be paid twice as much. Does the guy at the next desk in a public service job get paid twice as much? 

In my last sales job, I was paid on commission at MY insistence. The last sale I made for the company I was working with at the time was for $7 million. I was paid 1.25% commission on the sale. Work it out, that's $87,500. Now suppose I was working in the public sector and found a way to save the government $7 million. Would they pay me $87,500 for doing so? If not, where would my motivation be, to find the way to do it? You don't make those kinds of sales or savings from just 'doing your job' like everyone else. You find the way because you are motivated by knowing that if you can, you will be rewarded accordingly.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

You do realize many women work in the public sector because it is a more family friendly environment for child rearing or caring for elderly parents. People are basically smearing anyone who made a career sacrifice for their family just because they work in the public sector. It doesn't surprise me as men aren't the ones making the career sacrifice, women are.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I had a contract with the government early on. I doubled their productivity and halved their costs. 1/3 of my time was spent fighting off the internal divisions who were trying to get my contract terminated because I was making them look bad. They also thought they should be doing the work only, when they’d looked at what I’d done, they couldn’t duplicate it. 

Eventually the politics won and my contract wasn’t renewed, things went back to normal inefficiency. Didn’t really bother me as my private sector clients paid me big bucks for the results I got for them.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I think it would be good if more private sector employees came to the public sector. In my experience managers are usually pretty useless although i don't want to paint them all with the same brush. I know for me i work in the public sector because i like to help people but also for health reasons.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Police, teachers, healthcare, lawyers, judges, engineers, accountants, military,.....public service involves a wide spectrum of professions and skills.

My brother in law transitioned from a corporate lawyer in the private sector to a government lawyer involved in oil leasing.

He changed career paths about half way through his working years, so he would have some kind of pension when he retired.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People complain about the public service all the time, but it doesn't seem to happen at all the other way around.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe that says something about the public sector vs. The private one...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

latebuyer said:


> You do realize many women work in the public sector because it is a more family friendly environment for child rearing or caring for elderly parents. People are basically smearing anyone who made a career sacrifice for their family just because they work in the public sector. It doesn't surprise me as men aren't the ones making the career sacrifice, women are.


Anyone is free to do as they wish for whatever reason they choose latebuyer. I am not saying that no one should work in the public sector. I need them there just as much as anyone else does. What I am saying is that if the goal is to make money, the public sector is not the place to make it. I'm also saying that if someone's goal is to make money and they take a job in the public sector, they need to realize that there is a stigma attached to doing so if you later want to change to the private sector to make more money.

As for women vs. men making sacrifices for family, your comment is in fact completely sexist. BOTH women and men may choose to make career sacrifices for family. So please don't attempt to say otherwise.

I worked in sales for all of my working career. Here are a couple of home truths for you to digest latebuyer. When a company has offices across the country, it is common for a salesperson (male or female) to be asked to move to another office. If a salesperson in such a company refuses to move (I have seen this happen), that is the end of the road for them with that company. When a salesperson is responsible for sales in a large geographic area, they are expected to travel as necessary to cover that area. If a salesperson says something like (and I have seen this happen), 'I don't want to do overnight travel as my spouse needs me at home', that is the end of the road for them as well.

In many businesses, the issue of travel is a real career ender. I have seen MEN who chose to leave a company when given the alternative of leave or travel. So get off the 'women are the sacrificers' bandwagon. That dog won't hunt. Either a person (man or woman) puts their career first or they put other things first. We all have freedom to chose.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I would point out that, if people thought a little differently (ie. jobs aren’t the only solution) and developed passive income instead, then neither man, nor woman would be forced to work at all.

There are probably unlimited ways to generate passive income, yet most people can only think of “get a job” as a way to make money.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In what employment sectors do people earn more or have better benefits working for private companies than a similarly employed public service worker ?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

In my experience IT for one. It is about total compensation and opportunity for advancement and personal growth. Gov't has suffered for years from the inability to hire and competitively pay IT professionals, among others. They have had the same issue in the legal and accounting professions. As a result, they spend incredible amounts on consulting simply because their pay scales and work environment cannot attract the talent and the skills that they require. 

It really depends on your qualifications, skill, vocation, and personal preferences. It is no doubt true for some positions but definitely not all.

A real current example... White collar crime and trans border commercial crime are the fastest growing crime in Canada. Today, the RCMP has zero, that is right, zero, qualified/experienced staff in British Columbia to work these complicated investigations. This includes Ponzi schemes. They have similar challenges in other locations. They simply cannot attract the accounting expertise, the IT expertise, and the forensic accounting expertise that is required to even investigate let alone provide data for the CPO to build a case and successfully prosecute. Why? Pay scales for one. In Alberta a few years ago several banks had to prove a mortgage fraud scheme before the crown would lay charges. The law enforcement folks could not do it because of resources and expertise restraints.

I had a very successful career in IT. I have accumulated enough financial resources for a good retirement. The notion that people want DB pensions is slowly vanishing because, unlike in the past, people seldom spend more than 7 or 8 years with one employer. DB pensions are no longer as attractive a benefit for millennials as they were to my generation or my father's generation. In many instances, they are a disincentive for those who want pension portability. The old practices no longer work for many people. We are in a new economy. People will have multiple jobs-full time and part time, lots of self employment, and many emerging industries that will provide job switching/re-employment for millennials.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

WBack when I was on contract for the government, they were doing huge cutbacks. Anyone with any ability whatsoever managed to get a job in the private sector. Those who were left were the deadwood and chaff, all trying to keep their heads down and stay employed. 

Funny thing is, they never tried to do their work better, it was more politicing to get the other guy fired first or whatever it took to get a buyout. Totally different attitude than the private sector. 

As for where there’s a better place to work Sags, my son just landed a summer job (he’s got one year of post secondary and no work experience) paying a base of $5200/month. In reality it’s 12 hour shifts, so he gets paid 4 hours of overtime each day. It’s a four month job interview for when he graduates. If he gets hired next year, his salary will be higher as that is the company’s minimum wage. There are a ton of advancement opportunities, they do paid training, and have tons of benefits. Also, merit is rewarded. Nothing like that is the public sector that I’ve seen for a kid to start out with, especially with only a two year program.

It probably helped that he’s the top of his class, but other than that and his work attitude, he doesn’t really have any reason to have gotten such a job. I’m still unsure how he managed it. He’s had a very lucky year.

My son’s friend landed a summer job with a base salary of 50k/year. He’s also at the top of the class, but is older and in for retraining. There were about a dozen other jobs that were a little lower on the pay scale for kids in his class. Then the rest of the class, mostly deadwood, didn’t land any jobs, but get a two week placement. 

Most of the jobs are big, multinational companies.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

sags said:


> In what employment sectors do people earn more or have better benefits working for private companies than a similarly employed public service worker ?


Almost all sectors? my wife works for the government as a counsellor, 40$ an hour. She started he private practice starting at 130$ per hour. even after factoring in costs and shes going to be making around 100$/per hour in her private practice. 

I work in the pest control industry. Some cities have their own pest control crews, they pay around 25$ an hour, I make around 60$ an hour in the private sector. considerable difference.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> In what employment sectors do people earn more or have better benefits working for private companies than a similarly employed public service worker ?


Nope, you have that wrong. Those that work for the public service do so for the better benefits and more or less guaranteed employment, not for the pay. You can usually always make more in the private sector for the same occupation.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It looks like there is general agreement here that a study by the Frasier Institute is false data. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4594385/more-money-private-or-public-sector/

I am thinking it would follow the outrage about Ontario's Sunshine List is based on a false narrative.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> It looks like there is general agreement that a study by the Frasier Institute is false data.


Not false, everything isn't black and white. I think that there's a rather wide range of salaries in the private sector, and I don't really question the veracity of the Frasier Institute study. No doubt the lower end of salary ranges loads down the average for each sector and makes it appear that the public sector pays more, but for anyone that's worked their lives in the public sector, they get to know what they can make in a private sector job, and in my experience, it's a lot more. But salary isn't everything. Security and benefits are important to a lot of people. Unfortunately, the pensions in the public sector aren't quite what they use to be.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Well that is good then. It confirms what I always said about lobby groups like the Frasier Institute whining and crying about "overpaid" public servants.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Well that is good then. It confirms what I always said about lobby groups like the Frasier Institute whining and crying about "overpaid" public servants.


Again, everything isn't black and white.

Many, many public servants in my experience are grossly overpaid for what they contribute. 

They know what they can get away with and take full advantage of it, and the Frasier Institute has every right to take exception.

The problem in the public service is that you can be the greatest worker in the room and you will be evaluated the same as the worst worker in the room. Matters not.

My experience says that you could easily get rid of about half the employees in the public service and the job would still get done.

The public service is an excellent example of socialism. Why bother trying harder when it won't make any difference.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I've compared my compensation to friends in the public service and crown corporations. This is among people with the same education, similar years of experience, working in similar jobs (electrical/computer engineering). I've found that all of our total compensation is more or less the same.

In my case, in the private field and as a consultant, my compensation is nearly entirely in the form of direct pay and a little bit in peripheral benefits. (For these comparisons I have already adjusted my US salary to a Canadian equivalent based on peers of our US company)

My friends in govt and crown corps receive lower direct pay, but get the rest of their compensation as pensions and other benefits. Some of those benefits are really good compared to mine, such as superior leave and time off, maternity/paternity leave, etc.

I'm pretty sure "total compensation" is about equivalent, at least in my field. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, so to speak. Some of my friends in the public sector are jealous of my seemingly high gross income and think they are underpaid. At the same time, they are getting significant pensions and benefits which they don't seem to appreciate. Now I'm finding that _I'm_ jealous of their pensions. I definitely wish I had the nice benefits they have, especially the time off.



sags said:


> Well that is good then. It confirms what I always said about lobby groups like the Frasier Institute whining and crying about "overpaid" public servants.


Based on direct comparisons with my friends, I don't think public sector workers are overpaid.

Rather, this equivalence in total compensation shows that our systems, and the public sector, actually work quite well. I'm also thankful that unions have worked hard over the years to ensure certain benefits and guarantees in the public service. The norms of labour rights then become norms for the whole economy, helping private sector workers like me as well.

I do think the public service has superior benefits but this is something we should celebrate. Those of us in the private sector should be exerting pressure on employers to adopt some of the same. I'll give a quick example... here in the US, where unions are particularly weak, the private sector is woefully behind norms of the public sector. Where I work, a mother (or father) with a newborn gets 1 paid week of leave. I think beyond that she's taking unpaid time off. I've seen women at our office give birth and then have to return to work in 2 weeks while their newborn is at home... it's unbelievable!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> My friends in govt and crown corps receive lower direct pay, but get the rest of their compensation as pensions and other benefits. Some of those benefits are really good compared to mine, such as superior leave and time off, maternity/paternity leave, etc.


Yep, that sums it up fairly accurately James.

ltr


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I think that it is pointless, and without merit, to compare all public sector wage rates to private sector wage rates from a total compensation perspective.

The public sector encompasses too wide of a spectrum of jobs. From entry positions through to professionals and scientists with multiple doctorates.

I strongly suspect that at the low end of the public service job structure employees are paid at a higher total compensation level than similar positions in the private sector. I suspect this is not so, in general, the further one moves up in the pay grades, including professional pay grades, within the public sector.

Do I trust the Fraser Institute? No, of course not. Nor more that I would trust a published study study commissioned or done by CUPE. Both groups have their bias and this will always shine through. Both are just as capable of bending and warping the truth to meet their objectives.

As for IT backup. I had direct experience with pubic sector employees in a critical health care situation backing up every night but NOT bothering to test that the backup was successful. Until one day when was too late. The organization tried to blame the vendor's equipment. The Board brought in an IT consultant who quickly determined the cause. Of course no more was said about it. The IT Director eventually took the fall but with a very handsome transition package. It came down to someone not doing their job, working in an organization that did not demand excellence or best practices, and did not monitor/assess that performance. They were slopply. And yes, I have seen examples of this in the private sector as well. Mostly in poorly managed, poorly led, IT shops.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I have known many good people who worked in the public sector. They almost all were afraid to leave. Because I was in the private sector, I could not understand their averse nature to take risk. I found that being willing to move and take on new challenges always ended up rewarding.

This is not unique to the public sector. Some of my mates went to work for hydro or banks that provided similar safety and lack of opportunity and the results were similar. They worked until they could take their pensions. They were afraid to rock the boat. Yes men!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

kcowan said:


> They worked until they could take their pensions.


That's it right there.

Work.......take a pension......and then go find fulfillment.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Kind of sad to have to wait until health and age can interfere with fulfillment. Better to try getting fulfillment all through life in my opinion.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A lot of people don't want to have to ask an employer for a raise all the time, so having pay increases and cost of living benefits negotiated by the union makes it a lot less stressful for them.

Cost of living is often part of their pension package as well. My wife gets cost of living but GM arbitrarily eliminated mine. They even tried to eliminate health benefits for salaried retirees.

Personally I learned not to trust big business. They have one focus and that is making more money.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never suggested any of those Sags, I’m all about passive income and financial freedom. But, to those who only have a hammer (and no creativity), everything looks like a nail. 

Most people don’t feel comfortable having to work hard, put themselves out there, push themselves when they can just cruise...

Of course I hear people feel comfortable in prison after years, can’t handle the real world. Too bad so many are bound by golden handcuffs.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

This study shows exactly the impact having a child ha s https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/women-children-earnings-1.5079732 Men's earnings actually go up when they have a kid! This isn't suggestive of them making lots of sacrifice s. Still i'd like to clarify that some women are making a choice, and it does seem a little sad they have to choose between furthering their careers and being a mom. Just a comment that i also know in my university some men are taking parental leave and it does seem to be happening more then it did. I've heard anecdotally that parental leave isn't as common and is even discouraged in the private sector. As i said some people like myself like the helping element of being in the public sector. I know i work in the public sector and i like i am helping students. Different thing motivate different people.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> A lot of people don't want to have to ask an employer for a raise all the time, so having pay increases and cost of living benefits negotiated by the union makes it a lot less stressful for them.
> 
> Cost of living is often part of their pension package as well. My wife gets cost of living but GM arbitrarily eliminated mine. They even tried to eliminate health benefits for salaried retirees.
> 
> Personally I learned not to trust big business. They have one focus and that is making more money.


Ask an employer for a raise? You know sags, you have a very narrow view of the world based on your own limited work experience. I never asked for a raise in my life. I just let it be known that if I wasn't compensated enough, I'd be gone to somewhere I would be. 

You paint a picture of someone going 'cap in hand' and asking for something as if the employer is in control. It is the employee who is in control IF the employee realizes it and IF and this is the big IF, the employee is worth what they are paid. It is like the person who decides to take a bank loan for whatever reason. Most people think the bank is in control but some people go to a bank and ask, 'what interest rate will you give me if I decide to give you my business rather than your competitor next door?' Who then is in control, the bank or the person offering them their business?

If someone works on an assembly line, they can only 'produce' as much as the speed of the line allows them too. You cannot put wheels on 2 cars instead of 1 if the second car doesn't arrive in front of you as soon as you finish the first car. But people who work in jobs where they can produce twice as much as the next person, CAN expect to be paid twice as much as the next person and employers KNOW that to retain that person, they better compensate them accordingly or they will go next door to an employer who will.

As for companies wanting to make money, what else do you think they are in business for? When I worked for a living, I knew what I was working for, to make money. Duhhh. I never worked FOR a company in my life, I always worked for ME. I worked WITH a company, not FOR a company. It's an agreement, I produce, they pay accordingly. When I don't think they are paying me enough, I leave.

Having a union negotiate for you does not appeal to anyone who produces more than the average. It will never get you paid more than the next guy. It does appeal to the mediocre though I'm sure.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I've compared my compensation to friends in the public service and crown corporations. This is among people with the same education, similar years of experience, working in similar jobs (electrical/computer engineering). I've found that all of our total compensation is more or less the same ...
> I do think the public service has superior benefits ...


Agree ... though there seems to be a disconnect that makes discussion/comparison difficult. 

Many of the discussions around public service pensions I have had were comparing a private pension which had employee contributions of under six percent to a public sector one that had employee contributions of eleven percent or more. Somehow those in the discussion grasp how putting similar contributions into an RRSP should mean a better result for the higher contributor but for pensions, this seemed to be ignored.





james4beach said:


> ... Where I work, a mother (or father) with a newborn gets 1 paid week of leave. I think beyond that she's taking unpaid time off. I've seen women at our office give birth and then have to return to work in 2 weeks while their newborn is at home... it's unbelievable!


Then according to the American about to be a father I was working with, your company is more generous that his wife's company. She could take two days off paid. He seemed happy the legislation allowed her to take twelve weeks *unpaid* leave.

Initially he was flabbergasted at income tax rates but when he heard about maternity leave benefits, he commented that high tax rates made more sense.


BTW ... 1993 was when the US passed a law that requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for several medical conditions, as well as the birth of a baby. Prior to that, there was no requirement for employers to allow time off for a birth. State-wise, there are references to California, New Jersey and Rhode Island as requiring private sector employers to pay partial replacement rates for maternity leave. Technically Washington State passed a paid family leave bill in 2007 but apparently without a funding method, it has not yet running. 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico and DC list childbirth as a tempoarary disability allowing paid maternity leave through the Disability Insurance provisions. 

Something like twelve states have left the Federal twelve weeks unpaid leave as-is.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Who wants to work for a company that does not make money? Certainly not me.

Just ask the folks at Sears, or Nortel, or any of the other companies that have been in financial difficulty or failed altogether what they think. 

I was fortunate. I had a career that paid for performance. Commission, profit sharing, stock options, reward trips. But I often worked 12 hours a day to get those commission accelerators or the bonuses that came from exceeding my regional sales and financial targets. We had excellent benefits. But we expected to perform.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> ... As for IT backup. I had direct experience with pubic sector employees in a critical health care situation backing up every night but NOT bothering to test that the backup was successful. Until one day when was too late ...
> 
> .... And yes, I have seen examples of this *in the private sector as well. Mostly in poorly managed, poorly led, IT shops*.


Interesting ... when I went into consulting, I was finding similar in fortune 500 companies where there was good leadership. 
Maybe it varies by part of the country?


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I have seem more than one large organization double and triple their implementation budget. Usually the ones that expected to solve inherent business, management, or organizational issues by implementing some enterprise software or by outsourcing.

And when the overruns become excessive they get buried in other line items or the finance folks come in to turn expenses into capitalized items.

I have also seen lots of very well managed, tightly run shops where the IT group is an inherent part of the business and an enabler for success.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Everyone is replaceable, so I don't believe there is any inherent need or desire for companies to treat employees better than the basics required to keep a bum in the office chair.

Americans can't find IT jobs because companies are hiring cheaper foreign workers. 

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...ducation-myth-sheds-light-cheap-foreign-labor

Try making salary and benefit demands in those companies and see how it works out.

I think employee achievements and rewards through merit, creativity...... are rare below the executive suite level.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m totally amazed that you seem set on living in your own version of antiquated thinking...

Go to school, get a union job in the public sector, retire at 65 and hope you can enjoy the remaining few years of your life. This is your recommendation to the new generation. 

Then, you don’t “believe” merit pay exists in the private sector, when every poster says otherwise. 

You’re always looking for more government handouts, when your dream of unionized public sector work doesn’t really work out obviously...

You avoid the question of why people like you are entitled to free money. 

I think your system may have worked in the 1950’s but you’re really out of touch nearly 75 years later.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> I have seem more than one large organization double and triple their implementation budget ...


Not sure what this has to do with not testing backups, which didn't need much of a budget ... 


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Go to school, get a union job in the public sector, retire at 65 and hope you can enjoy the remaining few years of your life. This is your recommendation to the new generation. _

Let me fix that for you.

Go to school, get a well paid union job in the public sector, retire at 55 and enjoy a comfortable retirement for the rest of your life. 

This is my recommendation to the new generation except I would add one more item......marry someone with the same situation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So sad...

Don’t forget the call for more money from things like UBI, and tax the rich. 

I suppose my poor son, who’s plan is to develop a passive income and be financially free by his mid-twenties while sitting on a couple million dollars worth of real estate is being foolish. Too bad he doesn’t have a role model like you in his life. At least he’ll be around to pay for your kids.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Thing is a lot of public sector jobs are make-work. It's pretty immoral to make people labour for 30 years for no reason at all, accomplishing nothing, when you could've just given them the cash instead.

It's happening more and more in the private sector too of course, with departments popping up to respond to government intrusion on private business and which forces them to do things of no value. Those job are immoral too. Just give them the money.

It's the "capitalist" solution to a problem of lack of need for labor with too many people, because flat out widespread redistribution is considered intolerable communism.

Instead of facing it head on and allowing the population to naturally shrink, while figuring out a suitable way to provide some UBI and properly tax productivity while not destroying the economy... we're letting in hundreds of thousands of new people/year for a fake need for more labour that we've been told exists but doesn't, and we're letting all the productivity conglomerate into fewer large corporations who pay far less total tax than the same productivity spread out over many small corporations. This is why the working middle class, now millennials, are suffering from a lack of opportunity and lack of services while we sit helplessly, confused about how all this amazing new technology does nothing to actually help improve our lives, wondering why Grandpa had it easier than us.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I was in Mcdonalds yesterday disgusted that at mcdonalds you throw everything in the garbage and don't compost and it reminded me that i couldn't stomache working for a lot of these businesses as what they do is often detriment to the environment and to people as well. I'm wondering if a lot of millenials feel the same way but i don't see a lot of millenials at my university so i'm wondering if more are in the private sector. It could be because enough boomers and genexers haven't left the university to make space. I'm not sure. Maybe they don't see it as an exciting place to work. (I am talking about non teaching jobs.)

I question if we need as much immigration as we have too. Perhaps when the boomers have all retired, there will be more positions available.

Just a note i rounded up to support Ronald Mcdonald House so it isn't all bad.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I can’t stomach the “food” at McDonald’s...

I’ve also found that more kids are not buying the idea that university is the best route anymore. Many trade schools and alternative post secondary options are producing better opportunities in the long run. 

The idea of go to school, get a job and retire isn’t working anymore. It seems to be go to school, get a job, get some retraining, change jobs, rinse and repeat.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The traditional system worked out pretty well for baby boomers, many of whom now financially support their millennial adults.

Like Warren Bufeet used to say.......you can't eat job fulfillment.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, it doesn’t occur to you that it doesn’t work for the millennial adults, even though you made the statement?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It would work. It just isn't available to them.

The public service is one of the last vestiges of the traditional employment metric, which is why I advise young adults to seriously consider seeking employment there.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You realize it’s the baby boomers who ran up the national debt right? But, then again, you’re a big proponent of spending money you don’t have as long as you’re the one to benefit from it. Majority of every government budget is salaries. 

You have a strange definition of successful and working systems. 

If a private company worked like the public sector it would have gone broke (or required annual government bailouts like bombardier)...if a household worked like the government, they’d have gone bankrupt...

This is you “ideal” model. The government, like you, is always asking for more money from people who actually make it.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> Thing is a lot of public sector jobs are make-work. It's pretty immoral to make people labour for 30 years for no reason at all, accomplishing nothing, when you could've just given them the cash instead.
> 
> It's happening more and more in the private sector too of course, with departments popping up to respond to government intrusion on private business and which forces them to do things of no value. Those job are immoral too. Just give them the money..


I agree with you. However, many people in those non-productive jobs think they are contributing and would be unhappy living on the dole. And it is the system that made them that way.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> Agree ... though there seems to be a disconnect that makes discussion/comparison difficult.
> 
> Many of the discussions around public service pensions I have had were comparing a private pension which had employee contributions of under six percent to a public sector one that had employee contributions of eleven percent or more. Somehow those in the discussion grasp how putting similar contributions into an RRSP should mean a better result for the higher contributor but for pensions, this seemed to be ignored.
> 
> ...


Maternity leave is a tricky issue. On the one hand we want to encourage births and so maternity leave and child benefits support that. On the other hand, as an employer, maternity leave can be a real problem.

When a woman (usually) or a man takes maternity leave, the employer has to find a temporary replacement. It can take as long to get that temp up to speed as the amount of time the parent is off on maternity leave. That equals lost productivity. I have also seen more than once, a parent take maternity leave, reap the financial benefits that are provided, return to work for a month or so and then quit, having planned to do that all along. You don't get the benefits if you quit just before the birth, so they take the benefits and then return before quitting. That equals playing the system for maximum benefit to the person and maximum disruption for an employer. It is in fact a form of fraud.

Knowing that a woman is more likely to leave on maternity leave than a man is, employers may act accordingly. So for example, you might not promote a woman into a management job if she is in the usual child bearing age range. Having her leave on maternity leave would not be something you could just hire a temp to fill in for. So while increased maternity leave was/is a good thing for women on one hand, it can also have its downside when it comes to a career. What's more, when it comes to being passed over in favour of someone else when a promotion comes along, they won't even know why they were passed over. If you look at it from an employer and business point of view, maternity leave is not a good thing at all.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> _Go to school, get a union job in the public sector, retire at 65 and hope you can enjoy the remaining few years of your life. This is your recommendation to the new generation. _
> 
> Let me fix that for you.
> 
> ...


A formula that will work for the mediocre assuming there are enough of these union jobs for them all. Oh, wait a minute, there a lot more mediocre workers than there are union jobs! What should the mediocre workers who can't get union jobs do in that case sags?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that your choice of employer may in part depend on your vocation or profession.

To balance this somewhat, I have worked with some very skilled and very hardworking individuals in the public service. There is no doubt that some are waiting out their time for a pension but I do believe that there are many hard working public servants. And we should be thankful that some of the more talented ones are working for us when they could be making much more money in the private sector.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> A formula that will work for the mediocre assuming there are enough of these union jobs for them all. Oh, wait a minute, there a lot more mediocre workers than there are union jobs! What should the mediocre workers who can't get union jobs do in that case sags?


Fear not, LTA. There are social programs a-plenty for those who cannot secure a union job (or who do not want any job). 

First, there is the wonder that is EI, discussed earlier. It allows a large contingent to be minimal producers and to leech off those who are. It even pays people to stay off work and make babies. Same for other programs. There was something on the news last night about Trudeau and the Ottawa elves increasing the reward for making babies the world does not need. But then, our government also wants Canada to be just as overpopulated and polluted as the rest of the planet, so we can say we are in sync. We want all our cities traffic gridlocked and dirty just like major cities elsewhere, do we not? So "baby maker" is a worthy occupation and, once spawned out and incapable of making more, one will be defined as "disabled" and collect CPP disability.

I have seen quite a few about collecting CPP disability at an early age (but doing heavy work for cash), while there are others who receive provincial benefits of about $1,200 a month as “Persons with Multiple Barriers to Employment". Again, they work for cash to supplement and do quite well. They are disabled in the way that 70% of the population is disabled – they are unable to complete an advanced university degree and obtain higher-level white-collar jobs. They are assessed by government employees who see them as different from themselves and, ergo, they are disabled. One fellow I know has been on that program for nigh on 30 years and he laughs at those of us who work. He travels the world. Like many of the old-timers, he grew and sold weed when that commodity was fetching, so he said, an astonishing $3,600/lb. In the last few years he has bemoaned the collapse of that market and he has taken to house painting and handyman work for cash to supplement his government handout. Then he heads off to Thailand and such places for a few months in winter. When on the BC coast, he usually manages to find a free rent situation "house sitting" and such. So, no union job? No problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> A formula that will work for the mediocre assuming there are enough of these union jobs for them all. Oh, wait a minute, there a lot more mediocre workers than there are union jobs! What should the mediocre workers who can't get union jobs do in that case sags?


It seems pretty obvious from this thread that everyone won't seek a union job, which makes it easier for those who do.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Maternity leave is a tricky issue. On the one hand we want to encourage births and so maternity leave and child benefits support that. On the other hand, as an employer, maternity leave can be a real problem ... If you look at it from an employer and business point of view, maternity leave is not a good thing at all ...


Depends ... the alternatives the Americans talked about were either:
a) the mother going back to work right away, which probably is not good for the child and possibly society, depending on how the child grows up. 

Or 

b) the mother staying at home or moving on to another company that has some form of maternity benefit. The result being that the company has to replace that worker/knowledge.




Longtimeago said:


> ... Having her leave on maternity leave would not be something you could just hire a temp to fill in for ...


Strange that the companies I have worked for have either given acting promotions to those within or hired temps. They typically used some time before the maternity departure for questions to be asked, documentation completed, knowledge transfer and that kind of thing.

YMMV seems to be more appropriate than emphasizing that not all replacements can be up to speed quickly or a blanket statement that the quote seems to be.



Longtimeago said:


> So while increased maternity leave was/is a good thing for women on one hand, it can also have its downside when it comes to a career. What's more, when it comes to being passed over in favour of someone else when a promotion comes along, they won't even know why they were passed over ...


Keep in mind we are talking basically none in many states versus a fair amount in Canada. 
Keep in mind that some employers I have worked for prefer having a shot at keeping the employee with their accumulated skills/knowledge versus replacing them.

As for not knowing if they were passed over for this reason, those that are career aware and probably the type that the company would prefer to keep notice and move on. Some will complain and stay.




Longtimeago said:


> ... If you look at it from an employer and business point of view, maternity leave is not a good thing at all.


Neither is paying taxes, pensions, putting in expensive safety gear or having to hire three people to replace the one employee that was refused a raise ... but all of that happens.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Earlier I talked about the problem millennials face (well, everyone faces) with the lack of good quality permanent full time jobs. Instead, many positions have become temporary which is why many of us no longer have long term job stability or benefits.

Number of temp workers jumped by 50% in last 20 years, StatsCan says



> The number of temporary workers in Canada increased by 50 per cent in the last 20 years — rising faster than the number of permanent jobs — according to the latest data from Statistics Canada.
> . . .
> In that same period, the number of permanent employees increased by 33 per cent.
> . . .
> "And, to the extent that temporary employees do not receive the same benefits as permanent employees, they might also have to dedicate more of their incomes to things like extra medical coverage and retirement savings."


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

As someone who’s basically retired and living off investments, why are you still a proponent of getting a job? It’s certainly not something I encourage in my kids. The world hasn’t provided solid, continuous jobs in decades...this isn’t the 1960’s and I doubt it ever will be again. Time to get with the new reality.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> As someone who’s basically retired and living off investments, why are you still a proponent of getting a job? It’s certainly not something I encourage in my kids. The world hasn’t provided solid, continuous jobs in decades...this isn’t the 1960’s and I doubt it ever will be again. Time to get with the new reality.


I'm still employed, I'm not retired and don't intend to retire soon. However, I am planning to leave my job and live off my investments for a while -- but not retiring.

I will have a job again in the future, so I still care about the job market.

I agree with you about the 'new reality' though. The economy has changed very dramatically since the 1960s. This doesn't mean that jobs are a thing of the past, just that many things have changed.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> As someone who’s basically retired and living off investments, why are you still a proponent of getting a job? It’s certainly not something I encourage in my kids. The world hasn’t provided solid, continuous jobs in decades...this isn’t the 1960’s and I doubt it ever will be again. Time to get with the new reality.


Both my kids avoided Megacorp because they saw their father work like a sled dog and wanted to avoid that so they took jobs at smaller startups that offered equity growth. Many of these choices came up snake eyes and so they are now in more stable jobs. But they took their chances and are now happy with their choices.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

This thread has been an interesting read. I think many have a very idealistic view of private sector work and view things in very simplistic market force ways, but remove the human, very irrational and flawed, element of the work place from their perspective. The idea that hard work, being the best, providing the most "value" (a ridculously subjective standard in most occupations) to a company in the private sector will get you ahead would only apply to a very limited number of fields and occupations these days. The reality is that the majority of the "good" paying private sector jobs are usually at the large companies that almost have as much bureaucratic non sense and red tape as the government union jobs (but less job security). Sure, theres smaller companies that might value their best people better, but they usually lack the capital to pay them any better than the bigger companies paying the "mediocre" in similar positions. 

I don't think Sags is wrong in recomending Public Union work (BC Hydro comes to mind), and that the majority of people will probably do both finacially better and have a better work/ life balance in most cases. A scary sign of the times though and unsustainable.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

5Lgreenback said:


> I don't think Sags is wrong in recomending Public Union work (BC Hydro comes to mind), and that the majority of people will probably do both finacially better and have a better work/ life balance in most cases. A scary sign of the times though and unsustainable.


I think we might be confusing good work environments with union work. IMHO there is not much difference between public and private sector union jobs. But in the private sector, non-union workplaces can be more demanding and there is a small percentage of people who will rise to the challenge. These few tend to get rewarded. Is the higher stress worth the higher pay? Only if the stressed person learns how to handle it.

Is the large bureaucracy stifling? Absolutely! But surviving it is one of the many challenges.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well yesterday my son, working for the private sector, made 8 hours of triple time pay and 4 hours of double time pay when the government employees had the day off due to the holiday. I’d say private paid better yesterday. His daily shift consists of about 6 hours of actual work (checking gauges, opening valves, driving around) and 6 hours of more being on call in case something goes wrong. Not a hard day’s work as far as I can see.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Take a single non economic example of union versus non-union employment.

Job openings and employment opportunities.

In a unionized workforce there will likely be rules that determine who can apply and transfer to other jobs. Most often seniority and the ability to perform the function are the main factors.

In a non-union workforce the decision is an arbitrary one made by management. They might offer the job to an employee based on merit, or they might just give it to their fishing buddy.

It has been well documented that pay and benefits are higher in a unionized workforce, which is why some corporations oppose unions.

The public sector offers a wide array of employment opportunities and employs many people.

Police, education, healthcare, public agencies, inspectors, border and customs agents, air traffic controllers, engineers, lawyers, accounts...........the list is almost endless.

Given the choice, I still say young adults should consider their occupation choices within the public service. Very few will regret that decision later.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAG, ....your view of public servants appears limited to people who work for government agencies that shut down for stat holidays.

Many public service employees work on stat holidays, as well as weekends, afternoon and night shifts. Police, hospitals, paramedics, some municipal workers, air traffic controllers......etc.

I would venture a guess they all receive triple time for working a statutory holiday, as it is normal pay for most companies that require employees to work.

I would also venture a guess that many of those working would rather stay home and enjoy the holiday with their families.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

When I look across the many nieces and nephews on my spouses side in Ontario there are two things that stand out. 

The ones that did not pursue any post secondary education, training, trades,etc are not doing particularly well from a financial and a career perspective. And of that group, the ones that were reluctant to move from they home town, away from mommy and their friends to seek work and fortune, etc, are the in the worst position. They have mostly had low paying, insecure jobs in the services sector or captive employers. But they are still near mommy and their remaining mostly like minded friends who also chose not to do either. 

For some strange reason, they view their cousins who did work hard to get some post secondary and who had the initiative to move for opportunities as 'lucky'. Go figure.

Those that got a trade, went to college of university, were not afraid to leave the warmth of mommy's kitchen have all done well. Some exceedingly well. 

It is all about choices. Always was. And it still is. No different that the choice to live within one's financial means or live within the credit card credit limits or within the confines of the minimum monthly credit card payment.

One other thing I notice is the difference in upbringing of those nephews and nieces. The ones whose parents stressed reading, education, trades, to their children in the child rearing years are now parents of children who did exactly that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know many union employees who have seniority and are the most useless workers because they know they can’t be fired. I know many go getters who are unemployed union workers because the senior deadbeats are taking up the jobs and frustrating employers. Great system, reward the deadwood, punish the motivated. 

As for my son, it was his choice to work yesterday, he could have gotten it off they are very flexible with work hours...u like my relative who’s a cop. He’s got no choice when he can work, he usually has to work every holiday because he’s been told to. No chance to be with family even if he wanted to.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I know many union employees who have seniority and are the most useless workers because they know they can’t be fired. I know many go getters who are unemployed union workers because the senior deadbeats are taking up the jobs and frustrating employers. Great system, reward the deadwood, punish the motivated.


Yeah, unions do have their positive aspects and have had important contributions in the past, but it's a concept that has much less relevance today.

Myself, retiring after 32 years in a union situation, the deadwood is indeed rewarded and there is little incentive for those that are go-getters. Unions are really a perfect example of why socialism/communism doesn't work. Human nature - why would I try hard if the result is the same if I don't. Full stop.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Union reps have a saying......."we spend 90% of our time on 5% of the members. The company hired them and we are stuck with them"

As an employee I would prefer to have some protection against arbitrary decisions by management on job transfers, layoffs and terminations.

Management of course has a different opinion.

In union/company contracts I have seen the first paragraph says that management has the right to hire, fire, make business decisions, hours of work etc.etc.

The rest of the contract is the union negotiating some limits to the all encompassing authority of the company.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Sags, I fixed it for you.

Union reps have a saying......."we spend 90% of our time on 5% of the members. The company hired them and our union rules means we are stuck with them"

Companies don't have "all encompassing authority". Labour laws are there to protect employees and limit what you claim as "all encompassing authority".


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Union reps have a saying......."we spend 90% of our time on 5% of the members. The company hired them and we are stuck with them"
> 
> As an employee I would prefer to have some protection against arbitrary decisions by management on job transfers, layoffs and terminations.
> 
> ...


Hilarious. As an employer I would prefer to have some protection against arbitrary decisions by employees who have the right to quit, under perform, show up to work late or drunk, etc. etc.

There are always two sides to any coin sags. The way I look at it, when you take a job offer, you are expected to do a day's work and in return you have the right to expect an agreed day's pay. At the end of the day, both sides are EVEN. There are no obligations or entitlements on EITHER side beyond that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are enough employer/employee obligations to keep employment lawyers busy.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

At least someone would be working...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And every Friday evening, the lawyers gather at the Employment Lawyers Assembly Hall and Disco Bar and raise a glass to the unions..........here is to the unions ! May they long prosper!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> And every Friday evening, the lawyers gather at the Employment Lawyers Assembly Hall and Disco Bar and raise a glass to the unions..........here is to the unions ! May they long prosper!


Thank goodness, everyone now realizes that unions have served their purpose and their time has now past.

ltr


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I find the broad sweeping statement that unionized employees are hard to get rid of to be incorrect. I know at my place of work its easy enough to make an excuse to lay someone off due to a restructuring. Its true in theory these employees can be placed elsewhere but i've also seen an employee refused as he didn't have adequate typing skills. Employers have their ways, no doubt.


----------

