# Do young adults have legitimate grievances?



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

This topic is making the rounds in other forums, but I thought it would be worth bouncing it off this crowd, particularly since we have a few younger members. 

Here is a quote from the Globe:



> The only jobs I can find are unpaid internships.
> 
> The job I have doesn’t pay me enough to take care of my student loans and afford my own apartment.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...have-a-right-to-be-up-in-arms/article2420563/

I know my son is facing exactly this scenario. He's hired as a computer tech, but can't achieve full-time status as they just keep renewing his contract. He's constantly in fear of over-qualified Nortel or government outcasts taking his position. He's lucky to have the job as many of his friends are without but he's frustrated that the pay is too low for him to find his own place. However, it could be worse - I heard the unemployment rate for young people is 50% in Spain.

So what's going on? IMO part of the problem is that baby-boomers can't retire on schedule, probably largely due to debts and having portfolios whacked by the last financial crisis. Then there's some who simply don't want to - for example my son did a summer stint at DND and there seemed to be a significant amount of older employees double-dipping by working while collecting a good pension. I've heard the same complaint from younger teachers in regard to substitute work. 

Any opinions? Solutions? If you're younger are you finding it to be a difficult scenario for your generation?


----------



## Koala (Jan 27, 2012)

I haven't had to go job hunting yet, but will soon, so can't comment. I do think there needs to be certain changes though. For a while, I worked as a TA and paid EI. After a certain time limit, the department does not allow graduate students to work as TAs anymore. Now I have no income and cannot claim any of the EI money I paid in as I'm still a student.

I have a friend who was laid off during her probationary period and is collecting EI. She called and asked about taking certain courses to help towards her professional designation and was told that she would no longer be able to collect EI if she enrolled. Some of these were quite short.

Housing prices are high, and as we enter the workforce and save money towards a house, it's hard to get a good, safe return when you want to use the money in the next year or two. Granted, mortgage rates are at least low, so that helps, but it's only encouraging us to get into a large amount of debt while we're starting out.

Slightly different than what was mentioned, but I think we do have legitimate grievances.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

It's funny(i might not qualify because i was born in 79)but i'll add my 2 cents.I own a small construction firm-roofing/new builds ect.Im dying because i have so much work!nice thing about roofing is esp reroofing(it's recession proof-when it fails people have to replace if they care about there home)The old school,boring industries where virtually all young people don't want to be in is in a sweet spot.(i got a crew working for me plus im out in the field half the time)have 4/5 mths off-gross roughly 100k now a yr(while building assets in my corp).It's not for everyone and it is below a lot of people but imo it's lucrative(i'm planning to retire by 40 "physical work" and just run crews and manage the dividend equity portfolio im building now.Ironically it's the highly educated young people who are not getting there "just due"(i think that will slowly change).It is tough out there no doubt!harder than boomers had it imo in general.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I think today's youth may have a few legitimate grievances but it will take time to determine if they are the same as what was discussed in the G&M article. 

Reminds me of when I was a teen in Quebec. Job prospects were bleak, we didn't expect to be able to afford homes and government debt was mounting. There was acid rain, the cold war, stagflation, the predicted decline of the American empire, Japanese competition and Vietnam. Decades later, most things worked out OK. There are still problems in the world but the talking head predictions about North America were all wrong.

The G&M article offered anecdotal evidence. There were no hard facts and figures to prove the assertion. Maybe those are in the book that is being pushed. Maybe not. :smilet-digitalpoint


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

23, graduated, took a student job 8-month contract. The whole time I was working, I was job hunting as the student job wouldn't guarantee me a career. Was willing to relocate, work 80+ hours a week, pull out all the stops. Interviewed for a few positions with 200+ applicants, odds were against me, no luck. Landed a full-time job a couple months into my student contract job, moved to Toronto within less than 2 weeks and began working those 80 hour weeks.

The competition is stiff, but if you're willing to put in the work and make the sacrifices, you'll succeed no matter the job environment.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

And there is a definite trend of companies to not want to hire full time employees, for various reasons. Especially in the tech industry.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

I think the youth of today do have some legitimate grievances. I think most job seekers do. There is zero stability out there these days, a complete unwillingness (on the part of businesses) to train people, and terribly low starting wages.

There are places around here (Windsor, Chatham) that are constantly crying about no skilled labour (CNC, tool and die, welders) and that simply isn't the case. What is true is that all of the people with those skills aren't prepared to work for $14 an hour on a Saturday at 3am. 

For youth, it's even harder. From birth we're told "Do what you love," so we all go to school, and we all rack up debt, and then we get out, it turns out the world doesn't need another person with a degree in history. So what do we do? Go back? 

A trade could be the way to go, but even still, there are no guarantees. I've met a number of trades people you couldn't make a go of it in their chosen field.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Nah it's not legit. 51% of Spanish youth just don't want to work. LOL. Obviously it's not as bad here, but you'll always hear people struggling to land jobs when there's so much global uncertainty. Robots and tech replacing human jobs don't help either.

"I used to be a reporter"...


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Both of my kids in their early twenties do find it a struggle, one is waiting for his course in welding to start as he finally understands that just taking any job that pay's nothing and could end any day the boss say's won't work for him.
My daughter has worked steady in three or four jobs the last two years while trying to figure out what she wants, I think she may also have figured it out and will go back to collage in the fall.
Her current boss treats her well, when she made it clear that she was ready to look for work somewhere else the boss came up with more money.

There friends tend to be in the same boat working two or three jobs to make ends meet.
The young are being taken advantage of from what I see and hear.

The work world has changed greatly since I was employed now retired.
The idea that it should take a company anywhere from 3-6 months to hire a person is just plain silly, and the hoops they have to jump through.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I think the key to having a trade is to couple it with business ownership/self-employment or freelancing.I think the "do what you love" is half the problem,as far as i see it life does'nt always work that way!it's that same culture/mindset of giving kids all gold stars for showing up in activities in there youth(or parents telling there kids they are special ect-when there really not(it"s ok when they are- reality will show sooner or later )Im a touch older than "youth" but i think it's fair to say we were raised sorta weak/babied.There def is a shortage in skilled trades(you gotta start somewhere)-I read a good article about it this weekend that mike holmes wrote.I know what your saying about union work in trades(case in point-cat plant shut down as a example)


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think part of the problem is the apparent disappearance of mid-level employment. As one who has been checking the job ads, I notice a tendency towards either highly specialized jobs that require university degrees or lower-paying jobs that are within a couple of bucks of minimum-wage. About 5 years ago I heard of predictions of massive demand for workers to replace retiring baby-boomers but obviously this is not coming to fruition. 

A couple of things come to mind: 

- Could it be that technology has increased to the point where we simply need less work hours? This may be even more so now that many people may work until 67 or later. Should we look at gradually reducing the work week? Or would this be disastrous to our competitiveness internationally? If so, perhaps this should even be an international initiative. 

- In a related vein, should we consider more discouragement of over-time? I recently saw a fairly low-wage job that required something in the neighborhood of 60 hour work-weeks (with over-time wages after 40 hours). Should we perhaps consider changes where perhaps workers would be paid double-time after 40 hours. Or would this again backfire by hurting competitiveness? 

- I keep hearing of demands for certain trades-workers, but for whatever reason their is a void in the skilled trades-people available. Some say that young people simply do not want to work in the trades anymore, but I don't know if I buy that. Is it time that we looked at improving our apprenticeship system and perhaps examine whether the application process to some trades is too restrictive or perhaps favours family or friends? 

- Should we offer business more incentives to train workers? Perhaps giving businesses the same kinds of subsidies that we would pay if the trainee was taking college courses? 

- Regarding the lack of mid-level employment; Has a sort of elitism crept into areas of the job market by making the education requirements for some occupations excessive? One that comes readily to mind is Ontario's requirement that one have a full teaching degree to teach per-kindergarten. Are 4-year university degrees really necessary to teach four-year-olds their colours, how to count and playing nicely or would a 2 year early-education degree suffice? To offer an anecdotal account, my wife had a manager in government that would only hire young university graduates for even the most menial job. Of course, this meant constant turnover and retraining costs and was IMO unfair to those with families who were more qualified and would have cherished such a job. 

- Should there be more discouragement to those who collect very good pensions from double-dipping? Perhaps a tax disincentive or something of that nature. Or would this be undemocratic and perhaps not take into consideration the personal financial needs of the individual?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Globalization is one component.

As my Economics prof once said, "Globalization demands everyone in the world competing against everyone else, until they die."

We can erect all sorts of laws and regulations for better pensions, more union protections, higher wages, more tarifs, higher minimum wages, more government spendings, etc.

But in the end, if that ruins Canada's competitiveness against countries like China and India, it's a fool's game. Today's world is simply a much more globally competitive place than 50 years ago. The Chinese and the Indians want their piece of the global economy, and they're willing to fight tooth and nail for it. They are simply more hungry for success than the west.

Technology and innovations is another component. Simply put, we can produce much more with less labour input than 50 years ago.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Cal said:


> And there is a definite trend of companies to not want to hire full time employees, for various reasons. *Especially in the tech industry.*


Yes, pensions, health benefits, vacation pay and severance depending on how long the employee has worked there. I heard that the Fed Gov't is also doing away with severance and pensions (for younger employees or new hires) as well. Hourly or contract workers seems to be the way it's going now.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> Globalization is one component.
> 
> Technology and innovations is another component. Simply put, we can produce much more with less labour input than 50 years ago.


The big problem is that we in Canada are not producing more with less labour. Pretty much most of the assembly work has gone to other
countries, China, India, Mexico etc. We don't even assemble lawnmowers here anymore..some are made in Mexico, where the labour is
much cheaper and no benefits to pay. I can't see the unions surviving much longer here. Most plants that are unionized (except for the
breweries) may end up relocation to other countries in the future...like the US where the right to work states and incentives for hiring
American workers will eventually take it's toll on any US multinational manufacturing still left in this country.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> The big problem is that we in Canada are not producing more with less labour. Pretty much most of the assembly work has gone to other
> countries, China, India, Mexico etc. We don't even assemble lawnmowers here anymore..some are made in Mexico, where the labour is
> much cheaper and no benefits to pay. I can't see the unions surviving much longer here. Most plants that are unionized (except for the
> breweries) may end up relocation to other countries in the future...like the US where the right to work states and incentives for hiring
> American workers will eventually take it's toll on any US multinational manufacturing still left in this country.


Agreed....and I believe that one of the first things that _must_ be, albeit reluctantly, acknowledged, (especially by potential job seekers), is that it's futile to continue comparing what was with what is.........the days when, (for example), membership in the CAW, or similar, 'guaranteed' lifetime big bucks, are gone.....forever.

I don't know what the 'solution' is, in fact I doubt there _is_ one...and _if_ there is it certainly won't mirror the job availability/security of yesteryear.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> The big problem is that we in Canada are not producing more with less labour. Pretty much most of the assembly work has gone to other
> countries, China, India, Mexico etc.


Yes, very well said. When I said "we", I mean the globalized economy. When Joe Canadian Factory Worker competes against dirt poor Jose Mexican Factory Worker, you are going to lose out on competitiveness. Yes, Globalization means the average wage of poor countries will see a marked increase, and at the same time, the first world no longer enjoys the now unreasonable and uneconomical wage.

In truth, the auto industry already enjoys a remarkable advantage. It actually makes some logistics/economical sense to assemble near where you plan to see the vehicle. And governments are quick to bargain market access for jobs and plants.

Everyone fights until death.

I see the same situation recently when shopping for clothes. I went to Roots to buy some golf shirt, and it's $40. It's proudly made in Canada, and gives me a warm fuzzy patriotic feeling. Next week, I went to Old Navy for the same golf shirt for $15, it's made in Communist Vietnam. It gives my wallet a warm fuzzy feeling of increased purchasing power.

What should I do? continue to shop at Roots for unreasonable Canadian wage-induced prices? or continue to shop at Old Navy with very reasonable prices probably driven by dirt cheap labour (possibly child/slave labour) ?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> In truth, the auto industry already enjoys a remarkable advantage. It actually makes some logistics/economical sense to assemble near where you plan to see the vehicle. And governments are quick to bargain market access for jobs and plants.


I think today with the high competitiveness of Asian factories producing cars and small trucks more efficiently and at lower costs, the days of the Big 3 are limited. Whatever evolution takes place, it could be outsourcing as well and mothballing older and less efficient (no robotic plants). 

30 years ago in the 80s, the Big 3 had very little Asian competition, gas was cheap and they produced big vehicles..now that
has all changed with the price of oil and the cost of ownership and operation. While electric and more fuel efficient vehicles may be the key to survival for the big 3, the underlying problem is the global economy and the wages being paid to the auto unions. 

There is still room for young tech grads in the service industry, but now most vehicles are so complex with computers and sensors,
that mechanical training is not enough to service them..you constantly need to upgrade your troubleshooting and repair skills.
In my area, I see some gas station/repair closing down or specializing in some particular automotive area, because they can't
keep up with the technological changes taking place. 



> What should I do? continue to shop at Roots for unreasonable Canadian wage-induced prices? or continue to shop at Old Navy with very reasonable prices probably driven by dirt cheap labour (possibly child/slave labour) ?


That's a concious decision we all have to make...shoes, clothing and other articles made in Asian countries vs what is still made in Canada.
The point here is that if the shopper doesn't support the product still made in Canada, the company selling the articles will have to go offshore to manufacture them there and that eliminates jobs in Canada.

We are already going back to becoming "hewers of wood and carriers of water" in a sense..selling our oil, wood products and ore from the mines.
Jobs here will still exist to some degree because labour of raw materials has to be at the source, just like construction,.but with container ships, everything else can be made off shore much cheaper.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Koala said:


> I haven't had to go job hunting yet, but will soon, so can't comment. I do think there needs to be certain changes though. [ ... ]
> 
> Housing prices are high, and as we enter the workforce and save money towards a house, it's hard to get a good, safe return when you want to use the money in the next year or two. Granted, mortgage rates are at least low, so that helps, but it's only encouraging us to get into a large amount of debt while we're starting out.
> 
> Slightly different than what was mentioned, but I think we do have legitimate grievances.


Hmmm ... I'm of a mixed reaction. 


On one hand, I can see where it is frustrating, wanting to change the situation and opportunities to make improvements.


On the other hand, I compare this to large parts of the world living on $1 to $2 a day and scrounging through dumps for food. Or countries that had 1000% inflation per month for a decade - it doesn't seem quite so bad.


Cheers


----------



## Helianthus (Oct 19, 2010)

I think that young adults today *do not* have a legitimate grievance. The big issue is that they don't think about what happens after university is done. Absolutely zero thought is put in to actually researching the job prospects for a given field, resulting in unrealistic expectations of the quantity of jobs available, the type of work they will do and what they will be paid to do it. 

90% of those I know from my graduating year (2007) who do not work in their field, or could not find a job in less than 6 months, all graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in various majors. These individuals quickly learned that no one in the real world cares about their knowledge of history, anthropology, or film, and it became apparent that their job prospects consisted of being a barista / other low level jobs, or attending teachers college and joining the ever growing pool of qualified, unemployed teachers. 

Many of my friends had success taking the latter route, although not before getting teaching experience abroad for 2+ years. Those I know who successfully obtained jobs as teachers without teaching abroad first, did so due to their connections with principals in their desired area. 

Of those in my circle graduating from my program (Business), not one person had significant difficulty finding a job in their field, within the first few months. Most were employed upon graduation. Some of my finance pals had a bit of a blip when everything tanked in '08, but other than that, it's been smooth sailing. 

I put a lot of thought in to what I wanted to do when I was in school, and most of my decision was based on the demand of people in my field, rather than what I truly wanted to learn about. I think the expectation of getting paid to do the things you love is unrealistic, so I decided to pursue a respectable career, that affords me the ability to pursue these interests in my spare time.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Given the right environment anybody in the world can do your job. Even fancy pants entitled business and finance folks. Unless you already work somewhere labour is cheap and your job is already being outsourced (Accenture, McKinsey) your job is history. Money brings new infrastructure, education of the masses, digitization, remote conferencing, planes that travel anywhere in less than a day. The world is flat.

China, Indonesia is about to peak IMO, demographics wise. The opportunities will be elsewhere. Money loves to flow into places with large % of highly education young people. Middle East, India, Pakistan, Malaysia... One day even Africa will get its turn - there's just too much political instability there for now.

Power shifts happen over decades. America's turn is over. And besides for natural resources Canada is becoming irrelavant to the world. RIM is dying, Ontario's only growth plan is immigration, noncompetitive duopolies control (Roshabelltron) our tech infrastructure so nobody can "invent" the next big thing from their garage so to speak.. R.I.P.


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

It's not a legitimate grievance, because it's not a matter of unfairness. It's simply a product of the times. The means for acquiring "purchasing power" through employment is breaking down for ordinary people.

It's the inevitable result of advancing technology where everything that could be done by ordinary people (with ordinary IQs), is quickly being automated and done more cheaply by machines. And that's just not limited to "physical" work like manufacturing but increasingly to "knowledge" work.

Whatever demand for work remains has a skill bias to it. That is, whatever jobs remain will either be at the high-end (for designing/guiding these smart machines that do everything for us) or low-end service work (but wait til we can make robots to give you a massage, cut your hair and do your nails and watch those jobs go up in smoke too). The aptitude and training requirements for the high end work will be extremely high and out of reach for ordinary people.

This is going to have severe consequences on our market economy unless we come to terms with the inevitable future we are staring at and start preparing for it, collectively. One of these consequences is quite clearly the increasing size of the "poor" and lack of suitable jobs for a bulk of society....particularly our young. A recipe for social unrest, unless innovative solutions are realized. Our entire society has been built on the premise of people having jobs, jobs used to attain purchasing power, which in turn is used to buy things that they had a hand in producing.......technology is throwing a huge wrench into that. How are we going to deal with it?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

"How are we going to deal with it?" We aren't LOL. Just get used to it. Sorry for the hard dose of reality. Inside a capitalist system people individually/group that don't deliver positive results relative to peers are disposable. Our economy is just a big ponzi scheme. The only way for growth to happen is an exponentially increasing number of births per population y/y. There hasn't been much of this happening in DE's, the booms that have happened in last 20 years are somewhat of an anomaly IMO.

As a side note you can get a job in business or finance with a history degree. Sometimes how and why things develop is more important than just what. However it's true that recruiters these days are pressed for time often only operate off a random preconcieved check list, if you don't meet those requirements they'll move your name into the circular filing cabinet, forget about a second round.


----------



## gimme_divies (Feb 12, 2011)

Excellent analysis loggedout! Look at history - for centuries labour was concentrated in agriculture, then the invention of machines that could perform agriculture labour better/faster/cheaper eliminated the need for this labour and jobs migrated to the manufacturing sector to build these machines. Eventually, technology progressed to the point that manufacturing could be done better/faster/cheaper by machines and manufacturing jobs were eliminated and the jobs migrated to the service sector. Now we are at the point where services are being done better/faster/cheaper by machines (automated phone systems, bank tellers, cashiers, etc...) and these machines are eliminating jobs in the service sector. The problems is that there may be no frontier beyond services, meaning all these displaced jobs will never be replaced. Corporations will either be forced to reject more efficient technology or "technological unemployment" will take over, leading to mass unemployment and a collapse of the economy since purchasing power will be eliminated.

Basically, our entire economic system is being made obsolete by technology. Instead of being afraid, it is time that we EMBRACE and UNLEASH the true power of technology. That is the power to free us from labour for the sake of labour. The advancement of technology is hindered by costs, necessary planned obsolescence, patents, and waste, among many other constraints. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of what technology is capable of. Unfortunately, the only "cost is no object" technology we get to see is to in the form of killing machines.

loggedout talks of innovative solutions that are needed, but the problem is that society is so conditioned to the status quo that any "outside of the box" thinking is automatically rejected. Everyone is afraid of change and "the powers that be" do everything they can to stop change, as they have everything to lose. Of course these same powers (establishments) control every aspect of our lives...education, law, media, health, economic policy, etc... Ultimately, society needs to wake up and realize that we operate in a broken, archaic system of cultural values and make real change or wait until everything collapses on its own and have change forced on us, whether that is a one world government or a new, logical society based on intelligent use of world resources for the good of mankind.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

When I graduated, you couldn't buy a job. A few years later, graduates were interviewing companies to decide if they wanted to work for them. Times change, there are ups and downs. One thing is eternal, kids always seem to think things are worse for them.

When there were no jobs, I was forced to start my own company. It started me on a path to financial freedom, something that can't be said about my friends who went the paycheque route.

Instead of complaining, they should play the hand they are given and find out how it turns out in the end, they may be surprised to find the "tough" life is pretty good.


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

Forget about fairness, I just don't think functionally our current economic model will work. It depends on having a growing consumer base, a mass market....if it shrinks due to lack of employment for a huge chunk of society, while our capacity to produce things does not? What happens?

This economic problem coupled with the lack of "productive" things to do for a huge chunk of people could lead to social upheaval. Ever heard of the saying that an idle mind is the devil's workshop?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Stolen from somewhere: “The fully automated factory of the future employs only one man and a dog. The dog is there to make sure the man doesn’t touch anything, and the man is there to feed the dog.” 

I recall, circa the late 1950s or perhaps the early 1960s, when the spectre of automated factories started to become a reality.......those who were prescient enough to recognize the likely eventuality were dismissed as Luddites........."Come home Ned, all is forgiven".


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

About 15 years ago I read this book by Frank Ogden..`the last book you will ever read`. In it he predicted changes in future society based on technological changes and the consequences of these changes to future generation. About fifteen years ago, it was interesting reading...now it`s becoming reality.
In a 21st century world and global economy, things are changing faster than we as a society or our politicians can keep up with.

Here is an excerpt from this book (published electronically rather than in hard copy..which is as he suggests..the hard copy will become the last book``you will ever read As no doubt, printing books becomes obsolete in the future.

(from section:`*changing work force*`) a new caste is emerging...and a new name for them..`techno-peasants`

_current population growth projections show techno-peasants increasing at a rate double or triple that of analytic/creative workers. one surprise: those with
degrees are 2.5 times more likely to be laid off than the average worker (this includes service workers). ten percent will never work again.
here's a social economic breakdown of the work force in transition:
earth workers 2% and falling
production workers 10% and falling
service workers 30% and rising slowly
analytic/creative workers 20% and rising rapidly
techno-peasants 35% and rising rapidly
moving between worlds 3%
total 100%
_

Here is the electronic version of his book.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/Frank Ogden - The Last Book You'll Ever Read.pdf


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gimme_divies said:


> innovative solutions that are needed, but the problem is that society is so conditioned to the status quo that any "outside of the box" thinking is automatically rejected. Everyone is afraid of change and "the powers that be" do everything they can to stop change, as they have everything to lose. Of course these same powers (establishments) control every aspect of our lives...education, law, media, health, economic policy, etc... Ultimately, society needs to wake up and realize that we o*perate in a broken, archaic system of cultural values and make real change or wait until everything collapses on its own and have change forced on us,*


Maybe you should be writing a book on it. In the last 10 years, rising taxes and costs, rising price of real estate, eroding purchasing power, as well as high personal debt load probably indicates we are already on the path.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Any thoughts on changing the work week? Our current 40-hour standard was based on a time when households typically had one bread-winner. Today both husbands and wives tend to work while at the same time technology is reducing the amount of manual work necessary. Now I'm not so unreasonable to believe that we can work less and bring home the same paycheck, but perhaps the additional leisure time, lower stress and perhaps even lower health costs would be worth it. 

For example, suppose we gradually went to a 32 hour week. Technically that should create 20% more employment. However, I think we all know that a full 20% gain is unlikely but what if it created 10 - 15% more? On paper, that pretty well takes care of our unemployment situation. Now how would we do this with minimum shock to the economy and our income? What if in lieu of cost of living increases we received one less hour of weekly work per year for 8 years? 

Could this be the type of "outside the box" thinking necessary or is there an argument that such changes would quash our competitiveness?


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

The problem there spidey, is now everybody is working for less pay. One step forward, two steps back. How about 24 hours of operation. Everything is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Sure that means working the night shift, but hey, beats not working.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Spidey said:


> Any thoughts on changing the work week?
> For example, suppose we gradually went to a 32 hour week. Technically that should create 20% more employment. However, I think we all know that a full 20% gain is unlikely but what if it created 10 - 15% more? On paper, that pretty well takes care of our unemployment situation. Now how would we do this with minimum shock to the economy and our income? What if in lieu of cost of living increases we received one less hour of weekly work per year for 8 years?
> 
> Could this be the type of "outside the box" thinking necessary or is there an argument that such changes would quash our competitiveness?


I would think that this puts the employee into a part time employment situation. Scheduling, less benefits and perhaps a lower wage would be disadvantages to the employee, and the employer would have to hire and schedule more part time workers.
While this would create more part-time jobs for those out there looking for jobs, there has to be disadvantages to both employee and employer.

_One of the most recognized benefits of using part-time employees is lower costs. Companies typically pay part-time employees an hourly wage and can schedule them for whatever number of hours the company desires. Additionally, part-time employees often receive no benefits. Even those that work a lot may qualify only for retirement benefits. This lack of benefits saves companies significantly when compared to the total compensation packages paid to full-time or regular employees._

_A second key benefit of using part-time workers is flexibility. The company has no obligation to schedule part-timers for 40 hours a week if the workload does not require it. Thus, managers only need to schedule when work is needed. Workers and the company often like the flexibility of part-time scheduling from the standpoint that it allows for work on varying days and times. Many businesses use part-time workers to fill evening and weekend hours not covered by full-time workers._

As far as the being more competitive argument, I can't see how changing the number of hours worked is going to change that.
If the workers are willing to accept the same wages as Asian workers, then perhaps that could be a positive change to staying
competive..but with the higher costs of living here..Canadian winter and energy costs, importing food during the winter months,
and heavy taxes imposed by 3 levels of gov'ts..it is not going to be possible to compete. We have crossed that line already
and on the downward side, IMO.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

But is there no point at which technological advances mean more leisure time, from this point forward? The original work week was seven days. Then most cultures adopted a system with one day off per week (usually Sunday). That eventually advanced to the entire weekend off but with a 5-day work week of perhaps 50-60 hours. We're now at 40 hours. Is this the limit? Were jobs considered "part-time" when we went from 50 to 40 hours? 

Regarding making a little less, we would still be earning significantly more than the vast majority of people on this planet. I wonder if an extra day off for a couple to spend with their families, have leisure activities or whatever might offer more value than, say, triplicates of every piece of major electronics. However, the one place where I admit that this would definitely present a problem is amongst the lower-income folks. However, we must have somehow learned to handle this when we went from 60 to 40 hours. Maybe lowering the amount of work hours would free up better paying jobs to some of those who struggling financially.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Spidey said:


> Regarding making a little less, we would still be earning significantly more than the vast majority of people on this planet.


That's a nice motherhood statement..but you can't compare the cost of living here to other countries. 
The problem living here is that it costs more and more each year to live each year. Sure, it's nice to have that extra leisure time to spend with the family, but having two cars, a huge mortgage, insurances, food, recreation, credit cards, music/sports for the kids..etc..there is no end to expenditures and people now need to work longer hours just to keep up with expenses. 

No wonder some people are in debt up to their ears needing more income, not less. The days of the single breadwinner in the family are gone forever. 

[/quote]
Maybe lowering the amount of work hours would free up better paying jobs to some of those who struggling financially.[/QUOTE]

While lowering the work week may create more employment, the skill level and education required for some jobs (especially technical (or of a highly specialized nature) pretty much dictates that the full time employee may be called upon to work longer hours, not shorter. 

Where I used to work in a technical area, it took a few years to become expert enough to do the job, and new hires had a long learning curve. The more experienced people were required to carry pagers in rotation and even though the new people might have the qualifications to be hired in the first place, they were still trainees on the job and were assigned to experienced people for critical situations.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> Maybe you should be writing a book on it. In the last 10 years, rising taxes and costs, rising price of real estate, eroding purchasing power, as well as high personal debt load probably indicates we are already on the path.


 ... or does it indicate a "me" generation that wants everything now (i.e. "why save for a car/house when there's credit?") and ignores career stepping stones (i.e. "I'm not starting in the mail room to prove myself" or "I expect my first job to pay at least $80k").


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Spidey said:


> Any thoughts on changing the work week?
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> ...


Key words ...


> _on paper_


The question is how to simultaneously change corporate behaviour so that the additional employment happens. The entrenched thinking is typically that even a part time worker commits the corporation to costs that are far less desirable than having existing employees work overtime to pick up the slack.

At one place I worked, this thinking resulted in paying electricians an insane amount of money as "it's a one year blip" compared to hiring an employee. Ya ... a one year blip that happened for ten years!


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> That's a nice motherhood statement..but you can't compare the cost of living here to other countries.
> 
> The problem living here is that it costs more and more each year to live each year. Sure, it's nice to have that extra leisure time to spend with the family, but having two cars, a huge mortgage, insurances, food, recreation, credit cards, music/sports for the kids..etc..there is no end to expenditures and people now need to work longer hours just to keep up with expenses.
> 
> No wonder some people are in debt up to their ears needing more income, not less. The days of the single breadwinner in the family are gone forever. [ ... ]


Motherhood or not - most of the world would love to have the "problem" of the high living costs of Canada for their daily life.


On one side - there's scrounging through dumps for food and an average pay of $2 US per day, if there is work. Sure, a house might cost $28K but not many can afford it.


On the other side - how much of the expenditures listed are really necessary versus "wants", "keeping up with the Jones" or "why wait when there is credit available now"? Most of those I know who are in the type of debt you are referring to - are there by choice or lack of financial knowledge. 


Even in the mythical "good old days" of the single breadwinner, where house prices were much cheaper - my dad worked three jobs to provide for five kids/retirement. In contrast, a high school classmate complained his parents were jerks because they gave him the "second best" stereo for his birthday. 



Cheers


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

People can gripe about differences between any generation and easily compare different eras of boom times and recessions to exagerate their points. People need to stop chasing jobs that were hot for the last generation, that void of labour force fills quickly as all the schools jump on the bandwagon to turn out workers. I know more people with a teacher's degree that don't teach than i know actual teachers, Teacher's were needed in the past because families were having lots of kids now it's a shrinking position as the new generations have fewer and fewer kids. . People are niave and seem to just want good jobs and cheap housing handed to them, life will have some hard lessons for them but hopeully they'll learn to cope....it wasn't that long ago the g & m had an article about how bad the gen ex's had it going into retirement in debt by financing their lifestyles and paying kids tuitions.....The big thing to understand is every INDIVIDUAL's situation is slightly different and your way of life will be dictatd by the choices you make regardless of what generation you were born in.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Spidey said:


> But is there no point at which technological advances mean more leisure time, from this point forward?
> [ ... ]
> Regarding making a little less, we would still be earning significantly more than the vast majority of people on this planet. I wonder if an extra day off for a couple to spend with their families, have leisure activities or whatever might offer more value than, say, triplicates of every piece of major electronics.
> [ ... ]


I think the "triplicate electronics" etc. provides your answer. For some, the potential is there but they choose stuff, particularly bought on credit versus leisure or quality of life.

It reminds me of the story told by a course instructor. At break, he commented that his father was a lawyer who was sure he couldn't retire for another ten years. When his father ran the numbers and analysed where all the money went - what was preventing him from retiring was his desire to keep driving a new model Mercedes. After thinking about it, he traded for an older Caddy and retired.


Cheers


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I should explain, that part of this is "thinking out loud" for solutions and I haven't made up my mind regarding reducing the work week. I tend to be fiscally conservative, so this type of thinking does not fit my profile. I do sense however, that the power pendulum has swung a little too far towards employers after being in the other direction for several years. I also think employers would be more against a reduced work-week, even if it meant an equivalent salary reduction than workers would. I could be wrong. 

But I wish to elaborate a little more and answer some of the criticism regarding making us "poorer". According to StatsCan the average family income for a Canadian couple with two children is $86,000. Now suppose that they went to an equivalent of a 4 day work week with the corresponding salary cut. Their family income would be $68,000. Could they do okay on that? I don't know the answer. But consider that they would have one day less per week of commuting costs, corresponding reduction in other work-related expenses and a slight reduction in income-tax. Consider, as well the value of spending more time with their children, lower stress and more time for creative pursuits. Then consider that every 4 people who did this would create (in theory) one more full time (@32 hours) job. What is the value of having some of these young people employed, paying taxes and contributing to society? Would there be less tendency to protest and cause damage? I tend to think so. Then if we spread out the work-week to accommodate this shift we could lower the stress on our transportation systems.

Now consider this - the average family income for a similar family in France is $58,000 a full $10,000 lower that our Canadian family on my theoretical reduced work-week.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

sigh, you guys are living in the past. If people can't hire anyone productive in Canada, they'll just take those jobs to countries with harder working folks. If you want to live the good life, move to Greece, Italy and France.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> If you want to live the good life, move to Greece, Italy and France.


Ah yes Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain...the idyllic lifestyle..wait a minute..reality check please! 
Aren't most of these countries in financial ruin or distress?
Living off the sun and the sea does have it's advantages yes, but don't expect any gov't benefits with that.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

slacker said:


> sigh, you guys are living in the past. If people can't hire anyone productive in Canada, they'll just take those jobs to countries with harder working folks. If you want to live the good life, move to Greece, Italy and France.


What exactly would you define productivity as? Does harder working automatically mean more productive? Are we talking total output or efficient output?

While the average GDP per capita in America is higher than France, the French work 16% less which actually puts them higher in terms of actual productivity per hour. 

And it's worth noting the Greeks actually work significantly more than the Germans (48% more hours in fact). The Italians spent 25% more time working than the Germans as well despite leading the world in paid days off. If you look further into both, it's due to incredibly inefficient economies. As an example, agriculture counts as 4% of the GDP for Greece, compared to 1% for Germany. 

It is also worth noting that all sorts of studies have shown that working over 40 hours a week becomes counterproductive, leading to more errors and burnout.

Obviously with any comparisons and studies, it will never be totally apples-to-apples since there are a million other factors that influence it. But it's amusing to see the Greeks and Italians get so much flack for not working as hard when they work way more than most. It certainly doesn't prove that working less is better. But what it does show is that working more isn't a guarantee of being more productive either.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

financialnoob said:


> And it's worth noting the Greeks actually work significantly more than the Germans (48% more hours in fact). The Italians spent 25% more time working than the Germans


The link says "the average Italian employee spent more than 25% more time_ at work_ than the average German worker"......."_ at work_" does not, necessarily, directly translate to "working".


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Spidey said:


> I should explain, that part of this is "thinking out loud" for solutions and I haven't made up my mind regarding reducing the work week. I tend to be fiscally conservative, so this type of thinking does not fit my profile.
> 
> I do sense however, that the power pendulum has swung a little too far towards employers after being in the other direction for several years. I also think employers would be more against a reduced work-week, even if it meant an equivalent salary reduction than workers would. I could be wrong.
> 
> ...



Yes ... it is "thinking out loud". Part of my comments were to try to figure out how to avoid un-intended side effects. It's like when the gov't gave a subsidy to the cattle farmers to help out when Canadian Beef was being banned due to mad cow issues. The idea was to increase the farmers income - the problem was that the two slaughter houses reduced what they were paying by the same amount, transferring the money to the profitable middle man instead of the intended target.

As for employers - they are going to be all over the map. I suspect that if all other factors are equal, they won't want a reduced work week due to increased admin tasks and possible training. I've also seen where the employer will push existing employees to work overtime to avoid this type of stuff.

If they are having trouble hiring anyway, they'll market the reduced work week under the banner of "flexibility" to increase the possible hiring pool.


As for the "what's enough of a family income" - the question is how to filter out what is a need versus a nice to have versus a lifestyle choice. Just looking at house prices, Frederickton, NB with an average price of $159K seems more likely to be okay versus Vancouver, BC at $752K. Of course, housing is one factor of many.
http://www.livingin-canada.com/house-prices-canada.html


Cheers


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

Nemo2 said:


> The link says "the average Italian employee spent more than 25% more time_ at work_ than the average German worker"......."_ at work_" does not, necessarily, directly translate to "working".


I know, I spent the past 5 years working on a project with a bunch of Italians. You're preaching to the choir here... :tongue-new: Again, these aren't really apples to apples comparisons because there are so many other variables involved. 

Then again, when you consider GDP normalised to purchasing power parities, Italy actually ranks ahead of Japan, and Greece ahead of South Korea. This isn't a perfect measure either as it can't account for unemployment and other factors, but it's interesting to see that in certain ways, the Italians aren't nearly as bad as rumours suggest. Then again, the last 5 years of my life tell me a completely different story.

If you torture numbers long enough, you can get them to confess to practically anything. Still, it suggests that hard work doesn't necessarily mean work lots of hours.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Canada's economy sucks. This as an immigrant's point of view. 

Compare putting my resume on job sites in the US, in Canada and where I was born, Canada give me 1 response out of 100, us gives me 10 out of 100 while my home country is about 50 out of 100. 

I don't know how it was before I started working (~2000), but in Canada, I always have to work my own magic to get a job. I never get any lead from just posting and applying on job sites or company's websites. Compared to the two other country that I have experience with, this is the most soul crushing fact about looking for jobs in Canada. But that's probably because I am in the tech industry, which is tiny in Canada. 

My experience in what it takes to get a tech job involves going to conventions and schmoozing with people, cold calling managers and through friends of friend contacts.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

For tech jobs in Canada, networking is definitely the way to go. You are right, the tech job market in Canada isn't great. The place to be is the US for sure.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

slacker said:


> For tech jobs in Canada, networking is definitely the way to go. You are right, the tech job market in Canada isn't great. The place to be is the US for sure.


*shrug* - it depends. 

The work hours and wages the guy in Florida described, if accurate - would push me to move to another state or country. Then too, my co-worker moved from California back to Ontario when his kids were born at his choice, so YMMV.


Cheers


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Ok well if I think of myself as a business...and I pretty much always have.

Does a business want one customer? Is that safe? 

Does a business want many customers? Which is more risky? 

I have never understood why people think that relying 100% on one company for income is "safe". I have always liked the idea of multiple streams of income, many customers and developing as many skills as possible. I like learning. 

Also even when I was in college I worked and I never worried too much about how much I was paid. It was more like... what am I making sitting at home watching tv? Zero dollars? One Dollar is better than Zero dollars. I worked for this crazy italian guy painting stuff for $3 per hour. I was better off doing that than sitting on my ***. 

You know how we'll know when the economy is bad? When people stop putting lawn in their front yard and start planting gardens. Lawn has to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life. Can't they figure out how to make lawn that grows cherry tomatoes?


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> The work hours and wages the guy in Florida described, if accurate - would push me to move to another state or country. Then too, my co-worker moved from California back to Ontario when his kids were born at his choice, so YMMV.


I know a lot of people who have done this... why wouldn't you? Go south, make the big bucks for a few years and come back and get all your health care paid for. I am a big proponent of our health care system but it irks me when people do this, or spend half their time out of the country then move back when they get old and need the health care after avoiding Canadian taxes for X number of years.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Are there legitimate greviances/complaints? Sure. Some are more legit than others.

- Anecdotally, there are fewer jobs out there. The government is laying off tens of thousands of people, to say nothing of the private sector cutting back. 

- Entry level jobs seem to pay less and less money. (I make almost double what I was getting at my first office job and I thought I was doing well then, but that difference is what lets me invest and save for a house)

- People are not retiring for various reasons
- Housing is very expensive.
Anyone looking to sell their house to downsize in the next few years should be very worried... these are the people the Babyboomers were hoping would buy their big houses and none of them can afford it. 

- Education is increasingly expensive. I have two degrees, and if I am mostly happy with where I ended up, but if I had it to do over again I would probably seriously consider the ROI of the education vs. pursuing a trade of some kind. I am an advocate for the value of "arts" education, but letting people borrow $50k for a degree that has minimal value to them in the job market helps no one. Every university program should have some kind of co-op program imho. 

- Credential Inflation for low end jobs.
- Unwillingness of companies to provide on the job training. 
These two combined are ridiculous. I interviewed years ago with Enterprise Rent-A-Car for an entry level position at around $35/year with extensive training and perks like a company car eventually. But they wanted you to work like 60 hours a week, and have a degree or college diploma for that. Why? The training they were offering is far more pertinent than what you probably did in school. They were using it as a screening tool. I tell people that my undergraduate degree (Bachelor of Arts) is worth about the same as a highschool diploma when my grandfather graduated (in actual fact he didn't finish and learned a trade). Jobs that would have previously trained you out of highschool now want you to come in with a degree and multiple years of experience that you probably could have only gained through low/unpaid internships. My current job only required a relevant undergrad degree, the two successful candidates both had Master's degrees and a few years of experience. 

- Cheap consumers.
Part of the reason companies won't train anymore is because consumers are unwilling to pay what it costs to have an educated Canadian labour force. 

- No delayed gratification
People would rather have an outrageous mortgage than wait a few years. I have met people I know make less than us but are looking at taking on mortgages that are higher than the total cost of the small condos I think we can afford. 

- lack of financial literacy
I had a co-worked during university that pulled out a cash withdrawal from his Visa and said "Free money!" ... I tried to explain to him that no, that was extremely expensive money to no avail.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think it's obvious that we are in the throes of a global economic and social transformation. We are entering uncharted territory - societies have never faced having senior citizen's make up such a massive portion of their population before. The average net-worth of American seniors is frighteningly low - to the point where a comfortable retirement, at a traditional retirement age, is impossible. Youth unemployment is reaching staggering levels in some countries. There is an economic and manufacturing shift from developed countries to developing economies. And technological advances are contributing to the elimination of many of the middle-income jobs. To top it all off, much of the developed world is facing a public debt-crisis, which will put pressure on pensions and social programs. It's anybody's guess what the world will look like 20 years from now. I just wonder if global leaders are being creative enough in coming to terms with these shifts.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

There is no "traditional retirement age." The age at which Americans retire has been creeping downwards but just four decades ago the average age at retirement was closer to 70 than 60. In fact, if you want to argue "tradition," you'd probably be arguing for a normal retirement age of 70. Or, alternately, you'd be arguing for an average retirement length (in years) of 10-15 years total.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Spidey said:


> The average net-worth of American seniors is frighteningly low - to the point where a comfortable retirement, at a traditional retirement age, is impossible.


From 1974-2007, the proportion of older Americans with an income of 400% or more above poverty level has increased, and houshold net monetary worth has, on average, increased by nearly 80% for older Americans over the past 20 years. From 1984 to 2007, the median net worth of households headed by people aged 65 and older grew by 105% (source: http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2010_Documents/Docs/OA_2010.pdf and http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstat...010_Documents/Docs/OA_2010_Updates_011411.pdf). Note that things changed after 2007 but the impact of the financial crisis is not yet clear: http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/main_site/docs/DSOA_Aging_Brief.pdf.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

In addition, the maximum Social Security payment in the U.S. is just over $30,000 per year per individual. A household with two working adults could earn over $60,000 in guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-adjusted income from retirement onwards.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

brad said:


> From 1974-2007, the proportion of older Americans with an income of 400% or more above poverty level has increased, and houshold net monetary worth has, on average, increased by nearly 80% for older Americans over the past 20 years.


Very similar trends in Canada: the data is all here. The 2004 report is particularly useful on this point. http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/family_finances


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

On the other hand, while the proportion of older Americans living in poverty has declined, the actual number has increased because there are more older Americans. The population growth rate among older Americans is expected to nearly double over the next 20 years, projected to reach 20% of the US population by 2040 (up from 13% now). So even if the proportion living in poverty continues to decline, the number of older Americans living in poverty will increase.

It's worth considering that tomorrow's older Americans and Canadians will be different from today's elderly population: for one thing, they'll be a lot more comfortable with doing things online, including shopping, banking, etc. It's also important to note that "older adults" are really made up of a number of distinct populations: people in their 80s and people in their late 60s have very different characteristics and needs.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Using an online inflation calculator that 105% increase is pretty close to the rate of inflation. ($1 in 1984 is $1.99 in 2007.) But as you mention that was before the crash and much of that net-worth is probably in real estate. Even so, the medium net-worth for households headed by someone 65 and older was only $237,000 in 2007. I guess the difference today versus 1984 might be the stability and generosity of both the public and private pension systems going forward compared to 1984, when there was a much greater proportion of younger workers to older folk. Many corporate pensions are under severe strain with the viability of some being questioned. With a net-worth of $237,000, it does look as if the "median" worker may have to work at least until 70.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

brad said:


> On the other hand, while the proportion of older Americans living in poverty has declined, the actual number has increased because there are more older Americans. The population growth rate among older Americans is expected to nearly double over the next 20 years, projected to reach 20% of the US population by 2040 (up from 13% now). So even if the proportion living in poverty continues to decline, the number of older Americans living in poverty will increase.


But are we concerned with numbers or proportions? If we are concerned about people living in poverty, we should be most concerned about kids - who really have no capacity to change their circumstances. And if we want to find the age segment with the highest incidence of poverty, it won't be seniors (that is the cohort with the _lowest_ incidence of poverty). While we should turn our eyes away from poverty no matter the age of the impoverished, the stereotype of the impoverished senior is increasingly less accurate. Senior poverty is a problem that has largely been solved in the U.S. and Canada with the advent of guaranteed retirement income benefits.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Spidey said:


> Using an online inflation calculator that 105% increase is pretty close to the rate of inflation. ($1 in 1984 is $1.99 in 2007.)


Sorry, I should have specified that the 105% is already adjusted for inflation; see table 10 on page 87: http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2010_Documents/Docs/OA_2010.pdf. Also note that net worth data do not include pension wealth.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> But are we concerned with numbers or proportions?


It depends on what our concern is. My particular area of concern isn't directly financial but rather vulnerability to natural disasters (specifically those related to climate change; I've been working on some projects in this area focused on older adults). In this case, the number of older adults in poverty does matter more than the proportion, because seniors living in poverty are likely to be vulnerable to events like heat waves, power outages, hurricanes, etc. And because most seniors live in the community rather than in institutions, evacuating them isn't a simple matter of driving some buses up to a nursing home; you need a registry with their locations and a lot of vehicles and equipment to go pick them up. Children usually have a parent or guardian to help keep them out of harm's way, but most seniors live alone, especially older women. But I recognize that this is very tangential to our discussion!


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Define "poverty".


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Define "poverty".


That's actually a loaded question because the official poverty definition has come under question in the past few years.

For the US, here are the official definitions by the Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/ and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html.

There are some new definitions being developed, but they can't be compared yet with previous data.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Here are the official "Low-Income Cut-Off" [i.e., "poverty line"] definitions used by StatsCan:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2011002/tbl/tbl01-eng.htm

There are different rates based on number of people in a household, and whether you live in a rural area, small city or large city.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

And these are just poverty levels within the US and Canada. Compared with the poorest of the poor globally, poor Canadians and Americans are very well off. Millions of people live on the equivalent of US $1.25 per day, adjusted for local purchasing power.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

brad said:


> That's actually a loaded question .


Which, of course, was the intent.

I recall pics of Marie Antoinette Michelle Obama posing for a photo op at a 'homeless shelter', the (presumed) inhabitants of which were taking shots of her with their cell phones.

Poverty's come a long way.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Poverty's come a long way.


I had a friend who worked for a social services agency in southern Vermont (there's a lot of poverty in Vermont; we lived in a town where 70% of the population was on welfare), and many of the houses she visited had no telephone and no running water. But they all had TVs and I assume today many of them would have cellphones (although cell reception is still spotty in most of Vermont). Cellphones are even ubiquitous in much of Africa, despite extreme poverty. For many people it's a lifeline.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

brad said:


> And these are just poverty levels within the US and Canada. Compared with the poorest of the poor globally, poor Canadians and Americans are very well off. Millions of people live on the equivalent of US $1.25 per day, adjusted for local purchasing power.


Yes, and many of those people are superb money managers (even in the absence of multiple emergency tiers!): http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> Yes, and many of those people are superb money managers (even in the absence of multiple emergency tiers!): http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/


I love that book! However, the lack of a fallback financial cushion can still make them pretty vulnerable: see for example this story: http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/pdf/Household Stories_Feizal.pdf


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah, I interned at the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi as an undergrad, working on large study of recycling in Delhi. The poorest of the urban poor work in that sector. My interest in finance stems in part from that work, and then the development work I did for the next decade here in Canada.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

brad said:


> It's worth considering that tomorrow's older Americans and Canadians will be different from today's elderly population: for one thing, they'll be a lot more comfortable with doing things online, including shopping, banking, etc. It's also important to note that "older adults" are really made up of a number of distinct populations: people in their 80s and people in their late 60s have very different characteristics and needs.


Both of those points have very interesting implications!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

And people in their late 90s/early 100's and beyond are another distinct group. People who are in good health at 65, and/or are female, and/or are married have the greatest chance of living to (what demographers call) into the "oldest-old" cohort - and this group is at greatest likelihood of needing nursing home care.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

realist said:


> [ ... ]
> 
> - Cheap consumers.
> Part of the reason companies won't train anymore is because consumers are unwilling to pay what it costs to have an educated Canadian labour force.
> ...


Then too ... there is the lemming-like implementation of management/consulting theory or fad. The mid-sized insurance company I worked for loved the "don't pay for training, anyone in the same job for three years is deadwood" theory for the first four years. Great savings were racked up as the employees hadn't switched over in volume yet.

They weren't as happy after the employees implemented the theory. Management then had high turnover and couldn't replace people for the same wages as training was the employee's responsibility (i.e. out of the employee's pocket). 

One VP had the nerve to complain that employees "lack company loyalty these days".


Cheers


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think that even though things are sucking for young people in the job market, the onus is still on us to be able to recognize these basic facts about changes in the economy and job markets.
I did my research, and picked my university program based primarily on job prospects, secondarily on what I was interested in. Every single person in my class has landed job contracts months before graduation.
It is entirely your own fault if you decide to get a art history or biology degree and all you can find for a job is 30 hours a week working at the mall for minimum wage. Every single highschool student has access to a computer and a guidance councilor and can figure this all out on their own accord. Sure some students in low income areas may have trouble affording university/college, but then maybe those students should also hold off on buying lunches out and needing $60 iphone plans.
Even if the economy is changing, there are still jobs - you might have to relocate or do work you didn't expect to do, but jobs are there, they just aren't the same jobs the previous generation had.

I don't know what the solution is for procuring meaningful careers for young people today, but I know it's certainly not the current method of sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring simple job statistics, refusing to do entry level work, and whining about globalization/how it was easier for our parents.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> I don't know what the solution is for procuring meaningful careers for young people today, but I know it's certainly not the current method of sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring simple job statistics, refusing to do entry level work, and whining about globalization/how it was easier for our parents.


But my grandparents had similar challenges. Our memories are short!


----------



## callyhan (Dec 7, 2010)

peterk said:


> I think that even though things are sucking for young people in the job market, the onus is still on us to be able to recognize these basic facts about changes in the economy and job markets.
> I did my research, and picked my university program based primarily on job prospects, secondarily on what I was interested in. Every single person in my class has landed job contracts months before graduation.
> It is entirely your own fault if you decide to get a art history or biology degree and all you can find for a job is 30 hours a week working at the mall for minimum wage. Every single highschool student has access to a computer and a guidance councilor and can figure this all out on their own accord. Sure some students in low income areas may have trouble affording university/college, but then maybe those students should also hold off on buying lunches out and needing $60 iphone plans.
> Even if the economy is changing, there are still jobs - you might have to relocate or do work you didn't expect to do, but jobs are there, they just aren't the same jobs the previous generation had.


I am in the same boat. I took a skilled technology program in college and have never had trouble finding a job since graduation in 2007. Even switched jobs for a much higher paying one at the height of the recession in 2009. 

However, many, many friends of mine were coached into taking Arts and Science programs in Univerisities because their boomer parents had an attitude that technical College programs were subpar learning compared to the formality of a University Degree. Anyways, they are all either travelling the world racking up debt or still living with their parents and going to Teachers college because there is no interest in a job candidate with a nonspecific Bachelor of Arts in Contemporary Studies and no relevant work experience. 

Of course, there seems to be a growing work ethic problem with my generation and younger. I am no better to speculate the causes of this than anyone else here. It seems many people (young and old) in today's society have issues with accepting work they consider "beneath" them. Just look at the noise over the EI changes.

Honestly, I think that there needs to be a career studies type courses offered for Grades 11 and 12. Currently I think there is only a mandatory 1/2 semester course in Grade 9.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

I'm with you guys ... (peterk, callyhan) ... I've worked/enjoyed technology as a career, retired a few weeks ago. My son likes technology, has worked here and there, went back to college (with some encouragement from dad), graduated from a 2 year program a few weeks ago, accepted a job offer, and is starting his career at $78K.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

kcowan said:


> But my grandparents had similar challenges. Our memories are short!



I am not sure I would say that they had "similar" problems, they had their own challenges but the job market is very different now. The number of well paid jobs that do not require a high level of education is rapidly dwindling (particularly in Ontario) as the manufacturing industry falters. The number of entry level jobs that want a college diploma or university degree for a job that almost anyone could do with a month or two of on the job training is increasing. The unwillingness of a lot of companies to train people is having significant impacts, and then they turn around and complain about a lack of skilled workers.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

The link below is a commencement speech delivered by an English teacher to the graduating class of, what I think is, a fairly prestigious school in the US. The message of the teacher to the graduating class is "You're Not special". I found the speech very interesting - it was not, in my opinion, vendictive or nasty despite the title - rather, that we may not be doing students a service by suggesting that today''s graduate are exceptional -they, according to him, are not exceptional. The speech giver suggests that they get busy, explore, find that they love and "Hold onto it with both hands". Interesting - I would be interested to find out what others think. BTW - the response of listeners on the internet found that 90% of people agree with the message delivered.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunit...speech-tells-students-theyre-not-special.html


----------



## crooked beat (Jan 19, 2011)

Are house prices really that high? 
Should you not calculate the total cost of a house after the mortgage is fully paid?
In the late 70's and early 80's house prices were "cheap" and interest rates high. 

Are here any studies or research to compare the total cost of a house (price + cost of mortgage over a typical 25 year amortization period) from 1980 up to current total price?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"Do young adults have a legitimate grievance?"

It's called "being a grown up". Life is a struggle for everybody. If you live in Canada and have a university degree, that puts you in the top 1% of the luckiest people in the world. Now pull your thumb out of your mouth and get to work. Nobody is going to live your life for you, and nobody owes you a living. You may not understand this now but you will.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Nobody is going to live your life for you, and nobody owes you a living. ..


Yes man and they have silver spoons in their pockets compared to previous generations. (Or at least silver iPhones!)


----------



## Koala (Jan 27, 2012)

I do not have a smart phone. I'll probably consider getting one once I have a real job. As a student, I am fine with my basic phone, with a student rate package that does not include a data plan.


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> Here are the official "Low-Income Cut-Off" [i.e., "poverty line"] definitions used by StatsCan:
> 
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2011002/tbl/tbl01-eng.htm


Wow! Didn't know I was living in poverty. Quite a surprise! The things we learn about ourselves through Statcan! Wonder how much it cost to put this together.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No worry.........the government has a plan.

_The latest attempt by the Conservative government to reform employment insurance reached a low point when Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said that she wants to make “sure that the McDonald’s of the world aren’t having to bring in temporary foreign workers to do jobs that Canadians who are on EI have the skills to do.”_

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...als-initiate-a-race-to-the-bottom-for-workers


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

Being 32, I am not sure if I am young anymore but what I struggle with most, is in spite of having a decent job, a supposed education in a technical field and never being unemployed since graduating many moons ago is insecurity and pessimism about the future. I am not confident about long-term job prospects, the economy, etc. Things just change too fast. I have no doubt that I am materially better off than previous generations of my own family, but I am not sure if they carried around this kind of stress of losing it all, all of the time.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

I just had a deep discussion recently about the future of tech. And it seems that there is a shift to being a contractor. From this conclusion I gathered that reputation and connection will be increasingly more important than a degree. Just as a 1year ruby shop will land you a hot and well paying dev job in the most in demand language while the 4 year university degree will leave one with outdated skills that are irrelevant to the time.


----------



## rusty_shackleford (May 18, 2012)

23 here with a 1-year tech certificate. here's some context: i worked from grade 10 through college (just over 3 yrs) at a well-known restaurant chain and am now coming up on 4 years in the IT department of a popular clothing retailer. i started with an unpaid internship at an engineering firm while in school. once i graduated i got hired on as a contractor at my current company doing grunt work. around 8 months in, i got a call from where i did my internship offering me a permanent position. i told my manager and a 2 weeks later she put me on permanent with a 30% raise and a promotion to Tier 2 support. Fast forward to now and i've just been promoted out of support and into Business Analysis

getting to my point: i have yet to experience any of these hardships that my generation is complaining about despite my age and lack of formal education. i figure the key is hard work and not having a sense of entitlement. i have people i graduated highschool with in university right now that truly think they are going to come out and have $100k positions thrown at them. and the scary part is, that's a majority of people i talk to. most of my friends now are older than me because i just can't seem to relate to my age group. maybe the market sucks right now, maybe not i don't know. but there definitely is a serious lack of work ethic


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Thanks for the reality check, Rusty.


----------

