# Nearly half of Canadians are within $200 of financial insolvency: poll



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

easily the most depressing story i have read in some time, so startling that i almost can't believe it ...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...-are-within-200-of-financial-insolvency-poll/



> “Many have so little wiggle room that any increase in living costs or interest payments can tip them over the edge,” said MNP’s president, Grant Bazian, in a statement. “That’s what we are seeing happen right now.”


we need to swap out trigonometry or chemistry or band or whatever and start to pound away at teaching both financial literacy ... and investing ... in high school 

50% are $200 away from insolvency ... just stunning


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The problem I’ve found is teachers have no financial knowledge to pass on. Most are in the same boat as the survey, you want them teaching out children?

I remember they did an “investing” section in school with my kids. Whomever made the most in 4 weeks got the highest grade. So they taught gambling instead of investing and they didn’t even realize it. I told my kids to ignore the entire unit.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Yes, the big jump in the last quarter is alarming. Of course it is a survey, so we have to assume its sample is representative of the entire population. I have faith in in their sample, I think, but should I? Also the 50% was rounded off from 46%. wonder why they didn't round it off to 45%? 

Even so, I agree education on these matters is to be encouraged. Home economics could be expanded to include financial literacy.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

^ I agree. I too question the data from an insolvency firm. Who did they survey, their own clients?


----------



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

Pluto said:


> Also the 50% was rounded off from 46%. wonder why they didn't round it off to 45%?


To make better headlines of course  The whole thing sounds bogus anyway. All it means to me is that people spend all they earn, at least within 200$, every month. But we already knew that. It does not mean they're actually close to insolvency unless most of that is expenses that can't be avoided. For many, if the car breaks down, it will mean skipping some meals at the restaurant or not buying that new TV next month or cutting back on that big vacation...

The amount is meaningless without knowing what kind of stuff is being paid for.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

And, in other fake news....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The article sounds about right, but it isn't talking about mass bankruptcies.

All it is saying is that people are finding their bills are rising faster than their wages. 

Rising interest rates and inflation, combined with little or no wage growth has a tendency to create this type of situation.

We are retired and our private and government pensions are indexed to inflation. The increase is significant after 13 years of increases.

People who don't receive COLA increases tend to fall a little further and further behind every year.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

off.by.10 said:


> To make better headlines of course  The whole thing sounds bogus anyway. All it means to me is that people spend all they earn, at least within 200$, every month. But we already knew that. It does not mean they're actually close to insolvency unless most of that is expenses that can't be avoided. For many, if the car breaks down, it will mean skipping some meals at the restaurant or not buying that new TV next month or cutting back on that big vacation...
> 
> The amount is meaningless without knowing what kind of stuff is being paid for.


You can't just look at 'they spend as much as they earn, every month'. What you have to look at to consider how close they are to insolvency is DEBT in relation to income, not how much they SPEND in relation to income. As little as 20 years ago, that average was 100% debt in relation to income. Today, it is 170%.

https://www.greedyrates.ca/blog/care-debt-income-ratio/ You will see that it refers only to recurring monthly debt payments, so they are in fact payments that 'can't be avoided' as you put it. Nor is the amount meaningless as we do know what is being referred to as 'being paid for.'

You only have to look at the current government employee situation in the USA to see just how close a lot of people are to the edge. It is not just people with low incomes either. In under 4 weeks, you have people having to go to food banks, unable to pay for prescription medication, asking their mortgage holders to let them skip a mortgage payment, etc. etc. etc. IN UNDER 4 WEEKS. That's how close they are to insolvency.

I saw one woman being interviewed who was having to go to a food bank for the first time in her life and also saying that after the last government shutdown which only lasted around 2 weeks, it took her a YEAR to get back to where she had been before the shutdown. I can't imagine it taking a year to get over a 2 week loss of pay, but I have no doubt the woman was telling the truth. 

Here in Canada, a good example would be what happens with the GM Oshawa employees who now have less than a year to get their financial affairs in order for when they become unemployed. How many do you think will weather that experience without suffering? Those with no debt can probably get by on Employment Insurance payments till they find another job. Those who owe $50k on their newish car/truck?

Most of the posters in this forum are probably not in a position of having 170% debt to income ratio. Their being in this forum tends to indicate they take a lot more interest in their finances than the average person. But to suppose that because you as an individual find this ridiculous to contemplate, doesn't mean a thing.

Consider a recent post in this forum by someone talking about a $20k credit card debt. I ask myself, how does anyone allow themselves to get that far into debt on a credit card. To me personally, the idea boggles belief, yet it obviously exists as the thread on the subject exists. To then say that if that person gets a $200 unexpected bill in a given month, they will not be able to pay it, rings true. It won't mean skipping a few restaurant meals or cutting back on the vacation plan, their eating out and vacation plans go ON that credit card bill. They are spending money they do not have in other words. NOT spending 'all they earn every month', spending MORE than they earn every month.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The article is about servicing debt on a monthly basis. Inflation and rising interest rates are the main factors in the rising cost of debt servicing.

Much of the Canadian overall debt is for real estate, which for most people holds significant equity.

If everyone received cost of living increases on their wages, they wouldn't be falling behind month after month.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The problem with real estate equity is it can also disappear very quickly. Just because you have equity today, doesn’t mean it’ll be there tomorrow. 

For example, you buy an “average” house today for $500k making your monthly mortgage payment around $1200/month at 3% interest. 

Mortgage renewal comes around, and interest rates are now 4.5% making your payments closer to $1400/month (the breaking point according to the article), so you decide to sell. 

The only problem is, people who want your house are basically the same as you, they can’t afford the payments any more than you can, so you have to lower your price, say goodbye to the equity you thought you had. The price would have to decrease by about 10% just to keep the payments the same afffordable amount at $1200/month. Your 500k house is now 450k, not to mention realtor fees, legal fees, etc.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Surveying 2100 Canadians (non-randomly) at peak Christmas spending time and concluding that 18 million Canadians are within $200 of insolvency?

I'm skeptical.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the worrying thing is: what if the survey is even remotely correct ? ... the vast array of mortgage, heloc and credit card debt is going to explode sometime around the second rate rise


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Seems like this "story" resurfaces in the media every year after Christmastime.

Here's one from 2016: https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-po...-200-away-monthly-being-financially-insolvent

So if it was 48% three years ago, and 46% now, we're actually doing better!

Great news!


----------



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

Longtimeago said:


> As little as 20 years ago, that average was 100% debt in relation to income. Today, it is 170%.


Simple consequence of low mortgage interest rates. And not a very good number to compare IMO, except for making headlines. Much more interesting would be the total cost of that debt (ie. taking the interest to be paid into account).


Longtimeago said:


> Consider a recent post in this forum by someone talking about a $20k credit card debt. I ask myself, how does anyone allow themselves to get that far into debt on a credit card. To me personally, the idea boggles belief, yet it obviously exists as the thread on the subject exists. To then say that if that person gets a $200 unexpected bill in a given month, they will not be able to pay it, rings true. It won't mean skipping a few restaurant meals or cutting back on the vacation plan, their eating out and vacation plans go ON that credit card bill. They are spending money they do not have in other words. NOT spending 'all they earn every month', spending MORE than they earn every month.


I am not disputing that such people exist. I have no doubt they do and even know some who lean heavily that way. I just have a hard time believing 50% (or even 45%) of people are in that situation. I rather suspect the facts are being distorted by a poor survey to which poor answers were given and then further distorted by poor reporting. But I don't exactly care enough to do my own study to find out ;-)


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

fatcat said:


> the worrying thing is: what if the survey is even remotely correct ? ... the vast array of mortgage, heloc and credit card debt is going to explode sometime around the second rate rise


The polling firm did not follow statistically acceptable sampling techniques....so the potential error in the survey results is completely unknowable.

This survey can be thrown directly in the garbage if you ask me. Don't even spend one extra second considering it. Just more bastardized science written solely for the purpose of promoting fear and selling headlines.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, nearly 5 million Canadians (1 in 7) already live below the poverty line. The idea that we could get to 50% doesn’t seem to be that far of a stretch. Of course it’s easy to deny if you are amoung the 1%ers, which also isn’t that hard to do in Canada.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Onagoth said:


> This survey can be thrown directly in the garbage if you ask me. Don't even spend one extra second considering it. Just more bastardized science written solely for the purpose of promoting fear and selling headlines.


Sure, but whether or not the survey is bogus, the situartion is real. I've known people, and have even been there myself, that live paycheck to paycheck. Any unexpected expense, or sudden loss of income creates a crisis. It might be hyperbole, though, to call it 'insolvency'. Temporarily increasing debt, and trimming unnecessary spending hopefully can help overcome a short-term hiccup. Trouble is, some folks don't learn from experience and are perpetually living just at, or beyond their means.

And it's not just a problem of the poor. I knew a couple, in their mid 40's, with two 6 figure salaries, yet when a relative needed cash to cover an emergency, they weren't able to come up with $1K without dipping into their LOC. It wasn't b/c all their funds were tied up in non-liquid investments either.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

lightcycle said:


> Seems like this "story" resurfaces in the media every year after Christmastime.
> 
> Here's one from 2016: https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-po...-200-away-monthly-being-financially-insolvent
> 
> ...


Interesting. So things really haven't changed - too many people are spending more than they ought to.

The term "insolvency" is being misused in the article. They are $200 away from being cash-flow negative on their expenses and debt payments, on a monthly basis. There is no measure of assets vs. debts. If their assets exceed their debts, they are not "insolvent". Not that I don't agree people have too much debt too, but the article as presented is still a distortion of the true picture.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Interesting. So things really haven't changed - too many people are spending more than they ought to.
> 
> The term "insolvency" is being misused in the article. They are $200 away from being cash-flow negative on their expenses and debt payments, on a monthly basis. There is no measure of assets vs. debts. If their assets exceed their debts, they are not "insolvent". Not that I don't agree people have too much debt too, but the article as presented is still a distortion of the true picture.


Well...assets vs debt is not a really great measure for solvency since most assets are valued (or thought about) on a going concern basis. On a liquidation basis, those assets are often worth far less than people think, which can exacerbate an already fragile financial situation.

But yes, there is a difference between solvency and liquidity....and your comments about solvency are one reason why I find the debt-to-income ratio so annoying. No consideration of assets and yet the central bank and media love to rant about growing debt/income ratios.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Userkare said:


> Sure, but whether or not the survey is bogus, the situartion is real. I've known people, and have even been there myself, that live paycheck to paycheck.


It is hyperbole.

Just because you know a few people that live paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean that half the country does.

People tend to globalize their experiences and presume it's the same for the vast majority of people....it's a very common cognitive bias.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I have many friends living pay check to pay check but they choose to live this way rather than have to live this way.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Well, some may find it hard to believe but as Onagoth says, people tend to presume their situation is the same as it is for the majority of people. Have you considered Onagoth that you may be making that assumption yourself?

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ycheque-but-more-are-overwhelmed-by-debt.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/payroll-salary-survey-1.4276782

Lots more you can check here: https://www.google.com/search?q=per...ome..69i57.14228j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Any one article may be using 'hyperbole' as in this case referring to 'insolvency' when perhaps that is simply too strong a term but there is also something called the 'preponderance of evidence'. Also known as 'where's there's smoke, there's fire.'

I think fatcat has asked the truly relevant question. 'What if it is even remotely true' and what will happen if the 'crap hits the fan'? Arguing over what percentage it really applies to is pretty irrelevant if the percentage is anywhere near a significant number that could impact the entire economy for everyone.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The news tells us that Americans are saving more than Canadians and owe less debt, yet when the US government shut down and 800,000 government employees have to wait for their pay, there are all kinds of stories of people not paying rent, can't afford medicine, visiting food banks and can't even put gas in the car to go to work.

This started before the first pay was missed and is a rising crescendo of concerns as a second payday approaches. 

So.....did these people not have any savings ? Did they not have access to any credit anywhere ? Was there nobody among their family or friends who could help with a short loan ?

If that is what the situation is like for government workers in the US..........maybe many Canadians are headed for the poorhouse.


----------



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

sags said:


> The news tells us that Americans are saving more than Canadians and owe less debt, yet when the US government shut down and 800,000 government employees have to wait for their pay, there are all kinds of stories of people not paying rent, can't afford medicine, visiting food banks and can't even put gas in the car to go to work.


Simple statistics. If you have 800,000 people to pick from, of course you're going to find all kinds of stories. The same would probably be true even if the government had not shut down.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I would love to see the survey questions. There could be some serious bias in the survey.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

My Own Advisor said:


> I would love to see the survey questions. There could be some serious bias in the survey.


Well why don't you simply figure out what the question was based on the answer given. "44 per cent of working Canadians reported it would be at least somewhat difficult to meet their financial obligations if their paycheque was delayed by even a single week."

Ergo, likely question asked was something like, 'would missing one week's pay affect your ability to meet your financial obligations?' Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me.

Surveys/polls, can indeed be biased and I tend to take most of them with a grain of salt. But again, whether the percentage truly affected is a given number or not is irrelevant if whatever the percentage truly is, is a significant number. It seems like some people here want to try and argue the percentage while ignoring the bigger issue. Does anyone want to try and argue that they don't believe there is any kind of a significant number of people who are one pay cheque away from being unable to pay some bills? THAT is the position you would have to take in a debate.

Here's how it works:

Posit: That a significant number of people are one pay cheque away from being unable to meet existing financial obligations.

Rebuttal: That there are NOT a significant number of people in that position.

So far, I see evidence however flawed or inaccurate anyone may think it is, that indicates there is a significant number. On the rebuttal side, I see no evidence of any kind, only opinions. I also think the current US government workers situation is an ideal case in point that can be pointed to. Last night, I saw a clip with the Commander of the US Coast Guard stating that he found it unacceptable to see that some of his people were having to go to food banks, etc. 
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ment-shutdown-alex-marquardt-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn

So stop trying to argue about how accurate the survey might be and start thinking about the real potential issues given that a significant number of Canadians ARE in such a position.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Yeah, it seems like a pretty common situation from what I've observed. As someone mentioned upthread, it's a cash flow issue - not a solvency one.

"Dude, I can't wait for payday." is a common refrain from at least one of my friends. Obviously, he wouldn't be saying that if he wasn't living paycheque to paycheque. I have at least three friends whom I know are cash strapped... and that's just the ones who talk about it.

I've heard similar anxiety from co-workers about how big their cheque will be, whether they'll get paid for a holiday, when it will be direct-deposited, can they get an advance, etc, etc.

I barely remember when payday is, but that's because I could miss a few before I even noticed.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

This modern age of instant gratification and entitlement is a major cause of this. Used to be that you would save for what you wanted, not these days, with the ease of consumer financing everything is just another payment. When things slow down the payments are still there.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I am still not buying the underlying premise that almost half of Canadians are insolvent, or nearly so.

The federal _Bankruptcy & Insolvency Ac_t defines "insolvent" thus:

insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and

(a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,

(b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or

(c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due; (personne insolvable)

The report in to which we have been referred says, _inter alia_: "As well, 45 per cent of those surveyed say they will need to go further into debt to pay their living and family expenses."

How the hell can that be? How can an insolvent person go "further into debt" and use that borrowing to pay anything? If said person is "unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due", what borrowing capacity have they? Maybe for a month or 2 they can live off credit cards or something; the situation will worsen and they will perhaps be facing bankruptcy. I do not believe that fairly describes half of Canadians.

I can accept that many live essentially paycheque to paycheque. I'll bet that describes _more_ than half of Canadians under about age 40. It certainly described me until I got to about that age. I have said here before, that where I lived has always been important to me and I was willing to sacrifice and stretch my finances to have my West Side Vancouver home and Gulf Islands retreat while still in my 20s. I was heavily mortgaged in the good old days when a 10% mortgage was a steal. I was living paycheque to paycheque for sure. But I was always confident of my earning capacity and my ability to juggle things if necessary. I never thought of myself as "insolvent" even though it was years before I had one penny in the bank. If the kredge hit the fan, there was always something to be done. Sell a property. Stop driving my car and maybe sell it. Take on some extra work. Take a leaf from JAG's book and buy a few rentals. Whatever.

So today, those who answered the poll saying they were always $200 away from financial ruin, could almost all find a way to stave off that horror. Give up one's cell phone, tv, internet, car payment, take in a roommate, take in laundry. Whatever. The situation is meant to sound dire when it's really not.

I never gave my impecunious state much thought, even though in the early days I was running on empty. Submitting to borderline insolvency was a way to get ahead. The year I bought my first house, paying $500.52 every month on my 11% agreement for sale, ICBC wanted about $100 to insure by VW beetle. I did not have it, not if I wanted to keep the house. I parked the car in the backyard for a year. That backfired a bit, because when I went to drive it a year later, having left it parked in first gear, the clutch plates were rusted onto the tranny so that as soon as I started it, it drove ahead, and it took some effort to free it up. But the year of not driving helped. The lessons one learns as an insolvent person. Among other things, I stopped taking coffee breaks with colleagues at the local coffee shop. I reckoned that the $1 spent on coffee today could be applied to my 11% mortgage. So, effectively that coffee would cost me $1.11 by the end of one year, about $1.22 after 2 years, etc. So $1 a day was not an expense I was prepared to bear. Better apply it to debt. A lot of bag lunches were peanut butter sandwiches, etc. So cannot those 46% of insolvent Canadians give up their Tim Horton's Starbucks, restaurant purchases, etc.? Many probably do. So, while telling some pollster that they are but one jump ahead of their creditors, their situation is not quite so straitened as the raw poll results would suggest. 

Another consideration is this: How complete, accurate and thorough were their answers? If I have a mortgage and, in the context of the spectre of rising interest rates, I am likely to give an answer suggesting that I am tapped out and, if my mortgage interest goes up, I am a goner. I certainly would not want anyone in government to think the BoC can jack up my rate and I'll be okay.

Although I mentioned younger Canadians as likely being in the hand-to-mouth category, I would guess a fair number of older folks are doing the same thing. They would say they live paycheque (or pension cheque) to paycheque. But does the poll ask about their net worth and assets? If your net worth is $10 million or so, does it really matter that your cash flow might be a bit tight? You have options to save yourself.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

This thread is * Nearly half of Canadians are within $200 of financial insolvency*
There is another thread
*Canada number 1 for Quality of Life in the perception of others*

Question .... is Canada a leader in "fake news" or whole World are screwed?!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

^ The world needs to be told that its perception is screwy. Half of Canadians don't have a pot to pee in.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

gibor365 said:


> This thread is * Nearly half of Canadians are within $200 of financial insolvency*
> There is another thread
> *Canada number 1 for Quality of Life in the perception of others*
> 
> Question .... is Canada a leader in "fake news" or whole World are screwed?!


Other recent headlines:

Not just avocado toast: A new report shows young professionals dine out 20 times a month

Maybe it's not "fake news". Maybe the half that is within $200 of financial insolvency shouldn't be dining out 20 times a month...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

lightcycle said:


> Other recent headlines:
> 
> Not just avocado toast: A new report shows young professionals dine out 20 times a month
> 
> Maybe it's not "fake news". Maybe the half that is within $200 of financial insolvency shouldn't be dining out 20 times a month...


Those young professionals aren't in "half that is within $200 of financial insolvency" . My son is an young professional in private equity company, he has very good total compensation and maybe dines in the restaurants 20 times in a months.... but 15 out of 20 times his clients are paying for dinner and 5 times his own company... .
No doubt that Canada is excellent in international PR and fake news.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No doubt some of them are in that predicament because they cannot seem to do something that comes so easy to many of us. Spend less than you earn-live within your means. Avoid consumer debt.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Longtimeago said:


> Well, some may find it hard to believe but as Onagoth says, people tend to presume their situation is the same as it is for the majority of people. Have you considered Onagoth that you may be making that assumption yourself?
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ycheque-but-more-are-overwhelmed-by-debt.html
> 
> ...


I'm not making any assumptions. I am merely undermining the credibility of this study since it wasn't conducted in accordance with basic and requisite statistical testing norms.

Essentially, a claim made without good evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no need to even address them.

I'll check back when an actual credible study comes out. Until then, I remain extremely dubious that half of Canadians are "insolvent"


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> Those young professionals aren't in "half that is within $200 of financial insolvency" . My son is an young professional in private equity company, he has very good total compensation and maybe dines in the restaurants 20 times in a months.... but 15 out of 20 times his clients are paying for dinner and 5 times his own company... .
> No doubt that Canada is excellent in international PR and fake news.


So essentially you are saying because your son a young professional and he isn't the rest are not?

If I was to use that logic, I'd say they were all insolvents as I know several at work who are transferring debt from one low interest CC to another as the promo rates expire. They too have clients paying for some of their dinners out but somehow they still can't reduce, never mind pay off their debt.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From 2005 to 2015 median wages rose about 10%. During the same 10 years inflation was about 22%.

People will continue to struggle as their purchasing power declines over time.

The wealth/income gaps continue to increase and middle income segment continue to shrink as they fall into the low income level.

Employees who earned good wages are replaced by contract employees earning the minimum wage. With the decline of unions, working people have no seat at the table.

Anyone who believes the wealthy will do anything to change the status quo is blowing smoke out of their arse. They are the ones who created this situation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never heard of a contract employee working for minimum wage. They generally get paid more in lieu of benefits. Can you provide any references for your fertilizer?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

During one of my stints at Megacorp, we employed 100 contractors. We used 30% as the ROT. The main benefit was remaining agile and not building a legacy expense if downsizing.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

lightcycle said:


> Other recent headlines:
> 
> Not just avocado toast: A new report shows young professionals dine out 20 times a month
> 
> Maybe it's not "fake news". Maybe the half that is within $200 of financial insolvency shouldn't be dining out 20 times a month...


That is an insane number.....it's not like parts of Europe where you can get something decent for <$10 per meal. Where do these kids get money? Bank of Mom and Dad? Credit obviously no? Wow.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Maybe sags is confusing part-time workers with contract workers. I do see an obvious trend in some businesses where it is suitable, retail for example, for full time employees to be replaced with part-time employees and yes, at minimum wage and without the same benefits.

At the end of my working life, I worked as a 'consultant'. I suppose you could call that a form of contract employee in that I worked on a temporary basis for a company for an agreed amount of money as set out in a 'contract.'

The thing I found really amusing about being a 'consultant' was the absolute reality that the more you charged the more you were PERCEIVED to be worth. There aren't many jobs where if you want to sell your services, the more you ask for, the more likely you are to get the job!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

My Own Advisor said:


> That is an insane number.....it's not like parts of Europe where you can get something decent for <$10 per meal. Where do these kids get money? Bank of Mom and Dad? Credit obviously no? Wow.


I've noticed a few times on some of those reality shows where they have people looking at buying a new house, that younger people want a kitchen with all stainless appliances, granite counter tops etc. and then will often make a comment indicating that at the same time as wanting the latest and greatest in the kitchen, they actually don't plan to do much cooking in it. They actually make a comment in a way that makes it clear that they are PROUD that they don't cook. It's like it is a status thing. Poor people need to cook, those with money can afford to eat out. That's the implication.

How did it ever get to the point that someone would think not being able to cook was something to be proud of? I have to admit, I am pretty poor in the cooking department but I blame it all on my Mother. As a boy, at that time in history when I was a boy, boys didn't cook and Mothers didn't teach them to, they taught daughters to cook. So yup, it's my Mother's fault I can't cook. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Contract workers and consultants are two different categories of workers.

People who work for temp agencies sign contracts with the agency. It could be full or part time work.

The employers pay the temp agency who pay the contracted workers, after discounting their fee.

If temp workers were not contract workers, they would be entitled to all employment benefits covered by legislation including the full wages and severance rights.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Even temp agencies tend to pay more than minimum wage. Still waiting for proof as opposed to opinion?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You think that if few employers were paying the minimum wage, the Ontario government would have taken the political heat for eliminating a $1 an hour raise to $15 ?

If they are already paying more than the minimum wage......why the hue and cry, wailing and wringing of hands by the business lobby groups ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You specifically mentioned contractors, I called you out for proof. You can’t change it to employees at McDonald’s and other starter job positions which aren’t contractors. 

As for why the hue and cry? Because people are too lazy, unskilled, or unmotivated to find a real job. My son’s completing his first year of post secondary and has gotten a job paying.$35/hr as a summer student. Needless to say, it’s not McDonald’s, nor is he highly skilled yet. It’s always easier to beg for money rather than go out and actually earn it.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Contract workers and consultants are two different categories of workers.
> 
> People who work for temp agencies sign contracts with the agency. It could be full or part time work.
> 
> ...


Really? So as a self-employed consultant who billed clients by the hour/day, you think they paid for 'employment benefits' for me? Nonsense, a 'consultant' or 'contract employee' are simply terms used to refer to a type of self-employment. The name used is irrelevant.

You really do seem to have a pretty narrow and simplistic view of the world sags and that's me being polite.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> You specifically mentioned contractors, I called you out for proof. You can’t change it to employees at McDonald’s and other starter job positions which aren’t contractors.
> 
> As for why the hue and cry? Because people are too lazy, unskilled, or unmotivated to find a real job. My son’s completing his first year of post secondary and has gotten a job paying.$35/hr as a summer student. Needless to say, it’s not McDonald’s, nor is he highly skilled yet. It’s always easier to beg for money rather than go out and actually earn it.


The word I believe you are looking for is ENTITLEMENT. It seems to be the norm today for many younger people to believe they are entitled to something. I had a very simple philosophy when I still had to work for a living. An employer and an employee agree that the worker will do a certain task for a certain amount of money per day. At the end of the day, having done the work the employee is entitled to the agreed amount of pay (and other benefits if any were agreed to). At that point, they are EVEN with neither owing the other anything more including another day of work.

Ask a GM worker in Oshawa what they think about that though and you are far more likely to hear, 'no, they owe me continued employment tomorrow.'


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I said "contract workers". JAGS changed it to "contractors", and you changed it to "self employed consultant".

They are not interchangeable job definitions, as employment law, EI and WSIB contributions and income taxes highlight the differences.

For example....a self employed consultant can deduct the cost of a vehicle, gas and insurance to drive to the place where the work is performed. 

A contract worker for a temp agency has no similar deductions.

As to the obligations of employers after a worker leaves, they are mandated by employment law. Severance, earned vacation pay and bonuses come immediately to mind.

The GM workers in Oshawa will be "entitled" to severance, vacation, pensions, health benefits, and other contractual and government obligations.

GM employees also have "preferential hiring rights", and can move to employment in other GM locations if available, so GM's obligations don't end when the work in Oshawa does.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Fine, show me a contract worker earning only minimum wage. You’ve avoided the proof several times.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

The sad thing is you really do seem to believe your own nonsense sags.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Last week our city government repealed a scheduled $1 increase in the minimum wage from $14 to $15 per hour.

I am doubtful however that any amount of proof would ever satisfy those who rely solely on their own opinions and have a disdain for facts.

_They are following the lead of the Ford PC government who recently eliminated the scheduled $1 increase in the minimum wage, along with repealing other employment protection legislation.

The increases were part of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act (Bill 148), which instituted several other labour reforms, including three hours’ pay for employees whose shifts are cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice and equal pay for full-time, part-time, casual and temporary employees doing the same job.

The Ford government is repealing both of those reforms and several more. Those moves that Michael Courey, co-ordinator of the Poverty Research Centre at King’s University College, said will exacerbate the problem of so-called precarious employment — *people who are stringing together income through contract, part-time or casual jobs with no benefits or pensions.*_

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/labour-reform-repeal-panned-by-london-anti-poverty-advocates


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Still not contract workers.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The greater the decline in confidence in government the less likely you are to find long term mortgages, The 30 year fixed rate mortgage will eventually vanish. The 30 yr mortgage was used to try to reflate real estate after real estate was selling for 10 cents on the dollar after the 1929 - 1932 stock market crash. Interest rates fell during this period. Think how bad the crash would have been if they had 30 yr mortgages & went to a shorter time period in a time of rising interest rates. In the US the 8 states without income tax real estate is catching a bid as people are fleeing the other states that are hunting for every tax dollar they can get. 

Real Estate is in most cases is none movable people will just leave real estate behind where they are taxed to death


----------

