# Princess generation perfect set up for economic depression



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

On the news last night 55% of parents are supporting/enabling their adult children. Most of the parents that are doing this are not in a financial position to do this without destroying their retirement. This is just totally crazy in the interviews the kids even had luxuries such as cell phones paid for by their parents. I have friends that work well over 40 hours a week so they can enable their kids to be lazy wimp princesses that flush money down the sewer.


----------



## FinancialFreedom (Aug 18, 2015)

I saw that last night as well. Crazy. Paying for school, transportation, cellphones, food, ect.
I couldn't even get my parents to help with tuition! Lol!


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

FinancialFreedom said:


> I saw that last night as well. Crazy. Paying for school, transportation, cellphones, food, ect.
> I couldn't even get my parents to help with tuition! Lol!


FF, that is only because you didn't raise your parents as well as these kids did.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think this is a more difficult situation than is portrayed and deserves some sympathy. It's hard to blame parents in general for wanting to provide help, and it is hard to blame young people who cannot find work for asking for help.

No doubt there is some laziness among the youth, and not enough tough-love among some parents, but the blame for each is less than 25% of the problem, IMO. Greater than 50% of the problem is a lack of employment opportunities for young people who would love to be on their own making $15/hour and working hard for 40-50 hours/week, building up their career (like most older people had the opportunity to do when they were young). But they can't. All they can find is minimum wage for 30 hours a week and that's just not enough to live on.

It's hard to blame the youth. The opportunities were taken away from them through no fault of their own, and simultaneously their expectations were not managed throughout their childhoods. I see no evidence that Gen X, Boomers, Greatest generation, persons would not be behaving the exact same way if their circumstances were the same. They were just never given the opportunity to showcase their "laziness" as today's youth are.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Staying in school longer and graduating with debt. Staying single longer and not combining incomes. The cost of living and the dearth of decent paying jobs.

$15 an hour ? I earned that in 1985..........30 years ago.

The problem isn't the parents and it isn't the kids.

It is wage stagnation. 

Even 20 years ago, everyone I knew was earning at least $18 an hour.

Forget the "official" statistics. It is all BS. The high income earners are pulling up the averages for everyone else.

Take the example of GM in the news recently.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-ceo-compensation-triples-to-15-8m-in-1st-year/

The current CEO is earning far more than any previous CEO of GM. She earned $16 Million.........a 300% increase in 1 year.

But new GM workers are earning far less than they used to.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Staying in school longer and graduating with debt. Staying single longer and not combining incomes. The cost of living and the dearth of decent paying jobs.
> 
> $15 an hour ? I earned that in 1985..........30 years ago.


I earned $3.50 an hour in 1985. Out of the house for college at age 17 and never came back.

The good news with my story is that every year was better then the one before, ONLY because I started with nothing. Owned nothing, shared my first apartment with mice, rarely had any hot water, and the roof only kept out most of the rain, etc. That type of living, however, builds character and allows you to focus on never living like that again. To ensure that for me and my family I could see clearly that it required income and savings. To many kids today, it only requires a sympathetic heart.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I grew up in a poor household, with my dad supporting 5 kids and a stay at home wife.

My wife grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan and knew hard times.

We both started out with money being tight, but we were able to earn enough to manage, and our wages continually went up year after year.

In 1967 I earned the minimum wage. In 1977, I was earning $5.00 an hour and got a job at GM for $7.50 an hour. By 2005 it had risen to $33.00 an hour.

Every year, with the cost of living and a 3% general wage increase.........our wages went up.

Today you can work at a place for 20 years and the only raise you will see is if the minimum wage goes up.

The NDP have proposed raising the minimum wage..........and we can see how that is accepted by the business community.

According to them the world will fall apart unless they can pay employees $10 an hour forever.

When times are good and corporations are sitting on billions of dollars, do they think to raise the wages of their workers a little ?

Nah..........they buy back shares and lay off more workers instead.

The money has been there. It is just a matter of priorities and employee wages are at the bottom of the list for many companies.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe all these parents who are supporting their kids are wondering why it is necessary for them to do so.

It might be they think it is time to get rid of the Harper government and elect someone else like the NDP ?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I think in North America, much has changed and high rate of attendance for post-secondary education (resulting in delay to find job, accumulation of tuition and living expense debt etc), combined with increased life span (people can probably work for 40+ years, much longer than in the past) and a changing economy (service industry growing and majority of jobs being low paying) all have an effect.

I do find it interesting that there is never mention of demographics. As more immigrants come to North America, they often bring traditions where unmarried (and sometimes married) adult children continue to live with their parents. It only seems it has finally caught up with North Americans as the economic disparity among wealthy and 'lower' income widens.

Let us dissect housing affordability. In North America, we all believe we should, must, and deserve to own a home, but this is not true in many places around the world. Unless houses are passed down, young people in Europe and Asia cannot buy their own homes. Just like with adult children at home, we are slowly becoming more like the rest of the World and the traditional American dream begins to be less attainable.

I'm not sure why the news always spins the negative. For many parents, while having children at home changes their own retirement plans etc, I'm sure most enjoy the extra time with their families, and if NA culture shifts further, maybe these adult children will also care for their aged parents later on.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it is one thing to have adult children living at home, contributing to the household (ie earning a wage and more than supporting themselves), and another to have parents supporting deadbeat adult children who are professional students, or can't find a job (are they really trying hard enough?).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I totally agree Andrew.

Parents should help those who help themselves.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I am retired and have two kids one of which needs extra money almost every month.

He works 40 hours a week and his GF is also working full time, there costs for rent, car, food, and other expenses leave them with very little the car is 15 years old but needed.
Vancouver rents are not easy.

Would I rather not provide anything and leave them to deal with the costs alone it would be nice.
The fact is they are 25 years old and if they started borrowing the interest rates they would be charged compared to older people would leave them in a worse mess.
They are giving up the apartment this month and going to move in with her parents for a short time as her parents have a large house to get on top of things.
I know neither of them really want to move in with her parents even for a short time but it would be the best move, they struggled with the decision for several months. 

My son needs to upgrade to a B ticket in welding to get the wage he needs, his current C ticket only provides 20.00 an hour and the employer has no reason to see him with a B ticket because they would have to pay him more.

It's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. 
I continue for now to provide the extra cash.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> FF, that is only because *you didn't raise your parents as well as these kids did*.


 ... LOL! But true for GENX,Y ... and it doesn't get better than that!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Daniel A. said:


> I am retired and have two kids one of which needs extra money almost every month.
> 
> He works 40 hours a week and his GF is also working full time, there costs for rent, car, food, and other expenses leave them with very little the car is 15 years old but needed.
> Vancouver rents are not easy.
> ...


If they are both working full-time, their pre-tax income must be >$60k. That should be enough to live on...


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I think it is one thing to have adult children living at home, contributing to the household (ie earning a wage and more than supporting themselves), and another to have parents supporting deadbeat adult children who are professional students, or can't find a job (are they really trying hard enough?).


But none of the surveys ask "are the kids whom are staying at home deadbeats" - this is the presumption everyone makes.

I think you also have to distinguish between kids mooching off parents (even in your example of 2 adults earning $60k/yr), and those who take advantage of parents who help. Note semantics, advantage and note exploitation. My kids are super young, I have no qualms about supporting them later on in life, or buying housing or anything else. Heck, my parents help me pay for school, helped me with a down payment - I'm fully appreciative and will support them in retirement, either by giving money, or having them live with us.

The mooching kids are easy to focus on, but surely they are not then entire spectrum.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I know both. I work with lots of people for whom it is culturally expected to live with parents until marriage. They are engineers/professionals earning good incomes, and contributing to their households. Then there is my sister's brother in law who is about 30 years old, and working part time as a clerk at a store and spending the rest of his time playing battlefield on his xbox (living with his parents). My sister's husband had to help him pay off his credit card...


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Just don't let the one bias you into thinking they are representative. I also no both types, but media has never really tried to distinguish, and forums are always filled with anecdotes of leeches.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I know too many 20somethings living at home trying to be an entrepreneur at something (due to lack of employment in their field) with no current income. Firstly, why did they take secondary education in something with minimal prospects? Why are they also not working a retail/fast food job to bring in at least some income and/or not contributing to the work and chores at home?

My two sons took quite awhile to gain enough traction (well into their 20s) and land career jobs. During that time, they did live at home BUT they had to have full (or near full) time jobs at whateever they could get, e.g. warehouse, retail, fast food, construction, landscaping, etc. to pay for all their own expenses and make some contribution to the household. They did not get a free ride.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

My wife and I had to work for what we wanted. It was just never expected that we could do whatever and be fully funded by our parents. We struggled but did without luxuries to get ahead, pursuing further education after entering the workforce as we could afford/schedule as well as building equity to enable us to get ahead. We helped our kids throughout their after school education but also made them accountable and only provided neccessities. Some of their friends took advantage of their parents and they would often bring it to our attention how much more some friends had, while we also pointed out that there were others getting less help. We did not put everything we had into their education as we were also trying to build our own financial security before retirement. I have seen friends taking large financial hits as they support post secondary education, supplying vehicles, vacations, accomodations, luxuries and unable to retire until they can escape due to the expectations they have established. If I had been treated, after leaving school, the way some of today's students are I don't think I would be in a hurry to accept a lower standard of living, to start working and earn my own way either. We are proud to see our kids working to establish themselves and their respective families. One day they will also inherit what we have but will not be dependent on it.


----------



## SW20 MR2 (Dec 18, 2010)

Same here. My parents gave me a car, paid for my tuition, and gave us a good downpayment for our house. My wife and I lived with them for 3 years before buying a house. Ofcourse, we were both employed and saving a tonne of money.

I've often wondered how our kids will cope in the future. Given the rising costs of tuition and housing, I can't see how they're going to make it on their own without struggling a tonne. Hence, the intention is to to do the same for them that was done for me. Ofcourse, this is all predicated on them working hard at school, getting some type of job during high school (don't care what it is), and working towards building a future after graduation. They will not get any help whatsover if they are living at home and lazy. In fact, I'd have no problem kicking them out if they are doing nothing. I'm seeing it play out right now with my wife's cousin. He's 30, lives at my mother in law's house, graduated from university, does not actively look for a job, plays video games and sports all day, and my real piss off is that he does absolutely nothing around the house (eg. dishes, cleaning, laundry, etc). If my kids are like that, I would give them the boot and leave them on their own. Hopefully, we'll be able to teach them hard work and determination so that they can avoid that.



Sampson said:


> My kids are super young, I have no qualms about supporting them later on in life, or buying housing or anything else. Heck, my parents help me pay for school, helped me with a down payment - I'm fully appreciative and will support them in retirement, either by giving money, or having them live with us.


----------



## OurBigFatWallet (Jan 20, 2014)

It doesn't help that universities continually encourage people to get degrees that lead to nothing as far as a decent paying job or even a chance at employment. I can't count the number of people who graduated and were very disappointed (even depressed) when they finished because of the job prospects. There is nothing wrong with following your passion and doing what you love but there has to be a connection between job prospects (i.e.. what is currently in demand in the labor market) and the field of study that the person loves. Universities are not doing a good enough job of connecting people with what they study and the current job market. When you study something that has little/no job prospects it ends up being a bad situation for everyone - the parents because they still have to support their kid and the kid who is stuck with a degree they can't use. Some of them have $20,000+ in student loans so it's not like they can take their time and figure it out, they need to find employment anywhere to start paying off the loans. 

There is nothing wrong with studying a trade instead of going the traditional university route and maybe more people need to consider doing so. Trades are valuable and depending on the local job market can do very well as far as earning potential. 

Of course it is easier to move out on your own when you live in a city that has decently affordable housing. I can't imagine starting out in a place like Vancouver where housing is insanely high, people there must just give up on the idea of eventually owning your own home because it is too expensive for most.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Maybe the boomers are starting to feel guilty for crashing the economy like every 5 years.

I feel a little sorry for millenials. They are a little self absorbed but no more than any other generation. But they are entering the workforce when technological obsolescence will destroy many of their ambitions. The boomers and even genx are on the tail end of their working careers and can probably ride it out, but not this group. It will hit them head on.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

No guilt here. Nor do I feel responsible "for crashing the economy like every 5 years". 

History suggests economies change often regardless of one named generation or another.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I have very mixed feeling and views regarding helping kids so this may be discombobulated.

I can't say by any means I grew up privileged, but I wasn't totally out on my own either. I was expected to get pay for my own stuff, get student loans for what my small scholarship didn't pay for. My parents INSISTED that I stay at home, that when I wanted to move away to my dream school, they refused any support (not financially but to the point of disowning me). I am by personality very independent and self reliant and my parents have always try to 'help' which drove me nuts, as I spent more time refusing them. However, I always had a place to live, I knew that I always had family support. It would kill me take their support or help, but I actually believe knowing that I have that security blanket has allowed me to excel because I have been able to take some more risks without the few of being homeless.

My siblings and I have all had the benefit of being able to live at our parents rental property at below market value (covered all the bills and of course are perfect tenants, and we were expected and still are expected to manage the properties). This is sort of like living at home, as we were getting a reduced rate, however, if it wasn't for us as kids who have managed the properties since my parents have had, they would have been able to keep them on their own. As a result of this benefit all of us have done very well. We help our parents all the time, and they will never be without nor have to worry. My parents are cheap (not frugal) by nature, so will not travel or buy things they want. We as kids will do it once we have become established. As adult children, we have sent them on world trips, bought three or four vehicles, renovated and furnished there home, among other things. My point was, none of us 'launched' out of the nest until we were all almost 30. However, once we did get established, we have more than provided back the ROI for our parents. 

For this reason, I will do the same for my kids. Both will never have to worry about being homeless, and if they need more support because they have big PLANS (not dreams) we will be there. However, if they are just floating or mooching and don't appreciate the privilege they have, they will be launched out much faster. They already know this and they are under 10.

On the other side, it's a tough balance. I know many that had parents give them too much, and they never learned that independence or self reliance, so now in their 40's some still need help or live beyond their means. I see that their kids are becoming entitled too, and thanks to wealthy grandparents will probably always be supported somewhat. I often have been told that we are too tough in our kids, and we should just let the kids be kids and be happy without the adult worries. I struggle often with balancing this as a family in an affluent neighbourhood, and teaching the kids about money.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

My spouse and I continue to support our kids financially, in some respects. Our daughters are 20 and 17, both at home. Both were working two jobs at 15, paying their own personal bills (eg. cell phones, Netflix), while continuing to be honour roll students. We provided food, shelter and clothing at back to school time and Christmas. We also covered driving school and car insurance on our vehicles.

Our 20 year old decided to attend our local college, an accelerated program, so she could hit the workforce after only one year. We still provide food and shelter, but she bought a new, off the lot car, pays her own insurance, etc. (We have horrific public transportation.). We do not charge her rent at this time, as she is saving to pay the new car off in only 18 months, so that she can move out with no car payment, increasing her odds of success financially. She stiil works two jobs, full time and part time. We told her when she started college that we would pay tuition and books AFTER graduation IF she graduated. She did, with honours, paying her student loans before grad, with her own money, working while in college. This means in the spring she will receive that money from us, which she will use to help pay off the car.

The other daughter will receive the same amount for school, but needs to attend a college 8 hours away for her program. She is currently working full time, while completing high school and volunteering. She will possibly need more money for a third year of college, if she isn't accepted without a pre-health year. We will help as we can.

I don't believe in babying them, but I don't believe we should just set them adrift at a certain age, if they are working hard ti make themselves as financially independent and secure in the future.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

OurBigFatWallet said:


> It doesn't help that universities continually encourage people to get degrees that lead to nothing as far as a decent paying job or even a chance at employment. I can't count the number of people who graduated and were very disappointed (even depressed) when they finished because of the job prospects. There is nothing wrong with following your passion and doing what you love but there has to be a connection between job prospects (i.e.. what is currently in demand in the labor market) and the field of study that the person loves.


COuld you imagine how boring the world would be without people with english degrees, historians & artists? Gawd, just go to a party full of engineers and lawyers and listen to them talk about their newest car, or a plumber party where they talk about their dirt bikes and the latest things that they've killed is enough to make one want to shoot themselves in the face.

Setting everyone up to be an economy drone sounds like a real bland world.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> On the news last night 55% of parents are supporting/enabling their adult children.


This is because we live in a horrible economy and very poor job market, especially for the younger cohort. It's not because young people are lazy or unskilled... it is a consequence of being in a poor economy.

The government under-reports unemployment, because it only counts people who are _actively reported_ as looking for work. Many more people are totally unable to find work, and are not in the government's stats as job-seekers. Therefore, true unemployment is much higher than reported.

Especially among young people. Stable full time employment is extremely hard to find for people under 35. What are plentiful, instead, are short term jobs, contract jobs, and part time employment.

For us people under age 35, we're basically living in a Depression. It's been like that since 2007, and maybe back to 2000.


----------



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

james4beach said:


> This is because we live in a horrible economy and very poor job market, especially for the younger cohort. It's not because young people are lazy or unskilled... it is a consequence of being in a poor economy.
> 
> The government under-reports unemployment, because it only counts people who are _actively reported_ as looking for work. Many more people are totally unable to find work, and are not in the government's stats as job-seekers. Therefore, true unemployment is much higher than reported.
> 
> ...



Took the words out of my mouth! Dead on.

I've felt like there's a weight on my shoulders since entering the job market in 2001. Seems like there's always a recession that doesn't ever go away. In the last two years, I got an apprenticeship but was laid off when oil went down. It was too bad, it was the first time in my working career, that I made money like that.

Now I'm back in " The best place on Earth " and once again I am grateful for a job that barely keeps the roof over my head still there. 

The boomers are quick to call us " entitled " . I have never met a bunch of people more entitled than the boomers themselves. Most of them claim they " built " the country...etc..etc.


----------



## tkirk62 (Jul 1, 2015)

Could maybe qualify as an entitled youth here. 

Finished school with a degree (kinesiology) which doesn't carry much earning potential without a graduate degree or some manner of additional schooling (med school, chiropractic, physio, etc). I finished my undergrad absolutely burnt out on school, and in some ways the education system in general. I saw way too many people in my lectures asking "Will this be on the exam?", "Will the textbook chapters be testable material?", and more such things. Regardless, after learning some more about myself during university (one of the main benefits I found) I didn't want to spend two more years in a classroom.

I took some seasonal work in agriculture back home, currently working afternoons at $15/hr but with lots of opportunity for overtime for at least a couple more weeks. They have offered me a job full time, but chances are I couldn't negotiate the pay over say $18, and the OT is only available for about six weeks a year. The guy I'd be replacing quit because of the pay, being overworked and underpaid with little opportunity for advancement. Got an offer for more money ($23/hr) but would have to work midnights in a job I know I will not enjoy, again with little room to advance. Sending out resumes like a madman, not being selective at all, but the jobs for which I interview don't seem a whole lot better than my options now for one reason or another. Got an interview next week for a job I'm very excited about, but it is likely over my head. If I get it I'd be moving, but I would easily be able to afford it.

Right now I am living at home. I live rent free, and do work for my mom's business to cover (more than) my share of food and other expenses I may create. I could afford to move out on my own I'm pretty sure. Currently I bring home about $2500/mth. Places to rent in my town are about $1000 monthly. $25 for phone, maybe $60 for internet, food probably around $400, $110 car insurance, maybe $100 gas (I need to commute, rural life workplace) and around $300 per month of student loan payments. I'd be spending about $1600 on that bare bones lifestyle. I could probably add plenty of entertainment and discretionary spending and still be saving almost $400 every month. The generosity of my parents enables me to save much more than that. This allows me to save much more, paying down some debt and investing when I see the opportunity. 

I know the money I make isn't great, but it could support me on my own and still leave me with extra every month. I know a lot of people my age who can't get even the money that I'm making. They could go out on their own and be living paycheque to paycheque. Some do, some stay at home. Some stay at home and spend anything they may have saved. Some work hard to better their situations, some leech off their parents. As with everything, everybody is different and you can't paint any two people with the same brush. I know my parents wouldn't accept me bleeding them, and if I ever didn't pull my weight, either financially or around the house, I'd be out of there quick. Same if I was spending all my money rather than using the extra to better position myself for the future. 

I think some sympathy is needed, because not every case of under employment is a kid pursuing a liberal arts degree, not every kid at home smokes weed in the basement while his mom makes his supper. I know some entitled people, some hard workers and savers. As with anything, it is wrong to judge an entire generation because you saw something on the news about a sample of that generation. I've seen lots of stories about how older generations haven't saved enough for retirement and will be relying on government money in their old age. Never once have I thought everybody over 50 is going to be a drain on society and my tax dollars will be paying for their golf.


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

tkirk62 said:


> Could maybe qualify as an entitled youth here.
> 
> Finished school with a degree (kinesiology) which doesn't carry much earning potential without a graduate degree or some manner of additional schooling (med school, chiropractic, physio, etc). I finished my undergrad absolutely burnt out on school, and in some ways the education system in general. I saw way too many people in my lectures asking "Will this be on the exam?", "Will the textbook chapters be testable material?", and more such things. Regardless, after learning some more about myself during university (one of the main benefits I found) I didn't want to spend two more years in a classroom.
> 
> ...


Really well said. I'm Gen-Y (36) and I've been lucky. I had two jobs at 12 (paper route and busboy), moved out at 18 to attend school away from where I lived, worked through College, good job out of College, worked my *** OFF, paid off student loans, took chances when others didn't and it's paid off for the most part. 

In 10 years have built a net worth of nearly $700k with two kids and a stay-at-home wife. I've been lucky.

That said, I see many boomers (my parents, wife's parents, etc) who have saved very little assuming things would always get brighter. My step-father used to earn about $500k/year. Saved little of it. 63 - has a mortgage and works full-time. Now, in my parents case, they work because they enjoy it and are both very, very smart. I respect them greatly, but they never expected the sun to not shine.

My wife's parents OTOH, my father-in-law was in an accident 30 years ago and had a $25000/year payout for something like, 25 years... The math? How many millions would that be worth invested from the early 80's to today? He worked full-time (he wasn't injured, it was due to a casualty is my understanding and faulty equipment or something)...

Either way, there was a settlement and he fluttered it away. Now, they don't own a home (they still have a huge mortgage on a little place), and my mother-in-law works as a Walmart greeter. They live off their CPP and OAS.

I've hired 3 people under thirty in the last year. All super hard workers. Great work ethic and intelligent. All College educated. One owns a home, the other is looking to purchase a home and the other lives at home with her parents and helps out.

I think we're going to start to see more communal living. Houses have doubled in sizes over the last 40 years while households have gotten smaller... Living at home is actually good idea for many. But help out with the bills and carry your own weight. Those houses need to be filled! lol

Or join the tiny house movement!

https://vimeo.com/95698105


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

kork said:


> Really well said. I'm Gen-Y (36) and I've been lucky. I had two jobs at 12 (paper route and busboy), moved out at 18 to attend school away from where I lived, worked through College, good job out of College, worked my *** OFF, paid off student loans, took chances when others didn't and it's paid off for the most part.
> 
> In 10 years have built a net worth of nearly $700k with two kids and a stay-at-home wife. I've been lucky.
> 
> ...



I don't have any sympathy for your step father either. Anyone who earns $500k/ year and now has nothing, and has to be a greeter means they lived more than a lifetime of purchasing and spending and now has to live with consequences. 

I don't think it's fair to categorize a generation, however, I know many gen y that will quit as soon as they are not happy. Several people we know their kids just didn't enjoy their jobs, so instead of waiting it out until after they found a new job, just quit, and live off of mom and dad while they find their happiness. I am on the tail end of gen x (42) and Just don't understand this mentality.


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

Plugging Along said:


> I don't have any sympathy for your step father either. Anyone who earns $500k/ year and now has nothing, and has to be a greeter means they lived more than a lifetime of purchasing and spending and now has to live with consequences.


Let me qualify one thing. It wasn't consistent. I didn't grow up in a $500k a year household. I grew up in a home and saw divorce, etc just like many of my friends. Divorce and midlife crisis' seem to wipe out a lot of families and have them nearly start over again at midlife. 

When I was growing up, it was a roller coaster. I lived through riches to rags to riches to rags my entire life. Some years there was zero income from self-employment, other years there were riches... The "BIG" $$$ wasn't earned until recently over the last 10-15 years. Before that, it was divorces, etc. So like I said, The "several years" of Huge salary in the 50's are offset by year of near famine.

Personally, if I earned $500k in a year, I'd be banking it and assuming it wouldn't be that way for long (like I saw with my parents)... However, many boomers (like my parents) don't see it that way. Mo money = new boat!


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

kork said:


> Let me qualify one thing. It wasn't consistent. I didn't grow up in a $500k a year household. I grew up in a home and saw divorce, etc just like many of my friends. Divorce and midlife crisis' seem to wipe out a lot of families and have them nearly start over again at midlife.
> 
> When I was growing up, it was a roller coaster. I lived through riches to rags to riches to rags my entire life. Some years there was zero income from self-employment, other years there were riches... The "BIG" $$$ wasn't earned until recently over the last 10-15 years. Before that, it was divorces, etc. So like I said, The "several years" of Huge salary in the 50's are offset by year of near famine.
> 
> Personally, if I earned $500k in a year, I'd be banking it and assuming it wouldn't be that way for long (like I saw with my parents)... However, many boomers (like my parents) don't see it that way. Mo money = new boat!


Also, my parents aren't greeters... They're now earning six figures AND banking it. But at 55 with a silly income, retirement was still far away.

In fact, thinking about it, if you start earning 500k a year, how easy would it be to bank it? For me it would be easy because I don't know what it's like to have a 20k biweekly EGO stroking pay check... But, if you still had 10 years to go and loved what you did, Perhaps the assumption was to "play now" and save later... 

Either way, my parents will be okay and will use their own savings in retirement. They saw the light once they hit 60... But with 5 years to save . They're lucky at this stage in their career and still healthy and active and high income earners... My Inlaws, not so much.


----------



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

kork said:


> Also, my parents aren't greeters... They're now earning six figures AND banking it. But at 55 with a silly income, retirement was still far away.
> 
> In fact, thinking about it, if you start earning 500k a year, how easy would it be to bank it? For me it would be easy because I don't know what it's like to have a 20k biweekly EGO stroking pay check... But, if you still had 10 years to go and loved what you did, Perhaps the assumption was to "play now" and save later...
> 
> Either way, my parents will be okay and will use their own savings in retirement. They saw the light once they hit 60... But with 5 years to save . They're lucky at this stage in their career and still healthy and active and high income earners... My Inlaws, not so much.



Geez, two years at that income level and the right investments, and you would be set at 65. That's the curse I saw working up in the oil fields, I can count on one hand who was truely smart with their cash. Seems like everyone is/was a million in the hole.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

This has to have a lot to do with house prices
You may need nearly 60k just for a healthy(standard)down payment on a home and that is after paying back a 80k student loan maybe
Your almost 150 k in the red if you follow society scrip(this does not incl other debt)
also young people are pushing marriage off till nearly 30 now on average(if not later than that)so are flying solo
The dynamics are way different for young people vs anyone born before 1980 or so

Most of my father and his friends for example(late 50's early 60's)
Got jobs out of high school/married at 23 or so and had generally finished having children before 30
It just doesn't work that way anymore
You can thank 3 culprits imo-tuition bubble--housing bubble and contact/short term employment contracts shift(none of those issues were very present in my fathers day)
Hard to place blame on young adults contenting with these challenges.


----------



## Itchy54 (Feb 12, 2012)

I have a few perspectives
First, my folks provided nothing after I turned 18, in fact they moved across the country (armed forces) while I stayed behind, lived in my friends parents basement and then went on to university...funded by student loans and money I had saved. I worked my way through university and paid for most of it (good summer jobs in geology) and had some loans. I didn't even get a congratulatory graduation card form the folks. This experience was painful, I did not feel apart of the family.....we were just cut free and let loose (all my siblings had the same experience)

Secondly, my own child. My love, my life... But he got no free ride and was not spoiled! We did save money for his university but he was also expected to contribute, which he did. He spent one summer In a campground while working on habitat restoration...he went far north...he worked very hard. After he graduated in environmental science it took him almost a year to get a permanent job, but he took courses and did odd jobs the whole time. We lent him some money for a condo and he pays us back on schedule, and sold him our old car. He would like a better paying job but knows he is lucky to have a full time job in his field. I will not do what my parents did. He will always have a soft place to land if need be.

Thirdly, I work at the local university. Oh my....I see a lot of entitled students! The best of computers, phones, clothes, food! Attitudes that just kill me....they all expect high paying jobs as soon as they graduate with their very weird degrees. Even though these are geology classes most of the students take the course as their science elective while getting history or theatre majors ( not that there is anything wrong with these but they likely won't have great job prospects) I have so many students pale when we have to do even the easiest of math problems, I have seen tears in trying to do simple percentages. We have raised a lot of children that cannot think through a problem or even answer a simple written question...last year was almost my last year because the students were so bad. There is no one I know that would hire someone who cannot reason through a simple problem. 
I am giving it another go but am worried. There are some shining stars and they make it worth while.

I have no issue helping a child out if they are doing their best but have some problems. Our expectations should be very high for our kids....mine are high for my son and also for my students.

And I have forgiven my folks....


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

Millennial here. Interesting to see that many adults still being supported by their parents. I think there's a couple issues:

1 - Millennials not having in demand skills. Many employers are having trouble filling positions, but with armies of 20something year olds with arts degrees applying for jobs...the positions remain open, eventually someone gets hired from overseas, position gets outsourced, automated, etc.

2 - For sure some millennials are just lazy...but I don't think it's anywhere near the majority.

3 - Stagnating salaries + increasing cost of living. I read an interesting article claiming the _minimum_ gross income required for a young professional in Toronto is 36k - http://notable.ca/breakdown-this-is-the-minimum-amount-of-money-a-young-professional-needs-to-live-in-toronto/. Once you add cell phone, some additional taxes like CPP, EI, etc. I think the required income would be even higher!


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, I've seen the "Generation Y would you hire them", but also some of my best employees were Generation Y. Very Keen. I think a lot of Generation X, and the much glorified boomers were useless and entitled as well. Ooh the Mustangs and Z 28's. The boomers lived the glory years, and a good part of them p$$d away their earnings. None are my grandparents generation that's for sure.

As a side note, I have never and would hire anyone without post secondary education. The course is irrelevant. The learning process and independentent thinking learned is a requirement for me.

Now, I have great respect for those who can work and do post secondary. Amazing actually. However, I knew very few dentists, doctors, engineers, vets, or optometrists who could. Their school was full time. And some of these guy WERE GENIUSES. Less than 80% in a 90 credit year (arts and science is 30 credits) doesn't cut it for a doctor (yeh, 3 academic years in one). As my close friend always asks students who enquire about here job and she questions there marks, would you go to a doctor who only knows 60% of the material. 

I think it's unfair to label a generation. The attitude and toys are always there at that age. I know Y's who didn't finish high school and baby boomers as well. They just quit.

Don't quit teaching the students. My first English prof told us high schooled failed us, spent two months teaching us grammar and essay writing, then crammed in the course. I was a lucky student - 1986. And yes I feel besides science and math, high school failed to deliver.

I too will help out our kids IF the effort and direction is there (proper courses). I wouldn't have made it without my parents help. No room and board in school and no work except summer. House rules. Not in school, room and board. This was a great way for my brother to save money for 5 years before school. They sacrificed hard for us being lower middle class. I have true respect for this.

Also, I saw a recent study where school is 3x as expensive now as the 80's and my friends were graduation $70,000 in debt then. Then having to buy houses and businesses. I can't see it even being possible now in many cases.

Agree with many posts, trades are the place to be, but still need post secondary. Life without arts and science is just plugging along. That's where the big discoveries and entertainment come from. However, tough to make a living. Better to leave for retirement.


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

I wonder how much of these conversations are just the "new version" of things that have passed before.

For example, in the 60's it would have been the parents of the hippies that would have been shaking their fists... And today, while there's shaking of the fists at the "princess generation" keep in mind that it's that generation which is inventing things faster than breakneck speed. Digital technologies that are a whole different level of consumption. Technology startups, web services, etc... These jobs are being worked at by 20-something "go-getters."

Sure, there's more WIIFM, but also because of the lack of employer dedication. Everyone got a medal. Everyone was bubble wrapped...

But in 50 years are we going to look back and say "gee whiz, the Bill Gate's and Paul Allen's that came from the 'hippy' generation are similar to the "name here" and "name here" who invented a warp drive and allowed us to travel from planet to planet and begin to colonize." All of a sudden, the human race that was limited to a single planet of consumption has now spread across multiple planets of consumption. Consumption continues, the human race is diversified (we're not all on one rock that can be taken out with an asteroid) and we're growing as an intergalactic economy...

Who knows...

It's like the Baz Lurham, "Everybody's Free to wear sunscreen" song says...

_Accept certain inalienable truths
Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you, too, will get old
And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young
Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble
And children respected their elders_


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Another problem is the boomers refusing to retire, so there is no room to hire new people. I work at an office building and it's crazy how many old people I see, many of them have to be well above 65. Why aren't they lying on a beach somewhere?


----------



## lost in space (Aug 31, 2015)

rl1983 said:


> Took the words out of my mouth! Dead on.
> 
> I've felt like there's a weight on my shoulders since entering the job market in 2001. Seems like there's always a recession that doesn't ever go away. In the last two years, I got an apprenticeship but was laid off when oil went down. It was too bad, it was the first time in my working career, that I made money like that.


I graduated high school in 1980 and it was pretty much the same then, minimum wage jobs temporary work etc. But the main difference I see now from then back is it's damm near impossible to get hired full time permenant. My wife, shortly after we got married, got hired on full time at Manulife as a receptionist, generally if they like you, they hired you. Today my niece works there and said had she graduated today she would was never gotten hired full time as they now only hire temps. 

The one HUGE advantage that young people have now is the internet and blogs. Back then my wife and I were clueless on money management today there are hundreds of blogs which talk about money frugal living etc. If we had access to that kind of info when we first got married we'd be millionaires. Sadly we didn't' find out about this stuff till our late 40s. We'll have a great retirement but it won't happen till my wife is 60 and me 63


If you're struggling than I highly recommend blogs like MMM (bit to hard core for me) annd Frugalwoods


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

lost in space said:


> I graduated high school in 1980 and it was pretty much the same then, minimum wage jobs temporary work etc. But the main difference I see now from then back is it's damm near impossible to get hired full time permenant. My wife, shortly after we got married, got hired on full time at Manulife as a receptionist, generally if they like you, they hired you. Today my niece works there and said had she graduated today she would was never gotten hired full time as they now only hire temps.
> 
> The one HUGE advantage that young people have now is the internet and blogs. Back then my wife and I were clueless on money management today there are hundreds of blogs which talk about money frugal living etc. If we had access to that kind of info when we first got married we'd be millionaires. Sadly we didn't' find out about this stuff till our late 40s. We'll have a great retirement but it won't happen till my wife is 60 and me 63
> 
> ...


Too true. My dad worked at Sears. Started as salesman, and after many years, took some university evening business course and made low level management. We did ok, but he freely admits it's impossible today. They only hire part time so they don't have to pay benefits. Dad went through the Eatons years, when Eatons failed. Sears survived by computerizing, offering retirement packages to higher paid management, going part time, cutting staff, and every time someone retired the job was eliminated and put on him or others. A once proud company with fantastic customer service, great employees and benefits turned into empty higher end wall marts between the age of 6 and 18 for me. That Walmart attitude makes it hard hard for the average joe to find work. Dad started happy and enjoyed his job until the last 10 years when the changes happened. Lost a lot of good colleagues and it was difficult to hire quality employees like before. Those that were would quit as soon as as something good came along. Became quite dissolutioned and couldn't wait to quit. Sears likely won't survive. The wall mart effect. Company killers.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Sherlock said:


> Another problem is the boomers refusing to retire, so there is no room to hire new people. I work at an office building and it's crazy how many old people I see, many of them have to be well above 65. Why aren't they lying on a beach somewhere?


Poor money management or nothing else to do. Mortality rates are very high after retirement. No, not just age for you witty members! Boredom and lack of purpose. Also, their social life often revolves around work.

Still in someways, I do respect those who, enjoy there jobs and jeep working. But step aside and make way for the younger generations. I know one boomer that's going back to university for fun and another who plans to do Starbucks, just for social reasons. My parents did charity work, drive really old folks etc.

It's important to develop interests besides work when younger. Many didn't or couldn't due to time constraints.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I retired I thought I might like to try something different, so I applied at a car dealership to drive around picking up and delivering parts.

The guy calls me and says......."you have a good resume but you worked for quite awhile. How old are you" ? I told him I was 55 and he said........."we were looking for someone who would be committing to being with us for a long time."

I said.........."you pay the minimum wage. How long do you expect people will commit to working for you" ?

I didn't get the job.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Walmart has been mentioned.

_The six Waltons on Forbes’ list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company.

The Waltons aren’t just the face of the 1%; they’re the face of the 0.000001%. *The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined*._

Unlike Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who will donate much of their fortunes, the Waltons fight tooth and nail to keep every dime of their fortune.

They control a business that not only depends heavily on consumer food stamps, but pay so poorly their own employees rely on food stamps as well.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

sags said:


> When I retired I thought I might like to try something different, so I applied at a car dealership to drive around picking up and delivering parts.
> 
> The guy calls me and says......."you have a good resume but you worked for quite awhile. How old are you" ? I told him I was 55 and he said........."we were looking for someone who would be committing to being with us for a long time."
> 
> ...


Well, if it makes you feel any better, I worked as a proper cook for three years. Until the restaurant closed. I was then turned down by DAIRY QUEEN! Finally caught on as a pizza cook. This was in my university years though.

Guess My wife and I can change plans for a career change at 55 (well my wife at least). We both thought it may be fun. Thanks for the heads up.

I won't shop at wall mart (or Costco). I feel shopping there continues the cycle and support local merchants instead. I've seen its effect in small towns. Wall mart is the only store left. It's an evil empire like Disney. 
Unfortunately it's not good for my budget, but I feel it's for the greater good although my effort is really worthless.

The Waltons have 42% of the wealth??? Jeez, what happens when you add in the rest of the super rich? Do regular people have any money. It reminds me of that old witch that owned the Empire State Building and thought she shouldn't have to to pay taxes. Went to jail instead. Ended up leaving all her money to her dog when she died. Some things are just wrong. And the Walton's are it.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

GPM said:


> I won't shop at wall mart (or Costco). I feel shopping there continues the cycle and support local merchants instead. I've seen its effect in small towns. Wall mart is the only store left. It's an evil empire like Disney.
> Unfortunately it's not good for my budget, but I feel it's for the greater good although my effort is really worthless.


Yes, I also dislike Walmart's treatment of workers. But just curious what's wrong with Costco? It's true a new Costco in a town would put some small shops out of business but Costco seems to pay their workers well above average - http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Costco-Wholesale-Hourly-Pay-E2590.htm which would ultimately be good for the town/city they operate in.

The workers also generally seem pretty happy and friendly...despite working at very busy and crowded stores. But I could just be blinded by the Kirkland cookies...so good, and those giant Salmon pieces, and don't even get me started on the hot dogs...$1.50 for hot dog+drink! ahhh I'm hungry now!


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

protomok said:


> Yes, I also dislike Walmart's treatment of workers. But just curious what's wrong with Costco? It's true a new Costco in a town would put some small shops out of business but Costco seems to pay their workers well above average - http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Costco-Wholesale-Hourly-Pay-E2590.htm which would ultimately be good for the town/city they operate in.
> 
> The workers also generally seem pretty happy and friendly...despite working at very busy and crowded stores. But I could just be blinded by the Kirkland cookies...so good, and those giant Salmon pieces, and don't even get me started on the hot dogs...$1.50 for hot dog+drink! ahhh I'm hungry now!


Indeed, I'm getting hungry too - it's supper time for me! And they sell interesting items cheap as well. I should have been more clear. I don't include them on the evil empires list. In fact I think they are ok in larger centres and provide some price competition. However, they are a bit,tough on cities(towns) starting at about 50,000 people and under. People in smaller towns will drive 2 hours to one of these centres on a Saturday. So they do some damage to local but mostly the outlying businesses. However, as you say the wages are decent for the town they are in, and the people are happy unlike super store, extra foods, and shop right (shop easy? In the tiny towns - can't remember - all the same parent company). I've never seen people who want to be elsewhere so bad, especially compared to Safeway and Thrifties. Better spark up the BBQ for your hot dogs!


----------



## ashin1 (Mar 22, 2014)

So whatever happened to young adults going into careers they actually see having security in the future. Not that they do not exist, but its common now a days that i see peers or people couple years younger than me fail to construct a plan to outline their life as well as fiscal vitality. I see lots of young adults saying they have no desire to go back to college because they haven't found a career that will go well with their life yet, they would rather spend an extra 3 plus years of their youth working minimum wage with no benefits. Not to say that you have to go to college to succeed, but the failure to orchestrate a plan in general is a huge reason for the growing epidemic of adult children. 
Either way there is a price to pay for everything, good or bad. It's whether or not we want to pay it. And that boils down to how bad you want it.(with some realism i suppose, example you will never ever be superman)


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Couldnt be truer. Arts and science is deceptively interesting, but no jobs.. The image still burned into my head is the two 45 year old + lab instructors in zoology sitting behind their desks making nothing and waiting for the prof to retire - the only job and only one would get it.

Parents: 
I am not usually a blamer, but I am in this case. 
1. All these directionless kids should be getting some advice from parents who've been in the work force for at least 15 years. Even the most unfortunate have bosses, friends, or neighbours who are successful to some degree or saw a divorce lawyer.(heh heh - hey by statistics only!). Don't the kids wonder who works in those towers or owns the big houses (I'm not materialistic, but was intrigued!). In my case my dad had a doctor (as an aquantance only) to tell me what university was. I was the first to attend university in my family.

2. The parents should buy the poor souls the wealthy barber at least, no matter how bad of financial condition they are in personally. My dad did. Didn't want second generation mistakes.

Going back to school like you said is hard, especially with a family, but I've seen it done three times at least. One spouse works. In their cases, they then switched. No one said life is supposed to be easy. I respect everyone, but have never had any use for laziness. If the job isn't there get back in school and eat your mistake.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

Good post by Sherlock re people continuing to work in later life even if they can afford to retire. Know of several teachers, a retired principal, a banker, and several others who I know have a good net worth and some with indexed gov pensions (teachers) who continue to work while young graduates can't even get on the sub list as teachers. Must be greed or they have no life outside of work. I know one who is around 73 or thereabouts and has a good pension but still works while younger people just want a chance to prove themselves. In my opinion this is just not fair to the younger generation. , While I'm on this rant "Why do teachers who retire still get seniority ?" Must be in the union contract. (Hope I'm right here??)


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Definitely. Find something else to do. From my knowledge (I know a few teachers), their pension maxes out at about 53-55 (20 years of service). Get out and let the kids take over. They do nothing but whine about their work anyways. One of the most expensive houses in our town was owned by two teachers. WAY bigger than any of the doctors, but hey why save when you have a full pension. The most dangerous place in the world is the out ramp of a schools staff parking lot at 3:30. No recess, lunch, coaching or other duties. That's all done by parents now. Oops off topic rant.

I graduated in '93 with 16 kids in my college (small - uofs) and watched with astonishment as ~500 teachers graduated with no hope of jobs. Most of my friends went north to First Nations except the one who's dad was on the school board. Convenient how he got a job in Saskatoon directly out of school, with how many in line. They are finally getting non rural jobs now, but more are graduating.

On the bright side, my best friend and his wife will be heading to the third world in 6 years (53 y/o) to teach in retirement. Making a difference. The plan is Thailand, and I know several others that have gone.
Great place to retire too, but the politics are changing. Another retired at 45, because if the politics, and opened a B and B in Mexico. Nice. There are things to do do in retirement, and teachers are set up perfectly to take advantage of it. Not sure why so many don't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

In economic terms, it benefits society if people continue to work later rather than retiring. These people support themselves rather than living on the largesse of the government or their own savings, which they then pass on to their children (or otherwise do not consume).


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Well...that's a very interesting outlook...the exact opposite of everyone....Definitely a lot truth economically for sure. Never thought if it that way. What are your thoughts on the benefits of people working longer skipping out on benefits, vs young people in the work force paying taxes to "support" them and the future of the millenials with a slow start.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the angst about people retiring later not 'making room' for younger workers is the lump of labour fallacy. On balance, millenials are probably better off of the boomers keep working as long as possible. Their inheritance will be bigger and their tax bills will be smaller. Also, boomers will have higher disposable income in retirement. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The fact is 65% of older folks do not have pensions other than CPP & OAS.
The average person or couple do not have half a million in RRSP's .


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

I thought my post was pretty clear in that the people I was referring to who worked past the normal retirement age of 65, soon to be 67, had sufficient income, pensions, or assets to survive and meet their needs in a comfortable fashion. Of course if people do not have this income or investments they will have to work longer or reduce their living standard, possibly significantly. Those with these pensions or other income (RIFs, investments, etc) do not live off the government. I retired at 56 and certainly don't get much from the government, a reduced CPP and a partially clawed back OAP. I just pay more tax on RIF withdrawals, dividend and interest income, etc. The end result of my retiring was another person got hired and there was no drain on the economy. I agree that if persons cannot afford to retire and are forced to that they could be a net drain on the system.
I guess I could have continued worked for another 10 years or and supported my grown children as there were no jobs for them and eventually they could eke on an existence on their inheritance. Sorry, not my style and my children have good jobs, children, own their own homes, and are doing fine on their own but they know I am always there for them including financially if required.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

andrewf said:


> In economic terms, it benefits society if people continue to work later rather than retiring. These people support themselves rather than living on the largesse of the government or their own savings, which they then pass on to their children (or otherwise do not consume).


The opposite argument is certainly more of an immediate problem and in our faces, but I think you're right.

Now that you mention it, perhaps it's best. At least the aged workers in our country (not just teachers) are making high salaries. The amount of money passed down through the family even after taxes and expenses may be more than what the millennial will be able to earn on their own.

I'm sure most companies are just itching to have their boomers retire so they can be replaced with the exact same number of millennial staff who will be required, with their limited experience, to fumble through the same job at half the salary.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

But high-up boomers won't be replaced by entry-level millenials, but by some middle aged person who is next in line, then someone else will replace that guy, and then finally the millenial will replace that guy. There are at least several rungs on the ladder between incoming millenials and outgoing boomers in most cases.

Personally I would much rather have the opportunity to work at a steady non-temp job in my early career and climb the corporate ladder at a reasonable pace, than be poor until middle age and inherit money from my boomer parents when they die when I'm 50.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

lost in space said:


> ... My wife, shortly after we got married, got hired on full time at Manulife as a receptionist, generally if they like you, they hired you. Today my niece works there and said had she graduated today she would was never gotten hired full time as they now only hire temps.


Interesting ... I can remember long stretches where several of the Canadian insurers would only hire temps or liked to be reporting their "over-budget" as being a temporary situation, back in the mid-80's.

The worst case I was party to was where instead of hiring students to do network wiring, management preferred to pay electricians overtime at a much higher rate. The justification despite years of OT for either employees or electricians was that benefits were too expensive for the "exceptional" year.

It seemed that evidence, creative thinking about how to get the job done and the overall hit to the budget took a back seat to conventional management wisdom/confidence in what was needed going forward. 




lost in space said:


> ... The one HUGE advantage that young people have now is the internet and blogs...


True ... for those willing to pay attention.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

GPM said:


> Poor money management or nothing else to do.


Wanting the same cash flow plus missing the big picture plays into it as well.

I can recall many co-workers noticing the latest lottery winner back when one million was big money, commenting that "it's nice but not enough to change one's situation".
Most hated their jobs where they were making $30K. On followup discussion, "not enough" was more often than not driven by "I want three cars, a villa in Rome" as opposed to "I'll happily change jobs to something I enjoy".




GPM said:


> ... Mortality rates are very high after retirement. No, not just age for you witty members! Boredom and lack of purpose. Also, their social life often revolves around work ...
> 
> It's important to develop interests besides work when younger. Many didn't or couldn't due to time constraints.


As one retirement advisor put in it a session my dad went to, "if you aren't doing it before retirement, what makes you think you'll pick it up after?".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

GPM said:


> Definitely. Find something else to do. From my knowledge (I know a few teachers), their pension maxes out at about 53-55 (20 years of service).


Interesting ... the teachers I know would have loved to retire after twenty years on a full pension but had to stay longer.
The references I've found in the past to the pension paid talked about more along the lines of a thirty to thirty-five year time frame to qualify for a full pension.

You sure these aren't administrators?


Cheers


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

In BC the rule of 90 is one criteria and there is a 2% accrual rate. Certainly can't retire at age 55 with a full pension unless your age and length of service equals 90 which would seem pretty hard to do. A search on the internet should provide details.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Eclectic12 said:


> Interesting ... the teachers I know would have loved to retire after twenty years on a full pension but had to stay longer.
> The references I've found in the past to the pension paid talked about more along the lines of a thirty to thirty-five year time frame to qualify for a full pension.
> 
> You sure these aren't administrators?
> ...


Yes, one is actually, and 2 principles. Not sure if principles are admin. All have teaching wives, so that could be confusing me. Wouldn't be the first time. Also, all small town before eventually city/Mexico. Pretty nice wages where cost of living is next to nothing. That may have made a difference as well. Not totally pension I suppose.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Woops! Bad math. You are correct. Thirty years to Thirty Five!. My friends were all up and running by 21 or 22. That puts them at 51-57. The family going to Thailand will be stopping at 55. I obviously wasn't thinking.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

GPM said:


> Woops! Bad math...I obviously wasn't thinking.


No worries. At least we know your poor and unsubstantiated opinion of teachers.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> No worries. At least we know your poor and unsubstantiated opinion of teachers.


Actually, my opinion of teachers is very poor and totally substantiated. They hold the general population hostage with every yearly strike, as they are no more than educated babysitters for dual income families. Having come from Saskatchewan, I have watched them screw every other union in the province by striking themselves out of legislated maximum wage increases many times. They are overpaid whiners. I have never met a more negative profession in my life. I look back happily with every strike, at turning down the opportunity to be a teacher. Would've ignored the union every time and crossed the picket line to actually do my job, you know, in the best interest of the STUDENTS.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

GPM said:


> Actually, my opinion of teachers is very poor and totally substantiated... I have watched them screw every other union in the province... They are overpaid whiners.


Shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but I can't stand racism or racial profiling - or in this case, broad conclusions about a group of individuals based on your opinion of their union's actions.


> I have never met a more negative profession in my life.


Then you haven't been around much.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Actually I've been around more than I would've liked. Based my opinions on personal relationships as well. Got tired of poor me stories. Nice try with the quote from another post. Teacher perhaps? By the way, I've worked on First Nations and in welfare towns so I've seen racism up front, not to mention in other countries. Funny, saw it my classrooms growing up too. From the teachers. There is a rising wave of desent against teachers in BC who of been involved in "job action" for several years now. Or as I call it, not working. Ludicrous with their wages and benefits. Interesting, this being in the princess thread, with teachers being at the forefront of entitlement. When I moved to BC, a principle friend from Saskatchewan told me "if you can afford it, get out of the public school fiasco." Pulled my kids out and put them in the private schools he recommended. Private School - hate paying, but...Aaah, no unions and no strikes. Teachers actually working and in the best interest of the kids too. RefreSHHHing.
Well, everyone's entitled to there own opinion.
By the way, I'm also ill informed about dentists, the greediest profession there is. The "nice guys" just have their game faces on. Trust me, I KNOW.
Tiring of the Canadian Money Forum extremely quickly. Time to change.


----------



## namelessone (Sep 28, 2012)

Young people need to live a tough life sometime in life. Green house flower can't withstand the rain storm. 10 years ago, fresh out of university, couldn't find an engineering related job, lived in an cheap apartment with bedbugs and mold. Suffered some health damages but recovered later. Walked 2 hours to work for a few days in snow storm during Ottawa bus strike. I was well equipped but still needed to take frequent break at banks ATM to warm up. And did a tandum skydiving to celebrate 30 birthday.Best of all, mastered DIY investing and well on my way to early retirement despite earning just 30k /year with little to no pay increase and have a house and a car to maintain.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

GPM said:


> Definitely. Find something else to do. From my knowledge (I know a few teachers), their pension maxes out at about 53-55 (20 years of service). Get out and let the kids take over. They do nothing but whine about their work anyways. One of the most expensive houses in our town was owned by two teachers. WAY bigger than any of the doctors, but hey why save when you have a full pension. The most dangerous place in the world is the out ramp of a schools staff parking lot at 3:30. No recess, lunch, coaching or other duties. That's all done by parents now. Oops off topic rant.
> 
> I graduated in '93 with 16 kids in my college (small - uofs) and watched with astonishment as ~500 teachers graduated with no hope of jobs. Most of my friends went north to First Nations except the one who's dad was on the school board. Convenient how he got a job in Saskatoon directly out of school, with how many in line. They are finally getting non rural jobs now, but more are graduating.
> 
> ...


Teachers in our province and that of 2 other provinces I know max pensions at 35 years of service, not 20. Administrators are the same, and this is basically consistent with other prov. government employees.

Some teachers whine about their work but almost certainly do a lot of work besides that. I am married to a retired one with tremendous commitment, who simply had enough at 30 years of service. It isn't the panacea some people think. The teachers you know that had the big house were likely very frugal and sharp with their finances. I don't know too many who aren't.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Hey, I am a high school teacher. I work half time...semi retired........BUT I coach my curling team after school Feb and March...run a club at noon and supervise lunch hours every 3 days.....plus for my 2 English classes I mark at LEAST an hour and a 1/2 a day.....a day......then I mark on the weekends. Last year I taught a grade 12 high level diploma class...when I was not on supervision I tutored students at lunch hour. My marking load last year was higher because of this course.

All I am saying.....if I worked full time it would kill me at my age....(; And I am not the only teacher doing this. In Alberta we have a very highly ranked education system. Our parents rightly demand excellence and our English marks in my school are above provincial average. There is a reason 50% of teachers leave the profession before 5 years!!!!! Just saying. (;


----------



## namelessone (Sep 28, 2012)

There's nothing wrong for single young adults to live with their parents as long as those adults are not lazy and not wasting their time. It's a great way to share cost and reduce living expense. However, once the young adults have their own family and if two families live together, there's good chance of having conflicts between families.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

But you can't bring a chick home if you still live with your parents. First of all, girls won't want to date you if you don't have your own place (you're regarded as a loser), and second of all even if you do find someone willing to date you, how are you gonna "watch netflix and chill" if your parents are in the next room?


----------



## namelessone (Sep 28, 2012)

Cultural difference.
How about the other way: the parents are depending on the young adults due to language and many life skills.
If the girls are on the same page, they won't mind during dating stage.In my culture, dating happens outside of home. For the girl to meet parents, or vice versa,that means the relationship is getting very serious.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

RBull said:


> Teachers in our province and that of 2 other provinces I know max pensions at 35 years of service, not 20. Administrators are the same, and this is basically consistent with other prov. government employees.
> 
> Some teachers whine about their work but almost certainly do a lot of work besides that. I am married to a retired one with tremendous commitment, who simply had enough at 30 years of service. It isn't the panacea some people think. The teachers you know that had the big house were likely very frugal and sharp with their finances. I don't know too many who aren't.


Hi RBull,

Yes, I did make a mistake about the 20 years - it should have been 30 -35. However, my point was a 55 - 57 retirement age, which is most peoples goal. It was an obvious mistake. I certainly have NO PROBLEM with the older generation of teachers. I had some excellent ones, who were great influences. Obviously retired now! Commitment to the kids, approachable, and genuinely nice - coached, recess supervision, the the whole package. I had a lot of respect for them, and nearly BECAME a teacher due to their influence. Other interests pulled me a different direction. However, even though I am very pro Union, today, I believe that teachers and one other certain Union that my mother and sister are in (will remain unnamed as I don't want a battle or to be the most hated member of the forum or in my family, heh heh), are taking advantage of their position in society, advancing themselves ahead of other unions such as my brothers and some others I have friends in. The others don't have the "weight", so they have to agree to legislated increases, and then the teachers and unsaid union strike for much better agreements. It's a fairness issue to me, as these other unions are forced to 0,0,1% increases which are below inflation. Then the teachers and other unions strike for much better increases. My brother, who is in tech nearly had a thrombi when they agreed to province wide legislation on increases, and the teachers and unsaid Union reneged. 

Now to be fair, I may have had bad experiences, which may not be systemic, but unfortunately in my experience with friends and teachers in various areas, there is an ever present negativity your wife might be disappointed in. Of course, negativity spreads like cancer, in any organization if allowed. Also, my recent school experience have the teachers not supervising recess or lunch. It's farmed out. Anyhow, I'm glad your wife was positive and enjoyed a once highly respected career, hope that my experiences are isolated occurrences, although,from colleagues across the country and friends, I fear they are not. 

Oh yes, teaching is certainly not a panacea anymore. They are no longer respected and are a frequent target of parents wanting better marks and preferential treatment for their kids and can't discipline the students. No, I don't mean beatings! I have always believed this was the source of the negativity, as well as working for "the man." It's actually the reason my one principle friend quit and opened a bed and breakfast in Mexico. He was a much liked teacher and principle, but tired of the politics. A regretable loss too the town. 

Unfortunately, my friends money skills are questionable with a demanding wife. They turned down the house I eventually bought, and "better ones" to build a nicer one. Mine was nice??? And My wife and I had a similar incomes. They ran into money trouble and had to flip a house to make money (lucky for two months holiday) and it took forever to sell. They were sweating. Unfortunately, they are house bound. Pity with their matching jobs and good income. They could have used CMF and advice rom you and your circle of friends. 

Note:the difference between my family and theirs is no pension "the hidden income."

Great to hear others views as usual.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Hey Spirit! 
Now you are the kind of teacher EVERYONE is looking for - committed and putting the students first, especially the tutoring, and advanced courses. I had this experience in school. English-not an easy subject to keep kids interested in! However, it was my favourite. Clubs, coaching, you must be loved by your students. You obviously enjoy your job , which I greatly respect. Every job should be or can be made fun. Didn't know about Alberta's high ranking. I learn something everyday. 50% drop out is definitely interesting. I'd be curious if it's your standards or nationwide. Teachers can impact students like no other people. I believe you are one of those people making a difference. It's great to hear this counterbalance to my experiences. I hope you spread your enthusiasm and love for your job to the up and coming teachers!


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

namelessone said:


> Young people need to live a tough life sometime in life. Green house flower can't withstand the rain storm. 10 years ago, fresh out of university, couldn't find an engineering related job, lived in an cheap apartment with bedbugs and mold. Suffered some health damages but recovered later. Walked 2 hours to work for a few days in snow storm during Ottawa bus strike. I was well equipped but still needed to take frequent break at banks ATM to warm up. And did a tandum skydiving to celebrate 30 birthday.Best of all, mastered DIY investing and well on my way to early retirement despite earning just 30k /year with little to no pay increase and have a house and a car to maintain.


Totally agree. No one forgets a tough start. Hard times are a great teacher if learned from. It's impressive to see you on your way to early retirement with a slow start and a lower wage for Canada. People making 4x you live live paycheque to paycheque, with no savings. Skydiving. Interesting choice of a birthday celebration - jumping out of a perfectly good plane!


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Thank you for the detailed reply GPM. 

We agree it is no panacea for teachers and you're certainly right about some of the "crap" they have to put up with. 

I am no fan of unions. IMO, no public or civil servants should be able to belong to one. They are mostly in jobs where there is no private competition for their jobs and therefore all could be considered essential service workers, since taxpayers have no other options. They do not need protection from their ultimate employers and customers- the taxpayer. Public unions have gotten far too powerful, governments have caved to their demands too often and there is no benefit to taxpayers to allow this to continue. 

To be clear few if any teachers (I know of none in 4 different provinces) will have a *max* pension at age 53 or 55 or at 30 years of service. 70% of salary is the normal max calculated at 2%/yr =35 years of service or likely age 57/58 with typical 4yr+ post secondary education. They will likely be eligible for a *reduced* 60% pension at age 53 range assuming they finished university at age 22, and had 30 years of service.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Hi GPM. Thanks for the kind words (; In the 70's Alberta found oil in Leduc....just as I was starting in my profession. For the first time ever...we had extra money and put it into the classroom. We started learning about special needs students. Jobs became much more demanding academically and the education system flourished. Many of us in the prairies were children of European immigrants who stressed hard work and getting a good education (; Along with the financial support, Alberta became a world class education system. Believe it or not we came in second to Finnland!!!!!!! Finnland has a great standard. Now the US has the best universities in the world..but when it comes to the public system, we in Canada have incredible standards. Not just in Alberta, but BC also. I will find the source...just cant put my fingers on it just now.

But like a lot of things in the last few years....cutbacks to funding....meaning less support in the classroom and way way less ability to get professional development...along with the demands for excellence......the young teachers are really burning out. I am lucky I have had great professional development during my formative years....and parents that tended to believe only 1/2 of what went on the the classroom if I only believed 1/2 of what happened at home (; Last year I had a parent that stressed me out so badly...she did not believe that I was working hard to give her son the education he deserved....I almost left the profession. If I did not have the support of my department head and principal, I KNOW I would have pulled the retirement pin. I am lucky...other teachers do not have that kind of support. I am not blaming my administrators.....they are under extreme pressure to please all stakeholders...an impossible job.

Anyway, I still love my profession....teach to my standards and love my students. They are great kids and will find a way to forge their path (;

Here is one of the links that refers to our terrible retention rate....by the way...if I was starting out all over again...I do NOT think I would choose teaching as a career.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/31/four-in-10-new-teachers-quit-within-a-year


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadian-education-ranked-among-world-s-best-1.940247

For those interested...here is one link ranking Canada and Alberta ( the province I am familiar with) and their standings in world educational standards. Second in the world in reading standards......lower in Math....this is from 2009 but it is the latest study I know of. (;

I know that when I was working on my masters....in 2002, my professor told us that they were all being headhunted to go teach in China and other countries. Many have left for a much less strenuous teaching load. Glad he stayed...he was a wonderful professor.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

one more...this is the last one.....need to get back to my marking (; Fun time on the forum is over


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

RBull said:


> Thank you for the detailed reply GPM.
> 
> We agree it is no panacea for teachers and you're certainly right about some of the "crap" they have to put up with.
> 
> ...


Yes, that sounds exactly right. My dads friend was closing in on 60. I think he may tutor now. Of my friends, one fellow was married to a nurse, and must have just quit. She still works, but they must have had enough. Good planning and what not-I would think about 50 y/0. One moved to Mexico at 40. Cheap living, and running bead and breakfast. One may have been 57 but looked fifty and went to Thailand (husband much older so "working retirement"). My principle friends and the couple in trouble were planning 55. They may misunderstand their compensation arrangement or be rounding off. The one couple is planning Thailand to work for the needy and may not care I guess. Interesting to know. 

I think a lot of people are tired of the unions. They WERE needed, but that may have run its course. I know strikes are pain in the a$$. I did criticize my mom's foolishly in university. Like a genius, I told her she was greedy. Didn't go to well! Still allowed to live at home though heh heh.

Like I say cosidered being a teacher, but wouldn't have done well in a union I think. Maybe if I hadn't been my own boss first. Don't like the classroom sizes anymore either.

Gee, and I thought everyone was the millionaire teacher. What a misleading book!


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

spirit said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
> 
> one more...this is the last one.....need to get back to my marking (; Fun time on the forum is over


Hey Spirit,
Interesting articles. Its good to know Canada ranks well still even with the underfunding. Pity, you wouldn't pick teaching again as a career seeing your passion for it. However, I'm not surprised. I think it's the same in any jobs where you deal directly with the public. My job was the same, 90% of people were good, but 10% could really take the wind out of your sails. I tried to concentrate on the 90%. Back to the thread, I wonder if some of these factors are related to millennium career choices and sticking with it - the two things they are criticized for?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

GPM said:


> Yes, that sounds exactly right. My dads friend was closing in on 60. I think he may tutor now. Of my friends, one fellow was married to a nurse, and must have just quit. She still works, but they must have had enough. Good planning and what not-I would think about 50 y/0. One moved to Mexico at 40. Cheap living, and running bead and breakfast. One may have been 57 but looked fifty and went to Thailand (husband much older so "working retirement"). My principle friends and the couple in trouble were planning 55. They may misunderstand their compensation arrangement or be rounding off. The one couple is planning Thailand to work for the needy and may not care I guess. Interesting to know.
> 
> I think a lot of people are tired of the unions. They WERE needed, but that may have run its course. I know strikes are pain in the a$$. I did criticize my mom's foolishly in university. Like a genius, I told her she was greedy. Didn't go to well! Still allowed to live at home though heh heh.
> 
> ...


My wife retired at 53. Most teachers we know don't seem to work after that- not even substituting P/T. They're burnt out from the profession. 

Many teachers (and most all that worked 30+ years) really are millionaires when you consider the value of their pension- say $45k x 30 years = $1.35m and more if they have benefit of indexing. Andrew Hallam undoubtedly also has a few dollars of his own.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Sampson said:


> I do find it interesting that there is never mention of demographics. As more immigrants come to North America, they often bring traditions where unmarried (and sometimes married) adult children continue to live with their parents. It only seems it has finally caught up with North Americans as the economic disparity among wealthy and 'lower' income widens.


Yes, but if they are adult children and not in school they are expected to contribute financially to the household.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't understand the general thrashing of unions on these threads.

The origin of unions was workers banding together to achieve better workplace conditions, wages and benefits.

When I look around today's world, it seems to me that business is re-creating the same conditions in the workplace as led to the creation of unions.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Good comment on unions Sags. I constantly have this discussion when I am with my friends who come more from the private sector. Our last discussion...I made the comment that they should look to the occupations that are part of a union/association. Firefighters, police, ambulance...then of course teachers, doctors, lawyers, judicial, press. What is one factor they have in common? By and large they belong to a standard of law...of being uncorruptable.

I challenged them to name 1....just 1 country where they did not have unions and if they would want to live, work, raise their family there. Perhaps it was the wine, good food and good conversation...but they could not name 1 country they would want to live where there was not an uncorruptable civil service.

Anyway, just my opinion...the best thing about this country is....I have a vote...you have a vote (; You may disagree with me but we can still go for a coffee later. (;


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the problem most people have with unions is not so much those representing vulnerable workers (retail employees, manual labourers, etc.) but those representing well-compensated, protected workers, particularly those in the public sector. Those unions are essentially structured to extract ever more from the public purse, for those who are already better compensated than the private sector. And that compensation is borne by those who are less advantaged through higher taxation or lower benefits.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think the problem most people have with unions is not so much those representing vulnerable workers (retail employees, manual labourers, etc.) but those representing well-compensated, protected workers, particularly those in the public sector. Those unions are essentially structured to extract ever more from the public purse, for those who are already better compensated than the private sector. And that compensation is borne by those who are less advantaged through higher taxation or lower benefits.


+1


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's easy to paint with a broad brush as there are many public sector people who make less than their private equivalents.


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Interesting viewpoints coming through here and compelling arguments. I am going to throw out a challenge...the same one I made to my friends. Look at all the countries of the world.....name 1 that you would live, work and raise a family in. Not talking about a place where you would retire to AFTER you made your money. I am talking about living a full life....with the profession you have now, over many generations. Is there a country, other than Canada that you would live in that does not have unions as we do?

There is no right or wrong answer.....I cannot think of one myself...but we really only travel in Canada. I am a travel virgin (;


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

none said:


> It's easy to paint with a broad brush as there are many public sector people who make less than their private equivalents.


Is that the exception that proves the rule? Public sector workers tend to be better compensated (total compensation terms) per hour of work. A lot of that comes from shorter work hours/lower productivity than in the private sector.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

spirit said:


> Interesting viewpoints coming through here and compelling arguments. I am going to throw out a challenge...the same one I made to my friends. Look at all the countries of the world.....name 1 that you would live, work and raise a family in. Not talking about a place where you would retire to AFTER you made your money. I am talking about living a full life....with the profession you have now, over many generations. Is there a country, other than Canada that you would live in that does not have unions as we do?
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.....I cannot think of one myself...but we really only travel in Canada. I am a travel virgin (;


This is an extremely weak argument. This is confusing correlation with causation. Developed countries tend to be nice to live in and tend to have at least some unionization. It is incorrect to then conclude that unions cause livability.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

As usual great posts andrewf. 

Couldn't agree more with all you've stated here about unions and particularly public ones.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Is that the exception that proves the rule? Public sector workers tend to be better compensated (total compensation terms) per hour of work. A lot of that comes from shorter work hours/lower productivity than in the private sector.


Not at all but it's easy to over generalize. 

I think legal collusion is a bigger issue in Canada. People who work for telecomes & financial industries for example have great wage protection (due to legal collusion) that allow them to be paid more than they are really worth.

I'd have to see some analysis that government workers are less productive and get paid much more. Yes, government salaries on average are better I'm sure but that is at least partially a function that governments don't employee minimum wage fast food workers that can bring down the average. Anyway, I could be wrong, I'm just comparing it to my field. I had a similarly qualified friend who was offered a government job which he turned down b/c private compensation is quite a bit higher.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Even for like jobs, many highly paid professionals would tend to work more like 50 to 60 hours a week in the private sector, while a government employee is punching the clock at 35 hours. That accounts for a large difference in compensation. I would argue that those in the public sector _should_ be paid slightly less than the private sector average for similar work, since their employer is very stable leading to higher job security.

Another way to frame the question is that public sector compensation should be set closer to the market clearing price. Something is awry when you have tens of thousands of people chasing a relatively small number of teaching jobs, with 7 year waiting lists for full-time employment. Part of the problem is that mediocre teachers are protected from being replaced by younger, more effective teachers. I have no problem with paying teachers well, given the evidence that I have seen that students perform better when taught by good teachers, even when that takes place in a large class. Maximum class sizes at 20 are more about generating lots of additional positions to be staffed by mediocre teachers. I say pay them like professionals and have them teach closer to 40-50 students, supplemented with teaching assistants. And turf the ineffective ones.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Possibly. Poor suckers who think working 50-60 hours per week is somehow normal. People let themselves be taken advantage of and many people martyr themselves for work which I think is weird. I think I'm fairly compensated for the work I do. Many would disagree (that I'm actually underpaid) but like you say work/life balance can count for a lot. Personally I like only having to put in 35 per week. I frequently put in more but I only do that if I can.

Then again, I'm a government employee working on a Sunday (and not billing it). Of course, I'm putting some time into procrastination so I'm not that angelic. 


Going by this: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...e-sector-counterparts-fraser-institute-report

It seems that yes, lower paid people are paid more in public service and that women are more equitably paid in the public service as well. THere's lot to control for. Anyway, I'm in public service so good for me - I suppose.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

Yes...Now I'm a supporter of unions too protect wages and benefits of the lower paid, especially in the wall mart era. However, Andrewf, you make many good points about protecting incompetent workers. After being self employed, I could NEVER tolerate someone less competent than me (a high achiever in everything), being promoted before me because they had more years in. THAT to me is the main problem with unions. It also promotes working as little as possible to keep their job. I should qualify that to the people so who are so inclined (there are people who use the system everywhere - spirit above and my brother are excellent examples of people not taking not taking advantage of the system). Why try, if you just have to put in time for the promotion. I had a run in at 26 with a nurses union rep over this issue. She didn't take it well, when I told her that promoting on years instead of competency was the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of, and promotes a low acheiving work environment. Don't ever do that with a heavily opinionated nurse!!! The good old days before I learnt to keep my mouth shut. Good battle though. I'm wasn't the type to back down at 26. I just don't initiate arguments now! Or at least try not to.

As an aside I was brought up in an environment where the motto was to pick a job you like, because you will be doing it for forty years. However, this was countered by tadvice that if you aren't making enough, change to a job where you are. My family isn't really into blaming or complaining.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From what I have seen, merit based decisions are very subjective and cause a lot more problems than seniority based policies.

If you want to see disgruntled employees, visit an office where merit policy is used and everyone is angry they were passed over for the job by the new person.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

sags said:


> From what I have seen, merit based decisions are very subjective and cause a lot more problems than seniority based policies.
> 
> If you want to see disgruntled employees, visit an office where merit policy is used and everyone is angry they were passed over for the job by the new person.


Well, I'm an empathetic fellow, however, if people are angry, it should be at themselves. They should be smarter or more talented. Ah capitalism is great. I HATE IT. However, you have to survive in the system. I was considered a fair boss when I worked, especially compared to the other greedy a$$holes in my profession. I had lots of applicants by reputation. Very generous with tax free performance bonuses available with personal corps. Not available to the owner. Unfortunate, as I was a FANTASTIC employee. But I ran my own business. The best got promoted/raises. Very good internal monitoring to know who did what (including stealing). It's a harsh world, and my employees jobs were to make my life easier, so I guess if they were disgruntled they new where the door was. No one left. If they ever did, I retained my superior employee. However, they were aware if my life was easier, I made more which made their life easier and increased their salary. By default. Fair. We were very symbiotic. 

However, I see your point and believe that's why Sears didn't do internal promotions when my dad worked there. By transfer only. Unfortunately I didn't have that luxury. Life would have been easier.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

It's a big issue... I think it's a lot more complicated than just calling the younger generation lazy princesses. Especially since the stats show even adults in the 40-50 range are borrowing money from relatives to upgrade their houses. 

House prices have exploded because of cheap borrowing, which has caused more borrowing.

Adults kids borrowing big money to buy a house, isn't a good idea for anyone involved, but it's not a product of laziness or often times even extravagance... it's a matter of million dollar average homes in large Canadian cities.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I think the problem most people have with unions is not so much those representing vulnerable workers (retail employees, manual labourers, etc.) but those representing well-compensated, protected workers, particularly those in the public sector. Those unions are essentially structured to extract ever more from the public purse, for those who are already better compensated than the private sector. And that compensation is borne by those who are less advantaged through higher taxation or lower benefits.


+1, completely agree.
Public sector unions comprising mostly white collar, well-paid workers have become extractive elites.
The term rent seeking comes to mind re. their behavior.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Meet "Old Economy Steve"


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Meet the "Scumbag Baby Boomers"


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

_my goodness people are in such a snit today_


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> _my goodness people are in such a snit today_


Too much time living in mommy and daddy's basement playing xbox and eating doritos will do that to people I guess :hopelessness: /sarcasm


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

^ Q.E.D. Boomers don't get it.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Geez, better take cover. 

I apologize for not picking a different time to be born and for causing all of the countries problems.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

GoldStone said:


> ^ Q.E.D. Boomers don't get it.


meh, I'm a boomer and pretty much the exact oposite of that attempt at stereotyping
yes I did drop out of highschool for a year, but came back and finished it with the beginnings of a portfolio.

I'm on the tail end of the boom so there was no draft, plus I wasn't american, but, I did sign up to the military, got training, did my service and fulfilled my contract, got out and did other things.

Worked a ton of different jobs, learned a plethora of skills, didn't ever get a job with a union,
but did buy a house for cash at age 23.

No pension and have never, and never will buy a new car and dream of a day when I can go sans-car, but have to use one for now until I'm fully retired (semi-retired at age 40).

Oh, and I didn't happen to spawn any kids, thankfully.. after listening to the rants of you parent-basement-dwelling-dorito-munching-princess-generation ingrates /end sarcasm rant (jokes ofc, but seriously.. are these self centered little lazy pkes actually serious?? .. meh


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't fit any of the millennial stereotypes either. I'm just mildly amused by everyone pointing fingers.

-Started to work for min wage at 14 (spent summers working for free before that)
-Bought my own clothes, car, gas, phone, computer, ski trips etc at 16. Started to volunteer time
-Left home at 18. Graduated university with money in the bank. Parents never paid a cent, not even the frames or ring.
-Started work immediately after university. Constantly understaffed, not enough qualified people. Lots of upwards mobility.
-Bought first house at 23 on a 10 year mortgage. Feel bad for the boomers I see still doing menial jobs.
-Had more invested at 30 than most boomers at 55 (according to stats)

I plan to jump ship from this continent before it makes the fall of the Rome look like a cake walk.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

RBull and mrP:

1. You guys are taking this discussion way too personally. We are talking about generational differences.

2. You don't like boomer stereotyping? Okay. But "princess generation" is fair game? It's right there in the thread title. This whole thread started as an exercise in stereotyping a generation.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

_most of the folks posting in this thread have said they have no children, so what could they know, really

not all folks
just most folks_


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

no worries 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lLMansJbFY


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Goldstone- maybe you're right. 

Although, I'm not slinging any shiet at anyone or any generation. 

This thread is courtesy of someone it seems many don't take too seriously. I haven't read most of it. 

It's all good. :biggrin:


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

m3s said:


> Meet the "Scumbag Baby Boomers"


Images removed, no need to duplicate.

Question, what part of the USA do you live in? Why you posting US problems in Canada. Here's the Canadian edition:

Pic1: Get an education or a trade, else burgers. Oh, sorry, relevant education, thought you were smart enough to figure it out.

Pic2: Here in Canada there is no Social Security (CPP is now funded by its recipients and their employers). There is the same Medicare EVERYONE gets, but us taxpayers supply it, are you one.

Pic3: Huh? Never heard of an "unpaid internship" in a field where employees are needed, see Pic1. My megacorp used to hire "interns". That was part of a Co-op program with a University. We paid about 3 X minimum wage. We did not hire Fine Arts students.

Pic4: Total BS. In my megacorp days we preferred new grads to those with a few years of experience. We didn't have to make them unlearn bad habits and they neither expected more $ or the ability to run the place.

While the job market may be tight, you can get one if you try.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

There's a few more baby boomer memes on google for you to debunk LBCfan, I could only post 4 at a time










meme: a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

One thing is for sure(in some ways i would classify princess with boomers!)
Boomers decimated and i mean decimated the institution of marriage
Half the people i went to school with had blended families
This fact alone makes me question how boomers as a whole can even say some of the things they say to today youth(on character)
we might all not have kids but we grow up watching how the boomers did it lol(i am actually in gen x i believe 1979)
'sticking it out' lol.....half my friends moms walked out and didn't look back mid way through the most challenging years(pre teen)
Nobody can argue against me imo
In my grandparents era you did not get a divorce ever...ever
I know a few boomers that are now on their 4th (4th)marriage
if that is not the definition of weak character i don't know what is
set a horrid example to us growing up----100% truth
I am happy my parents stayed together(easier to develop morals imo)
a lot of social decline started in the 70s and have carried to today


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> I don't fit any of the millennial stereotypes either. I'm just mildly amused by everyone pointing fingers.


Interesting ... you are amused you are being lumped in with millennial stereotypes while posting pictures of boomer stereotypes.


I know boomers and non-boomers who match & don't match the discussion descriptions/pictures.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think that is the point.


----------

