Young adults have a right to be up in arms
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
andyt @ Fri May 04, 2012 11:25 am
MY high taxes comment is not correct? Can you back that up?
BartSimpson @ Fri May 04, 2012 11:33 am
sandorski sandorski:
Other than his "High Taxes" comment, he is correct. I like how you once again throw in "Communism" into a discussion where it doesn't belong.
Sorry Bart, but the Cold War is over and anyone who disagrees with you is not a Communist.
Sorry Bart, but the Cold War is over and anyone who disagrees with you is not a Communist.
I did not call Andy a communist. I have in the past called you a communist and that's because you tend to paraphrase Marx with an alarming frequency. Andy, based on my perception of his posts, is a right-leaning socialist. He likes free enterprise up to the point where someone can live off of their earnings or investments and then he seems to be bothered by that idea.
With regards to his post Andy proposed in so many words that the WW2 generation fought National Socialism to make the world safe for socialism. I cited a liberal Democrat as an example of people who would take deep umbrage at Andy's proposal.
That's not to say that Andy is a communist. But I did point out that Kennedy was a vehement anti-Communist and a lifelong defender of Joseph McCarthy, both are simply and abundantly true and that you do not like to see the word 'communist' bothers me not.
sandorski @ Fri May 04, 2012 1:39 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
sandorski sandorski:
Other than his "High Taxes" comment, he is correct. I like how you once again throw in "Communism" into a discussion where it doesn't belong.
Sorry Bart, but the Cold War is over and anyone who disagrees with you is not a Communist.
Sorry Bart, but the Cold War is over and anyone who disagrees with you is not a Communist.
I did not call Andy a communist. I have in the past called you a communist and that's because you tend to paraphrase Marx with an alarming frequency. Andy, based on my perception of his posts, is a right-leaning socialist. He likes free enterprise up to the point where someone can live off of their earnings or investments and then he seems to be bothered by that idea.
With regards to his post Andy proposed in so many words that the WW2 generation fought National Socialism to make the world safe for socialism. I cited a liberal Democrat as an example of people who would take deep umbrage at Andy's proposal.
That's not to say that Andy is a communist. But I did point out that Kennedy was a vehement anti-Communist and a lifelong defender of Joseph McCarthy, both are simply and abundantly true and that you do not like to see the word 'communist' bothers me not.
"Communism" had no business being brought up in this discussion. It simply was not a factor.
bootlegga @ Fri May 04, 2012 2:03 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
But that house they bought in 1965, that was hard to get, was bought for $6,000. When they retired in 2010, they sold it for $345,000. Not a bad R.O.I. Nobody'd need a pension with a sweet deal like the boomers got on their homes.
No doubt - my parents bought their house for $60,000 in 1976 and it's worth almost seven times that now - way more than $239,000 or so it cost after adjusting for inflation.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/relate ... alculator/
bootlegga @ Fri May 04, 2012 2:46 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Shoot, I remember those 'glory years' you're pining away for in Canada when the unions ruled and confiscatory tax rates were the order of the day. It was pretty awesome, really. In 1994 Lisa and I made our first trip to Victoria and it was amazing to have a full breakfast at the White Spot in Vic and to pay with a US$20 and to get in excess of CDN$25 back in change. We also stayed at the Strathcona in a suite that, after the exchange rate, cost us something like US$35 a night.
Yeah, I doubt that - our dollar might have dropped to a low of 65 cents or thereabouts in the 90s, but there is no way you gave a $20 US bill and got back $25 CDN in change.
Assuming your "full breakfast" was at least $5 each, your $10 US change should have amounted to no more than maybe $13-14 based on rates throughout 1994.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EXCAUS.txt
And stores never give the actual rate - it's usually 10-15% lower than the going rate (to pay for the inconvenience to the retail outlet in exchanging foreign currency), so if you should have received 1.40 per USD, odds are the store would have given you $1.30.
Robair @ Fri May 04, 2012 3:54 pm
Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:
Robair Robair:
Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:
Is there something else I'm missing?
Yes.Getting up to speed, if you're interested, will require reading.
You could start with this thread.
I've read the thread, about the only thing I saw was the part of only paying 15% of post secondary education that's it. I missed out on that because I wanted instant financial gratification and bought my first house at age 22.
Is there something else I missed out on?
When someone says we got a sweet deal, I want them to take me by the hand and point it out.
"I want, I want, I want..."
I'm going to post this article again: Squeezed, just for you.
BartSimpson @ Fri May 04, 2012 3:58 pm
sandorski sandorski:
"Communism" had no business being brought up in this discussion. It simply was not a factor.
Vladimir smirks at your comment.
sandorski @ Fri May 04, 2012 4:45 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
sandorski sandorski:
"Communism" had no business being brought up in this discussion. It simply was not a factor.
Vladimir smirks at your comment.
:shrug:
BartSimpson @ Fri May 04, 2012 5:07 pm
sandorski sandorski:
:shrug:
Believe it or not I was going to + you for that. Have a nice weekend!
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
dino_bobba_renno @ Fri May 04, 2012 6:54 pm
After reading the first paragraph or so I couldn't even be bothered to finish reading the whole thing. Talk about a load of horse sh*&.
I remember back when I was in my early 20's, the labor market was saturated with Babyboomers who were still in their late 40's and early 50's. No one was hiring and what little jobs there were in the city were low paying labor positions and there was a ton competition for even those. And on those jobs you worked your ass off because there was all ways someone who would be more than happy to take your place if you didn't like it. Not to mention it took years before you got to advance.
Christ now a days I see wet behind the ears 26 year olds making 80k + a year. They have nothing to complain about. Talk about the generation of entitlement.
Caelon @ Sat May 05, 2012 12:26 pm
Several people have made good points. I put off responding to the thread as I did not have time to read through the posts and when I came back there were even more, so I postponed again.
The thred can be split inot two camps. The first is the boomers had lots of advantages and had it easy compared to today. The second is the current generation are whiners and need to get off their duff.
As a boomer I would like to dispute the first. House prices are related to wages. So while you could buy a house in the late 70's for under $80,000 (Alberta market) a 'good' wage for someone in their 20's was about $14,000 or 5.7 times annual salary. Today the 'good' wage is closer to $80,000 and the house $400,000 (lots for less) or 5 times annual salary. Interest rates were about 11% on either side of the 22% peak compared to interest rates on locked in mortgages of 2.79% to 3.29% today. A high leveraged mortgage was a minimum of 10% down not 5%. New grads were complaining about the lack of opportunity as the older generation had the job market locked up. No experience yielded no job. Education with 2 to 3 years of experience yielded a job. I took my lumps at low paying positions to get to the point of getting the 'decent' wage entry level position.
Don't the last 4 sentences sound like a summary of today's new grad complaints? It is the same now as it was then. In fact when I was complaining about the problems of getting the entry level job in my field an older person was telling me he thought it was even worse when he started. Nothing has really changed in 60 years.
So that means there is an element of truth to the second position regarding the current generation. There are no handouts and no free lunches. You need to sacrifice and put in the time to earn the credentials for an employer to take the risk of hiring you.
As for the article Regina posted, regarding the St Albert couple, the writer jumped around trying to make a point, but lacked a logical arguement to support his position. Despite the lack of real detail the writer showed the couple was making one major mistake that hinders them in establishing RSP, RESP or an emergency fund. He interpreted the mistake as the couple doing the right thing to get ahead. Lay people should not write articles on finance as they usually do not have sufficient knowledge to interpret the facts and come to the wrong conclusion.
andyt @ Sat May 05, 2012 12:48 pm
Caelon Caelon:
Several people have made good points. I put off responding to the thread as I did not have time to read through the posts and when I came back there were even more, so I postponed again.
The thred can be split inot two camps. The first is the boomers had lots of advantages and had it easy compared to today. The second is the current generation are whiners and need to get off their duff.
As a boomer I would like to dispute the first. House prices are related to wages. So while you could buy a house in the late 70's for under $80,000 (Alberta market) a 'good' wage for someone in their 20's was about $14,000 or 5.7 times annual salary. Today the 'good' wage is closer to $80,000 and the house $400,000 (lots for less) or 5 times annual salary. Interest rates were about 11% on either side of the 22% peak compared to interest rates on locked in mortgages of 2.79% to 3.29% today. A high leveraged mortgage was a minimum of 10% down not 5%. New grads were complaining about the lack of opportunity as the older generation had the job market locked up. No experience yielded no job. Education with 2 to 3 years of experience yielded a job. I took my lumps at low paying positions to get to the point of getting the 'decent' wage entry level position.
The thred can be split inot two camps. The first is the boomers had lots of advantages and had it easy compared to today. The second is the current generation are whiners and need to get off their duff.
As a boomer I would like to dispute the first. House prices are related to wages. So while you could buy a house in the late 70's for under $80,000 (Alberta market) a 'good' wage for someone in their 20's was about $14,000 or 5.7 times annual salary. Today the 'good' wage is closer to $80,000 and the house $400,000 (lots for less) or 5 times annual salary. Interest rates were about 11% on either side of the 22% peak compared to interest rates on locked in mortgages of 2.79% to 3.29% today. A high leveraged mortgage was a minimum of 10% down not 5%. New grads were complaining about the lack of opportunity as the older generation had the job market locked up. No experience yielded no job. Education with 2 to 3 years of experience yielded a job. I took my lumps at low paying positions to get to the point of getting the 'decent' wage entry level position.
I think you're way off on your $14,000 being a good wage in the late 70's. I was a logger to finance my uni in those days, and if I had worked all year would have made more like $40,000, with fallers making substantially more. Supermarket clerks were, so I was told, making $18 an hour. $14,000 a year works out to 6 something an hour. Nobody I knew was working for that sort of wage.
The median income these days is somewhere in the 40's. So while people here have argued that $80 is not a good income, it's almost double what most people make. Heck, median family income is only in the mid 60's. Meanwhile, in Vancouver you need a family income of 120k to be able to buy a house.
As we know, the bottom 20% of income earners have seen their earnings actually decline, while the next 40% have remained stagnant. It's really only the top 20% of people that have made gains since the 1980's.
Caelon @ Sat May 05, 2012 1:09 pm
andyt andyt:
I think you're way off on your $14,000 being a good wage in the late 70's. I was a logger to finance my uni in those days, and if I had worked all year would have made more like $40,000, with fallers making substantially more. Supermarket clerks were, so I was told, making $18 an hour. $14,000 a year works out to 6 something an hour. Nobody I knew was working for that sort of wage.
I qualified the statement with the location being Alberta. Industries like logging are not necessarily 12 month employment and it is also cherry picking. We could look at Fort Mac and say the standard wage for a trades person is $125,000+. That is not the average wage in the Alberta nor is it close to the number for for a university grad in education, engineering, health services, etc working in the rest of the province. The $14,000 was the wage for a university grad working an entry level position in Alberta in 1977. In 1973 it was about $8500.
andyt andyt:
The median income these days is somewhere in the 40's. So while people here have argued that $80 is not a good income, it's almost double what most people make. Heck, median family income is only in the mid 60's. Meanwhile, in Vancouver you need a family income of 120k to be able to buy a house.
As we know, the bottom 20% of income earners have seen their earnings actually decline, while the next 40% have remained stagnant. It's really only the top 20% of people that have made gains since the 1980's
As we know, the bottom 20% of income earners have seen their earnings actually decline, while the next 40% have remained stagnant. It's really only the top 20% of people that have made gains since the 1980's
You are mixing your stats. The medians you quote are national averages not Vancouver. Van does not follow the national average in house prices either. It is an apple and oranges point. We could cite Winnipeg where you can buy a house for under $100,000 although the norm would be more like $250,000. So in Winnipeg you could have a mortgage payment on a $250,000 home of around $1200 per month and qualify with $60,000 of annual family income.
andyt @ Sat May 05, 2012 2:20 pm
I think you're mixing up your stats too. You say a good wage is 80k, I doubt that's
$1:
the wage for a university grad working an entry level position in Alberta
which you said was $14,000 in the 70's. 80k is almost double the national median wage for an individual. In Alberta, the median family income is 83,560. You'd have to dig up family median income in Alberta for the 70's to make a direct comparison. In BC median family income is only 66,700. Housing we've been told has gone up drastically compared to income.
Brenda @ Sat May 05, 2012 2:43 pm
FWIW...
http://blogs.ubc.ca/newdealforfamilies/ ... elease.pdf
$1:
The researchers found that the average household income
for young Albertan couples has increased by only 12 per cent since the
mid-1970s (after adjusting for inflation) even though the share of young
women contributing to household incomes today is up 42 per cent
for young Albertan couples has increased by only 12 per cent since the
mid-1970s (after adjusting for inflation) even though the share of young
women contributing to household incomes today is up 42 per cent
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next