Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

You got a sweet deal, because for the average person opportunities were a lot better. You could go to uni for cheap and be assured of a good job at the end of it. Or go into the trades, and because of the unions be assured of a very well paying job. Or get paid less but have rock solid security and benefits in government work. If you want to be a 1 percenter, now is a better time than any, since just about all the increase in wealth over the last few decades has gone to them. But for the average person, then was better, at least to make your start.

   

How so?

It was much harder as a boomer to buy a house. My parents were paying 10% on a mortgage just scrapping by. My uncle with a 10% first mortgage and 17% second mortgage. Some rates hit 23% in the 70's

Each generation has it's own challenges an advantages, for us to look back and say they had it 'easy' just isn't true.

   

Voting is the kind of thing they believe their parents should be able to do for them, after all, the parents are going to be there anyways. So why should they have to go.

   

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.

   

Part of the problem is there are quite a few holders of B.Arts out there who are working at or just a pube above minimum wage. Basically a B.A is today's equivalency of a highschool diploma. Employers offering jobs that shouldn't require a university degree, are often insisting that this be a prospective employees basic level of education.....otherwise they won't look at their resume.

They know there is a glut of university graduates and there are only a certain amount of jobs available. However, those who have gone the trade school/ technician route can often be picky about the jobs they accept. Our government, should emulate European governments, encouraging people to choose the tradeschool/technical route, as they seem to be in high demand. They have to eliminate the societal stigma that having a trade or being a tech is somehow less prestigious than having a degree

I don't know, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make university more expensive and or harder to get into, harder as in requiring a 90% GPA(before you're even considered Uni material) to get in, then it's free for those who make it based on academic standing. That way it doesn't discriminate based solely on wealth, offering those without the funds, but who have the smarts, better educational and career opportunities.

   

Well, houses were actually closer to 16k in the 60's and 26k in 1970. My parents paid 77k for their house in 1975.

A 77k house in 1975 cost you about 55k in interest if you got a rate of 15%.

A 250k house bought a few years ago is only ~33k in interest.

   

Yeah, the generation before the Boomers, now those folks had it really easy.

   

No kidding. the house my grandfather bought in Abbotsford in 1967 for $8 000 was valued at close to four hundred thousand the last time I checked. Mind you when they bought their place on York it was all bush around there. Unfortunately my grandfather developed ALS and they moved back to manitoba before the boom really started in BC. My dad's eldest brother was lucky the same way. He bought his place on Webb, just off of Wishart Rd. in about 1971. My aunt was a nurse and he was just a LS with four kids, and they were able to afford it. I remember when it was all bush around there too. Another granduncle had a huge place on Ben Homer, that he bought in the mid 60s, on a prison guard's wage. He had five kids as well

   

We owe them a big thank you. WWII and the depression made these folks appreciate what they had and be much more community minded than we are. They fought and voted for unions, high taxes, income re-distribution and a more equitable society. They didn't want their kids to have to struggle like they did, but unfortunately the kids took what was given to them, didn't appreciate the struggles and community effort it took, and just wanted more more more and followed Raygun down the rabbit hole.

   

I had a great job without going to uni, it was a trades job, learned in the field without a union and education expenses. I guess it was some what of a government job, but only to the point they funded the projects. I'm not sure if there were better opportunities. I know having motivation worked tremendously back in the day.

I'm 54 and I haven't worked in 8 years, I worked my ass off to set up my life like that by investing in rental properties, now I work 1 day a month. I ain't living the life of luxury, actually I'm far from it. But I get to wake up every morning with a free schedule to do just about anything I want.

The whinny ( ME ) generation don't need to worry about paying for my Senior years.

   

mmmm

and before them..

   

So you had a great job that was funded by taxpayers - sweet deal if you can get it. That's government work in my book. And in days past most everybody could get a good job, if, as you say they were willing to apply themselves, heck even if they were just willing to show up. The ME generation (I thought that was the boomers) has it much tougher. As for paying for your senior years, do you have income over $100,000? Because otherwise you'll be getting some OAS at 65, which the ME generation would be paying for. Or do you plan to turn that down?

   

Nonsense, Andy.

When President Kennedy took office as the first WW2 vet in the White House he started his presidency by saying: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"

Yes, he famously started the Peace Corps but let's not forget that he also was the first tax cutter of the latter half of the 20th century. His first proposal was to cut the highest tax rates from 91% to 65% and when the cut eventually passed in 1964 it reduced the highest rate from 91% to 70%. The effect of the tax cut was that unemployment dropped and tax revenues rose.

He was a staunch anti-Communist and was a lifelong defender of Joseph McCarthy and he most definitely did not fight for 'income redistribution'.

At it's worst, in the 1950's the US top tax rate (aggregate) was 98% and that led to the recession of 1957-1962. Before Ike left office that rate was lowered to 91% which contributed to the 1962 recovery.

Meanwhile, the UK top rate was 95% with an aggregate that sometimes exceeded 100% which caused many of the old landed families to abandon or sell their estates just to pay off their back taxes. The UK recovery from World War Two was postponed until the 1980's when Margaret Thatcher finally got taxation under control. The Beatles (raging conservatives, I know) wrote 'The Taxman' in response to seeing how much of their money they weren't allowed to keep.

"There's one for you, nineteen for me"

Ringo, John, and George all decamped from the UK to the USA for most of their post-Beatles time and the tax advantages were clearly an incentive to them.

Likewise, when Canada's tax rates were on the negative to the US rates no end of capital fled Canada for the USA. Plenty of your best and brightest also decamped to the USA in order to keep more of what they earned. At this point in time it's a fair statememt to say that without Jews or Canadians there'd be very little to do in Hollywood.

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.

Now, due to all those bad old tax cuts and etc. your currency is stronger than ours most days.

And you think that's a problem?

Really, Andy, I'm curious, do you prefer for your country to be wealthy and prosperous or would you rather have Canada go back to being an economic backwater where no one is really rich so everyone is somewhat more equal?

Is your god of egalitarianism really that important to you?

   

1994? No wonder you're confused. We're talking about what the depression/WWII generation created after the war. Much greater social equality, economic and otherwise, and a much stronger sense of community than we have now. They saw what fascism did, and communism, and wanted to walk a middle way between them. Then the boomers started voting, thought there was a free lunch, and started voting for tax cuts. Hasn't turned out so well for the average person, has it?

My Canada has never been an economic backwater, no matter the strength of the loonie.

   

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.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next