Nobody wants unearned inequality between older and younger Canadians. I don’t. My mom doesn’t. Nor does my grandmother. Problem is, this inequality is on the rise.

A new study by the Conference Board of Canada reports that Canadians age 50-54 earn 64 per cent more today than do 25-29 year olds. In the mid-80s, the age gap in earnings was only 47 per cent.

The Bank of Montreal published a study in July showing that the typical senior now enjoys nearly nine times more wealth than the typical 25-34 year old. In the early 1980s, the wealth gap was only four times.

In August, Royal Bank released a study concluding that the near-doubling in housing prices over the last decades has generated much more wealth for Canadians age 55+, while leaving those age 35-44 especially burdened with debt, and most vulnerable to interest rate hikes and drops in housing prices.

A recent Macleans magazine cover story summarized these trends, stating: “We’re treating seniors like they are financially frail. In fact they’re the most prosperous generation.”

Sadly, my research as a professor at the University of British Columbia and founder of the Generation Squeeze campaign shows that governments are largely ignoring the deteriorating economic circumstances facing younger Canadians, while using Canada’s prosperity to adapt for others.

Provincial and federal governments combine to spend between $38,000 – $45,000 per Canadian age 65 and older, compared to approximately $12,000 per person under 45. As the population ages, maintaining these spending levels per senior is no small task. Yet provincial governments representing all parties, as well as the federal government, found billions of new dollars in 2014 to pursue this goal. At the same time, they generally claim that public coffers are too bare to do much more than tinker around the edges for Canadians in their mid-40s and under (including children) who are squeezed by lower incomes, higher housing costs, less time and a deteriorating environment.

Given this context, you might excuse me for being underwhelmed when the premiers recently agreed at the Council of the Federation to establish a new national Task Force on Aging. What the premiers didn’t mention is that we’ve been talking about and adapting to Canada’s aging population for decades. That’s a major reason why we spend around $50-billion more annually on medical care today than we would have had we maintained spending levels from 1976. And it’s also why we spend around $30-billion more each year on the Canada/Quebec Public Pension Plan and Old Age Security.

So if we need a new Task Force on Aging, let it focus on what has been much less considered in political circles: “Generational Equity and Aging.” The new Task Force would be useful if it asks: Have Canadians found the right balance in adapting policy to the contemporary realities of old and young alike? How do we finance policy adaptations that reduce the squeeze on younger generations while simultaneously adapting to the needs of an aging population?

Although hopeful, I’m not confident these questions about generational equity will become the Task Force’s primary focus. Younger generations influence politics less than our parents and grandparents. Not only because we vote less. But also because we’re less organized in between elections when political parties design platforms, and refine government priorities.

By contrast, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) has lobbied for decades on behalf of people like my grandmother and retired mom. Good on them. I support their work. (In fact, I’ll be speaking at my local CARP chapter this week).

So long as CARP works on behalf of Canadians age 50+, we need an organization that speaks up for those of us who are younger. That’s what Generation Squeeze is building. An organization that is growing the clout of younger generations in both the marketplace and politics.

In the market, we will urge employers and unions to revisit what they can do to reduce the age-related inequalities in salaries and benefit packages to which they are contributing, as illuminated by the Conference Board study. We’ll also pursue price reductions on products and services that matter to younger Canadians much like there are seniors’ discounts.

In the world of politics, we are mobilizing to encourage all political parties to commit to a better generational deal. One that safeguards retirement income subsidies and medical care for our parents and grandparents – but not at the expense of adapting to challenges like the erosion of income, rising housing prices, and environmental degradation that disproportionately affect their kids and grandchildren. That’s how we will make Canada work once again for all generations.

Dr. Paul Kershaw is the Founder of Generation Squeeze, and a policy professor in the UBC School of Population Health.

Yep, what the fuck are we giving senior discounts for ? No one retires anymore and seniors are the ones with all the money ?

We might as well start giving discounts to investment bankers.

The seniors today actually have a pension, that fund will be long gone by the time I retire.

And their children are waiting impatiently to cash in on the inheritance.
Worst way to get money.

In the 50's an average house was 800 sq ft. Now what are they.
In the 50-60's you bought a house and furnished it as and when money was available.
yes the prices of houses are out of wack- approx 5 1/2 time average income when it was and used to be 3 1/2 of average income.
house prices have increased, along with all the extras.
But wages have been mostly stagnant for the last 20 years.


http://business.financialpost.com/2014/ ... udy-finds/

OTTAWA — Age, not gender, is increasingly at the heart of income inequality in Canada, says a new study that warns economic growth and social stability will be at risk if companies don’t start paying better wages.

The Conference Board of Canada findings suggest younger workers in Canada are making less money relative to their elders regardless of whether they’re male or female, individuals or couples, and both before and after tax.

The average disposable income of Canadians between the ages of 50 and 54 is now 64% higher than that of 25- to 29-year-olds, the report found. That’s up from 47% in the mid-1980s.

Kids are going to have to wait.

Boomers will stay in their houses, and reverse mortgage their way until death.

The companies will deliver 50% of the present value, and when prices drop 50%, it will
leave the kids with... nothing.

Reverse mortgages are odious and almost as bad a payday loans - people stupid enough to use them will have most, if not all, of their equity disappear.

They won't be thinking of equity while trying to pay the $1000 plus electric heating bill..

Or cat food.


Trying to get older people out of their homes is big problem now;
it will only get worse as money dries up for old age homes that are already shitholes.

And the reverse mortgage is a perfect way for the oldies to stay in their houses.


Can't take it with you anyway.

It's a great way to stay in your house and as kids these days don't have money nor want to buy McMansions in the suburbs, lots of people are going to be stuck with them.

When I say they are odious, I mean the terms - the interest keeps piling up and up and eventually you are left with nothing. That's fine for some, but those expecting to leave their kids a little something are going to find out the bank/reverse mortgage company took it already. Some spoiled kids are going to get a rude shock when Mom/Pop dies and they find out they get nothing.

My mom will be surprised that she's living high on the hog with her $24K worth of CPP, OAS, and half-pension per year. Leave it to some prof to say she deserves less so some snowflake who took basket weaving at uni can have moar.

My mom will be surprised that she's living high on the hog with her $24K worth of CPP, OAS, and half-pension per year. Leave it to some prof to say she deserves less so some snowflake who took basket weaving at uni can have moar.

Provincial and federal governments combine to spend between $38,000 – $45,000 per Canadian age 65 and older, compared to approximately $12,000 per person under 45.

In the world of politics, we are mobilizing to encourage all political parties to commit to a better generational deal. One that safeguards retirement income subsidies and medical care for our parents and grandparents – but not at the expense of adapting to challenges like the erosion of income, rising housing prices, and environmental degradation that disproportionately affect their kids and grandchildren. That’s how we will make Canada work once again for all generations.

As for the kids, lots of them whine the Boomers are selfish bastards.
My only answer is they haven't seen Gen Xers yet.

This topic is hilarious. In case anyone hasn't noticed the people with the real money have started an ageism war and people are buying into it lock stock and two smoking barrels.

As long as the younger generations have a convenient scapegoat, the seniors, these corporations, companies, businesses and gov'ts won't have to pay a proper wage to the younger generations because everything, like Delwin seems to think is the "seniors" fault.


So let's take a look at some facts. First off seniors have probably contributed to CPP, OAP and UI and medicare longer than most of the generations complaining have been alive, secondly not every seniors has a plum pension like these generations have been led to believe. Alot of seniors still live in poverty despite all the social safety nets in Canada.

Without a private pension the most a pensioner can make from their CPP and OAP payments is $1597.04 so if you've contributed for the maximum amount of time and paid the maximum amount you can live high off the hog on that Gov't windfall.

So, do seniors have more than the younger generations? The answer is, in some cases yes and in some cases no but, they've also paid on hell of alot more into the system over their lifetime than the people doing the most complaining which, when you think about it probably balances it all out.

So, instead of complaining and whining about seniors the younger generations should be whining and complaining about the inequality in wages between the boomer generation and their generations because, that's what the real problem is, not seniors getting a 20% discount at the local Wal-Mart.