[thewave46]

First: I love 40 year projections. The error bars are so large as to be useless. Plus or minus 25%-50% estimates are just short of silly wild assed guesses. Wonder how the Aussies will do in the age of declining demand for coal in 2060. Apparently really well, if the projection is to be believed. Interesting for a country that can't even produce an automobile anymore.

Second: I suspect Canada's decline is mostly centered around the upper-middle class rising/lower-middle class declining split. If you're on the winning side, great, the losing side, not so much. Depends how many end up on each side of it as to how we'll do.

I think back to 1998. Then I compare to now. If I'm young in '98, Canada is a less generous country and things are harder (see: minimum wage, government aid programs, unemployment rate), but a lot cheaper for the things I need (What was the house cost or even rent in Toronto in 1998?). I know the country is riding a rising tide for the next couple of decades, and government is getting its fiscal house in order, and the country can endure low commodity prices, lean government spending, and big slack in the labour market. Stuff might not be great, but it's cheap. The actual middle was larger.

If I'm young today, the government programs are better (OAS, Canada Child Benefit, minimum wage), but living is much more expensive. To the point that things are nigh unaffordable in many places. The three-legged stool we got comfy with sitting on looks iffy. High commodity prices, fat government spending projected to continue rising, big housing prices. Hope one of the legs doesn't give out. It'll hurt. The split is widening into the winners and losers.

I'd say that being young when things were harder and older when they're easier seems like the way to go. Maybe we should think about what happens if the stool we sit on starts creaking ominously. Doesn't seem like we're planning for that, though. It might be ugly.