HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:11 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
Woah! I guess I grew up in the wrong town then Hardly anyone there got any help from parents except for maybe a few paid post-secondary, I didn't get anything handed to me though. I had no idea it was so widespread. I'm 22, and most people my age and within 4 years of it(18 - 26) that I know and have heard of, are swimming in debt though, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
You're a bit too young, to be honest. Your parents, depending on age, probably don't qualify as "Baby Boomers" (Gen-X started around 1966 or so, depending on whom you ask).

Most of the massive wealth transfer being alluded to is to kids born in the late 70s and 80s. THEIR parents were perhaps the most well-off generation in human history, and have long since run out of things to spend their money on. "Freedom 55" combined with the fact that most of them return to work out of sheer boredom, has led to tremendous wealth excess. Perhaps one of the few real examples of "trickle down" that we'll ever see.

Of course it also depends on the circles you run in, personally. Demographic trends don't exclude the possibility that you know mostly poor people.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:16 PM
Antigonish's Avatar
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
word life
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
You're a bit too young, to be honest. Your parents, depending on age, probably don't qualify as "Baby Boomers" (Gen-X started around 1966 or so, depending on whom you ask).

Most of the massive wealth transfer being alluded to is to kids born in the late 70s and 80s. THEIR parents were perhaps the most well-off generation in human history, and have long since run out of things to spend their money on. "Freedom 55" combined with the fact that most of them return to work out of sheer boredom, has led to tremendous wealth excess. Perhaps one of the few real examples of "trickle down" that we'll ever see.

Of course it also depends on the circles you run in, personally. Demographic trends don't exclude the possibility that you know mostly poor people.
Well put. I get put off when people lump early/middle and late 90s babies into the Generation Y cohort. Back home I could count on one hand out of hundreds of kids who were born in 1992 and later who had parents less than 7-10 years younger than my own, and were not either an only child or the oldest sibling in their family.

I'd say 1990/1991 is the cut off date for Gen Y'ers.
__________________
"It's called an American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it"
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:18 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 18,621
My mom was born in 1963, my dad in 1960. I'm the 3rd and final born, so I guess they were boomers.


According to Antigonish, I'm Gen Y. December 20, 1990.


It's probably a mix of knowing mostly regular middle class and poor people, and having really selfish, self-interested parents.
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:21 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
^ Most would disagree with the cut off being 1994-1995, some even extend it to 2000. Many Millennials (be they born in 1982 or 1992) grew up in single parent households or were the oldest child in the family. And most of their parents would have been Boomers. Most parents are between late 20s and late 30s when they have kids, so for a kid born in 1992, the chances their parents were born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s (late Boomers) is pretty high.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:27 PM
Antigonish's Avatar
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
word life
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
^ Most would disagree with the cut off being 1994-1995, some even extend it to 2000. Many Millennials (be they born in 1982 or 1992) grew up in single parent households or were the oldest child in the family. And most of their parents would have been Boomers. Most parents are between late 20s and late 30s when they have kids, so for a kid born in 1992, the chances their parents were born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s (late Boomers) is pretty high.
Nova Scotia is really Catholic so maybe we're ahead of the game generation wise

Most of all the Boomers here were married and starting families by their mid-late 20's. It's really uncommon here to be born around 1988-92 and not be the youngest out of 3-6 or 7 kids. Heck I have first cousins that are in their mid 40's, have a career and children who are graduating high school this year and their parents are early Boomers (born in the late 1940s).
__________________
"It's called an American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it"
-George Carlin

Last edited by Antigonish; Sep 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 4:33 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 12,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigonish View Post
Nova Scotia is really Catholic so maybe we're ahead of the game generation wise

Most of all the Boomers here were married and starting families by their mid-late 20's. It's really uncommon there to be born around 1988-92 and not be the youngest out of 3-6 or 7 kids. Heck I have first cousins that are in their mid 40's, have a career and children who are graduating high school this year and their parents are early Boomers (born in the late 1940s).
Same here. The last echo child in my family was born in 1991. The first were born in the early seventies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2013, 5:12 PM
Antigonish's Avatar
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
word life
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 585
I know I'm getting off track but the student population has dwindled heavily in the last 5-6 years back home. My brother (born '85) had a graduating class of about 400, myself (born '89) we had about 350. My high school had 1,200 students my graduating year and last year the school dropped under 800 in about 5 years!!

I guess these trends can relate to the impending housing market
__________________
"It's called an American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it"
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 12:17 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
It’s complete nonsense, in my opinion. For starters, there is no national housing market. Prices vary wildly from place to place, and always will. So while Toronto or Vancouver look pricey, many other cities — including Edmonton— simply don’t.
I sometimes wonder how much these disparities end up favouring the bigger markets, since they normally set federal policies. When Toronto's real estate market overheats, the finance minister fiddles with mortgage rules to try to cut back on demand, but these affect even other cities where the market is healthy. It's the same with interest rates, stimulus packages, immigration policies, trade agreements, and a bunch of other stuff.

Seems like an argument for more local autonomy, though there would be trade-offs of course.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 12:39 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I sometimes wonder how much these disparities end up favouring the bigger markets, since they normally set federal policies. When Toronto's real estate market overheats, the finance minister fiddles with mortgage rules to try to cut back on demand, but these affect even other cities where the market is healthy. It's the same with interest rates, stimulus packages, immigration policies, trade agreements, and a bunch of other stuff.

Seems like an argument for more local autonomy, though there would be trade-offs of course.
I sometimes wonder if federal government hatred for Toronto, blinds them to the regions outside the area. All these governnent attempts to interfere with the free market seem counter-intuative. Although lowering the coverage on CHMC loans was a good idea to limit government exposure to the housing market and at the same time promote real estate cooling across the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 2:25 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 8,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltrane74 View Post
I sometimes wonder if federal government hatred for Toronto, blinds them to the regions outside the area. All these governnent attempts to interfere with the free market seem counter-intuative. Although lowering the coverage on CHMC loans was a good idea to limit government exposure to the housing market and at the same time promote real estate cooling across the country.
CMHC is just one big o'l piece of meddling in the "free" housing market, but what do you think would happen to the market without it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 2:38 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
^ Most would disagree with the cut off being 1994-1995, some even extend it to 2000. Many Millennials (be they born in 1982 or 1992) grew up in single parent households or were the oldest child in the family. And most of their parents would have been Boomers. Most parents are between late 20s and late 30s when they have kids, so for a kid born in 1992, the chances their parents were born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s (late Boomers) is pretty high.
I wouldn't count my parents as boomers. They were both born in 1966, which is usually after the boomer cut-off. Of course I don't think generations are equal across the whole country. A person born in Toronto in 1960 probably had a more similar life to someone born in Toronto in 1970 than someone born in Yellowknife in 1960. Really generations are exceedingly blunt lumpings that you can't give clear cut off dates too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2013, 7:47 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
I wouldn't count my parents as boomers. They were both born in 1966, which is usually after the boomer cut-off. Of course I don't think generations are equal across the whole country. A person born in Toronto in 1960 probably had a more similar life to someone born in Toronto in 1970 than someone born in Yellowknife in 1960. Really generations are exceedingly blunt lumpings that you can't give clear cut off dates too.
Well that's why, like all generalizations, they work in aggregate but individual exceptions will abound.

The boomers aren't even really all that exceptional, except that they're the largest demographic group (by age) and they coincidentally came about at a time when excess wealth in the middle class was the norm. And things like DB pensions and such actually existed. A generation prior, people worked until close to death. A generation later, people are looking at the same possibility.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2013, 7:54 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 8,993
Toronto new condo sales in August "the worst in a decade":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle14464065/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 2:43 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,752
Being an immigrant via the refugee system well over 20 years ago now, I can say that I never got any financial help from my parents or family or anyone nor will I ever get any. Infact I am the one who financially helps my parents. But I know that there is plenty of wealthy families where the parents help their kids, allot. BUT the way I look at it is that these kids will never know what it feels like to achieve something with their own hard work, what it feels like to be at the bottom clawing their way up. This stuff builds character and appreciation for the little things in life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 2:56 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is online now
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 18,621
I agree. So many people boast about what they have (have had given to them), when I encounter this I either think of say "okay, but what have you done for yourself?"
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 4:29 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,431
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by caltrane74 View Post
Oh to be a 20-something, sitting around waiting for your parents to die, or to move to the retirement home and hit the windfall.

Unfortunately for those of us close to our parents age, when we collect the cash money, we'll be the next ones to die shortly afterwards.
It seems much more likely for a 40- to 60-something to be waiting around for their parents to die than a 20-something. In this day and age a 20-something would have to wait a good 30-50 years for their parents to die. What kind of strategy is that? How could they possibly get by or afford to raise a family of their own in the meantime while they wait?

Yes, a 20-something with middle to upper class parents will presumably inherit a decent amount of money one day but by the time that happens, they too will be "closer to their parents age" as you say (i.e. well past middle age themselves in all likelihood). Afterall, the life expectancy of the boomers is projected to surpass the current life expectancy which is already over 80.

Based on the difference in age between me and my parents, current life expectancy, projected life expectancy, and the age my grandparents lived to (and continue living to - almost 90) I likely won't receive inheritance, if there is any, until I'm about 60+, and I'm the youngest of 3.

I should also point out that retirement homes are not cheap so I don't see much of a windfall at that point either, especially if my parents are going to end up spending over a decade living in one.

Long story short, I'm in my 20s and don't see any use in waiting around for an inheritance that may never come.

In contrast, I work with someone in his mid-50s that never married and still rents. He is definitely just waiting for his inheritance and openly admits it. Another in his early 60s has long since received his inheritance and currently lives in the house he grew up in on a large lot in the exurbs (he say it takes him 4 hours to mow the lawn on a ride-on). I'm not saying this is the norm for that age range (it's certainly not for my parents) but 20 something's do not have a monopoly on this phenomenon - far from it considering that most of their parents are still alive and will be for some time.
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 5:09 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
And things like DB pensions and such actually existed.
Whenever I see those articles explaining why young people are to blame for their poor prospects I wonder how many 56 year old pensioners are reading and nodding in approval. Maybe now you'd have to up the age to 61 or 66 to get a decent number.

One common thread I have noticed is the tendency for almost everybody to think that they have worked hard or somehow "deserve" what they have (whatever that means), that they could stand to have more, and that there exist vague groups of people who have it easier or at least are to blame for their own problems. Even extremely privileged and wealthy people believe this. There's a strong tendency for people to construct self-serving narratives, so it's important to look at data rather than listen to opinions.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 12:29 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Whenever I see those articles explaining why young people are to blame for their poor prospects I wonder how many 56 year old pensioners are reading and nodding in approval. Maybe now you'd have to up the age to 61 or 66 to get a decent number.

One common thread I have noticed is the tendency for almost everybody to think that they have worked hard or somehow "deserve" what they have (whatever that means), that they could stand to have more, and that there exist vague groups of people who have it easier or at least are to blame for their own problems. Even extremely privileged and wealthy people believe this. There's a strong tendency for people to construct self-serving narratives, so it's important to look at data rather than listen to opinions.
Well, I resemble that remark (in my case age 57 rather than 56) but can assure you that most of my cohort do not "nod in approval" but rather feel a distinct sense of unease about what may be facing the younger generations. Given our expected lifespans, I suspect that many of us will have precious little let in their estates to hand down. On the other hand, if I had it all to do over again, I would hope that I would not go to university to study modern languages (which I adore) and would be engaged in something more likely to lead to secure employment. At the end of the day, boomer or younger, we all have to play the hand we are dealt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 12:51 PM
leftimage leftimage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: MTL
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by raggedy13 View Post

Yes, a 20-something with middle to upper class parents will presumably inherit a decent amount of money one day but by the time that happens, they too will be "closer to their parents age" as you say (i.e. well past middle age themselves in all likelihood). Afterall, the life expectancy of the boomers is projected to surpass the current life expectancy which is already over 80.
Don't know if this is a trend across Canada, but it seems very prevalent in my circles: parents are giving their kids the ''inheritance'' (or at least a substantial part of it) while they're still alive. Rather than leaving xx thousand dollars in their wills they are giving little Timmy xx thousand for a down payment on his first condo.

The trend (if it does indeed exist) should come as no surprise in light of the increasingly unaffordable housing situation, not to mention the fact real estate in Canada has traditionally been a sound investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 2:59 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Whenever I see those articles explaining why young people are to blame for their poor prospects I wonder how many 56 year old pensioners are reading and nodding in approval. Maybe now you'd have to up the age to 61 or 66 to get a decent number.
Plenty of them do.

I was hired into my current position at just about the time DB pensions, etc were cut off entirely. And pension contributions in general were scaled back tremendously. So I'm looking at working at least until 65, possibly longer. Which personally I have zero problem with - hell, I'll likely work till 75 if I'm healthy. I've seen far too many bored-out-of-their-minds pensioners in my lifetime. I don't want to go that route.

But I'll joke about it a lot. Watching "Freedom 55" take shape has been enlightening. Almost without exception, when I point out to them that their opportunities will literally never be available to me (and pretty much BECAUSE they're draining the system dry to retire before their kids are even adults) - they simply shrug. And I'm not kidding, suggest that perhaps I was born a few years too late. Too bad, so sad, but we're taking what's ours! Muahahah!

Obviously I'm caricaturing, but it's pretty close to the truth. Most Boomers are entirely aware, and completely shameless about the privilege that only their generation will ever receive. And they have zero guilt about transferring this onto their children - but god forbid taxes take any of it away, because they've EARNED IT! It's fascinating.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:37 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.