my residence ownership plan. pretty modest.

D - so here I am. Age 41. 3 years out of a bankruptcy on my student loan. I have finally reached the income level that is average for - wait for it- the average of both full and part-time work in Canada. About half the full-time average. I still need to rebuild my credit (finally have savings for a secured credit card).
Assuming I get my SH*T together in the next year (working MS office certs through an adult school in town), and get into some decent admin work (databases are a hot job skill at local U campuses - the older secretaries can't do it), I can manage a nest egg in the next few years.

If I try to buy a standard house (suburb, big enough to pass primary residence rules of the OBC - Ontario Building Code), the plan must be as follows:
1) save 5 years for the house downpayment, to age 46,
2) pay the house mortgage 25 years to own it, to c. age 72.
At age 72, as the OAS rules stand, I max out my payout. I need to find work I can keep doing to age 72. At 41, I'm already aware of the impact of age on my body.
On my own, if I end up without a significant other, this is the best case scenario to own my primary residence and enjoy a decade or two of well-deserved rest at the end.

My OTHER plan is much more unorthodox, and likely more reasonable. Basically, it's a trailer park but with a twist.

D - that's a Kottage RV, made by that B.C. company. It's a converted shipping container, so you know it's gonna LAST. Those things are tough! It folds up to fit on a standard transport truck trailer. Then opens up to standard trailer dimensions.
I priced them out, and found a small and medium one used for $45 and $60G respectively.

D - here is a more advanced and spacious version of this concept, made for the USA gov't by "Green Horizons" to be emergency off-the-grid shelter for an emergency.

http://www.greenhorizonmfg.com/products/rapid-response/sfh40-2
The SFH-40 (A is off grid, B is basic) opens up the entire side to nearly double the area. But it still fits IN a transport truck standard trailer. That means no special escort vehicles, rare and expensive oversize trailers and road special rules.

D - the fancy pants zombie apocalypse version costs c. $200G, or may cost as little as $100G or so with economies of scale. The "B" version is presumably considerably less, though would require a standard trailer park connection to be habitable.

D - here is the "thought experiment" that got the ball rolling on this pop-out portable house concept: http://assets.inhabitat.com/files/lt_mdu1.jpg

http://inhabitat.com/lot-ek-shipping-container-house/ The LOT-EK MDU unit.

http://www.lot-ek.com/filter/residential/MDU-Mobile-Dwelling-Unit

D - while very nifty, this never reached production.

There are also many concepts based on flat-pack or pop-out 20' shipping containers, such as the ECO-POD.

D- so why bother?

1) they can function as a standard trailer at a trailer park,

2) plunk it down sans wheels /trailer on a concrete pad and you have a permanent residence,

3) upgrading or buying the "A" version allows off-the-grid living. 

Keep in mind it takes a transport truck to move these. The 20' units can likely be towed by just a big pickup truck, 3/4 or 1 ton models.

D - I'm a handy guy. I had planned to co-build houses with my bud a few years back. I (I know- funny) helped him build a submarine hull, so torch cutting and MIG welding is doable. Not right now, but down the road, I could buy a $500 bux beater unit of 8x20' to experiment upon. I can check out the existing products on the market and copycat them. 

http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-RVs-campers-trailers-cargo-utility-trailers-40-converted-Insulated-Shipping-Container-W0QQAdIdZ386089407 Here are some boxes that were converted for the 1976 Olympics. Ack - claustrophobic!

Port-a-mini and BigSteelBox look like promising local ops to check out.

That's right- my only own-a-house plan that does not involve working to age 72 involves living in a big converted steel box.  

My bro-in-law suggested I lease a lil' corner of some old farmer's property near the edge of whatever city I work in.  This has issues, such as needing water and septic and power system and so on. 12V trailer appliances are likely a must, as well as very modest and "green" style of living. 

D - and I don't even have kids - could not afford them anyway, nor take care of them myself. 

D - there is some chance that I might meet (or have met?) a woman that I could live with. 2 incomes turns the equation around in a hurry. Being middle-aged with no savings and no house is a pretty grim scenario to be stuck in.

Living in a trailer park for the 2nd half of my working life might be the only practical way to retire otherwise.

last-minute money grab,Boomers want a CPP bump

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/rob-carricks-reader-the-retirement-income-crisis-ahead/article4440035/


The retirement income crisis ahead

A tough-minded and smart take on how financially unprepared people are for retirement. This is a New York Times piece, but it’s relevant to our Canadian situation as well. All in all, it offers a strong argument for enlarging the Canada Pension Plan to provide a greater piece of the retirement savings that people will need.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/our-ridiculous-approach-to-retirement.html?_r=3

Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 hadless than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers. Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.


----------


D - coupla things here. Other than the "working poor", which are actually BELOW middle class, this is a case of Aesop's fable of the ant and grasshopper. Why shouldn't middle class retirees take a hit in living standard, if they don't save? It means they were living beyond their means. Besides, if they retire owning a house, they both lower their operating costs as well as having a flexible nest egg to fall back on. 


----------


To maintain living standards into old age we need roughly 20 times our annual income in financial wealth. If you earn $100,000 at retirement, you need about $2 million beyond what you will receive from Social Security. If you have an income-producing partner and a paid-off house, you need less. This number is startling in light of the stone-cold fact that most people aged 50 to 64 have nothing or next to nothing in retirement accounts and thus will rely solely on Social Security.


----------


So somebody who is middle class would need to save MILLIONS throughout their working career. Ideally, they'd begin to save as soon as they graduate from school. Student debt, kids and house mortgages preclude that more than ever today. Student debts are bigger than ever. House mortgages are much more expensive for the young today. And the cost of raising a kid needs to consider the ever-higher tuitions that have already hammered so many young parents. 


D - so where is the generational twist in this?


----------


So it’s not surprising that denial dominates my dinner conversations, but it is irresponsible for Congress to deny that regardless of how much you throw 401(k) advertising, pension cuts, financial education and tax breaks at Americans, the retirement system simply defies human behavior. Basing a system on people’s voluntarily saving for 40 years and evaluating the relevant information for sound investment choices is like asking the family pet to dance on two legs...
As we all know, these abilities are not common for our species. The current model for retirement savings, which forces individuals to figure out a plan for their retirement years, whether through a “guy” or by individual decision making, will always fall short.


---------


 D - that's right. Boomers, the first ME generation, cannot be blamed for eating the seed corn of the younger generations. Their selfishness is just 'human nature' - and you cannot blame them for that, right?


-------

  In March, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, only 52 percent of Americans expressed confidence that they will be comfortable in retirement. Twenty years ago, that number was close to 75 percent.

I hope that fear can make us all get real.

------

(I DID post that as plain text. POS Google blogger... grr.)

D - perception is NOT reality. For example, the demographics most at risk of violent crime are least afraid of it and v.v..

Fear is not reality. So: so what.

------

D - so what is the problem? Boomers and politicians currying favour with them suggest a sudden no-plan bump in retirement income from pensions. Lord forbid if the generation that exemplifies Aesop grasshopper accept a decrease in their short-sighted, unsustainable standard of living! There are plenty of young ants to be parasites on!

First the Boomers pay only a few measly % of their income for the 1st half of their working careers. GenX paid the higher rate, almost 10%, for their WHOLE working lives. The sins of the father- unbalanced accounting legs of the Boomer and the pension plan - are visited on the son. And the son's son, unto 3 generations.

Now, as CARP has been pushing for, they want a last-gasp money grab just before the Boomers retire, so they need not pay more than a pittance for a few years to gain decades of increased payouts. 

D - this is GENERATIONAL theft. It's eating the seed corn. It's the older grasshoppers enslaving the entire colony of young ants. 

And it is WRONG. It is UNFORGIVABLE to even suggest.

This policy platform will get much play for the next decade or two.

We need to be READY.

D.