quebec pension plad. a pyramid scheme.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_duhaime/2010/12/15/16567901.html

The actuarial report of the Quebec Pension Plan released by the Quebec government a few days ago shows us the QPP is going to hit a wall.

In 2024, the reserve will start declining, and by 2039 it will be completely empty.

Quebec workers now pay 9.9% of their income to the QPP. To have a balanced plan, a steady-state contribution rate should be 11.02%.

---
D: if boomers want full benefits they did not pay into, let them pay much more now.

Gen XY(Z) ought to be allowed to opt out.

This is a pyramind scheme.
But participation is mandated by law.

more poor young adults than retired.

D: though I'd like to think the young are more resilient and can handle it.
Still, it puts in context a single-minded focus on the old.

Here's an idea.
Stop hiking the clawback cutoff age on OAS benefits.

For 2009, the tax recovery applies to persons whose net income exceeds $66,335. For each $1 of income above this limit, the amount of basic Old Age Security pension reduces by $0.15.

----
Here's an idea - don't make working poor pay for those making 3-4x what they are!
This is the reverse of Robin Hood.

tuition fees distract from mandatory fees

http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2010/feb/04th.html

Undergraduate students (domestic)

* “Regulated” programs newly admitted students – 4.5%
* “Regulated” programs continuing students – 4%
* “Deregulated” programs newly admitted students – 8%
* “Deregulated” programs continuing students – 4%

Graduate students (domestic) – 3%

Hamdullahpur, vice-president academic and provost, who revealed that for 2009-2010, tuition fees, at $195 million, accounts for 45 per cent of the university’s revenue, compared to $191 million in government grants, or 44 per cent.

D: I found an article for another university that showed mandatory fees increasing at TWICE the rate of tuition. It was closer to 1000 bux than not.
Ignoring fees does a disservice to student when discussing the cost of education.

Incidental Fees
Lowest: $859
Highest: $1,165

http://www.schoolfinder.com/schools/fees.asp?SchoolCode=uwatl08&ProfileType=University&URL=index

NOTE: This fee is mandatory.

So we see that the cost of school continues to escalate far above the rate of inflation- or the increase in standard of living.

parents fear high tuitions

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/tuition-fees-worrying-canadian-parents/article1744095/

These days it costs about $60,000 to send a child to university for four years (and much more if you’re dreaming of med school). And the poll, conducted by the Bank of Montreal, found that only 21 per cent of families with children under the age of 18 are confident they can afford it.

Many aren’t saving for it: Only 52 per cent of Canadian parents have contributed to an RESP Ottawa’s education savings program, and most of those contributions won’t be enough to cover the cost. (To get the grim calculations on how much you’ll need visit tdcanadatrust.com.)

D: there has been alotta spin recently on tuition rates.
'cuz poor kids don't go to U much, it is a middle class subsidy'.
well... if the subsidy was what is was for the boomers, it'd be enough to not scare away the lower class!
a fascinating inversion of logic.

http://www.rasmussen.edu/images2/articles/rasmussen-GDP.jpg

D: a look at how much various nations spend on education as proportion of GDP.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/09/22/con-student-debt.html

Students who graduate from college and university with high debt loads are putting off buying a house, having children or investing for the future, according to a new report.

It found that the average debt load of university graduates in 2009 was $26,680, while the average debt for college graduates was $13,600.

D: with entry level work, that amount was sufficient to hold my head under.

A student's financial status prior to seeking higher education is also a significant factor. Low-income students may be more averse to taking on debt, forcing them to forgo college or university.

D: making student loans a by-and-for middle class program.

"With so little information about private PSE [post-secondary education] institutions, no Canadian system of PSE accreditation, and no national quality review agency, students are denied sufficient and objective information in ascertaining value for money invested in PSE," Cappon said.

D: tragic that 20 years on, we still have no system to give good info to kids seeking post-secondary schooling.

just finished bankruptcy on student loan

D: was supposed to be cobuilding and flipping houses.
Buddy, the other partner, went belly-up last year.
Dragged me down too.
For the best- broke the holding pattern.

http://www.student-loan-bankruptcy.ca/

D: a quick summary of bankruptcy process:
1) in 9months, if less than 1850/mo
2) else 21 months.
3) 200 to start and c. 150 per month.

D: I happened to use BDO. I called KPMG and they had an answering machine.
I called BDO and they had a person. Winner.
I liked them just fine.
I'd recommend monthly budgets, keeping receipts, to anybody.
And using envelopes for essential bills first.

So I basically spent about 5-10% of my loan amount to kick it in a year.

There are 2 prepaid credit cards on the market to rebuild your credit.
One caps at 300, other starts at 500 - but it rebuilds credit faster.

Consider a consumer proposal first. Price may work out the same.

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Personal_Finance_Collection_Agency_Rights.aspx
D: your rights with collection agency.
Since they will LIE, feel free to record convo or mail and archive.
When they lie- beat 'em in court.
I got mine so scared they handed me off on a law firm. <:

BTW, the agencies will likely try some combo of these forbidden tactics.
They have with my friends and I.

DON'T hide fromm it - use 'acting in good faith' to pay token amount each month to keep them at bay. Produce a credible looking budget to justify it.

On that note: your bank.
Any account EVER used by them, even if access was a 1-shot - close it.
Set up new accounts. NEVER give permission to tranfer funds, even ONCE.

Ignore my advice at your own peril.

negative stereotypes of other age groups -study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830094930.htm

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2010) — When given a choice, older people prefer to read negative news, rather than positive news, about young adults, a new study suggests. In fact, older readers who chose to read negative stories about young individuals actually get a small boost in their self-esteem, according to the results.

D: whereas young folks just don't care to read about old folks at all.

Guess you can only read about how great Elvis 'n The Beatles were so many times.

new ontario no-drink law for young drivers is ageist

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/842831--alcohol-impairs-young-drivers-more-than-experienced-ones#comments

The title:
Alcohol impairs young drivers more than experienced ones

Um... no.

And the story never does make the case.

“Is (the new law) biased against young people — yeah,” says Hughson. “But it’s not biased against them because they’re young, it’s biased against them because they’re not experienced drivers.”

Hughson describes driving as a complex, multi-tasking challenge. All at once, drivers need to concentrate on the road, their speed, other cars and unexpected events — someone cutting them off, for example. Even when stone cold sober, younger drivers do these less well than older, more experienced ones, he says.

“Younger drivers don’t have the skills older drivers have, and that’s why alcohol affects them a lot more,” Hughson says. “It’s not so much that they’re more impaired than the older driver, it’s the fact that they don’t have the experience driving to keep all the things going.”

----
D: at first blush, the argument seems vaguely plausible.
Actually, the new law IS biased against young people and very specifically since they're young.
Hughson never makes the case that age is the defining factor.
Lack of experience is. Now granted, a young driver can only have a finite # of years of (official) driving experience.
But.
If experience is the issue, then the existing graduated licensing system is a much better basis than age per se.
By this I mean that ANY new driver - or ANY age - maybe ought to be subjected to the teetotaller rule.

This law is ageist against the young.

It should be tossed out because of this.

Now many will pipe up earnestly at this point that "the law will SAVE lives"!
As if this justifies sloppy discriminatory laws.
We can save lives by applying a no-booze rule to ALL new drivers, regardless of age.
This should, by all rights, save MORE lives.
So the above objection remains ignorant and ageist pap.

'Nuff said.
This sort of stuff will be a part of my thesis.

US study- breakeven point for U grad

alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5471504150462074386" />

University DOES work for many people.

http://www.onlinedegrees.org/research/value-of-a-degree/

private post-secondary schools have high loan default

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/career-college-students-crushing-debt-costs-taxpayers-millions/article1555629/

D: twice as high, in fact.

Figures compiled by The Globe revealed that those students made up just 17 per cent of the recipients of federal student aid, yet accounted for more than 30 per cent of the value of delinquent loans."

D: hmm. Whaddyathink? Doubling tuition in the 90s, would it have a similar effect?

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/cslp/statistics/08_st_DefaultRatesCanadaProvinces.shtml

Yup. See pic.

I started U in 1991. They got rid of grants. Good for 1% on default rates.
I finished in um 1997. But in the following years, the rate DROPPED. So... times got better, right?
Nope. That was when the minimum years-to-default rules came out.
It artificially suppressed rates.
Time were tough. The U tuition had DOUBLED by then from 1990, at an increase of 10% per year it only takes c. 7 years.
So really, the getting screwed up the A** had the addition of no more Vaseline at that point.

By 2001, any ex-student who could obviously bellied up ASAP. It had not been true before. Not to 'screw the system'.
Cuz they knew the system would screw them MORE given half a chance.

I recall the papers talking about the accumulated total of bankrupted student loan to shock the public.
Of course, most of that had been Baby Boomers.
Baby Boomer sins being used to justify punishing Gen X. Rich...
Baby boomers were all but encouraged to default. The student loan could not even appear on their credit report.

The sins of the father are passed on to the son, apparently, and 7 generations.
But it is the FATHER administering the punishment for his own behavior!
Do you feel indignant?
Why the hell not?

Do I feel bad about not paying my loan back (caveat). Well I tried to pay it without the necessary income for years. So at the time, obviously I did. But no. Not at ALL.
Why? How could I be so ungrateful?
1) I DID pay it back, counting interest. And I quite possibly would have paid it back 4x by retirement. All the while living at a poverty-to-LICO level. I just never made serious inroads into the principle.
Here's a lil' factoid. Take away all the booze I ever drank. All the toys. And I STILL would have owed a big debt!
It would have changed nothing at all.
2) I was dealing with Dark Vader. Really. Let me explain.
I signed a contract. Which I agreed to. There was a trailer that said 'we can do anything we want to you'.
I didn't know they'd use it!
The debt I agreed to could be defaulted on. If things were bad enough. It was why I was trying to pay it in good faith.
At first.
Recall the line from Empire Strikes Back.
In Cloud City.
Lando Calrissian: That wasn't the deal!
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
And there it was. I realized I was Lando and Darth was a dick.
So Lando screwed him back. Good for him.
Good for me.

Here's a couple hypothetical financial scenarios.
1) I tried to work off my debt
2) I tried to ignore it and go back to school.

1) That wasn't working anyway. Oddly, at Mcwage at Mcjob, I can only pay rent.
Take a debt of c. 25,000 bux. At 4% interest that is $1000 interest per year. So my token payments of 100/month... paid interest. In perpetuity.
I realize now that the c. 10% interest when I got out of school meant the 4-5000 I couldn't afford to pay had no impact whatsoever. Family got tired of bailing me out when I couldn't pay rent. Strangely paying about 4000 before balking.
I should never have tried.
We can extrapolate to c. age 65- in theory, retirement age - that I may very well STILL be treading water on paying interest in this scenario. Assuming age 25 to 65 - 40 years - and an interest rate that meant say 1-2000 per year (call it 1500)...
40x1500 = 60,000 in interest payments. 2-3x the actual principal amount.
But NEVER paying down the principal.
No house, no retirement savings.
Right.
2) Ignore it. Take school to PhD.
I'll be 40 starting grad school. A PhD, optimistically, at age 45.
Age FIFTY TWO before I could even consider bankrupting.
While hoping for some sort of prof gig to take off.
Which would, in turn, mean bad credit until age FIFTY NICE. About 60. Almost retirement.
Again, no house, no retirement nest egg.

If I could have seen the future there are 3 things, sequentially, I would have done:
1) used the $10,000 I saved at the end of high school for something else
2) not used student loans
3) bankrupted IMMEDIATELY after leaving school!!!
At age 40, I could have owned a home by now in scenario 1).

To summarize this entry, default rates are closely tied to tuition rates and ensuing loan levels.

The present student loan program is best considered a poison pill for the needy, but really just a subsidy for the comfortable middle class. Tax the middle class to pay the middle class. Not progressive.
Just like the present tax breaks on school costs and loan repayment.

I recommend to any student who has been out of school 7 years, and has an untenable debt, to default - barring other considerations - RIGHT NOW. Before Darth's rules change again.
It's self-preservation.
Darth, Lando was not being an asshole. You were.

I'll talk you through it next time.

the lost generation. unemployment

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/youth-joblessness-surging-oecd-warns/article1541597/

Even Canada - which saw a milder recession than elsewhere - youth jobless levels have shot up to 15.6 per cent, and actually crept higher last month.

And it’s not going to improve any time soon, the report said.

“The short-term prospects for youth unemployment in the OECD countries remain rather gloomy,” the 34-page report said. Youth were “among the first to lose their jobs and are finding it particularly difficult to get another one.”

Against this backdrop, the youth unemployment rate “is expected to stay at a high level over the next two years and many unemployed youth are likely to experience a prolonged period of joblessness.”

That’s troubling on a number of fronts. For disadvantaged youth who lack basic education, failing to find work can have long-term consequences on their careers - a term known as “scarring.”

Other long-term effects of prolonged joblessness include impacts on happiness, job satisfaction and health in the ensuing years.

-----
D: why not use affirmative action? Cycle folks through social assistance.
So at least youth get some job experience.
After all, in 10-20 years, they'll hafta work to replace all those retiring Boomers.

Aside: I read that the recessions caused the CPP a loss worth 14% of its value. Ouch.
That a group pension yields 30% more payoff than a private RRSP.
That Joe Sixpack, if he saves for retirement his whole work career, needs to set aside 11% of revenue.
Hmm.

D: funny how 'age discrimination' implicitly means against the OLD.
Well, the idea that a worker won't be around that long is matched by the unwillingness to train them in the first place.

D: I've been reading over the math curriculum in schools.
I am befuddled by what the top university-bound students are expeted to know.

http://www.osstf.on.ca/Default.aspx?DN=76e080a5-0ec6-4448-8bba-67494d2add93

James Cote, a UWO prof, talks about "credentialism".

"...“pushed” into the institution by parent and peer pressure, rather than “pulled” into it by a love of learning; as a result, many students are simply “not prepared for the rigours of the university curriculum.”
A major reason for the recent push is “credentialism,” the commonly held view that the chief purpose of a university education is to get the credential (degree) needed for a rewarding job. The Canadian economy, however, has not co-operated in this quest. In the 1990s, it produced only one job requiring a university degree for every two graduates, leaving many of the latter underemployed, frustrated and disillusioned.
And as the university becomes less an ivory tower and more a corporation, a business ethos threatens to take hold: students become consumers, credentials the product. In the “credential mart,” as Côté calls the new university, the student has “become much more caught up in education as a means to an end...rather than viewing it as an end in itself, an opportunity for self-discovery and intellectual development in the moment [sic].”

D: why have I never read that factoid before? So of course only half of U grads get jobs in their field!
I'm guessing in good part based on such informal factors as family connections and personal networking.

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/cote/cote%20&%20levine%202000.pdf

"...a fallacy if such credentials do not represent some quality that can be used
later (Fallows, 1985). According to Statistics Canada (1994), “almost two-
thirds of new jobs between 1991 and 2000 will require at least 13 years of
education or training and 45% will require more than 16 years” (p. 22). Yet,
for many of these jobs, many of the skills taught in educational settings are
not directly used, beyond certain levels of literacy and numeracy (Côté &
Allahar, 1996). In any event, evaluations of these government policies and
labor force practices often use simple educational input-output logics, ignor-
ing what takes place in between, particularly in classrooms and with student-
faculty interactions."

D: Allahar and Cote suggested most jobs require basic literacy and numeracy, and then some weeks of on-the-job training.

D: I personally think most Liberal Art majors should have taken something else.
UW's co-op is really just a combination of remedial for high school's shortcomings, and much-needed job experience.
I only think those interested in learning itself, who want to stay in the academia, ought to be taking it.
For that matter, the claim that it helps with sophisticated thinking might be more credible if taking critical thinking and logic was mandatory.
Hell, poli-sci at UW does not even require stats!

history of post-secondary education funding in canada

http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/research/factsheets/CFS-Fact%20Sheet-Tuition%20Fees.pdf

Post-War (1946 to 1980)
Following the war, the federal government made grants
to attend university widely available to returning soldiers
as part of a veterans re-integration program. The federal
government also began directly funding universities during
this time, and continued to do so after most of the veterans
had graduated. As well, most provincial governments began
providing funding for post-secondary education institutions.
By the mid-1960s, nearly all funding for Canada’s universities
was provided by the federal and provincial governments.
This allowed for tuition fees to be reduced to a token
amount. Not surprisingly, post-secondary education
enrolment exploded, with Canadians from all backgrounds
gaining access to higher education for the first time.
Starting in the mid- to late-1960s, provincial college
systems were established in most provinces. Because of
public investment, tuition fees at most colleges were either
token or nil. This era represented a time when Canadian
governments not only recognised the social and economic
value of mass post-secondary education, they also invested
public funds to reflect that commitment. For a period at
the end of the 1960s, Newfoundland & Labrador abolished
tuition fees altogether.

1980s
In the early 1980s, a value shift began to take root in
governments in Canada and most other western countries,
as most jurisdictions began cutting funding for public
programs. Post-secondary education was an easy target
for these funding cuts. Because universities and colleges
are funded through a combination of both federal and
provincial grants plus user fees, governments were able
to cut funding by forcing students and their families to
subsidise the difference. For various reasons, this option
was not available for governments looking to cut public
investment in health-care or primary and secondary
education. Between the early 1980s and the early 1990s,
average tuition fees at Canadian universities more than
doubled. Average tuition fees at colleges, excluding those
in Québec, more than tripled.

2000 to the present
As access to university and college became increasingly
restricted and students were forced to suffer greater debt
loads in order to afford higher education, the Canadian
Federation of Students was able to successfully turn the
tide in several provinces. Since 2000, every province in
Canada has responded to pressure from students by
introducing tuition fee freezes and increasing provincial
funding for post-secondary education. Tuition fees were
actually reduced in British Columbia (2001), Manitoba (2000),
Newfoundland and Labrador (2002, 2003, and 2004), Prince
Edward Island (2007) and Nova Scotia (2008 and 2009).
Québec was unique among the provinces because it
resisted passing the cost of federal funding cuts on to
students. Before the government increased tuition fees
in 2007, they had been frozen for 35 of the last 40 years.
Currently they are increasing by $100 per year, a smaller
amount than most other provinces. Despite indications from
the governing political party that they may introduce fees,
college remains free in Québec.
At the beginning of the 1990s, average undergraduate
tuition fees in Canada were $1,464. Today, these fees
have risen more than three-fold to $4,917. While inflation
declined by 0.8% this past year, tuition fees increased 3.6%.2

------

D: there was no point rephrasing it. The Federation of Students PDF file has a nice summary.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091020/dq091020b-eng.htm

Canadian full-time students in undergraduate programs faced the same increase in tuition fees (+3.6%) for the 2009/2010 academic year as they did a year earlier.

On average, undergraduate students paid $4,917 in tuition fees in 2009/2010, compared with $4,747 in 2008/2009.

In comparison, between August 2008 and August 2009, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) declined 0.8%. During the same 12-month period in the previous year, the CPI rose 3.5%.

Tuition fees increased in all but three provinces this fall. Fees remained unchanged in Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick, while they declined in Nova Scotia (-3.1%) for a second year in a row.

Two provinces ended freezes on tuition fees with increases — Manitoba (+4.3%) and Saskatchewan (+3.4%). Elsewhere, tuition fee increases ranged from 2.0% in British Columbia to 5.0% in Ontario. Ontario's increase was the limit legislated by the Ontario government.

On average, undergraduate students in Ontario also paid the highest fees in Canada at $5,951. Students in Nova Scotia had the second-highest average tuition fees at $5,696.

-----

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2006001/9183-eng.htm

Trends in university tuition fees

Between 1995-1996 and 2001-2002, and after accounting for inflation, tuition fees rose by 132% in medicine, 168% in dentistry, and 61% in law, compared to only 34% in all undergraduate programs in Canada (Figure 1). These overall increases at the national level were largely driven by trends observed in Ontario, where tuition fees in professional programs were deregulated in 1998. In contrast, Quebec and British Columbia largely maintained their policy of regulating fees over the period 1995-1996 to 2001-2002. Other provinces had already deregulated fees or had experimented with deregulation to varying degrees.
In Ontario, tuition fees rose dramatically in all three professional programs over the period 1995-1996 to 2001-2002. In medicine and dentistry, the increases were particularly large (241% and 315%, respectively). In law, tuition fees also rose by a considerable amount (141%). In contrast, tuition fees fell moderately in all three programs in British Columbia (between 10% and 12%). In Quebec, tuition fees fell by 9% in law programs; in medicine and dentistry, the increase in tuition fees was relatively small, though not inconsequential (29% and 14%, respectively). In Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, the increases in tuition fees were situated somewhere in between the two extremes of Ontario on one end of the spectrum, and Quebec and British Columbia on the other.

-----
Comments.
Great. Instead of the bad old days when the sons of doctors became doctors, now the good new days have the sons AND daughters of doctors becoming doctors.
The professions - and social mobility- have not been this elusive in generations.

Notice anything about the tuition chart? Yup. My "benign neglect" model holds up, well, perfectly.
I'll show in the coming week that this prediction also proves true to student loan rates and repayment terms.

The tuition rate bottomed out about a decade before I attended university. Keep in mind I'm 38 and was born summer 1971. Putting me mid-Gen-X in birth time.
So we'd expect the following from the 'benign neglect model:
1) tuition rates decrease for early Boomers
2) tuition rates remain low until late Boomers are done with school, THEN
3) Boomers perceive low tuition rates- and higher taxes suddenly as a problem to be solved.
Since they were done with education and had entered the workplace, their perspective shifted.
To that of cheap-ass taxpayer. Instead of social-program-swindling students.

I'll touch on how easy the student loan system was to default on for Boomers.
They were all but encouraged to default on their student loans by incentives!
Then, of course, once they had done so, they then over-reacted to their generation's own excesses by 'tough love' - getting tough on Gen-X.

Am I bitter? You're damn right I am.
I started university the very year student loan grants were done away with.
Then faced 10% annual tuition increases, leading tuition to double in less than a decade.
I finished university within a couple years of the new no-default-possible student loans rules.
I deeply regret attempting to pay it off. I took 14 what I should have taken 2 years to do. Which is admit I was in no position to pay off my debt.

Bluntly, I got sodomized without even the benefit of Vaseline, or even a courteous reach-around.

I'll hash out the numbers in the coming week.
Now I gotta nap for my 2nd job. Great. I'm 38 with 2 McJobs that barely pay the bills.
So surprised I finally went bankrupt - not!

I'll look up the student loan interest I paid by way of example this week.

I'll be um 46 when I finally outlive my bad credit.
All based on a decision I made at 19, at half my age, with the encouragement of high school counsellors and parent.
Who, of course, now blame me for 'choosing to not use my education'. Really. Word-for-word quotation.
Incredible.

flaherty fields pension reform. ndp wants 2x payout

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/24/flaherty-pensions.html

Concerns over the adequacy of the current pension system have been growing in recent years. About two-thirds of Canadians are not covered by company pension plans. Surveys also suggest that about a third of Canadian families have no retirement savings at all and many others worry that they're not saving enough.

Last week, an analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute said most Canadians underestimate the amount they need to save for retirement. Its study said people need to save between 10 and 21 per cent of their pre-tax income for 35 years to get a retirement income at age 65 that would provide 70 per cent of their pre-retirement income.

While the Canada Pension Plan is actuarially sound for the next 75 years, the program is designed to replace just 25 per cent of the average working wage. It pays maximum retirement benefits of $934 a month.

Some, like the NDP, have suggested that the CPP system be beefed up to provide benefits that would approximate 50 per cent of the average working wage. That would require higher mandatory contributions.

-----

D: the NDP are not thinking intergenerationally.
Their position should be seen as pandering to the Boomers.
It is too late for the Boomers to significantly cover their own costs, if the pension plan is dramatically altered as the near retirement. They already got a break with the initial low pay-in rate prior to the last-decade 9.9% reform.

Don't tolerate bandying about of the word 'fair' by CARP.
This is intergenerational conflict. Fair is the opposite of reality!

Here's an idea: since Gen XYZ are subsidizing the too-low payin of Boomers for the first half the Boomers' working life,
1) introduce the expanded coverage and rate reforms supported by the NDP
2) but not for Boomers
3) hell, not even for Gen X or Y
4) Gen Z, if they pay-in at an increased rate for their whole working career, can qualify for that.
THAT is fair.

Day suggests reducing public pension benefits in future

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/day-hints-at-two-tiered-federal-pensions/article1508555/

"We've been clear. We're not reducing existing pension benefits," he said as he marched toward a staircase and declined any further clarification.

The insertion of the word "existing" was enough for union and opposition critics to conclude that new hires may be offered a lesser pension plan.

Committee member and NDP MP Paul Dewar, who represents an urban Ottawa riding that is home to many public servants, said the minister's use of the word "existing" was no mistake.

"They've got to be clear about what their intentions are," he said. "When he says 'existing' benefits and pensions, he's using that word for a reason.

-----

D: public sector good benefits in pensions have been used in private sector debates.
To some people, it's not 'fair' that public pensions are in part funded by the tax base.
Well, that is true of public sector everything.

My roomie works in the public sector. He's been a desk monkey for a university computer store for over a decade.
He makes less in boom years, when the private sector is booming and head-hunting.
But he works steadily through the years of famine too.
You get something, you lose something.

We need to watch rhetoric on 'gold plated' public pensions.
Somehow it is used to argue for expanded coverage in the private sector.
Since the CPP plan is not exactly swimming in surplus, this move should be shrewdly viewed as a generational issue.
Just add the words "for Baby Boomers only" and see if the statement still seems coherent.
Good test.

a nice summary of the various generations

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-tips/its-covered/talking-bout-my-generations-rates/article1502153/

D: the article is actually about car insurance rates.

------

Generation Y (born 1977-1991): The Internet generation, they learned to drive before they ever got behind the wheel of the car – via video games, of course. The centre of their parents' universe, these high-maintenance kids have been groomed for success. Voted most likely to have their own car before the age of 18.

Generation X (born 1965-1976): Generation X has sometimes been described as disaffected, directionless, lacking passion and drive. This group grew up during a period of the dot.com boom, combined with reduced expectations of long term relationships between employer and employee.

Baby Boomers (1943-1964): This generation thinks the world revolves around them, and for the most part, they're right. They command the most attention from marketers, media and politicians. Clinging to their youth, this group has been voted most likely to sport a bumper sticker saying, "Just Like You ... Only Richer & Smarter." As a group they're the healthiest and wealthiest.

The Silent Generation (1925– 1942): This generation of hardworking people focused on getting things done and advancing their careers. Yet, they've been called withdrawn, cautious and unadventurous.

The Greatest Generation (1911-1924): This generation had the Second World War and spent the ensuing years rebuilding their lives. These men and women have no problem fighting for what they believe in.

----
D: The pre-Boomers did manage to luck into a pension plan without paying for it.
And benefited from many other social programs too.
However, I have difficulty holding that against them. They did collectively defeat fascism, after all.
Plus they are not that numerous.

D: I was talking to a contractor inspector yesterday at work. He pointed out the impact of recent CPP changes.
The payoff for early retirement was reduced, plus the payoff for later retirement was increased.
I think from 5 to 7% difference in each cash. Some formula based on # of months before/after age 65.
Anyway, let's say this deters somebody from retiring at 65. Let's say by 3 years.
Well, not only is that 3 years more payin. It is also 3 years LESS payout. The retiree stills dies at the same time.
So at the same time as this reform makes retiring at, say, age 65 impractical, it in turn contributes to pension plan viability.
A whole lot of people don't have the personal savings to retire at their desired standard of living.

http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?siteLanguage=100&idContent=1351770
D: a list of recommended CPP changes.

Prior to 2007, it was required that a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) be converted to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) by the end of the year in which the owner turned 69. The 2007 Federal budget revised this age to 71, for both RRSPs and RPPs. RRIF owners are required to withdraw a minimum amount each year, starting the year after the RRIF is established. This requirement is waived, and there is no minimum withdrawal in the following circumstances:

for 2007, for RRIF owners who turn 71 in 2007, and

for 2007 and 2008, for RRIF owners who turn 70 in 2007.
There is no advantage gained by converting your RRSP to a RRIF before age 65.

----
D: same incentive, I think.

D: these look like quiet reforms that basically admit that the CPP plan maybe is not as solvent as they let on.
After all, if everything is fine, then why all these little changes, introduced without much fanfare?

are today's youth 'ego driven slackers'?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100315104030.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2010) — Today's youth are generally not the self-centered, antisocial slackers that previous research has made them out to be, according to a provocative new study co-authored by a Michigan State University psychologist.

"We concluded that, more often than not, kids these days are about the same as they were back in the mid-1970s," said Donnellan, associate professor of psychology.

In other findings:
Today's youth are more cynical and less trusting of institutions than previous generations. But Donnellan said this is generally true of the broader population.
The current generation is less fearful of social problems such as race relations, hunger, poverty and energy shortages.
Today's youth have higher educational expectations.
Ultimately, Donnellan said, it's common for older generations to paint youth in a negative light -- as lazy and self-absorbed, for example -- which can perpetuate stereotypes. It can be easy, he added, to forget what it's like to grow up.

----
D: in other news, Harper introduced a bill regarding young offenders.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-protection-of-society-should-be-goal-of-youth-justice/article1502155/

D: superficially, this appears to be the usual 'incapacitate versus rehabilitate' debate.
But look closer.

Mr. Nicholson says that would include a “casual attitude to the law [and] complete lack of empathy for the victim.”

The proposed changes would also permit sentencing judges to take into account evidence of previous brushes with the law that did not result in charges or convictions.

D: guilty until proven innocent? Or just always guilty - and next time, we'll ding you for it?

D: a nation with a mixed bag of laws that include a whole lotta vice crimes can expect a "casual attitude".
Every time a vice crime is made a crime, (arbitrarily) half of the people will believe that it should not be a crime.
Pot - weed - comes to mind. But so could, Idunno, prostitution or some types of porn. And gun control - the right has its 'vice crime' peeves too. If only they realized how much they resemble their opposition on the left. Even to the point of using the same rhetoric as them - but only in reference to their particular bugbear.
If we as a nation use a criminalization/imprison approach to only moderate harmful behaviors instead of a more moderate regulation/fine approach, then we can expect this casual attitude.
I'd argue a casual attitude is the most sensible one.

My mother had to admit that a lifetime cohort study found those that try weed were MORE, not LESS successful. They were free thinkers who were willing to question accepted wisdom.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a U grad who has not tried it, at least not many.

D: Notice a connection above? The two separate news items. One contains "cynical of institutions", the other "a casual attitude towards the law". It is the same damn thing!

My blog is gonna argue that being cynical of institutions is not only a supportable position, but also the most reasonable one.

D.

gov't intervenes in private corporate pensions

D: the student loan coverage can wait.

I should flesh out the state of the nation on pensions first.

Pre-subprime-mortgage-crisis, companies had what seemed superficially to be stable private pension plans.
I say superficially, because past changes in rules by a past government ensured this would not last.
Inevitably, some crisis or crash or bubble bursting would have brought us to where we are today.
Which is: government either throwing many private pensioners to the wolves. Or bailing them out.
Making private pensions look a lot like.... public pensions.

-----

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/retirement/retirement-dreams-under-siege/article1327536/

Pensions: What you need to know
84% of public service workers have pensions.
78% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
25% of private sector workers have a pension plan
16% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
11 million workers, or 60 per cent, of Canada’s workers have no pension at all
8 million or 45 per cent, have no pensions or registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs)

-----

D: what does this all mean?
Well "gold plated" turns out to be a term used due to an earlier government policy.
It was pushed for by companies to free up funds.

Jacquie McNish does us no service by usually using such morally-evaluative, emotionally-laden terms without defining them, or placing them in context. Jackqie, you wrote a hack piece.

---

At first, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Ontario had no plan to help GM top up its pension plan, which lacked sufficient money to cover all its obligations. He said putting money into GM's plan wouldn't be fair to other Ontarians.

But after the subject became a key issue in the negotiations, McGuinty changed his mind. This week, McGuinty acknowledged that some of Ontario's $3.5-billion contribution to the company could go toward the pension plan.

-----

D: how did things get so bad? And what is the distinction between tax-revenue based public pensions and private pensions?
Not much, apparently.
Everybody gets a pension, courtesy of the government, no matter what, apparently.
Why? Easy. Boomers are almost retired. They won't be picking up the tab.
You will.

-----

As the retirement dream fades, policymakers seem unwilling to tell Canadians they have not saved enough to retire.

“We have overestimated our capacity to protect the needs of retirees,” says Harry Arthurs, former head of an Ontario commission that identified numerous flaws in the province’s pension regime.

“We now know there is no such thing as a pension or retirement promise,” Mr. Arthurs says. “There is no certainty.”

----
D: funny. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Generationally speaking, at least. For the Boomers.
Everybody who is a Boomer gets to win. Merry Christmas, ho ho ho.
But there is a price to pay. By somebody else, naturally.
If all the Boomers win.... everybody else LOSES. Gen XYZ.

------

The Record: In a speech in Kitchener recently, author and economist Sherry Cooper suggested that baby boomers shouldn't retire at 65. She pointed out that the average life expectancy was only 62 when the government set the age of retirement at 65. "Retirement was never meant to be 30 years," she said.

http://news.therecord.com/article/547593

------

D: originally, wasn't it age 70? How ironic. Now we are talking about moving it back to 70 again.
With life expectancy increasing, we may see retirements that last nearly as long as work careers!
Witness: School to 25, work 25-50, early retirement 50-75. OK, I had to finesse the timeline a bit. But you see what I mean.
That is a whole lot of Boomers who can expect to live to 75 or so retiring as early as 55.
God forbid is some miracle drugs suddenly increase life expectancy!
Here is my prediction: this will be phased in to the future, with warning, so as not to ruffle Boomer feathers.
"But we have only planned for the present retirement age -this upsets our plans", they'll cry.
Meaning.... the age of retirement will only be increased for Generation X, and following generations.

Do you see the pattern yet? Pay-go was predicted in the 1990s to become too expensive (code for: Boomers would need to pay their share, in part, before retiring, despite very low initial CPP pay-in the first half of their work lives).
It would get expensive by 2010- now - and the Boomers will be working in significant numbers for another 10-20 years.
Ergo, any spike in the pension pay-in needed to be deferred until 2020-30. The system allows for a .2% increase/year.
If at 2020 this increase begins, only the quasi-Gen X late Boomers will get clipped.
Here is my prediction. In 2020, despite seeing the same numbers and trends as 2010, the Boomers will suddenly 'discover' that the finances are not in place. In 2020 until 2030, the .2%/yr. rule will increase CPP pay-in from. c.10% to 12%. And so on. Until the Generation Z workers retire with an almost 20% CPP rate at the end of their work lives. Only to find out there is nothing left. In this respect, after the Boomers, we may well see a conflict between gens X and Z, with Y waffling in the middle.

------

Under provincial legislation, the Ontario government has responsibility for ensuring the viability of GM's pension plan in Canada. Mr. McGuinty said yesterday the province is considering helping the company restructure the pension funds.

---

D: ummm.. why?!

----

The solvency deficiency - or shortfall in the funds if the company were to fail - was $4.5-billion in November, 2007.

Pension experts said yesterday that one solution could be similar to the action Ontario took earlier this decade when Algoma Steel Inc. made its second trek through creditor protection. In that case, the province took over financing the pensions of Algoma retirees, through the Ontario Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund, an insurance fund to which employers contribute, but which is now in deficit.

----
$$$ . !!!.

---

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/04/23/mcguinty-refuses-pension-bailout-for-gm/

McGuinty refuses pension bailout for GM
April 23, 2009 · By Charles Anthony
This is one of the few times that McGuinty actually makes a worthwhile decision, in my opinion.
Given that Ontario has already given billions in aid to domestic automakers over the past few years, using taxpayer money to guarantee auto worker pensions when 65 per cent of Ontario residents have no pension plan at all would be a tough sell, McGuinty told reporters.

----

D: it is now too late to just say no. Now is time for the slippery slope.

Apparently the solution is to cover everyone!!! Let's use the credit card to have a party! Everyone's invited, woo hoo. How will we pay it off? Don't worry about it - have a beer!

Wonderful.

------

http://www.uniontech.com/Archive/PostonWEB/PensionReform%20No.4.htm

The Rules as They Stand
Under the current rules, when all the assets of your former employer have been devoured by secured creditors, and your pension fund only covers 60% of its obligations, each former employee and former member of the plan gets 60% of their entitlement. In Ontario, when the resulting pension is less than $1,000 per month, it would be topped up by a little-known public insurance enterprise called the “Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund” – operated by the Province of Ontario, and funded by premiums paid by the likes of General Motors – employers with pension plans which are not fully funded.
It appears that the level of premiums paid was set way to low. On March 31, 2008, the PBGF reported a deficit of $102 million. The deficit in General Motors (Canada) pension funds exceeds $5 billion. Any new claims on the Guarantee Fund will inevitably turn into a liability for the taxpayers of Ontario...

----

http://www.bnn.ca/news/4929.html

In Canada, the automaker is in compliance with all legal requirements and has a smaller shortfall when the pension funds are measured on a going-concern basis, which essentially amounts to pay-as-you-go.
GM is the only company in Ontario that is permitted to make annual payments into the province's Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund instead of being required to finance its pensions on a solvency basis.
GM became eligible to do that in the early 1990s when the Canadian units of the Detroit Three and steel makers Algoma Steel Inc. and Stelco Inc. were granted relief from onerous pension payments in part because the government agreed they were too big to fail.
A senior Ontario government official said the province is aware of GM's pension shortfall and it will be taken into account in negotiations over providing assistance to the auto industry. The government has not yet seen the automaker's books.
"The ramifications are enormous," the official said.

----

D: "Because they (GM et al) were too big to fail"!
Oh, the laughter! The bitter tears...
It gets better. The other 2 companies are .... wait for it - Stelco and Algoma!
Who are these guys who passed this! Can we play pinata?

Don't worry, Boomers. Any government deficits won't be paid off in the next ten years of gradual recovery.

A book called "Unnecessary Debt" talks about this. The problem with running deficits during a recession is not the debt per se that results. The problem is a lack of discipline once times are good again. The result can be a gov't debt level that shows an 'escalator effect'. I.e. it goes up, levels out, goes up again - but never gets reduced.

----

I'll take a look at consolidated gov't debt another day. I"ve looked it up before, and it is fairly involved.
It becomes even more complex when both unsecured future entitlements, and neglected public infrastructure gets factored in.

CPP pension plan. a history to present.

CPP History:

CPP was created in 1966 as a pay as you go system i.e. the current working generation would pay for the pension benefits of the previous generation. It was a workable system in 1966 with retirement age of 70, a healthy economy and rising wages[1]. 30 years later in 1996 the plan received $11B in contributions and paid out approx. $17B in benefits with a deficit of $6B in that year. With contributor to beneficiary ratio expected to drop to 3:1 by 2030 major overhaul of the system was required to avoid a disastrous situation.

http://www.weblivepro.com/articles/cpp/cppinfo.aspx (pic)

D: That's right - it took 30 years for governments to turn the pension plan into a train wreck.
Why? Cuz Boomers did not want to pay taxes (or other payroll deducations) during their work years.
Did nobody NOTICE for 30 years the inevitable result of this laxness?

Wiki:

The CPP program mandates all employed Canadians who are 18 years of age and over to contribute a prescribed portion of their earnings income to a nationally administered pension plan

D: it is big government. It is coercive.

The CPP is funded on a "steady-state" basis, with its current contribution rate set so that it will remain constant for the next 75 years, by accumulating a reserve fund sufficient to stabilize the asset/expenditure and funding ratios over time. Such a system is a hybrid between a fully funded one and a "pay-as-you-go" plan. In other words, assets held in the CPP fund are by themselves insufficient to pay for all future benefits accrued to date but sufficient to prevent contributions from rising any further.

D: that's the technobabble.

History:

D: planned under the government of the Conservative Dief.

D: the first crisis:

At its inception, the prescribed CPP contribution rate was 1.8% of an employee's gross income up to an annual maximum. Over time, the contribution rate was increased slowly. However, by the 1990s, it was concluded that the "pay-as-you-go" structure would lead to excessively high contribution rates within 20 years or so, due to Canada's changing demographics, increased life expectancy of Canadians, a changing economy, benefit improvements and increased usage of disability benefits.

D: what was the problem? The key passage was "within 20 years or so" - the boomers might still be working!
THAT made it a 'crisis'. Delaying the crisis by 2-3 decades makes it sound Boomer planning...

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/cpp/2007/annual_report/CPP_Eng_Report_FINAL.pdf

a faiR aPPRoaCh to funding
When it was introduced in 1966, the CPP
was designed as a pay-as-you-go plan, with a
small reserve. This meant that the benefits for
one generation would be paid largely from the
contributions of later generations. This approach
made sense under the economic, financial and
demographic circumstances of the time. The period
was characterized by a rapid growth in wages and
labour-force participation, and low rates of return
on investments.

D: and with a signature on the new bill, the Boomers were let off the hook to pay for their own retirement


D: let's tease these factors apart, and examine them one at a time.

1) changing demographics
2) increased life expectancy
3) changing economy
4) benefit improvements and increased usage of disability benefits.

D: Let's address them in order.
2) changing demographics.
(see pic 2)
D: seems to me, the whole wide world realized that life expectancy was increasing.
Well, maybe the RATE increased?
http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html
Nope. The opposite. The increase in life expectancy actually slowed. So if anything, the plan should have shown a surplus.
1) changing demographics.
(pic).
Nope. Same thing. Bullshit. The immigration rate was HIGHER prior to the passing of the pension plan.
Once again, we'd expect the plan to overbudget for demographic shifts.
Once again, we get the opposite.
3) changing economy.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/interest_rates.jpg
OK... got me there. That is some dismal real interest return rates.
4) if they expand benefits, who can act surprised?
So in summary, by and large, we get fed a line.

D: there is an old saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME.
You're not fooling me twice.

D: the solution?

"Move towards a hybrid structure to take advantage of investment earnings on accumulated assets. Instead of a "pay-as-you-go" structure, the CPP is expected to be 20% funded by 2014."

D: leave post-Boomers with the bill?

----
Tomorrow we'll look at post-secondary education funding, and related student loans.

You will begin to see a pattern. I'll explicitly outline that pattern after entries cross-referencing income tax and pension pay in rates. One needs to look at the Boomer at every stage of voting life to understand just how pernicious the 'benign neglect generational model' can be, without any need to invoke conspiracy.
I'd note that a quasi-Marx-class-derived age-based analysis is entirely absent from both the public discourse and policy.
Like feminism, this model needs to create 'class awareness'. By that I not only mean for young people, but also for older people- Boomers really - so they realize where their policies lead. That leaves them with 2 options. They can acquiesce to these policies, knowing where they lead- and thereby become complicit- or join in becoming part of the solution.
For younger adults, awareness can replace apathy with anger. This anger can be used destructively or constructively.
Why rant about 'no future' when one can wrest from time the future one wants, bend fate to one's will?

the history of demographics. rise of the baby boomers.

D: the pic is from Bubblegum Crisis, which is Japanese Anime. The robots in it are called Boomers, as the builders of prosperity that will herald an new economic boom. It doesn't turn out that way...

D:

A baby boomer is a person who was born during the demographic Post-World War II baby boom. The term "baby boomer" is sometimes used in a cultural context, and sometimes used to describe someone who was born during the post-WWII baby boom.

D: a truncation of "Post WWII baby boom".

In general, baby boomers are associated with a rejection or redefinition of traditional values; however, many commentators have disputed the extent of that rejection, noting the widespread continuity of values with older and younger generations

D: LOL. Riggghhhht.

"Turn on, tune in, drop out" is a counterculture phrase coined by Timothy Leary in the 1960s. The phrase came to him in the shower one day after Marshall McLuhan suggested to Leary that he come up with "something snappy" to promote the benefits of LSD[citation needed].

D: Sell out. The flower children were a highly visible fringe, but hardly mainstream.
Any more than Gen X can be identified with, say, big-haired heavy metal with leather jackets and torn jeans.

Flower child or Flower Children originated as a synonym for hippie, especially the idealistic young people who gathered in San Francisco and environs during the 1967 Summer of Love. It was the custom of "flower children" to wear and distribute flowers or floral-themed decorations to symbolize altruistic ideals of universal brotherhood, peace and love. The mass media picked up on the term and used it to refer in a broad sense to any hippie

One of the unique features of Boomers was that they tended to think of themselves as a special generation, very different from those that had come before. In the 1960s, as the relatively large numbers of young people became teenagers and young adults, they, and those around them, created a very specific rhetoric around their cohort, and the change they were bringing about.[3] This rhetoric had an important impact in the self perceptions of the boomers, as well as their tendency to define the world in terms of generations, which was a relatively new phenomenon.

D: The original "ME generation". Forget the I-pod toting youths...

D: so who are Boomers?

Definition

The United States Census Bureau considers a baby boomer to be someone born during the demographic birth boom between 1946 and 1964.[8] The Census Bureau is not involved in defining cultural generations.
William Strauss and Neil Howe label American Baby Boomers 1943 to 1960.[9]
In Ontario Canada, one influential attempt to define the boom came from David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo: Profiting from the Demographic Shift in the 21st Century, published in 1997 and 2000. He defines a Canadian boomer as someone born from 1947 to 1966,

D: I'll use 1946 to 1966 for simplicity's sake.

D: characteristics of the Baby Boom. They're huge!

Size and economic impact
Seventy-six million American babies were born between 1946 and 1960, representing cohorts that would be significant on account of its size alone.[citation needed] This cohort shares characteristics like higher rates of participation in higher education than previous generations and an assumption of lifelong prosperity and entitlement developed during their childhood in the 1950s.
The age wave theory suggests an economic slowdown when the boomers start retiring during 2007–2009.[14]


D: and identity. They saw the imperialistic foreign occupation and forced conscription to wage war in Vietnam.
Whatever glory war promised in the Great Wars -despite the shocking carnage - was finished in Vietnam.
And saying "I'm a pacifist" sounds much better than "I'm a chickenshit"!

D: so they define themselves as 'against the system' more than before. And then... became the system.
Not only sold out, but then placed their thumb on the generations after them.

D: they VOTE.

"Older voters are interested in the economy, trumping pretty much everything else, with healthcare coming in a distant second," says Andrew Nannis of AARP, an advocacy group for the 50-plus set.

Each generation may have viewed the economy somewhat differently. "For younger voters, it was jobs; for a person with a new family, it was housing; for boomers, it was their retirement and pensions and 401(k)'s; and for older seniors, it was their children's and grandchildren's economic future," MacManus says.

D: US stats. I imagine they hold up here.

-----
D: so what is Generation X?

Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the baby boom ended [1][2], with earliest birth dates used by researchers ranging from 1961 to the latest 1981

The term was first used in the UK in a 1964 study of British youth by Jane Deverson. Deverson was asked by Woman's Own magazine to interview teenagers of the time. The study revealed a generation of teenagers who "sleep together before they are married, were not taught to believe in God as 'much', dislike the Queen, and don't respect parents," these controversial findings meant that the piece was deemed unsuitable for the magazine. Deverson, in an attempt to save her research, worked with Hollywood correspondent Charles Hamblett to create a book about the study. Hamblett decided to name it Generation X.

Generation X in the United States

Individuals considered to be within Generation X were born, and grew up during the later years of, and in the decade following the Vietnam War. They are most often linked to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.[17] Coming of age after the Vietnam War had ended, their political experiences and cultural perspective were shaped by the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin wall. Growing up in an historical span of relative geopolitical peace for the US, this generation saw the inception of the home computer, the rise of videogames, and the Internet as a tool for social and commercial purposes. Other attributes identified with this demographic are Dot-com businesses, Desert Storm, 80's rock, such as Van Halen and Bon Jovi, Heavy Metal, grunge and hip hop culture and punk rock bands such as The Ramones.

D: OK we have a definition problem. If Boomers are born until 1966, how can Gen X be born as early as 1961?
The answer is that late Boomers share much in common with early Xers.
If we chunk by 20 year segments we get 1946-66, 66-86, and 86-2006.
If we chunk by 15, we get 1946-61, 61-76 and 1976-1990.
This is handy, since it gives us 3 generations that are now adults, with an additional one growing up.

D: I read Douglas Coupland on Gen-X. I found it trite.

What is Generation Y?

Characteristics of the generation vary by region, depending on social and economic conditions. However, it is generally marked by an increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies. In most parts of the world its upbringing was marked by minor decrease in the Socialist approach to the politics and economics

Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Next or Net Generation,[1][2][3] describes the demographic cohort following Generation X. Its members are often referred to as Millennials[4][5] or Echo Boomers[6]. As there are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends, commentators have used birth dates ranging somewhere from the mid 1970s[7][8][9][9][10][11][12] to the early 2000s.

OK the 1976-91 span is too limited, but this is the nature of arbitrary time periods.
Let's just lump all the young adults after gen X in here for now. Their situation has more in common than not.

Generation ME?


They’re self-absorbed, spoiled and entitled — otherwise known as Generation Me. Learn why so many young people are pursuing fame and fortune, and are also miserable. And, find out if you’re unknowingly raising a child to be like this.

D: sound familiar? Self absorbed, with a sense of entitlement? That is right - Boomers.
The pot calling the kettle black!
You will need to become used to sanctimony and hypocrisy like that, on this blog.

I nominally call the tail end of Gen-Y (aka: ME) and what follows as Generation ZEE.
Why Z?
End of the line.
For social programs, for moderate taxes, for a slice of the pie in general.

-----
Tomorrow, I will extrapolate the Boomer retirement pattern, their effect on taxes/payroll fees, on balanced budgets, and on social program impact as well as WHICH programs will get funding.

The earliest Boomers are starting to retire now.
Those born in 1946 are now... 64. A fringe have already taken 'Freedom 55'.

----
http://www.carp.ca/

D: CARP used to be for truly old - retired - persons.
They adjusted their target demographic to include all Boomers. And no X Y or Zers...

CARP (Canada)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CARP (originally the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, now billed as Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus) is a Canadian organization advocating for the rights of those fifty years of age or older.
The original mandate of CARP was to represent retired persons specifically, but for various reasons it has since expanded to cover the rights of all persons over fifty.

D: the Boomers have now commandeered what WAS a group representing the interests of retired persons.

The Boomers now have
1) numbers
2) money
3) political awareness- they VOTE.
4) political organization - they LOBBY.
One person, one vote. Or one dollar, one lobby vote.
Either way, they WIN.

Look grim, doesn't it?

It is.

introduction to blog theme. about me.

CBC News
Canada's federal budget watchdog says the government's current fiscal structure is not sustainable if the aging of the country's population is not addressed.

In a report released Thursday, the Parliamentary Budget Office said long-term projections suggest that an aging population means that growth in Canada's real gross domestic product per capita will fall by a little more than half over the next 50 years.

"After growing by 2.1 per cent, on average, since 1961, real GDP per capita growth is projected to average only 0.9 per cent from 2009 to 2059," the budget office said.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/18/government-parliamentary-budget-office-aging.html#ixzz0fuSrKfon

-----
D: We have all known such things for a great many decades now. Why the fuss now?
Easy. The Baby Boomers are retiring.
Meaning that Generation X, Y and Z can pick up the tab.
Our folks have been like the blind date nobody wants. Leaves early, and leaves us to pick up the bill.

A few weeks ago, I read about some scheme to expand CPP pension coverage to all sorts of folks not covered by the plan.
Why? Boomers aren't picking up the tab. We are. They have our cheques, and have figured out how to forge our signatures.
As if somehow that implied consent, or even acquiescence.

----
About this blog.

I hope to write my grad thesis at UWO starting in 2011. It is on the subject of intergenerational politics. I've already done much reading on the subject. The UWO prof James Cote is a favorite author of mine.

Over the next few blogs, I will outline the general theme of this blog. Briefly, I call it 'feminism lite' but with an age twist instead.
Why feminism? It is a "conflict theory". Various interest groups are fighting for their slice of the pie. Or all of the pie, if they do it right.
Why "feminism lite"? It is light on conspiracy and outrageous Illuminati-esque premises. No secret patriarchy. No plot to keep women - or younglings - in their place.
I adhere to what I call the "benign neglect" model. What seems good depends on your vantage point. A police officer and a drug addict see different goods. One need only fail to consider alternative perspectives from alternative positions in life to convince oneself that one's own interests are 'the good'. As opposed to 'a good'. Or just one's own interests...

I will pick one subject each day to expand upon.

A word about terms.
I define Boomers as born 1946-1966.
Gen X, Y and Z are my naming conventions. Why? Cuz Z is the fiscal 'end of the line'.
They'll be squeezed dry and have no programs waiting for them.
The terms are more concise than reality. Late Boomers share some resemblance to early Gen Xers and so on.
However, I will point out turning points in government spending and fiscal policies and social programs, and link these to a 'rising tide' and 'critical mass' in the voting demographic.
Say it again: benign neglect.
We'll track tax and spending trajectories through the decade, always asking the question "who benefits?"
We'll find that the Boomers like programs when they are not paying in, at the beginning and end of their work careers.
We'll see they dislike taxes when they work - and that includes such things as pension pay in.
We'll break down money-in versus money-out for the various generations.
I'll extrapolate the future lot in life of the various generations.
The 'business as usual' model, based on the 'benign neglect' thesis, should prove to be a wake-up call.

Various age-related issues will be discussed. This will include GenZ issues, even for those that cannot yet vote.
----
About me:
I'd argue that my autobiography is relevant to an age-related blog. I've never bothered before.

1971- born on tobacco farm outside small SW Ontario town
1982- father having mental problems. parents separate. mother gets custody. move to town.
1983-4 -father dies. move to mid-sized town. mother picks up pre-farm-wife vocation to support kids
1990 - complete high school. get adequate marks to go to University of Windsor for sociology
1990-1997 - take time, end up 1 course shy of 4 year combined honours soc/crim and 3rd year poli-sci.
1998 - cannot delay 'real world' any longer. a decade of temp work and entry level mcjobs await me
2009 - three years of entry level food factory cleaning is enough. i retrain as security guard (better for school)
Security guard card repeatedly lost in mail or by gov't bureacracy. I spend 60 days doing general labour for buddy, who then goes bankrupt. I'm left severely overextended and without a line of credit or any reserves by this point.
I have never managed to pay down my student loan significantly. I go bankrupt. I'm done this September 2010.

I won't claim I am a typical Gen Xer, since there are many types of us. But many of my smart liberal arts grad friends are working in similar entry level jobs. Living their lives of quiet desperation, even a decade later.

Let's track my 'career path' (such as it is) in reference to generational programs and taxes/fees.
1991 - begin university. This is the year grants are ended.
1990s - the beginning of double-digit percent tuition increases. the banks get nervous about defaults.
I initially tried to meet the payments with temp work. Inevitably I overextended, and needed to get bailed out by family.
Briefly, I could have bankrupted.
New rules came into effect. First a student loan could not be defaulted upon for 2 years. Then it was TEN YEARS.
My earlier failures meant I did not qualify for the later 5-year-mark loan reduction scheme based on repayment difficulties.
Recently, the rules changed back to SEVEN years out of school to default.

For years now, I was treading water on interest payments only. Entry level jobs pay for living costs, and that's about it.
Once my family would not support me, I could not risk over-extending to make inroads into the principal debt due.
I could not go back to school still owing a student loan. For starters, I have no savings. None.
Plus it would reset any potential bankruptcy date. If I take 6 years to get an MA and PhD, and start in September 2011, I could well end up RETIRING still owing the debt. Assuming I retire.
Plus I have no credit at all due to my student loan. And would not likely qualify for another!

I was very bitter about school and money and career in my 20's. In my 30's, I've evolved into cynical.
I certainly didn't expect to face 40 still at an entry level job, with no savings.
The idea of paying for a house is starting to look implausible. So too, saving for retirement, if the last 15 years are any indication.
In high school, I flipped burgers for 6.35/hour. Adjusted for inflation, I've never made much more than that.

So through my working years, I've been tracking the history of what Baby Boomers (BBs) did to student loan and tuition subsidies once they were done with education themselves. Now I am watching their attempt to mini-max (minimum in, maximum out) the pension programs. So too all the social programs, including health care.

We've known for quite some time- decades in fact - that there will be a whole lot of retired boomers with not so many sub-boomers supporting them. Instead of feeling good about ourselves for having relatively low government debt, we ought to have a surplus saved up for all these future program entitlements.
I'll track the consolidated government debt levels since WWII to indicate the generational aspect, and extrapolate the 'business as usual' model into the future.

Cheers.