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.