GenX and the politics of global warming. Ontario Liberal by-election.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/why_generation_x_so_skeptical_about_climate_change-92230

Generation X, they say, is lukewarm about warming - they are uninformed about the causes, unconcerned about the potential dangers and doubt it is happening.

It isn't just the stupid people, 12% of those who aren't buying it are quite scientifically literate. This corresponds to other surveys which also found that as scientifically literacy went up, so did skepticism about global warming.   That larger study didn't just do the simple liberal or conservative (which is codespeak for Democrat and Republican to simplistic sociologists) correlation this new analysis did. The new analysis found that 50% of liberals were very concerned about global warming while 0% of conservatives were.  The conservatives are Flat Earth Holocaust Denying Baby Killers, right?  Well, no, unless 50% of Democrats are the same thing.

--------------

D: BIAS ALERT - I am a card-carrying member of the Ontario Liberal Party!!!
I'd also like to apologize for the big mess I made of fonts. I have not used the new Google blog interface and forgot about its quirks.

D - This is pretty near 'n dear to my heart. I'm helping Eric Davis win the local Ontario provincial byelection. This riding may be the key to a Liberal majority in the province. Two issues dragged me off my complacent butt to help last election:
1) hefty grant for university undergrads (I sympathize) and
2) taxation on fossil fuels.
I'd like to mention that I read ScienceDaily, the best science news site on the web, well, DAILY. So feel confident I understand the general consensus by scientists about human-emitted CO2 and global warming.
For the record I do believe in the idea of human-caused CO2-based global warming. However, there is no need for me to 'place all my eggs in 1 basket' on the issue. In fact, I do not need to mention global warming whatsoever.  How?
Pollution and health complications is widely understood and accepted, even by global warming deniers. As is the toll that vehicle accidents impose.

Here are the positions of the 3 major parties:
1) Liberals - incentives for green alternative power sources such as solar and wind. They took quite the hammering in rural areas with wind generators. There is some sentiment that signing a deal with a foreign company (Samsung) for solar capacity was not well researched. Status quo for taxes.
2) NDP - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1034082--ndp-vows-to-wean-ontario-off-nuclear-power For home retrofits for efficiency. Against nuclear power. On taxes: http://ontariondp.com/en/tag/hst Hudak adopts New Democrat position on hydro affordability NDP Energy and Finance Critic Peter Tabuns says Ontario families should take Tim Hudak’s support for New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath’s proposal to take the HST off hydro and home heating with a grain of salt.
D - but the NDP go farther than the Conservatives:
 NDP Leader Andrea Horwath unveiled her plan to protect drivers at the pumps by setting a weekly price cap on the cost of gasoline. NDP Leader Andrea Horwath unveiled her plan to protect drivers at the pumps by setting a weekly price cap on the cost of gasoline. “Life keeps getting more and more expensive and it’s time to give people a break,” said Horwath. “We can’t fix everything, but we can take steps to protect households from gas gouging.”
3) Like I said, the Conservative plan is "NDP lite". 

D - OK, these are messy issues. Not all base electricity generation in Ontario is derived from fossil fuels. 

http://www.theobserver.ca/2012/08/03/close-coal-plants-now-report-advises

Ontario has said its remaining coal plants must close by Dec. 31, 2014 but unions for 300 workers at the Lambton Generating Station at Courtright, as well as community leaders in Sarnia-Lambton, have been pushing the province to convert it to natural gas power.

The alliance says that’s not needed because Ontario’s electricity generation capacity has grown by 13% since 2003. It adds that closing the coal plants now could reduce electricity rates by about $367 million annually, or about 2.3%.

D - OK. I'd like to say that, while I do NOT support the construction of brand-new nuclear reactors, that refurbishing the existing ones are the mid-point in their lifespan is highly cost effective. The cost to refurbish, thereby doubling lifespan, is only about 10% the total cost of building it in the first place. Once built, it is a no-brainer to invest in such mid-life refurbishing. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/natural-gas-winning-the-race-for-energy-efficiency/article4465567/

D - natural gas generators have become increasingly efficient, whereas coal plants have stagnated for decades.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/natural-gas-plants-have-become-more-efficient/article4465551/?from=4465567

http://www.nrwc.ca/about-wind/research/

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/images/content/figure5.jpg

(D - Ontario power sources, past present & future.)

D - right now we still have rich uranium ore sources that make nuclear power a source of low-CO2 power. At some distant future time, as we turn to poorer ore sources, there will a break-even point in CO2 emissions where it will only match natural gas. Natural gas is a much better source of power for low CO2 than coal. Coal sources, as we increasingly turn to marginal and lower-quality sources, has become increasingly less efficient. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Coal_as_fuel

The typical thermodynamic efficiency of coal power plants is about 30%, so of the 6.67 kW·h of energy per kilogram of coal, 30% of that—2.0 kW·h/kg—can successfully be turned into electricity; the rest is waste heat. So coal power plants obtain approximately 2.0 kW·h per kilogram of burned coal.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency's 1999 report on CO₂ emissions for energy generation,^[64] quotes a lower emission factor of 0.963 kg CO₂/kWh for coal power. The same source gives a factor for oil power in the U.S. of 0.881 kg CO₂/kWh, while natural gas has 0.569 kg CO₂/kWh. Estimates for specific emission from nuclear power, hydro, and wind energy vary, but are about 100 times lower.

D- so yeah, Google coal pollution to see just how messy it is. By the time we introduce new clean coal tech to make it comparable to other sources coal is no longer particularly cost-effective from a power perspective. 

http://k-w-bike-walk-bus.blogspot.ca/2008/04/cars-are-not-cost-effective.html

D - the above blog of mine continues many entries on the cost of privately-owned vehicles for transit in our society. IMHO, the price of gasoline, to reflect incorporating the expense of negative externalities of its use on society, should be DOUBLE. The #s support me. 

It's pretty rich that the NDP on one hand want to have incentive to improve home power efficiency (while subsidizing power and heating costs with tax breaks, thereby removing any price incentive to do so), and on the other hand, wish to merely subsidize 'Big Gas' on the road without any matching incentive at all! 

The end result of this ill-thought out policy (and the Conservatives are just "NDP lite" on this, remember) is increased use of fossil fuels, little incentive to conserve or reduce usage, and increased costs to health care due to pollution emission. 

The conservatives are locally touting a new widened highway between Kitchener and Guelph. I use this road part way to Cambridge via Fountain street to get to work. 

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/765058--businesses-see-crisis-as-new-highway-7-stall-stretches-on

Ontario’s Liberal government approved a divided, four-lane freeway in 2007, but delayed construction until some time after 2015, with no date to begin...

In 2007, Ontario cited economics and safety in approving the 18-kilometre replacement highway, north of the current two-lane road. It was estimated to cost $300 million.

D - here is where the Conservative plan gets into trouble. Where is the funding coming from in their plan?!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/998840--hudak-promises-income-tax-and-spending-cuts

"(Hudak) He said the cuts will not touch spending on health care and education, which he will increase at levels similar to what McGuinty outlined in his March budget.The Liberals warn there’s a $12 billion gap between the taxes a Hudak government would cut and the revenues it would bring in.“The numbers just don’t add up,” Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli said..."

http://k-w-bike-walk-bus.blogspot.ca/search?q=ontario+coal

D- here we have a (bit dated) pic of Ontario and coal plant locations. 

The Liberals are trying to wean Ontario off of King Coal: http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2012/07/ontario-converts-coal-plant-to-biomass-creates-200-jobs.html

Eliminating coal-fired electricity in Ontario is the single largest greenhouse gas reduction measure in North America.

D - in summary, the 3 parties have the following positions:
1) NDP - biggest fossil fuel tax cuts. Anti-nuclear. Home retrofit incentive.
2) PC - medium fossil fuel tax cuts.
3) Liberal - no tax cuts. Pro-nuclear. Anti-coal.
D - why do I support the Liberals? Because only their plan recognizes the combo of CO2 and health care costs that subsidizing fossil fuels with special tax cuts would incur. The consumer is ALREADY getting  a special break to handle the impact of various electricity-related costs in the form of a 10% Liberal discount.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/907641--utilities-forced-to-tout-ontario-government-s-10-discount
"Ontario’s Liberal government is forcing utilities to tout the 10 per cent electricity discount on hydro bills every month for the next five years, the Star has learned.

Over the next few weeks, millions of households, farms, and small businesses will begin receiving the new “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit” on their monthly hydro bills.

The measure is designed to offset an expected 46 per cent increase in electricity costs in the coming five years."

McGuinty said Wednesday that the discount is important to Ontario families and small businesses.

The price break would save a homeowner using 800 kilowatt hours a month $153.60 a year...

“We’ve asked a lot of Ontarians. We’ve asked them to invest in a long-term energy plan. We put it all out there. It’s thoughtful, it is responsible, it is honest . . . we’re renewing 80 per cent of our system over the next 20 years,” the premier (McGuinty) said at Ryerson University.

-------------------
CONCLUSION:
D - There is no way to encourage increased household efficient use of electricity with even more cuts, all which cost revenue to the tax base. Only the Liberals stand firm in their conviction that paying more health costs via subsidizing fossil fuels makes no sense.

present status of CPP pension fund

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/10/cpp-fund-up.html

The Chief Actuary of Canada said the CPP will remain sustainable for at least the next 75 years, and says that contributions are expected to exceed benefits paid until 2021. That means CPP won't need to dip into its investment returns for the next nine years...


The Canada Pension Plan Fund ended the first quarter of the fiscal year with $165.8 billion in assets, a $4.2 billion increase since the previous quarter.

Canada's national pension plan received $3.5 billion in contributions and earned $800 million on its investments. Its portfolio returned 0.5 per cent for the quarter.

---------------

D - a far cry from $250 billion prediction for in four more years. That was the prediction BEFORE the great economic crash of the last few years.
And 2021 is when the Boomers retire in earnest, in increasing numbers.
Even something as simple (and costly) as widely prescribed statins can completely skew demographic predictions in a hurry.
The above CBC story is NOT good news.
Trying to be positive about that news is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg has already struck us. We just are not quite drowned yet.
And the lifeboats are only numerous enough for first class customers - the Boomers.

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. 

chile is tuition's "not as bad as Hitler" retort

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/quebec-student-protesters-should-look-to-chile-for-a-little-perspective/article4226011/

But there’s good reason for the Chilean students to make noise. In Quebec, there isn’t.

Students in Chile pay roughly $3,400 a year in university tuition, in a country where the average household income is $8,500. For Quebeckers to pay the same proportion, their tuition fees would have to be $25,000. Instead, they pay $2,500 a year. In other words, for every dollar paid by a Chilean student and his or her family, Quebec students pay 10 cents.

And Chile is one of the world’s most unequal societies. 

---------

Funny - I'd opine that the BEST time to 'make noise' is wayyy BEFORE Chile's scenario.

Swell - it could be worse.

Now let's look at the OTHER end of this continuum, for context.

------------------

D - a summary of cheap European universities.

http://www.scholars4dev.com/4031/list-of-european-countries-with-tuition-freelow-tuition-universities-colleges/

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/10/24/foreigners-flock-to-norway-for-free-tuition/

Shocking as it may seem to many Canadians, Norweigians don’t charge any tuition to anyone—which was, until recently, normal in Scandinavia. Now, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all charge tuition fees, leaving Norway the only free option.

----------

D -  at some point, high tuition renders a degree simply not worthwhile.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2012/0617/Bachelor-s-degree-of-doubt-Going-straight-to-a-master-s-is-cheaper

D - A bachelor's degree just isn't what it used to be.

D - coupla thoughts:

1) In the USA, gone are the days when a student could use part time and summer jobs to graduate debt-free. In Ontario, I'd earn c. $10,000 per year this way. That assumes c. min. wage, 20hrs/wk for 8mo, and 40hrs/wk for summer.

2) I DO like the idea of students paying SOME tuition. Say about 10% of costs - even less than Quebec. Many will object this is a merely token amount that serves no purpose.

Not true - the literacy group I'm a trained tutor for charges the students for the cost of materials. Why? It gives the students ( or "learners") a vested interest - a stake. Same reason we toss them back to the start of the line-up if they don't attend.

BC offers interest relief - on sky hi rate!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-relaxes-student-loan-repayment/article4370350/

Premier Christy Clark says she’ll ease loan payments for students in British Columbia – in some cases forgiving further payments – as the third pillar of her Families First agenda.


----------- 


D - but BC charges the HIGHEST interest rate of any province: prime +2.5%.


So thanks for NOTHING.


-----------------


BC: the cowboy wearing the black hat!


--------------


http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/the-crushing-weight-of-student-debt/article625694/?service=mobile

The situation is so critical that, in British Columbia, the heads of four of the province's leading research universities appealed to the provincial government to do something to alleviate the financial stress B.C. students are facing.

B.C. currently charges the highest interest rates on student loans of any jurisdiction in the country - 2.5 per cent above prime. (That compares with Newfoundland, which eliminated interest rates on student loans in 2009.) Worse, B.C. eliminated its student grant program in 2004 and replaced it with a loan-reduction program that forgives millions in debt each year but only for students with certain degrees and who are willing to work in certain areas of the province.

In B.C., interest begins accumulating on a student's debt right after studies are completed. Other provinces have a six-month grace period before this occurs, giving students a chance to establish themselves in a job before their higher loan payments begin. The university bosses would like to see the province adopt a grace period and reduce the interest rate from its current level.

The presidents believe, rightly, that the high cost of financing a postsecondary education is scaring away students from underrepresented groups such as aboriginals and others from impoverished backgrounds. But costs are scaring away kids from middle-class homes as well. And the loans needed to finance those costs are making life miserable for kids trying to get a toehold in a job market that's as unfriendly as they come.

Hope you don't plan to get your PhD on student loans:


---------

Government loans

Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada living in any province for over a year, and protected persons^[1] are normally eligible for loans provided by the federal government, through the CSLP, in addition to loans provided by their province of residence.

Loans issued to full-time students are interest free while a student is in full-time studies. Students receiving a Canada Student Loan (CSL) for the first time on or after August 1, 1995, are eligible for up to 340 weeks (~6.5 years) of interest-free assistance. Students in doctoral programs are eligible for an additional 60 weeks, up to 400 weeks (~7.5 years). Students with permanent disabilities and students who received their first CSL prior to August 1, 1995 are eligible for up to 520 weeks of assistance (10 years).^[2]

As the length of North American graduate degree programs often exceed this 400 week maximum, students considering graduate study are advised to think carefully before taking out student loans. For example, an honours BA from a Canadian University takes four years, assuming satisfactory progress. MA programs in Canada vary in length from 1-3 years, with two years being the average minimum. A PhD, takes on average, 5 years to complete, although many students take significantly longer than this. Assuming a graduate student completes an honours BA (5 years), an MA (2 years), and a PhD (5 years), one can expect to be in university for at least 12 years. This is significantly longer than the 400 weeks maximum allotted to complete a degree by the National student loan program, and graduate students can easily find themselves in a position where they no longer qualify for student loans. Whether in receipt of student loans or not, students in full-time study are not required to repay their student loans, nor does interest accumulate.^[3] That said, a graduate student who has exceeded the 400 week maximum will be expected to repay their student loan while in school and interest will accumulate on their loan while they are a full time student.^[4]

N.Brunswick introducing flexible pension returns

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/new-brunswick-tackles-its-pension-pickle/article4226014/

A big fixed lump in the budget of a public institution for pensions will grow in size – in and of itself – and will eat up a greater share of the budget tomorrow compared to today. Something has to give.


(D - but this time, somebody started thinking 'outside the box'. )

Impressively, the government worked out a new model for itself and will see unions adopt it, too, including the New Brunswick Nurses’ Union, the New Brunswick Council of Hospital Unions and the New Brunswick Pipe Trades.

The model, apparently based on one used in the Netherlands, emerged from a task force of pension experts that understood New Brunswick needed a new way of doing things. The old model was based on premises no longer valid: high interest rates, more or less constant stock market growth, shorter lives. Pension plans designed on those assumptions now find they cannot deliver. Or, in order to deliver, governments have to step into the void.

So, rather than raid the treasury or keep promising what might not be delivered, New Brunswick has adopted a shared-risk pension plan that protects pensions and retirement age today but over time will increase contributions and raise pensionable age for younger employees.

Basic pension benefits will be almost completely funded, but extra benefits such as a cost-of-living allowance will depend on circumstances. 

Experts who worked through many iterations of this model suggest that a 97.5-per-cent probability exists that the basic pension benefits will never be reduced and that the average indexation for extra benefits will be at least 75 per cent of the consumer price index. All one can say is that we shall see.


Retirement is going to be delayed, especially for new employees. Their contribution rates will almost certainly rise as well. But the chances of the plan collapsing are almost nil.


-------------


D- the main problem with this sensible and balanced approach for CPP is that the Boomers would need to share the pain. And the starting point for their position can be summarized from "Oliver Twist" - 'more for us and NONE for you!'.


Any proposal that involves ANY loss to CPP payout for the next 20 years is DOA. Unless the younger adults (and still-youths of Gen Zed) fight for it. They cannot, you say? Bull. Look at Quebec. The students have brought a complacent Charest administration to its knees. Think about that! 

build credit, but avoid debt trap

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/credit-a-must-for-young-people/article4225042/

D - I never built credit. I failed to get a credit card as an undergrad. Once I graduated with debt, I could not get one.
Now at 41, I still need to develop enough credit to get one.
Getting a line of credit on my bank account is as difficult as obtaining a standard credit card. BMO *may* allow me a secured credit card, which they normally reserve for foreign students. If so, I will be VERY impressed with them!

But experts say establishing a solid credit rating is key to building life-long financial stability and not throwing away money on high interest payments.

Later in life when you’re shopping for a new home, the latest sports car or a loan for a new boat for the cottage, your credit score will be what your lender will red circle when reviewing your application.

Credit, when used responsibly, can help improve that score.

By using the card for his day-to-day purchases and paying the balance fully each month, Sarlo avoids interest charges and increases his ability to borrow more later.

“Realistically, there is no reason to use cash when you could be building up your credit. That’s why I almost never carry any cash around,” he said.

Sarlo says he ensures he never spends more than he can afford to pay off at the end of the month.

“I am using the credit card to my advantage, rather than allowing the credit card company to take advantage of me. I have never had to pay a cent of interest,” he said.

Boomers getting old. DUH!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/29/canadas-aging-boomers-are-placing-new-strain-on-business-government/


Back in 1971, eight per cent of us were 65 and older.
Last year, as the first wave of baby boomers reached the milestone, the proportion was 14.8 per cent.
(D - so double very soon. I was born in 1971.)


Consider this: In 1961, when the baby boom hit its peak, 34 per cent of the Canadian population was aged 14 and under. By last year, that share dropped to 16.7 per cent.

Another way of looking at the change? In 1961, the median age in Canada was 26.3. By last year, it had risen to 40.6.

Demographic experts and researchers who have studied aging populations internationally agree that Canada must now confront what lies ahead, although there is a lively debate over whether the aging population will, as some predict, lead to skyrocketing social program costs.


----------


D - no. We should have confronted this 'elephant in the room' a GENERATION ago. We've watched the nigh-inexorable demographic trends for DECADES.  Short of a superplague, the conclusion was inevitable. 
Only pensions are, in some sense, prepaid for. The rest (i.e. health, other income programs) are not. The Boomers pushed for income tax cuts (and GST/PST and now HST cuts) instead of keeping us out of debt. On top of this, now the GenXYZ cohort needs to pay for the Boomer retirement as the costs are incurred.


Harper won't cut so much as one cent to one program to one retiring Boomer. 
But over in Quebec, how DARE those students suggest their tuitions should NOT be hiked?
The double standard is apalling. 

youth NEET: not in education or in training.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/youth-unemployment-to-stay-at-crisis-peak-for-years-ilo/article2439625/

Of chief concern are young people who are neither in employment, nor in education or training – dubbed NEET in many countries. This segment has been growing in recent years, particularly in the developed world, reflecting a deepening detachment from the labour market. It's a troubling sign, given this risks both future employability and social exclusion.

What's more troubling? Millions more “disconnected youth” have given up the job search altogether. The global youth jobless rate this year remains stuck at “crisis peak” levels and won't likely come down until at least 2016, the International Labour Organization predicts in a grim outlook on youth employment published this week.

Canada is not immune. The country's unemployment rate for young people is 13.9 per cent and the 15-to-24 age group has seen little employment gains in the past several years.

Broken down by province, the highest youth jobless rate is in Newfoundland, at 20.2 per cent as of April (according to Statistics Canada's CANSIM data).

Nova Scotia's jobless rate for young people is 19.6 per cent – the highest in a decade. Ontario's rate is 16.4 per cent. By contrast, Alberta has the lowest youth jobless rate in the country, at 8.8 per cent – a contrast that will no doubt continue to lure young people into the province.

To reach NEETs in particular, the report cites a U.S. joint initiative with business leaders and communities to give summer jobs to hundreds of thousands of disconnected and low-income youths to help them gain work experience, skills and contacts.

“The youth unemployment crisis can be beaten but only if job creation for young people becomes a key priority in policy making and private sector investment picks up significantly,” said José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs, executive director of the ILO employment sector.

That means offering tax and other incentives to businesses that hire young people, greater efforts to reduce the skills mismatch in youth, more mentoring and access to capital and better social protection for the young, he said.

--------------

D - Hmm, tough sell. Folks are viewing government spending - and job opportunities - as competition in a "zero sum game" right now.

Looked at Greece 'n Spain - c. 1/2 the young adults are unemployed.

I tried to hide in school mid '90s. All I did was drive up my student loan amount. When (if?) a recovery happens, and interest rises to offset inflation, the newest crop of young grads will experience the highest level of student debt ever seen.

if GenY does get to grow up, no grand kids

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/rob-carrick/boomers-have-a-stake-in-gen-ys-success/article2435015/

Since the Second World War, it has been a core belief in this country that each new generation would do better than the preceding one. Now, the pattern has broken. “We now have a generation that believes it’s doing worse than the generation before it,” said Mr. Graves, president of Ekos Research Associates. “The belief in progress that we have in Canada is in terrible disarray, if not shattered.”

Baby boomers are parents and grandparents, but not all of them are brimming with empathy for young adults who complain about how hard it is to succeed in today’s economy. So let’s talk money. Boomers, who’s going to buy your house when you’re done with it? Who are the taxpayers of the future who will help pay for your health care and the Old Age Security you get to collect at age 65 (while everyone else waits to 67)? Face it, boomers. You need those young people to deliver.

To start saving for a down payment, you first should have paid off your student debts. To do that, you need a job that pays a fair bit more than you need to live on. The job also has to offer the potential for pay increases ahead. Without the benefit of a rising salary over the long term, paying the bills as a home and parent becomes ever more stressful. Worst case, Generation Y’s revenge on the boomers turns out to be a home-buying strike.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/50-of-canadians-expect-to-carry-mortgage-in-retirement/article2434462/

-------------

D - yup. My best case scenario (barring a Jack and the beanstalk moment) is to pay off a house at SEVENTY TWO. Allowing me a statistical c. decade to enjoy it before I die of old age!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/the-biological-clock-tolls-for-grandparents/article1417814/

Ruth Pennebaker's biological clock roared back to life at age 49. Her daughter left for college, and suddenly she was noticing babies everywhere - on Facebook, in the park. After that, it only got worse. "I was practically stalking babies in the supermarket," says Ms. Pennebaker, an author and columnist living in Texas.

Her "grandparent hunger," as she called it, made no sense: Her two children were both busy with university studies and didn't have steady partners. Yet, she'd watch her quirky and curious university professor husband and see ideal grandpa material. Bald-headed babies that reminded her of her own children were particularly attractive. "I swear it was something hormonal," she says.

(D - yeah, my mother was exactly like that at 49. With a few twists and turns, such as the IT bubble bursting before my sis graduated, there is a good chance she'd have NO grandkids at all today.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2144272/How-grandparents-paying-adult-daughters-freeze-eggs-babies-later.html

Egg freezing technology has in recent years improved in leaps and bounds and many women reaching the 35 year old milestone have begun to consider the treatment as a solution.

Women approaching their mid-thirties who aren't ready to have children are not the only ones worrying about their reproductive futures. 

Reports from fertility centres around the country are showing the increase of parental contribution as adult women opt to freeze their eggs.

For many would-be-grandparents, helping to cover the cost of the expensive oocyte cryopreservation is both an investment in their daughters' futures and in their own as well.

------------

D - and all of this can be linked back to the following basic economic factors:

1) real estate generation cycle (result of Boomer policies - as was the USA real estate crisis),

2) post-Boomer neglect of post-secondary funding / hiking of tuition rates

3) increased severity of student loan repayment terms (result of Boomer frivolous bankruptcies / high 70s interest rate, 

4) now, Boomer-induced crash of stock markets and USA real estate market. 

D - if they don't get grand-kids, it is due to how their generation's policies impacted their children.

D - heck, I've had near-40 galpals literally crying in their drinks over kids. One, with an MBA in biz and high- power career actually expressed envy at the 'knocked up' higher school 'losers' they used to look down on!

Though thinking about it, she could pay enough women in India to act as surrogate mothers to start her own hockey team.

OAS: de-index the clawback levels!

Here are the maximum OAS rates: 2012 – $540.12 per month.

If your net individual income is above a set threshold, your OAS pension will be reduced. Here are the starting thresholds: $69,562 for 2012.
This figure is also adjusted each year for inflation. For every dollar ($1.00) of income above the threshold, the amount of basic OAS pension reduces by 15 cents.

D - the whole idea on not touching OAS for the entire retiring Boomer generation is inconceivable.
We can see this purportedly anti-poverty program largely funds well off middle classers.
In fact, still pays out something to c. $108,000 - SIX DIGIT INCOMES!!!
This is unforgivable.
I suggest:
1) increase the clawback rate from 15 cents/ dollar to much much more
2) and make it progressive too.
3) deindex OAS clawbacks.
The "law of 72" says at a 3.6% inflation rate that this # will double in 20 years - by the time GenX qualifies.
This is a very slow and subtle change, and should not impact any poor seniors (or even middle class ones).
So by 2032, when all the Boomers have finally retired, the clawback will change from c. $70G today to the purchasing power of $35,000 today. It still handily covers ALL poor and even middlish-income seniors!
This would also mean that the rich *sshole at $106,000 that is still collecting some OAS  will be cut off soon.
In 20 years at 3.6% inflation rate, the clawback will be complete by the purchasing power of today's $53,000.
This can hardly be described as onerous. No poor seniors will suffer. Not a one.

Meanwhile, university students (and college ones) suffer the "death of 1000 cuts" of annual tuition (and even moreso, mandatory fees) fees increasing consistently above the rate of inflation.
GenY students have become a piggy bank to smash and raid for the Baby Boomers now in power.
Then we are surprised when the Quebec students do not consider that equitable!

As it turns out, some academics in Quebec also believe reforms to university research funding in recent years has been tilted in favour of corporate applications. See my comment on G&M today.