All young adults who think they’re getting a raw deal in today’s economy, let me tell you about how it was back in my day.
In 1984, my final undergraduate year of university, tuition cost more or less $1,000. I earned that much in a summer without breaking a sweat.
When I went looking for a new car in 1986, the average cost was roughly half of what it is now. It was totally affordable.
The average price of a house in Toronto back in 1984 was just over $96,000. I wasn’t buying just then, but it’s worth noting that the average family after-tax income back then was close to $50,000.
I had to work the Christmas holidays at CP to top up my savings, but I was financially self-sufficient and incurred zero debt.
Today, financial self-sufficiency is impossible without taking breaks from school to work. The Bank of Canada’s handy inflation calculator tells us that my $1,000 tuition back in 1984 would cost $2,028 today if it increased just by the inflation rate annually. But according to Statistics Canada, the latest read on average tuition fees is $5,366.
Canadian Real Estate Association data show the average national price of a home in mid-1984 was $76,214. If houses kept up with inflation – and that would be a pretty good result all on its own – the average house would now cost $154,587. In April, the actual average was $369,677.
-----------
D - and Boomers did not need to riot for that low tuition!
We do. Honestly, the Quebec students are teaching a lesson to all the young today.
Fight for it - or LOSE IT.
.jpg)
I looked up a factoid the other day in response to one of the more thoughtful criticisms of the Quebec tuition protests. The proportion of the population in Quebec with post-secondary is lower (though with affordable loans). My response is to advocate hiking the participation rate to the rest of Canada - but to continue to directly fund the universities with gov't funding! I'll note that there is nothing wrong with a technically oriented college education - honestly, civics aside, we could do with less liberal arts majors (and I am one).
ReplyDeleteMoney spent on the retired does not result in economic productivity, although sometimes it qualifies as compassionate. (Often just subsidizing upper-class lifestyles!) They vote. Whereas youth cannot vote - but money spent on them is an investment in future productivity. Beyond compassionate reasons, as little should be spent on the elderly as is practical. Aside: if they all retire at 65 (at least by 72), other than key essential skilled ones, the youth unemployment rate drops a LOT.
ReplyDeleteFunny how society could afford heavily subsidized tuitions for Boomers, despite the huge #s of them. YET cannot do so now that Boomers are in their prime earning years. I doubt the increased post-secondary participation rate combined with the much smaller # of young adults makes the equation much different. The simple truth is that Boomers TAKE but don't GIVE generationally. My 'benign neglect' model- just expecting Boomers to minimax their program/tax combo - explains everything they have done. Or will do...
ReplyDelete