|
Femtosecond posted:Wow that's baffling I bet you it stops being baffling when you compare the list of who owns the buildings to who donated to the elected city council members.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:Hamilton subsidizing speculation. There are already too many parking lots and undeveloped properties being squatted in Hamilton. Hrm this would explain why I thought Hamilton's primary industry was economic malaise when I visited there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/retirement-planning-peter-armstrong-1.3811753quote:You're never going to retire — and here's why 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Victory lap, death march, it's all the same, really. 33 percent of those aged 55 to 64 having under $1000 in retirement savings is a bit incredible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Mozi posted:33 percent of those aged 55 to 64 having under $1000 in retirement savings is a bit incredible. So what are the odds we'll be bailing out a poo poo-ton of seniors from poverty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
I'm starting to think those "death camps for the elderly" fears that old people keep projecting might not be so bad after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
The free market will provide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Lobok posted:So what are the odds we'll be bailing out a poo poo-ton of seniors from poverty? It's only fair for boomers to effectively have a DBPP wrt all possible services without actually paying for them. Get used to the idea of taxes to pay for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
That outlook seems extremely short-sighted considering the rate of advancement in automation. Within 50 years there should barely be any work to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I would like to see stats on how many 55+ adults hold jobs that make 100k+ a year. I realize there's a ton of seniors working at Walmart and McDonalds, but a decent % of high-paying jobs has to be locked up with older people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Victory lap, death march, it's all the same, really. The hilarious part is that people like Andrew Coyne have been defending this and arguing we don't need to force more savings by basically saying boomers have housing equity. About that home equity...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:I would like to see stats on how many 55+ adults hold jobs that make 100k+ a year. I realize there's a ton of seniors working at Walmart and McDonalds, but a decent % of high-paying jobs has to be locked up with older people. From random googling, the 90th percentile for income in Canada is just about $100k/year. the 95th percentile is ~$140k/year. People from 55-64 make up about 11% of the population. e: in terms of total net worth the median value of 55-64s in 2012 was $533,600 (which would include housing). computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:I would like to see stats on how many 55+ adults hold jobs that make 100k+ a year. I realize there's a ton of seniors working at Walmart and McDonalds, but a decent % of high-paying jobs has to be locked up with older people. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
As someone who used to work as a bank teller in Vanier, Ottawa, I 100% believe that fact that 30% of seniors have under $1000 in retirement savings. The number of people living on OAS in Ontario and CPP alone was absolutely astounding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Aside from capitalism working as intended and slowly immiserating non-capital holders, modern retirement planning is dumb given the wide range in individual life expectancy and cost of end of life care. Even if you do everything right and save at the recommended rate to fund your retirement, you still have to assume a likely age of death. If you mess up and live too long then enjoy eating dog food! Of course you can buy an annuity and good luck not getting scammed. Additionally anything more than a trivial amount of assisted or home care will blow through an average worker's savings, good luck predicting this. At least Canadians have some confidence in predicting future health care costs, as far as I can tell in the USA it's a combination of wishful thinking, lucking into an employer with good retiree benefits (hah) and/or joining the poors on Medicare. The underlying message in most retirement literature aimed at the now pensionless middle class is you need to save enough to effectively live off dividends/interest ie become a member of the capital class. For obvious reasons this can't be universalized to the entire population. This entire discussion is completely theoretical of course, as it's not like the Canadian population is anywhere near the target savings rate (home/cottage/truck equity notwithstanding). edit: Sundae posted:We're seeing this down south in the states too. A large minority of our boomers have jack loving squat put away for retirement. I still don't understand how health insurance is supposed to work in the US after retirement, and from casual conversation I don't think most Americans know either. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Powershift posted:That outlook seems extremely short-sighted considering the rate of advancement in automation. Within 50 years there should barely be any work to do. Hope you like eating cat food, then, because the gains of automation sure as gently caress aren't going to be shared with millennial 'victory lappers.'  quote:As someone who used to work as a bank teller in Vanier, Ottawa, I 100% believe that fact that 30% of seniors have under $1000 in retirement savings. The number of people living on OAS in Ontario and CPP alone was absolutely astounding. We're seeing this down south in the states too. A large minority of our boomers have jack loving squat put away for retirement. Nocturtle posted:I still don't understand how health insurance is supposed to work in the US after retirement, and from casual conversation I don't think most American's know either. Okay - here's how it works (roughly): If you worked for a big legacy company and were one of the lucky ones, you have retiree health insurance available to you. This would be roughly the equivalent of your regular working insurance, at roughly the cost you paid as an employee (a little more expensive). This is exceedingly rare now and is the first thing to get cut because it's less understood than pensions (and so people don't throw as much of a fuss). Your next option is the ACA (Obamacare) market. It is now illegal to deny elderly people coverage, and there is a multiplier cap on how much more you can charge them than the healthy, young population. It's gonna cost you a shitload, though. I have no idea how many people do this. It's still pretty new. Your coverage is roughly as good as what you'd have if you were an ordinary, younger person, though. Your next option once you hit 65 is Medicare. This is the national elderly health insurance, basically. It is divided into four parts (A, B, C and D). A is for inpatient stays in hospitals / hospice, B covers typical outpatient medical service, C is a weird public/private hybrid thing passed in 1997 in an attempt to kill Medicare that instead just made things more complicated while siphoning public money into private insurer pockets (it also has a positive benefit in that Medigap insurance falls into Part C -- it's not all bad!), and Part D is prescription drug coverage. You pay a premium for each portion separately. C and D are optional. B always has a premium, but A's premium varies from $0.00 to $451.00 a month depending on how many quarters you worked in an eligible job. D is also a pretty bad scam, but the target is the US government and not the patient. From the patient's perspective, D is fairly decent. On the whole, Medicare is pretty good compared to what most people in the states have to deal with. It has two problems, however: #1 - Like Medicaid (more on that in a second), doctors aren't required to accept it. You can have trouble finding doctors or specialists in some cases where doctors would rather not deal with reimbursement rates, hassle, etc, especially if they have more than enough private-party insured patients to pick from. #2 - There is no out of pocket maximum on Part A, B Medicare (traditional medicare). For #2, that's where some of the stuff from the "Part C" format comes in. Medigap insurance covers the gap between what Medicare pays and what the actual bill is. Let's say your insurance covers 80% of the bill and leaves you with 20% of the bill (80/20 is pretty standard down here for our crappy insurance). If you're on an employer plan or ACA plan, you have an "out of pocket maximum" which is the max you can pay in a year after your deductible. If you had a $100,000 medical bill, the insurer would cover $80,000 of it, send you a bill for $20,000, and you'd pay only whatever your OOP maximum is ($5,500, $10,000, etc). The insurer would either cover the rest or the hospital would eat it. That OOP max doesn't exist for Medicare. If you get a $100,000 bill, you owe $20,000. $100K isn't that large a bill for some surgeries and emergencies, though. $500K? You owe $100,000 now instead. So on, so forth. Medigap insurance would be another premium you'd pay to another private insurer (11 plans offered in the USA currently) who would agree to cover all of the difference (minus another deductible, blah blah). Premiums and coverage varies widely by state and plan. The last public thing available is "Medicaid" -- this is the one for poor and disabled people run as a joint state/federal program but administered by the states pretty much exclusively. If you are on Medicaid and don't live in Minnesota, odds are that every doctor and lawmaker in your state hates you and thinks of you as the bottom of the barrel of everything. You will get the worst of all worlds and they will try their hardest to never let you see a doctor if they can get away with it. Oh, and the qualification income requirements and asset limits are so strict in most states that you straight up can't get on it without a disability (and good luck convincing them that you can't work even a job capable of earning the ridiculously low disqualification income in most states). If you do not qualify for an ACA plan for some reason (not sure what that'd be), cannot get Medicare and make too much for Medicaid, your final option is non-ACA private insurance plans. These are the traditional "gently caress you in the rear end even harder than our other plans" plans. As a 65+ retiree, you probably cannot afford one of these unless you live with your children and also have a pension. You also probably don't want it, because they're actuarially designed to not help you and to bleed you dry as quickly as possible before you accidentally cost them money. I have no idea why anyone would ever use one of these plans anymore, given you can (always?) take an ACA plan without subsidy and at least get the multiplier cost restriction to help you out. Sundae fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
My retirement is doctor assisted suicide
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Hope you like eating cat food, then, because the gains of automation sure as gently caress aren't going to be shared with millennial 'victory lappers.' Citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
We're trying to put my grandpa in a home and even the cheaper ones cost more per year than I make. It's absolutely insane. I guess I'll have to go with the shotgun retirement plan, or just have a ton of kids and hope some of them look after me based on guilt and my constant demands that they become a doctor or post-apocalyptic warlord or what ever makes money in the next 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
A vast majority of Canadians are faced with the choice of either saving so much money now that they essentially need to live a poverty level lifestyle and hope that some calamity doesn't make all their saving worth nothing, or just say gently caress it and hope for the best. It sucks but it's just the way it is. Too bad I lost a good job that came with a defined benefit pension plan to just such a calamity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:From random googling, the 90th percentile for income in Canada is just about $100k/year. the 95th percentile is ~$140k/year. People from 55-64 make up about 11% of the population. Thanks, this is a lot lower then I figured. I've heard nightmare stories of some industries where people just won't retire and it's preventing younger people from getting jobs in their fields. Baronjutter posted:We're trying to put my grandpa in a home and even the cheaper ones cost more per year than I make. It's absolutely insane. I guess I'll have to go with the shotgun retirement plan, or just have a ton of kids and hope some of them look after me based on guilt and my constant demands that they become a doctor or post-apocalyptic warlord or what ever makes money in the next 100 years. Really we should just adopt the Asian-culture custom of having your parents live in a suite in your house until they die. They have it all figured out over there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I still don't understand how health insurance is supposed to work in the US after retirement, and from casual conversation I don't think most Americans know either. I'm guessing the plan involves lots "gently caress you" and people dying in lovely conditions. Fried Watermelon posted:My retirement is doctor assisted suicide Si.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Thanks, this is a lot lower then I figured. I've heard nightmare stories of some industries where people just won't retire and it's preventing younger people from getting jobs in their fields. You want nightmares? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Great and terrifying post. Thanks. As an aside Canadians who go to work in America should get some special orientation on how to deal with the health care system. It's way too easy to make mistakes worth thousands of dollars on even basic treatments, dumb Canadians like me don't have a clue and walk into everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Really we should just adopt the Asian-culture custom of having your parents live in a suite in your house until they die. They have it all figured out over there. Intergenerational households died out in America/Canada for some reason even though there's several good reasons for it. I almost wonder if it was intentionally killed off so we could build and sell even more houses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Intergenerational households died out in America/Canada for some reason even though there's several good reasons for it. Guaranteed that and more car sales
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Also old age homes and assisted living and all that is huge huge money. Also living with your lovely old poopy pants parents isn't fun. Also to house your parents you need housing, which our generation doesn't really have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Intergenerational households died out in America/Canada for some reason even though there's several good reasons for it. It breaks (broke?) down in three broad ways down here (and I'm curious if the same applies up in Canada): #1 - It's really hard to live in a multi-generational home when you have no idea where your career is going to take you (assuming you're lucky enough to have one). My grandparents and mother live in a multi-gen house, and my brother and I were the third generation right up until we graduated from college and realized that our chosen industries/careers literally did not exist in the region. We had to move out because there was no way we could live at home and have an income. Taking this further, it's hard to buy a multi-generational house as the kid and bring your parents / grandparents with you when you don't know how long you'll be living in any particular place. Among people for whom this is even a potential option, who knows how long your career will last at any given location? The only way to get a good promotion or raise down here is to job hop, so you have to remain mobile to advance in your career. Good luck uprooting your grandparents to make them move with you. #2 - Boomers. loving boomers. For some reason, a bunch of Boomers decided that, because THEY moved out when they were younger (and then bought up all the cheap property, cut their own taxes to nothing, shredded safety nets, spent all their money and then sat on the good jobs forever), by jove, their children should too because AMERICAN WAY, with no understanding of the fact that they fundamentally ruined that way, which never existed until their generation and then fell apart right after them. You turn 18 (22? 26?) and get kicked to the curb unless you're lucky and your family lets you fall into the nightmare of #3. #3 - General view toward independence and children, from one family generation to the next. I don't know how Canada is about this, but most families down here have this view where, even in a multi-generational house where most of the money supporting the family may be coming from the adult children, the children are still children. My mother has a loving curfew in her late 50s. No alcohol is allowed in the house. It's an unspoken rule, but I know 100% certain that when I lived in the same house, sex was absolutely out of the question. Thou shalt NOT bring a girl home, or even have sex with your wife in your own bedroom once you're married, because you don't do that unless you have your own place. Dinner is at 5:30PM sharp, do not be late getting back from work because that's when dinner is, so spoketh Grandpa. This sort of mentality is crazy common down here, even if you're technically paying all the bills. The home may have been purchased 45 years ago by Grandpa for less than what you're paying for covering his property taxes today, but it's still his house and his rules, whether you're 13 or 31. Kids move out just because there's no way they can stay and still be an adult in any capacity other than bill-paying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Living with elderly people isn't fun, no, but if I ever have children and my mom's on hard times then I'd think about having her move in and help my wife and me take care of the kids and other stuff around the house. I mean, pretty much that's exactly how it works in other places, and it really helps save money and stress on childcare. All good points I hadn't considered. It really does come back to boomers every single time, eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Sundae posted:#3 - General view toward independence and children, from one family generation to the next. I don't know how Canada is about this, but most families down here have this view where, even in a multi-generational house where most of the money supporting the family may be coming from the adult children, the children are still children. My mother has a loving curfew in her late 50s. No alcohol is allowed in the house. It's an unspoken rule, but I know 100% certain that when I lived in the same house, sex was absolutely out of the question. Thou shalt NOT bring a girl home, or even have sex with your wife in your own bedroom once you're married, because you don't do that unless you have your own place. Dinner is at 5:30PM sharp, do not be late getting back from work because that's when dinner is, so spoketh Grandpa. This sort of mentality is crazy common down here, even if you're technically paying all the bills. The home may have been purchased 45 years ago by Grandpa for less than what you're paying for covering his property taxes today, but it's still his house and his rules, whether you're 13 or 31. Kids move out just because there's no way they can stay and still be an adult in any capacity other than bill-paying. (emphasis mine) Sure, this arrangement is possible, but I don't know where you're from that makes you think it's anything other than highly unusual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:(emphasis mine) Whats grandpa going to do when you tell him no? Kick you out? Good luck paying the rent gramps
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Seeing as this is the Canadian Debt-Chat, it also works well as bank-chat. I'm with Coast Capital Credit Union, and they want to go national. They're offering members the opportunity to vote and I just was wondering what others thought? Apparently Vancity had the option and opted not to, citing that they'd rather focus on the local community and expanding would cause them to lose sight of the local economy and customers. So far, the only pros to going national I can see are: 1. Coast capital ATMS across Canada (who cares, I use debt.) 2. Federal level of insurance on savings in case of failure (if Coast Capital fails, I feel like BC will be tumbling down with it along with all the other banks, so that's meaningless too). Otherwise, I feel like with the Vancity thing, they'll lose focus of the local economy and likely start adapting all the aggressive consumer-profit driven tactics that turned me off of "big" banks (TD, specifically). Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:2. Federal level of insurance on savings in case of failure (if Coast Capital fails, I feel like BC will be tumbling down with it along with all the other banks, so that's meaningless too). How many bad bets have they made such that their best chance for survival is to expand aggressively across the country into markets they have no concept of? Did not know CDIC didn't cover BC credit unions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
How are you guys leaving out the part where women now have the choice to have a real job, instead of being trapped at home wiping snot off your kids and poo poo off your parents? The old people living at home situation depends on a massive amount of unpaid caretaking work. The reason those homes cost so much is caring for elderly people loving sucks and you have to pay real wages or exploit people to get them to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Powershift posted:That outlook seems extremely short-sighted considering the rate of advancement in automation. Within 50 years there should barely be any work to do. Hah. Canadian companies would have to invest in equipment and technology for that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Snuffman posted:2. Federal level of insurance on savings in case of failure (if Coast Capital fails, I feel like BC will be tumbling down with it along with all the other banks, so that's meaningless too). Currently all deposits in BC credit unions (except Stabilization Central and Central One) are 100% insured, but if Coast Capital becomes a federal credit union only deposits up to $100,000 are insured.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
sat on my keys! posted:How are you guys leaving out the part where women now have the choice to have a real job, instead of being trapped at home wiping snot off your kids and poo poo off your parents? The old people living at home situation depends on a massive amount of unpaid caretaking work. The reason those homes cost so much is caring for elderly people loving sucks and you have to pay real wages or exploit people to get them to do it. This is very true too. Every family I know that had their parents come move in with them either had one or both retired or not needing to work. Also they all tended to already have big houses. Your kids move out, then you move dad in because it's cheaper to put him in your son's old basement suite than pay for a home. It's of course a full time job depending on how hosed your elderly parents are, and it can also be extremely depressing and stressful. Living day in and day out with your poopy pants alzheimer's dad who needs constant attention and medical care and appointments made for home visits and all that is draining as gently caress. Some old family friends went through this and quite frankly they were quite relieved when he finally died as another couple years would have destroyed their marriage. It's easy to live multi-generational when everyone still can pitch in to maintain the household though. Usually dad dies, mom comes to live and now you've got a live-in helper to look after the kids and generally help run the house. I knew a lot of asian families growing up that had granny or grandpa living with them, and it freed mom up to work since the grandparent would be your child care while you were at work. They'd also often make delicious food. At the same time, insane rules and stifling home life as everyone constantly walks on eggshells to avoid drama and never upset the elders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Currently all deposits in BC credit unions (except Stabilization Central and Central One) are 100% insured, but if Coast Capital becomes a federal credit union only deposits up to $100,000 are insured. This does not seem like a win for the little guy. Outside of the Coast Capital propaganda of "ATMS ALL OVER CANADA!", is there any obvious benefit beyond the theoretical bigger pool of money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I still don't understand how health insurance is supposed to work in the US after retirement, and from casual conversation I don't think most Americans know either. Medicare is actually really good. My parents aren't poor but have relied heavily on medicare during my dad's cancer treatments and hip replacement/other medical issues. Once you turn 65 in the US you basically get Universal Health Care, and it's a more effective version than Canada has because it's only for seniors. You can also buy gap care which adds to medicare the stuff that medicare doesn't cover. Medicaid is the thing that really poor people rely on, but it's gotten expanded under Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
The downside of longer life expectancy is that the elderly can become a lot more decrepit than in previous times. In the old days you could look after your parents in your drafty hovel until pneumonia did its work. Now even if the average Canadian can find space in their over-mortgaged condo for their parents at some point a lot of them will require regular care. Most people just can't afford to stop working to provide the required amount of care even if they want to. I used to volunteer at an "affordable" retirement home in a relatively well-to-do Canadian city. The floor where they kept the people who needed constant monitoring was the most depressing place I've ever been, the concentrated misery and constant wailing from demented residents was brutal (the smell was also not great). Enjoy knowing your lucid parents while you can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 22:51
|
|