General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

It's gotten quite trendy to yawn about the Ivany Report, but it's urgency was as accurate today, as it was when it was first tabled.

* 100,000 fewer working age people by 2036, a 20% decline.
* projected 41% increase in 65+ aged population from 2009-2034
* projected 30% decrease in 0-20 year population from 2009-2034
* projected 21% decrease in 20-64 year population from 2009-2034
* Seniors will constitute almost 30% of our population by 2035

* the average taxpayer aged 65 and older contributes 46 per cent less income tax revenue than works aged 45 to 54 years.

And today, before any of these changes take place, health care already eats up $4.5 billion of the province's $9.5 billion annual budget

What else?

* Worst Real GDP growth 1990-2009 by percent among all provinces
* Ludicrous labour force participation. 63.4% in 2013, second lowest in Canada, with 290,000 jobless and not trying to find a job.
* Lagging levels of urbanization compared to ROC; while urbanization has accelerated in the rest of Canada since the 1920s, it's been flat in Nova Scotia essentially since 1951, right up until 2011. We may perceive that to be incrementally changing, I'm not sure it is, and stupid federal/provincial policies will continue to sustain unrealistic rural service provision, sinking ferries, dying 19th century industrial plants and mills, and will thus continue to deter urbanization over the long term, increasing costs and reducing the dynamism of cities like Halifax.
* radical youth unemployment, at 18.3% in 2014, the very highest in Canada. This is also terrible in Halifax. From 2002-2012, only 3% of new jobs went to workers under the age of 45.

* Still lagging on immigration. We are doing better, but we've never received more than 3000 immigrants in any given year in the last 15 years. Even if we doubled our usual immigration numbers to 4000, only received working age immigrants, and sustained that amount of in-migrant settlement for 20 years, we'd still not have enough to cover the projected loss of 100,000 working age population by the same time.

At some point, it becomes a matter of basic math, and the in 20 years, nothing will add up anymore.

I don't at all blame the Chronicle Herald for sounding the alarm. Anything less would be irresponsible. Sometimes balance simply won't do.

I agree with all that, but on balance this is still a prosperous first-world jurisdiction. People legitamately think we're heading for a Greece or Detroit situation, which just isn't in the cards for us.

Youth unemployment is bad, but I really want to see city-specific numbers. It's actually better than the other Maritime provinces, and on par with Ontario and the national average. (This page has numbers if you scroll down a bit.) I've heard the 3 percent of jobs going to people under 45, but I can't believe that isn't some skewed metric. Virtually everyone I know is under 45, and are all employed. I'm certain there's something up with that stat.

Anyway, I know it can sound like pleading for complacency, but it's just context. Most of our problems are common to all provinces, but exaggerated. I do worry that being under-urbanized makes us less resilient, but rural NS has become so old that frankly, the death rate there is going to drive our urban/rural ratio higher. That's nor really how you want to shift those numbers, but it will expedite things.

If you crunch the numbers for Quebec or ontario, it starts to look pretty scary there too. It's masked somewhat by immigration levels,, but the fundamentals are all going the wrong way, as they are in most of the western world. We need to stop think we're uniquely screwed, and start thinking about how to address issues without inducing despair.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I agree with all that, but on balance this is still a prosperous first-world jurisdiction. People legitamately think we're heading for a Greece or Detroit situation, which just isn't in the cards for us.

Youth unemployment is bad, but I really want to see city-specific numbers. It's actually better than the other Maritime provinces, and on par with Ontario and the national average. (This page has numbers if you scroll down a bit.) I've heard the 3 percent of jobs going to people under 45, but I can't believe that isn't some skewed metric. Virtually everyone I know is under 45, and are all employed. I'm certain there's something up with that stat.

Anyway, I know it can sound like pleading for complacency, but it's just context. Most of our problems are common to all provinces, but exaggerated. I do worry that being under-urbanized makes us less resilient, but rural NS has become so old that frankly, the death rate there is going to drive our urban/rural ratio higher. That's nor really how you want to shift those numbers, but it will expedite things.

If you crunch the numbers for Quebec or ontario, it starts to look pretty scary there too. It's masked somewhat by immigration levels,, but the fundamentals are all going the wrong way, as they are in most of the western world. We need to stop think we're uniquely screwed, and start thinking about how to address issues without inducing despair.

No doubt Ontario and Quebec are in a rough spot, particularly Quebec. At some point, a Government is going to have to make some significant and extremely difficult decisions to change things. Premier Wynne, too, has backed away from her promise to expand Ontario's pension fund; a ludicrous proposition given the province's own fiscal challenges and the Baby Boomer factor.

It's difficult to find city-by-city youth unemployment comparisons, though my sense is that Halifax is much lower than Nova Scotia's youth unemployment rate, and comparable to the national average which hovers around 14%.

The 3% number came from a Halifax Partnership report, and I think it refers to new jobs added to the economy. So if your friends were employed within existing positions, that wouldn't be counted. It means new jobs created, they went almost exclusively 45+ aged workers... which is very shortsighted.

Again, recent Provincial Government moves to provide for targeted quotas for youth hires is a great step in leadership, especially Government calling on private sector to follow suit.

I took the 18.3% number for Nova Scotia, from this recent report on the lives of youth in NS:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/...%80%99s-youth-much-worse-than-decade-ago

States that number was, at the time (2014), the worst in Canada.

A few more graphics.





Halifax not entirely insulated from demographic issues.

However, notwithstanding all of the stats I cited, and these additional links, I actually think Nova Scotia's problems are quite solvable.

In fact, while things will necessarily be a tough slog for the next 20 years, Nova Scotia can, in significant ways, be saved from a fiscal cliff by significantly ramping up immigration alone.

If we can invest in immigration attraction and settlement, and double our annual immigration in take-- such that we annually take in 4000-5000 annually-- we don't entirely solve our population challenges, but significantly reduce the demographic/fiscal dangers, so long as we also significantly reign in, or hold the line on, health spending... that might be just enough to get us over the Boomer hump.

In light of the population projections, I can understand why the Ivany Report called for *tripling* annual immigration numbers, even if that's unrealistic.

But calling for more, should at least kick start things. The present government is making slow progress. But immigration increases have never been politically popular. So I worry.

[Hali87]

Something that I think is overlooked when people worry about the "rapidly aging population that will retire soon" in NS and the difficulty in young people finding jobs - is that these two things are directly linked, and when the older generation retires en masse, suddenly a lot of very good jobs (with very inflated salaries!) that had previously been unavailable will become available. A lot of the struggling younger generation (or whatever's left of it by then - when is this demographic cliff?) will take up these jobs, and other people will move here to take the rest, if there are any left.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

In fact, while things will necessarily be a tough slog for the next 20 years, Nova Scotia can, in significant ways, be saved from a fiscal cliff by significantly ramping up immigration alone.

If we can invest in immigration attraction and settlement, and double our annual immigration in take-- such that we annually take in 4000-5000 annually-- we don't entirely solve our population challenges, but significantly reduce the demographic/fiscal dangers, so long as we also significantly reign in, or hold the line on, health spending... that might be just enough to get us over the Boomer hump.

In light of the population projections, I can understand why the Ivany Report called for *tripling* annual immigration numbers, even if that's unrealistic.

I wonder if tripling immigration seems more daunting than it is. Saskatchewan and PEI have both done that in the past decade, though in the former case it was due to an economic boom, and in the latter the numbers were so small to begin with that tripping was less impressive (though still big deal for PEI).

I think we should be about to double it at least. Higher PNP quota, and more awareness raising and other promotion programs to get some from other streams. I'm far from an expert, but it strikes me as something that should be doable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Something that I think is overlooked when people worry about the "rapidly aging population that will retire soon" in NS and the difficulty in young people finding jobs - is that these two things are directly linked, and when the older generation retires en masse, suddenly a lot of very good jobs (with very inflated salaries!) that had previously been unavailable will become available. A lot of the struggling younger generation (or whatever's left of it by then - when is this demographic cliff?) will take up these jobs, and other people will move here to take the rest, if there are any left.

Except those "very inflated salaries" will leave with the retirees. Companies will replace their jobs with much lower-salaried entry-level positions and will likely not inflate the salaries of those moving up on the ladder to any great extent as they had done in the past. Plus, companies are tending to run more "lean" these days and oftentimes don't replace outgoing positions with an equivalent number of new positions, or will replace some of those positions with outside contract employees that they do not have to take responsibility for. So all in all, it is a little less rosy than it appears on the surface.

Mind you, the companies will still make out alright as the money saved will help pad their profit margins (cynicism alert).

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Except those "very inflated salaries" will leave with the retirees. Companies will replace their jobs with much lower-salaried entry-level positions and will likely not inflate the salaries of those moving up on the ladder to any great extent as they had done in the past. Plus, companies are tending to run more "lean" these days and oftentimes don't replace outgoing positions with an equivalent number of new positions, or will replace some of those positions with outside contract employees that they do not have to take responsibility for. So all in all, it is a little less rosy than it appears on the surface.

Mind you, the companies will still make out alright as the money saved will help pad their profit margins (cynicism alert).

I think that's right, Mark.

Governments with shrinking tax base from a loss of a substantial portion of working age taxpayers that also need to spend more money on health care provision, will eliminate costs in other areas. That means less money for education, immigration settlement, etc, and it also means basically eliminating jobs via attribution (if not outright job cuts). So, as senior people retire, their positions are just eliminated. They won't go to younger job applicants.

Companies who cater to key spending demographics, like teens, young adults, families, have a shrinking potential customer base in NS over the next 20 years. So, they also streamline, cut jobs, costs, etc. If there are retirements, those jobs also go by attrition.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I think that's right, Mark.

Governments with shrinking tax base from a loss of a substantial portion of working age taxpayers that also need to spend more money on health care provision, will eliminate costs in other areas. That means less money for education, immigration settlement, etc, and it also means basically eliminating jobs via attribution (if not outright job cuts). So, as senior people retire, their positions are just eliminated. They won't go to younger job applicants.

Companies who cater to key spending demographics, like teens, young adults, families, have a shrinking potential customer base in NS over the next 20 years. So, they also streamline, cut jobs, costs, etc. If there are retirements, those jobs also go by attrition.

I actually think we face a slightly different challenge than that.

Yes we are facing a higher than average retirement rate, and yes they will be replaced with cheaper younger workers (as they should be).

This is not a cliff though. Just because these people retire does not mean they all of a sudden cease to contribute tax revenue. These workers who were making the bigger salaries and now retirees drawing comparable dollars out of their RRSPs, and spending in the economy at a rate that often is higher than when they were younger and trying to save. If you take a job of someone making $100k who then retires, gets replaced by a younger person who now makes $50k, and the retiree draws $80k a year out of their RRSP's, this is actually probably MORE tax revenue. The math will never be that simple, and yes there will definitely be jobs that are not replaced (also, in the big picture not necessarily always a bad thing from an competitiveness perspective), but this is an issue to be managed, not the bankruptcy inducing cliff that it is sold as in the press.

The bigger issue is what happens to the company revenue that is saved when salary costs are reduced? Take Clearwater (not picking on them, just purely as a random example)... Their revenue picture is global, and how much revenue they make will not be driven by what happens here. But, if they were to save money by replacing with cheaper younger management or by not replacing workers, what happens to that money? What would be best for NS is if that money was reinvested into R&D and innovations to drive improved productivity. However, what can often happen is that the money instead leaves the province and is spent elsewhere. Canada has a very poor record of encouraging companies to invest locally in either R&D or productivity. That to me is the bigger issue.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I actually think we face a slightly different challenge than that.

Yes we are facing a higher than average retirement rate, and yes they will be replaced with cheaper younger workers (as they should be).

This is not a cliff though. Just because these people retire does not mean they all of a sudden cease to contribute tax revenue. These workers who were making the bigger salaries and now retirees drawing comparable dollars out of their RRSPs, and spending in the economy at a rate that often is higher than when they were younger and trying to save. If you take a job of someone making $100k who then retires, gets replaced by a younger person who now makes $50k, and the retiree draws $80k a year out of their RRSP's, this is actually probably MORE tax revenue. The math will never be that simple, and yes there will definitely be jobs that are not replaced (also, in the big picture not necessarily always a bad thing from an competitiveness perspective), but this is an issue to be managed, not the bankruptcy inducing cliff that it is sold as in the press.

The bigger issue is what happens to the company revenue that is saved when salary costs are reduced? Take Clearwater (not picking on them, just purely as a random example)... Their revenue picture is global, and how much revenue they make will not be driven by what happens here. But, if they were to save money by replacing with cheaper younger management or by not replacing workers, what happens to that money? What would be best for NS is if that money was reinvested into R&D and innovations to drive improved productivity. However, what can often happen is that the money instead leaves the province and is spent elsewhere. Canada has a very poor record of encouraging companies to invest locally in either R&D or productivity. That to me is the bigger issue.

Highlighted portion: I don't think that is true.

All studies/stats suggest that someone who is retired and 65+ contributes substantially less than what they did to the tax revenue base (income / sales tax) when working.

So, for example, one study found that while workers aged 30-64 contribute net federal tax of around 7,000 (annually), senors (65+) contributed on average 4,800 annually.

And this differential increases as seniors approach 80+ and that is also when long term care demands also intensify.

This might be slowed by the fact that Boomers are also the wealthiest generation in history, and have accumulated much wealth and assets, and also incentives for seniors to continue working, but again, these measures will be increasingly ineffective as seniors approach 80, when work is less feasible and health care needs increase. When Boomers approach 80+ around 2030, that will be the stress point for us (and all of Canada).

See: http://www.psc.ntu.edu.tw/outline/e_paper/pop30/30_2.pdf

Moreover, government transfers constitute the largest share of income for seniors:

Government transfers accounted for 41.1% of the total income for Canadians aged 65 years and over and 90% of these transfers came from Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan (CPP/QPP), Old Age Security pension (OAS), and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)(source: 2011 Census).

By comparison, private retirement income only constitutes about 30% share of seniors' income. So, it's actually government money being spent, which is raised through taxes on people still working/paying taxes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Highlighted portion: I don't think that is true.

All studies/stats suggest that someone who is retired and 65+ contributes substantially less than what they did to the tax revenue base (income / sales tax) when working.

So, for example, one study found that while workers aged 30-64 contribute net federal tax of around 7,000 (annually), senors (65+) contributed on average 4,800 annually.

And this differential increases as seniors approach 80+ and that is also when long term care demands also intensify.

This might be slowed by the fact that Boomers are also the wealthiest generation in history, and have accumulated much wealth and assets, and also incentives for seniors to continue working, but again, these measures will be increasingly ineffective as seniors approach 80, when work is less feasible and health care needs increase. When Boomers approach 80+ around 2030, that will be the stress point for us (and all of Canada).

See: http://www.psc.ntu.edu.tw/outline/e_paper/pop30/30_2.pdf

Moreover, government transfers constitute the largest share of income for seniors:



By comparison, private retirement income only constitutes about 30% share of seniors' income. So, it's actually government money being spent, which is raised through taxes on people still working/paying taxes.

I think it's a little complicated, though, as (anecdotally as usual) most people I know who have retired typically have less spending money than when they were working due to the decrease in income and increase in out-of-pocket medical expenses because of the ceasing of their medical insurance through their job (of course this would vary depending upon the value of their RRSPs, other investments, etc.). However, many people will take on a post-retirement job, either part time or at least at a lower pay rate (with less stress) than their previous careers, either to keep busy or to just have a little extra spending money.

Regarding their "wealth" (which is a little questionable to me, as a lot of 'boomers' have given a large part of their "wealth" to their kids, or at least help them out financially on a regular basis), the current trend as I've seen it is that an elderly person's savings are generally depleted by the cost of their long-term care, if they live long enough.

I've seen it happen, where they sell off their house or condo and move into a care facility like Shannex or The Berkeley, which can cost from $3000 - $7000+ per month depending on the level of care required, and/or the size of their apartment. If you do the math, it doesn't take too many years before a person's life savings has been filtered back into the economy. Then once they pass, whatever money is left goes back into the family anyways, which puts their remaining assets back into the economy again one way or another.

How all that figures into the stats I'm not sure.

[Drybrain]

All this talk of downsizing retirees is making me realize that real estate in this province is a crap investment, unless you're in central Halifax or in some South Shore town popular with the sailboat set. I'd hate to be a homeowner in the exurban reaches of HRM right now. Future population growth looks to be mostly accruing to the regional centre, so talk about a buyer's market on the outskirts.

[worldlyhaligonian]

But think of what our funeral industry is going to be in a few years!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

But think of what our funeral industry is going to be in a few years!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

All this talk of downsizing retirees is making me realize that real estate in this province is a crap investment, unless you're in central Halifax or in some South Shore town popular with the sailboat set. I'd hate to be a homeowner in the exurban reaches of HRM right now. Future population growth looks to be mostly accruing to the regional centre, so talk about a buyer's market on the outskirts.

I think this is probably going to be true, and it's going to hit a lot of cities.

It's a bit instructive to think of the long-term predictions from 1990-2000. Back then there were models showing that by 2030 or 2050 the city would be encircled by an enormous belt of Kingswood-like subdivisions, the city's budget would be completely unworkable, etc. That vision is irrelevant today because things have changed over the years.

I remember another population projection from the 70's or so that had Halifax's population peaking at around 250,000 and then declining well before 2015. That was based on the demographics of the day, probably during a period of little in-migration.

The immigration issue shows how easily things can change. It's not far-fetched at all to imagine immigration going up to, say, 10,000 a year in Nova Scotia, and that would completely change the demographics.

As for seniors, well, maybe the solution is to spend less on them rather than watch deficits balloon. In a lot of cases they are making out very well because they receive benefits that are not means tested. It doesn't make a lot of social sense for seniors to get $100,000 or whatever from the public purse in their final years just so that they can leave a bigger inheritance behind, but that's a common scenario.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

The immigration issue shows how easily things can change. It's not far-fetched at all to imagine immigration going up to, say, 10,000 a year in Nova Scotia, and that would completely change the demographics.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I wonder if tripling immigration seems more daunting than it is. Saskatchewan and PEI have both done that in the past decade, though in the former case it was due to an economic boom, and in the latter the numbers were so small to begin with that tripping was less impressive (though still big deal for PEI).

I think we should be about to double it at least. Higher PNP quota, and more awareness raising and other promotion programs to get some from other streams. I'm far from an expert, but it strikes me as something that should be doable.

I actually think it's do-able too, but it requires a significant amount of investment in immigration infrastructure and settlement service. It also requires a significant co-operation from the federal government, who must eliminate these idiotic PNP quotas.

There is simply no reason why Saskatchewan and Manitoba should be able to triple our immigration numbers; we should be with them lock step.

But we haven't invested the same as those provinces in building migrant capacity. And we suffer for it. Promoting immigration, unfortunately, is not an election winner in this province. So, it hasn't been done. And so I'm worried this will never be done. But it does seem like this Government is at least showing it is figuring these things out.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think it's a little complicated, though, as (anecdotally as usual) most people I know who have retired typically have less spending money than when they were working due to the decrease in income and increase in out-of-pocket medical expenses because of the ceasing of their medical insurance through their job (of course this would vary depending upon the value of their RRSPs, other investments, etc.). However, many people will take on a post-retirement job, either part time or at least at a lower pay rate (with less stress) than their previous careers, either to keep busy or to just have a little extra spending money.

Regarding their "wealth" (which is a little questionable to me, as a lot of 'boomers' have given a large part of their "wealth" to their kids, or at least help them out financially on a regular basis), the current trend as I've seen it is that an elderly person's savings are generally depleted by the cost of their long-term care, if they live long enough.

I've seen it happen, where they sell off their house or condo and move into a care facility like Shannex or The Berkeley, which can cost from $3000 - $7000+ per month depending on the level of care required, and/or the size of their apartment. If you do the math, it doesn't take too many years before a person's life savings has been filtered back into the economy. Then once they pass, whatever money is left goes back into the family anyways, which puts their remaining assets back into the economy again one way or another.

How all that figures into the stats I'm not sure.

All good points, Mark, and probably right. I think inevitably the economic and revenue contributions of this next generation of seniors will be greater than previous generations, for some of the reasons you and beyeas mention, including governments probably removing all barriers or disincentives for seniors to work.

Pension reform is probably also has to happen, for some of the reasons that someone123 mentions above-- Boomers are incredibly wealthy as a generation, so it seems to make little sense for massive pension amounts to top up large retirement funds and investment income.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

As for seniors, well, maybe the solution is to spend less on them rather than watch deficits balloon. In a lot of cases they are making out very well because they receive benefits that are not means tested. It doesn't make a lot of social sense for seniors to get $100,000 or whatever from the public purse in their final years just so that they can leave a bigger inheritance behind, but that's a common scenario.

I'm not sure how well those generalizations work for Nova Scotia. Maybe someone can disprove this with stats, but I don't see that many wealthy seniors here in NS. There are some, for sure, but the ones with incomes (i.e. pensions, investments, etc.) are still paying income tax. Most seniors that I'm aware of are either living very modestly in a home or apartment, or are in some kind of care facility. I feel that's the majority.

Also I'm not sure where your figure of $100,000 comes from, but I'm assuming that you are talking some kind of cumulative average CPP payout? You should keep in mind that by the time we have reached retirement, we have payed into CPP all our working lives without choice. If there is not enough left then that must be government mismanagement, and not to be blamed on the people who worked hard all their lives only to be thought of as a burden by the younger population, who apparently never plan to become seniors themselves.

Do none of you have aging parents or relatives that you care about??

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Also I'm not sure where your figure of $100,000 comes from, but I'm assuming that you are talking some kind of cumulative average CPP payout? You should keep in mind that by the time we have reached retirement, we have payed into CPP all our working lives without choice. If there is not enough left then that must be government mismanagement, and not to be blamed on the people who worked hard all their lives only to be thought of as a burden by the younger population, who apparently never plan to become seniors themselves.

Do none of you have aging parents or relatives that you care about??

Well, OAS is $570 a month. It is means tested, but the income cap is $118,000 per person. You don't pay into OAS, you just get it. So you could have a person making 6 figures and getting a cheque from the government every month. That alone is a $100,000 benefit to somebody who started under the current payout regime will live to be 80.

Meanwhile the personal exemption on income tax is only $11,000. There are people paying income tax who make $20,000 a year, which is ridiculous.

I am not saying that seniors should be left impoverished, I am just saying that senior benefits should be means tested rather than paid out under the assumption that all seniors are poor. They're not, and conversely there are plenty of non-seniors who are poor and are hit hard by regressive taxes in Canada. I also think that governments could save a lot of money by applying means testing and only giving payouts to people who truly need the money.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Except those "very inflated salaries" will leave with the retirees. Companies will replace their jobs with much lower-salaried entry-level positions and will likely not inflate the salaries of those moving up on the ladder to any great extent as they had done in the past. Plus, companies are tending to run more "lean" these days and oftentimes don't replace outgoing positions with an equivalent number of new positions, or will replace some of those positions with outside contract employees that they do not have to take responsibility for. So all in all, it is a little less rosy than it appears on the surface.

Mind you, the companies will still make out alright as the money saved will help pad their profit margins (cynicism alert).

Honestly, that (bolded) would be ideal. A lot of the most vocal criticism of the 6-figure salaries and ridiculous overtime is coming from my generation (ie. 20-30 yr olds). Honestly, most of us would be ok with not making an obviously excessive amount of money if it meant that there would be less inequality and money could be spent on more "worthwhile" things. At least that's my impression - maybe my social circle is particularly altruistic, although I don't think that's the case.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Do none of you have aging parents or relatives that you care about??

Yes, and to be honest the generalizations about "the boomers" and how most of our problems are their fault kind of reminds me of the responsibility that I, as a straight, (for all intents and purposes)-white male bear for all of society's current problems, even though I have deliberately not done most of the things that my demographic "generally does", for pretty much my entire life (and also that the non-white half of my family was actively discriminated against by the Canadian government to the point of being placed in prison camps, having their property confiscated by the government and sold out from under them, and being banished from BC. But I'm not a "visible" minority, and few people know the specifics of my family's history, so white privilege, right?). Likewise, there are plenty of boomers living in poverty, plenty who don't own cars, plenty who didn't choose to live in the suburbs, plenty who didn't have their careers handed to them on a silver platter, etc. To lump all of these people together simply by virtue of their age, and then blame "people from that age group in general" for a lot of major problems is unfair and not necessarily productive.

OTOH, I recently graduated with a master's degree in planning, and created Chebucto Water Taxi from scratch this year. Now the docks are closed and I am unemployed. Despite all the media attention and pats on the back from friends, acquaintances, colleagues and fairly well-connected strangers, after a month of applying to any and every relevant job I could think of locally, my current job prospects (if I'm lucky) are physical labour or working in a restaurant. Unfortunately it didn't occur to me that I could/might have to draw EI until it was too late - the company wasn't really set up for that this year. My parents have been pretty sympathetic to my situation (probably one more than the other, though) and have been helping me pay my rent etc. in the meantime, but I feel pretty terrible having to rely on them at 28, and it is certainly straining our relationship in some ways. By the time they were my age, they'd had a kid, bought a house, and were putting money into RRSPs. They were also from Alberta and raised in a culture of "work hard, don't rely on anybody else - you get what you deserve, no more, no less" (which is a large part of why relying on them for money is uncomfortable). I OTOH have quite a bit of debt, live in a tiny basement apartment with my best friend, and do not see myself in the position to support a child in the near-to-mid-term. Luckily, 30 is the new 20, as they* say. In many ways it feels like my adult life is really just starting, the way many in the previous generation probably felt when they graduated high school or turned 19 or got their first car.

*30 year olds, probably



On a related note, if anyone knows of any planning-related jobs available in HRM (can be very loosely related), please let me know.

[Colin May]

Justin said it was wrong for Harper to give child allowances to wealthy parents.
Using Justin logic it must also be wrong to give OAS to wealthy people.
Justin decided it was better to mislead voters rather than explain child allowance paid to wealthy people would be taxed back in the same manner as OAS to wealthy people is taxed back.
In Nova Scotia a single person aged 65 receiving OAS and with a pension of $37,000 will see the $4,141 provincial age allowance reduced to $2,189 and pay $7,401 in income taxes.
There is a great deal of federal money wasted by sending monthly OAS payments to high income seniors and then clawing the money back.
Justin may be right that sending child allowance to wealthy parents is silly but he seems unwilling to say the same about OAS payments to wealthy people.
As for well off seniors in Nova Scotia it is easy to find them. Think of 2 HRM pensioners aged 65 and who earned an average of $50,000 before retiring; each one has a pension of $35,000 plus $10,000 CPP and another $6,840 OAS for a total of $51,840 per person.
A labourer at Halifax water starts at just over $20 an hour.