[Proculation]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Proculation Proculation:

I don't know about other provinces but here in Quebec the loans and scholarships are very good. Add a part-time job to that and you are living very well for a student.

Quebec is known for its very generous tuition fees. They are heavily subsidized. And Quebec as a province would be bankrupt without transfer payments. I don't mean to offend Quebecers, it's just how it is.

Proculation Proculation:

BTW. "Young people are poorer now than they were 30 years ago." That statement is totally false.

Is it? When you factor in inflation, young people are today in Canada worse off in terms of purchasing power than their peers 30 years ago. I know this for a fact for the USA (if you don't factor in their African population which skews the numbers downwards).

I dare you to show me that the population was living better in 1980 than in 2010.

[CommanderSock]

Just compare average home prices today, to those of the 1980s. And compare income growth in the same period. Housing prices grew far quicker than real income therefore making it more difficult to own property.

Here's some food for thought:

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/S ... 005240.pdf

[Proculation]

I did not talk about housing prices because I knew it would be your argument.

Housing prices are up because there are more people in the cities and the demand is higher.

That's totally normal. Supply and demand. My brother bought one of the most beautiful house in Temiscaming with an lawn area so big he his almost always cutting it. +lots of square miles of wood beyond the house. And a big garage. For less than 100k.

So what are your other arguments to say that we are living poorer than in 1980 ?

[CommanderSock]

Income inequality has increased significantly since the 80s too.

Why have savings rates dropped significantly for the bottom 80% of the population. Why is personal debt so high today? In fact, Canada has the highest personal debt in the OECD.

Also, why has housing increased so much? Have they stopped building houses? Why have commuting times increased so much too?

[Proculation]

Income inequality is insignificant. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

Personal debt is a... personal decision. It's just a change of mentality. Decades ago, our parents bought things when they had the money.

As for housing prices, see my previous post.

Other things ?

[CommanderSock]

Proculation Proculation:

Income inequality is insignificant. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

Personal debt is a... personal decision. It's just a change of mentality. Decades ago, our parents bought things when they had the money.

As for housing prices, see my previous post.

Other things ?

Really, a sudden change in mentality? Was it a sudden change in mentality, or necessity that is causing the debt level to be so high?

Income inequality is highly significant, when the top 10% has it's real incomes increased by more than 16% over 20 years, while the for the other 80 it remains stagnant, while everything else increases from housing, tuition, to food, you think it won't cause people to borrow more to maintain the same level of consumption?? Really?

Like I said, in 10 years time when huge sections of society are defaulting on their personal debts, not paying back student loans (which the government is on the hook for) many of them not purchasing homes and putting money into the economy, we'll feel the real effects. Just like Japan is doing today.

[Proculation]

You are talking like if the people were zombies not able to think, just following the "mass". You don't have a good esteem for your fellow Canadians. Do you think they need to be controlled because they are not able to live by themselves ?

Maybe we just lack some more economics classes at school.

I always buy things when I have the money for it. I save money. Because I know it's important.

Please find better arguments than exploiting the weaknesses of you neighbour.

[CommanderSock]

So I guess by your arguments the indebted are in debt because they are deadbeats and are too stupid to make decisions on their own, the poor are poor because they are lazy, and the kids who have to take student loans didn't pick the right parents.

Yeah, that's a real solid argument. But of course it's not true.

When the price of rent increases 3-5% annually, while income, food, and car insurance for example increase by 5-10% (which isn't farfetched), people will borrow more to maintain the exact standard of living their parents had. It's not brainer.

[CommanderSock]

$1:

When the price of rent increases 3-5% annually, while income, food, and car insurance for example increase by 5-10% (which isn't farfetched), people will borrow more to maintain the exact standard of living their parents had. It's not brainer.

oops. can't edit on blackberry, that would be backwards. Income isn't inflating as fast as costs.

For example my income only increased 5% last year. And 3% the year before that, and 1% the year before that. While my car insurance has steadily increased by solid 7% margins over the same 3 years, no accidents. Obviously it's not adding up. Lol. Rent increases by around 3% too. Food increases depend on the markets. Etc.

Even tuition, when I stared university, I was paying $500.00 per course. Now, when I tried extra courses at the same university, it's around $700.00 per course. Again, far faster inflation than income.

[Proculation]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

So I guess by your arguments the indebted are in debt because they are deadbeats and are too stupid to make decisions on their own, the poor are poor because they are lazy, and the kids who have to take student loans didn't pick the right parents.

you are projecting. it seems it's YOU who are making those statements.

$1:

Yeah, that's a real solid argument. But of course it's not true.

When the price of rent increases 3-5% annually, while income, food, and car insurance for example increase by 5-10% (which isn't farfetched), people will borrow more to maintain the exact standard of living their parents had. It's not brainer.

Incomes are mostly following and or are above inflation. Food prices are decreasing from free trades. Insurances going up ? They are based on the risk as they always were.

Before you mention it, interests are based on the rate of the central bank. Less interests rate = money costs less = more borrowing. Still, it's always your decision to buy at credit to pay later. It's not the riches' fault.

Like I said, I have no debt (except school loans). I live in a house in Montreal and I own a car. All alone.

You still have other arguments ?

[CommanderSock]

Proculation Proculation:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

So I guess by your arguments the indebted are in debt because they are deadbeats and are too stupid to make decisions on their own, the poor are poor because they are lazy, and the kids who have to take student loans didn't pick the right parents.

you are projecting. it seems it's YOU who are making those statements.

$1:

Yeah, that's a real solid argument. But of course it's not true.

When the price of rent increases 3-5% annually, while income, food, and car insurance for example increase by 5-10% (which isn't farfetched), people will borrow more to maintain the exact standard of living their parents had. It's not brainer.

Incomes are mostly following and or are above inflation. Food prices are decreasing from free trades. Insurances going up ? They are based on the risk as they always were.

Before you mention it, interests are based on the rate of the central bank. Less interests rate = money costs less = more borrowing. Still, it's always your decision to buy at credit to pay later. It's not the riches' fault.

Like I said, I have no debt (except school loans). I live in a house in Montreal and I own a car. All alone.

You still have other arguments ?

Income inequality has increased, and so has inner city poverty (30% of Torontonians live below the Canadian poverty line).

Income inequality has caused people to borrow more to maintain the same standard of living as their parents. This is fact. There's nothing argue about from there. Statistics Canada, and plenty of research journals point in the same direction. If you own a car and live alone, that's fine.

Like I said, we have the highest personal debt levels in the OECD. Obviously a major problem.

You can say you have a house, live great, etc, sure, but the reality is that people in Canada are borrowing to make ends meet.

But it is what it is; it's why I harbor no personal resentment from people who dodge their debt. The system has made it such.

[CommanderSock]

Correction to last sentence: no resentment towards people who dodge debt, declare bankruptcy just to clear it and so on.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Proculation Proculation:

[Like I said, I have no debt (except school loans). I live in a house in Montreal and I own a car. All alone.

You still have other arguments ?

Yer too close to the TV screen. Look, every 4 years rent goes up by 10% give or take depending on where you live. Do you or anyone else you know get a 10% raise over 4 years, EVERY 4 years? If I still lived in the same apartment as I did in 1980, my rent would have increased by 87% by now. Nobody outside of the upper economic classes has seen an 87% jump in their wages/salaries over 30 years.

In 1980 a gallon of gas cost around 25 cents and the minimum wage in Ontario was about $3/hr. In 2010 a gallon of gas costs about $4 (depending on where you live) and the minimum wage in Ontario is around $10/hr.
Quite simply put, my 1980 dollar had more purchasing power than my 2010 dollar.
To put it another way, I could buy 12 gallons of gas on 1 hr of minimum wage in 1980. Today, I can only buy 2.5 gallons of gas on 1 hr of minimum wage, even though minimum wage is OVER 3 times as much as it was in 1980.
And I'll tell you something else, $200 at a grocery store doesn't go ANYWHERE near as far as it did in 1980.

[Public_Domain]

[Proculation]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Proculation Proculation:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

So I guess by your arguments the indebted are in debt because they are deadbeats and are too stupid to make decisions on their own, the poor are poor because they are lazy, and the kids who have to take student loans didn't pick the right parents.

you are projecting. it seems it's YOU who are making those statements.

$1:

Yeah, that's a real solid argument. But of course it's not true.

When the price of rent increases 3-5% annually, while income, food, and car insurance for example increase by 5-10% (which isn't farfetched), people will borrow more to maintain the exact standard of living their parents had. It's not brainer.

Incomes are mostly following and or are above inflation. Food prices are decreasing from free trades. Insurances going up ? They are based on the risk as they always were.

Before you mention it, interests are based on the rate of the central bank. Less interests rate = money costs less = more borrowing. Still, it's always your decision to buy at credit to pay later. It's not the riches' fault.

Like I said, I have no debt (except school loans). I live in a house in Montreal and I own a car. All alone.

You still have other arguments ?

Income inequality has increased, and so has inner city poverty (30% of Torontonians live below the Canadian poverty line).

Income inequality has caused people to borrow more to maintain the same standard of living as their parents. This is fact. There's nothing argue about from there. Statistics Canada, and plenty of research journals point in the same direction. If you own a car and live alone, that's fine.

Like I said, we have the highest personal debt levels in the OECD. Obviously a major problem.

You can say you have a house, live great, etc, sure, but the reality is that people in Canada are borrowing to make ends meet.

But it is what it is; it's why I harbor no personal resentment from people who dodge their debt. The system has made it such.

I still stand to my point: people live at credit because they decide too. In the 80s, it was not possible because the interest rates were very high. In the last decade, the rates were very low and yes it brings people to borrow and use credit. But it is STILL their choice. I'm not talking about borrowing for a car or a house (those are assets). What we have now is over-consumption. But consumption is a decision of the individuals.

For poverty in the big cities, it's mostly due to immigration. Something like 40% of Haitians in Montreal do not work or work at minimum wage. The integration is not working or at least, not working fast enough.

What you state as a 'fact' is more an interpretation of the situation. I can say that Haitians are lazy and under-educated since they do not work. That is not a 'fact'. It's an interpretation of the situation.

It's a fact Canadians are VERY indebted. You interpret it like it is because they want to live like 'riches'. I interpret it like it is a choice of life. We have different opinions. That's nothing wrong with that.