I see a huge amount of resentment from people my age (early 30s) who want to have children, or another child, and don't see any reasonable path to that at an age where it’s still biologically possible. I think governments need to seriously acknowledge that the length of time these problems have been ignored means there’s less runway for wholly long-term solutions. Immigration policy is a good example of this: it may bring long-term benefits, but however ambitious new housing measures might be, if the housing to accommodate it doesn’t come for a decade that is not going to be a good consolation prize for someone who is already 30 and can’t afford family-sized housing. The ability to build wealth and save for retirement can be put off up to a point—so people might be placated by long-term promises on that front--but many life milestones can’t be. I think policy needs to be all-in on that both in terms of spending priorities, but also as a stopgap to stop treating having children as a thing people need to earn the stability for and just a thing that is a normal part of adulthood (important to not all but many) that needs to be accommodated. (I saw someone comment once that children had effectively become a luxury or a status symbol. Depressing!)
A set of mostly non-monetary things that I think would make a real difference are changing rental and condo laws in ways that better reflect real living situations and the fact that people have fewer choices of living arrangements that they once did. Many laws still effectively assume families always still have a choice to move to the suburbs; in practice, laws that make it difficult for people to have children in the housing they can afford just prevent people from having wanted families. Adults-only buildings (including conversion of existing buildings to 55+) are a major example of this, but so are overly-restrictive occupancy rules. This applies both for owned and rented condos. In Ontario, for example, condos form a major part of the rental stock but are still permitted to have rules (such as bans on pets, roommates, and sometimes boyfriends) that would ordinarily not be allowed. This is a big deal when renting has become much less transitory, although it may be difficult to fix without risking needed rentals being removed from the market. Similarly, many provinces tenancy laws effectively provide no security of tenure for roommate households where occupants might change (compared to families) making young people much more exposed to market rents.
I think the way statistics are collected often also doesn’t reflect either current living arrangements or the ways that young adults’ life choices are constrained even without having an inability to meet current needs. (As a particularly annoying example, most Statistics Canada data measures the home-ownership rate in a way that it increases if young adults move back in with their parents or otherwise stop being independent households.). Similarly, while a lot of attention is (justifiably) paid to poverty rates given people’s actual family structure and living situation, there’s less acknowledgement both that young adults need more income to meet typical life goals (like having children, getting extra education, or moving around for work) and that there are huge amounts of people who can meet their needs only because they’ve put off previously-normal life goals that are important to them. Income-based statistics also often ignore the role of wealth (and especially housing wealth) in people’s ability to meet their needs.
I get exactly what you are talking about here, being in my early 30s as well, I find myself delaing with the same issues.
You make a great point about the condo rules stuff. This certainly needs to be updated to account for the evolution of where people are living.
You also make some great points about how our statistics can mislead us. I recently learned about the way ownership is measured, as you mentioned, I couldn't believe it! How misleading.
I am extremely passionate about the income to reach typical life goals stuff you mentioned. I'm not sure if you've seen our work about how CPI is calculated is misleading? I think you'd find it to be interesting: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/mismeasuring_inflation
Looking forward to discussing all of this with you more in the future!
That's an impressive commitment to collective wellbeing! These retiree perspectives are so important for Gen Squeeze work - and for how Canadians think about public policy more generally. It really helps to have elder voices sharing different views about investment priorities, especially when it comes to investments directed to their demographic. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing that Toronto Star article and the example of Nixon. These remind me of what Elin Kelsey advised on our podcast - it's so essential to keep our perspective balanced by looking for solutions.
Thanks Glen - great examples! Here's another good one from Canada. The federal conservatives under Stephen Harper bravely upped OAS eligibility to age 67, recognizing that Canadians are living longer. The federal Liberals reversed this, returning it to age 65 - with no discussion of implications for how we will sustain funding this critical program in the face of population aging. No surprise, then, that growing spending on retirees is equivalent to 84% of the projected deficit in the 2023 federal budget - debts that will be left for younger and future generations to pay. Check out Gen Squeeze's 2024 budget recommendations for ways to address this: www.gensqueeze.ca/recommendations_for_the_2024_federal_budget
I see a huge amount of resentment from people my age (early 30s) who want to have children, or another child, and don't see any reasonable path to that at an age where it’s still biologically possible. I think governments need to seriously acknowledge that the length of time these problems have been ignored means there’s less runway for wholly long-term solutions. Immigration policy is a good example of this: it may bring long-term benefits, but however ambitious new housing measures might be, if the housing to accommodate it doesn’t come for a decade that is not going to be a good consolation prize for someone who is already 30 and can’t afford family-sized housing. The ability to build wealth and save for retirement can be put off up to a point—so people might be placated by long-term promises on that front--but many life milestones can’t be. I think policy needs to be all-in on that both in terms of spending priorities, but also as a stopgap to stop treating having children as a thing people need to earn the stability for and just a thing that is a normal part of adulthood (important to not all but many) that needs to be accommodated. (I saw someone comment once that children had effectively become a luxury or a status symbol. Depressing!)
A set of mostly non-monetary things that I think would make a real difference are changing rental and condo laws in ways that better reflect real living situations and the fact that people have fewer choices of living arrangements that they once did. Many laws still effectively assume families always still have a choice to move to the suburbs; in practice, laws that make it difficult for people to have children in the housing they can afford just prevent people from having wanted families. Adults-only buildings (including conversion of existing buildings to 55+) are a major example of this, but so are overly-restrictive occupancy rules. This applies both for owned and rented condos. In Ontario, for example, condos form a major part of the rental stock but are still permitted to have rules (such as bans on pets, roommates, and sometimes boyfriends) that would ordinarily not be allowed. This is a big deal when renting has become much less transitory, although it may be difficult to fix without risking needed rentals being removed from the market. Similarly, many provinces tenancy laws effectively provide no security of tenure for roommate households where occupants might change (compared to families) making young people much more exposed to market rents.
I think the way statistics are collected often also doesn’t reflect either current living arrangements or the ways that young adults’ life choices are constrained even without having an inability to meet current needs. (As a particularly annoying example, most Statistics Canada data measures the home-ownership rate in a way that it increases if young adults move back in with their parents or otherwise stop being independent households.). Similarly, while a lot of attention is (justifiably) paid to poverty rates given people’s actual family structure and living situation, there’s less acknowledgement both that young adults need more income to meet typical life goals (like having children, getting extra education, or moving around for work) and that there are huge amounts of people who can meet their needs only because they’ve put off previously-normal life goals that are important to them. Income-based statistics also often ignore the role of wealth (and especially housing wealth) in people’s ability to meet their needs.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Valerie!
I get exactly what you are talking about here, being in my early 30s as well, I find myself delaing with the same issues.
You make a great point about the condo rules stuff. This certainly needs to be updated to account for the evolution of where people are living.
You also make some great points about how our statistics can mislead us. I recently learned about the way ownership is measured, as you mentioned, I couldn't believe it! How misleading.
I am extremely passionate about the income to reach typical life goals stuff you mentioned. I'm not sure if you've seen our work about how CPI is calculated is misleading? I think you'd find it to be interesting: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/mismeasuring_inflation
Looking forward to discussing all of this with you more in the future!
Right on Glen - I find the Seventh Generation Priciple to be so insightful. It's this sort of thinking that we need to foster.
Added to my list, thanks Glen!
That's an impressive commitment to collective wellbeing! These retiree perspectives are so important for Gen Squeeze work - and for how Canadians think about public policy more generally. It really helps to have elder voices sharing different views about investment priorities, especially when it comes to investments directed to their demographic. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing that Toronto Star article and the example of Nixon. These remind me of what Elin Kelsey advised on our podcast - it's so essential to keep our perspective balanced by looking for solutions.
Thanks Glen - great examples! Here's another good one from Canada. The federal conservatives under Stephen Harper bravely upped OAS eligibility to age 67, recognizing that Canadians are living longer. The federal Liberals reversed this, returning it to age 65 - with no discussion of implications for how we will sustain funding this critical program in the face of population aging. No surprise, then, that growing spending on retirees is equivalent to 84% of the projected deficit in the 2023 federal budget - debts that will be left for younger and future generations to pay. Check out Gen Squeeze's 2024 budget recommendations for ways to address this: www.gensqueeze.ca/recommendations_for_the_2024_federal_budget
Sounds interesting! Thanks for another great recomendation Glen, added to my reading list!