To me, (I am a very young boomer or very old GenXer) the problem is one of wealth redistribution in a just society.
In a just society we should care about the whole of our community and ensure everyone has opportunity and is sufficiently supported. Part of that caring involves sharing the wealth. Income/wealth redistribution via taxation and equitable redistribution is critical in order to assure health, happiness and a secure future for all of us and our children.
We have a few glaring issues in Canada that need to be addressed one way or another.
For example:
We have insufficient income/asset-testing for tax supported programs in Canada.
We treat individuals differently based on age (favouring seniors) which is flat out policy discrimination which we wouldn’t tolerate if were based on race/religion/sexual orientation etc.
Our governments use tax dollars to support public sector pensions and benefits and early retirement in the public sector that the private sector and small business can only dream about.
Why should a teacher retire in their early to mid-50’s with an indexed (and very generous) pension for the rest of their life? If the government is matching pension contributions (or more) for government workers why do they not offer this same benefit to other citizens to ensure their securely funded retirements too?They don’t match CPP contributions for example. They don’t provide citizens with gold-plated medical/dental benefits funded 94% by government with tiny co-pays such as teachers in Ontario enjoy for example.
Government workers are not keen to give up their unfair share of tax revenue supported benefits/pensions any more than seniors appear to be. These two voting blocks alone almost guarantee nothing will change.
Ultimately, if everyone has to give a little bit more and no one is happy - that’s the sign of a good compromise that is fair and just.
I often hear people blame private enterprise - ie ‘corporate raiders’ are making huge profits and not providing equivalent pensions/benefits to their employees, ie greedy capitalists are to blame.
But the reality is that most people working in the private sector are employed by small and medium sized businesses (88% of private sector in 2021) which cannot begin to provide what government does for their workers. Sure, make Google and Tesla etc. fund better pensions and benefits out of their profits - but this represents a very small percentage of folks working in the ‘corporate’ world. (Better to make large corporate players pay their fair share of corporate tax, and prevent offshoring of head offices to tax havens.)
Government also allows seniors to income split but not working families. How is this fair or equitable?
I think we should encourage seniors entitled to OAS who don’t need it to redirect those funds to social causes (food banks and subsidized housing come to mind) or at least towards a down payment on housing for their children/grandchildren.
If government isn’t willing to address these glaring inequities to create a more just society then citizens should begin doing it themselves and maybe that would help draw attention to the issue and help sway opinion.
We can try, I just hope that everyone who is privileged is willing to give up a little of what they have to achieve a more just society.
OAS should not exist. CPP should be enhanced to make up the gap. Other countries like the US, Norway and The Netherlands have retirement systems totally funded by contributions.
They responded with publicly funded medical care back when seniors were struggling. I'm still hoping for this kind of BIG level courage from our politicians but a whole lot us need to let them know that we WANT and support that kind of bravery in politics!
Feel you about the set of 'affordable' places getting smaller and smaller, and the adaptations needed more and more constraining, from the point when people would (short-shortsightedly) act like people should 'just' leave Toronto and Vancouver to avoid problems that are now widespread. I know so many people (admittedly in a field where some have always left for better wages) giving up and moving to the US even though they didn't otherwise want to because they just see no path to things getting better here. But every way people make it work ('just' go to school longer despite maybe having to give a location-specific career up later, or 'just' delay starting a family, or 'just' move away from everyone you know) seems to become the new baseline until everyone acts surprised there's no more room to adapt for many. I feel like a larger number of older people have recently admitted there's a problem, but not necessarily that this rising bar to adapt (like people suggesting multi-generational-by-necessity households as a *solution* rather than a symptom of policy failure) is part of the problem even if people are technically adequately housed.
I agree! It has finally come to the point where older Canadians are starting to "get it" when it comes to the struggles of younger Canadians but most that I run into think we should all just put our heads down and continue to "work hard" because they had to work hard too. This isn't a competition. We all need to work together to solve this. I'm frustrated by younger generations having to make the lions share of the adaptations and do the lions share of the advocacy work in an effort to address the new Canadian reality of increasing unaffordabilities. The multi-generational household I now live in is DEFINITELY a symptom of policy failure, and you're right, it risks being seen as a solution, much like the "solution" of the recent tiny home trend. Try raising even 1 child in a tiny home! LOL
I don't think it's useful to conflate 'materialism' with people wanting choices about their lives, like where to live or who with. There's no way around a future with less 'stuff', but I don't think that inherently means accepting the loss of independence that comes with relying on someone else to stay housed. People don't think enough about power dynamics, and plenty of cultures with mutli-generational households are not especially egalitarian. This is especially true in a situation where it's less that people need to pool resources and more that an older generation has made sure they are the ones with all the resources. (I even saw a bunch of articles recently framing it as a 'win-win' situation to have a program where students helped seniors at home in exchange for reduced rent, as if that is not both a little bit Victorian and a wildly different arrangement for the person who owns the home and has the choice than for the student who has few enough affordable housing choices that it might seem like a good deal to effectively be live-in help.) People being able--even if they decide they don't want to--live alone is important, not a luxury we should decide we've outgrown.
Not familiar with Norberg-Hodges work Glen! Sounds like some good reading ahead of me. Thanks! I got a taste of the local and decentralized/less materialistic life when I lived in Africa. Sure I had less but me and the people around me sure were MUCH happier!
Thanks for your article Jennifer. Very well said.
To me, (I am a very young boomer or very old GenXer) the problem is one of wealth redistribution in a just society.
In a just society we should care about the whole of our community and ensure everyone has opportunity and is sufficiently supported. Part of that caring involves sharing the wealth. Income/wealth redistribution via taxation and equitable redistribution is critical in order to assure health, happiness and a secure future for all of us and our children.
We have a few glaring issues in Canada that need to be addressed one way or another.
For example:
We have insufficient income/asset-testing for tax supported programs in Canada.
We treat individuals differently based on age (favouring seniors) which is flat out policy discrimination which we wouldn’t tolerate if were based on race/religion/sexual orientation etc.
Our governments use tax dollars to support public sector pensions and benefits and early retirement in the public sector that the private sector and small business can only dream about.
Why should a teacher retire in their early to mid-50’s with an indexed (and very generous) pension for the rest of their life? If the government is matching pension contributions (or more) for government workers why do they not offer this same benefit to other citizens to ensure their securely funded retirements too?They don’t match CPP contributions for example. They don’t provide citizens with gold-plated medical/dental benefits funded 94% by government with tiny co-pays such as teachers in Ontario enjoy for example.
Government workers are not keen to give up their unfair share of tax revenue supported benefits/pensions any more than seniors appear to be. These two voting blocks alone almost guarantee nothing will change.
Ultimately, if everyone has to give a little bit more and no one is happy - that’s the sign of a good compromise that is fair and just.
I often hear people blame private enterprise - ie ‘corporate raiders’ are making huge profits and not providing equivalent pensions/benefits to their employees, ie greedy capitalists are to blame.
But the reality is that most people working in the private sector are employed by small and medium sized businesses (88% of private sector in 2021) which cannot begin to provide what government does for their workers. Sure, make Google and Tesla etc. fund better pensions and benefits out of their profits - but this represents a very small percentage of folks working in the ‘corporate’ world. (Better to make large corporate players pay their fair share of corporate tax, and prevent offshoring of head offices to tax havens.)
Government also allows seniors to income split but not working families. How is this fair or equitable?
Seniors maximize OAS when they have assets in the millions. See this article from the G&M Dec 30/2023 - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/financial-facelift/article-can-wilbur-60-and-patsy-55-afford-to-retire-next-year-and-gift-some/
Why is OAS not income/means tested?
I think we should encourage seniors entitled to OAS who don’t need it to redirect those funds to social causes (food banks and subsidized housing come to mind) or at least towards a down payment on housing for their children/grandchildren.
If government isn’t willing to address these glaring inequities to create a more just society then citizens should begin doing it themselves and maybe that would help draw attention to the issue and help sway opinion.
We can try, I just hope that everyone who is privileged is willing to give up a little of what they have to achieve a more just society.
OAS should not exist. CPP should be enhanced to make up the gap. Other countries like the US, Norway and The Netherlands have retirement systems totally funded by contributions.
Sadly, governments wait until the canaries die before acting.
They responded with publicly funded medical care back when seniors were struggling. I'm still hoping for this kind of BIG level courage from our politicians but a whole lot us need to let them know that we WANT and support that kind of bravery in politics!
Feel you about the set of 'affordable' places getting smaller and smaller, and the adaptations needed more and more constraining, from the point when people would (short-shortsightedly) act like people should 'just' leave Toronto and Vancouver to avoid problems that are now widespread. I know so many people (admittedly in a field where some have always left for better wages) giving up and moving to the US even though they didn't otherwise want to because they just see no path to things getting better here. But every way people make it work ('just' go to school longer despite maybe having to give a location-specific career up later, or 'just' delay starting a family, or 'just' move away from everyone you know) seems to become the new baseline until everyone acts surprised there's no more room to adapt for many. I feel like a larger number of older people have recently admitted there's a problem, but not necessarily that this rising bar to adapt (like people suggesting multi-generational-by-necessity households as a *solution* rather than a symptom of policy failure) is part of the problem even if people are technically adequately housed.
I agree! It has finally come to the point where older Canadians are starting to "get it" when it comes to the struggles of younger Canadians but most that I run into think we should all just put our heads down and continue to "work hard" because they had to work hard too. This isn't a competition. We all need to work together to solve this. I'm frustrated by younger generations having to make the lions share of the adaptations and do the lions share of the advocacy work in an effort to address the new Canadian reality of increasing unaffordabilities. The multi-generational household I now live in is DEFINITELY a symptom of policy failure, and you're right, it risks being seen as a solution, much like the "solution" of the recent tiny home trend. Try raising even 1 child in a tiny home! LOL
I don't think it's useful to conflate 'materialism' with people wanting choices about their lives, like where to live or who with. There's no way around a future with less 'stuff', but I don't think that inherently means accepting the loss of independence that comes with relying on someone else to stay housed. People don't think enough about power dynamics, and plenty of cultures with mutli-generational households are not especially egalitarian. This is especially true in a situation where it's less that people need to pool resources and more that an older generation has made sure they are the ones with all the resources. (I even saw a bunch of articles recently framing it as a 'win-win' situation to have a program where students helped seniors at home in exchange for reduced rent, as if that is not both a little bit Victorian and a wildly different arrangement for the person who owns the home and has the choice than for the student who has few enough affordable housing choices that it might seem like a good deal to effectively be live-in help.) People being able--even if they decide they don't want to--live alone is important, not a luxury we should decide we've outgrown.
Not familiar with Norberg-Hodges work Glen! Sounds like some good reading ahead of me. Thanks! I got a taste of the local and decentralized/less materialistic life when I lived in Africa. Sure I had less but me and the people around me sure were MUCH happier!